format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Among the various supergravity theories with an arbitrary number $`N32`$ of supersymmetry charges and in arbitrary dimensions $`D11`$, the $`D=6`$, $`N=2`$, $`F(4)`$ supergravity plays a special role. First of all it is based on an exceptional supergroup not belonging to the $`Osp(n|m)`$ or $`SU(n|m)`$ series, namely the $`F(4)`$ supergroup, according to the classification given in references , . Besides, $`F(4)`$ appears to be the only supergroup admitting two real sections whose bosonic (even) generators span either the algebra of $`SO(2,5)SU(2)`$ or $`SO(1,6)SU(2)`$, namely two product groups whose first factor describes the isometry group of $`AntideSitter`$ or $`deSitter`$ space–time respectively (see for example the classification given in references , ).
The above property points at the possibility of constructing a $`D=6`$, $`N=2`$ (sixteen supersymmetries) supergravity theory, admitting a supersymmetric vacuum whose space–time metric is of $`deSitter`$ type, besides the conventional possibility discussed in references , ,  of having an $`antideSitter`$ supersymmetric vacuum. Actually, the latter theory was first constructed by Romans  for the pure supergravity multiplet, using the Noether approach, and it was found that the theory admits a supersymmetric $`AntideSitter`$ ($`AdS_6`$) background when the gauge coupling constant $`g`$ and the $`AdS_6`$ radius $`R=(2m)^1`$ satisfy the relation $`g=3m`$. Since Romans’ theory is unique by construction, it is clear that an $`F(4)`$ supergravity admitting a $`deSitter`$ background, can only exist if it differs from Romans’ theory; in this respect, we will find that a supersymmetric $`deSitter`$ background implies necessarily the presence of ghosts.
It is a well known fact that in conventional supergravities, quite generally, $`deSitter`$ configurations break supersymmetry completely . Actually, several examples have been given recently of ”variant” supergravity theories admitting a supersymmetric $`deSitter`$ backgrounds which, besides possessing non compact $`R`$–symmetry groups are also plagued with the presence of ghosts . These ”variant” theories, are string theories in $`D=10`$ or $`M`$–theory in $`D=11`$, which can have the usual Minkowski signature or a non standard signature of space–time. They are usually obtained by applying $`T`$–duality transformations on timelike circles or Lorentzian tori starting from conventional theories. Generally the theories thus obtained have ghosts, but in reference  it was argued that the corresponding complete string theory could possess some extra symmetry which could eliminate these spurious degrees of freedom. In our case we find that the $`deSitter`$ $`F(4)`$ supergravity does indeed show ghosts in the vector sector, however it shows the peculiarity that the $`R`$–symmetry group remains compact, namely it is $`SU(2)`$ as in the sister $`AntideSitter`$ theory of the conventional type , , . Furthermore, the gauge group of the gauged theory is exactly the same as for the sister $`AdS_6`$ theory, differently from what happens in the variant theories considered in the literature.
In references , , Romans’ theory was reformulated in superspace and the important mechanisms of generation of a supersymmetric $`AdS_6`$ configuration and of the Higgs phenomenon for the generation of a mass term for the two–form sitting in the gravitation multiplet was explained in purely algebraic terms, by studying the superspace algebra in its dual form. Subsequently the theory was coupled to an arbitrary number $`n`$ of vector multiplets and the gauging of the gauge group $`SU(2)𝒢`$, with $`𝒢SO(n)`$, $`n`$–dimensional compact subgroup, was performed.

The approach we follow for the construction of the $`F(4)`$ $`deSitter`$ supergravity is quite analogous to that used in references , .
We start from the Maurer–Cartan equations (MCE) equations of the supergroup $`F^t(4)`$ containing the proper subgroups $`SO(t,7t)`$, with $`t=1,2`$. Thus $`F^1(4)`$ contains the $`deSitter`$ group and $`F^2(4)`$ contains the $`AntideSitter`$ group in six dimensions.
It is then straightforward to pull–back the MCE of $`F^t(4)`$ to the MCE of the coset $`F^t(4)/SO(1,5)SU(2)`$ which describes supersymmetric configurations of vacua whose metric is of $`deSitter`$ or $`AntideSitter`$ type, for $`t=1`$, $`t=2`$ respectively. Once this have been obtained, the construction of the relevant supergravity theory can be performed in the usual way, defining the supercurvatures out of the vacuum and by using the Bianchi identities in superspace, as it was extensively discuss in reference  in the $`F^2(4)`$ case.
Since $`F^1(4)`$ and $`F^2(4)`$ are two different real sections of the same complex supergroup $`F(4)`$, the discussion of the differences between them has some subtleties related to the discussion of the different reality properties of the bilinear fermion currents appearing in the two cases. Even if rather technical, the discussion of these points is quite essential in order to understand the relations between the two theories and the appearance of ghosts in the $`deSitter`$ case.
The plan of the paper is the following:

in section 2 we construct the MCE for the two cosets and their extension to a Free Differential Algebra (FDA), in order to include in the game the 2–form $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and the extra $`SU(2)`$ singlet vector $`A_\mu `$ sitting in the gravitational supermultiplet. A full discussion of the reality properties of the FDA is also given.

In section 3 we give the explicit form of the $`F^1(4)`$ supergravity theory admitting a $`deSitter`$ supersymmetric vacuum, its supersymmetry transformation laws and the relevant terms of the Lagrangian, showing in an explicit way the appearance of ghosts in the vector sector.

In Appendix A, we describe the modifications of the $`F^1(4)`$ theory when the coupling to $`n`$ vector multiplets and the gauging is performed, while Appendix B describes an alternative approach to the construction of the $`F^1(4)`$ theory starting the $`F^2(4)`$ FDA and performing a suitable map.

## 2 Construction of $`D=6`$ <br>Supersymmetric $`deSitter`$ Background

To obtain a $`D=6`$ supergravity with a supersymmetric $`deSitter`$ background, we begin to consider the complex superalgebra $`F(4)`$; it has two real sections, denoted by $`F^t(4)`$, $`t=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ containing as even part (bosonic subalgebra)$`SO(t,7t)\times SU(2)`$, that is the $`deSitter`$ group $`SO(1,6)`$ and the $`AntideSitter`$ group $`SO(2,5)`$ respectively, times the $`R`$–symmetry group $`SU(2)`$.
The $`F^t(4)`$ superalgebra has the following form

$`[M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}},M_{\widehat{c}\widehat{d}}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _{\widehat{b}\widehat{c}}M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{d}}+\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{d}}M_{\widehat{b}\widehat{c}}\eta _{\widehat{b}\widehat{d}}M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{c}}\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{c}}M_{\widehat{b}\widehat{d}})`$
$`[T_r,T_s]=gϵ_{rst}T_t`$
$`[M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}},Q_{A\alpha }]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\gamma _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}})_\alpha ^\beta Q_{A\beta }`$
$`[T_r,Q_{A\alpha }]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _{rA}^BQ_{B\alpha }`$
$`\{Q_{A\alpha },Q_{B\beta }\}=2i\sigma _{AB}^rC_{()\alpha \beta }T_r+ϵ_{AB}(C_{()}\gamma ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}})_{\alpha \beta }M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$ (2.1)
Here $`M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$, $`\widehat{a},\widehat{b}=0\mathrm{}6`$ are the $`SO(t,7t)`$ generators, preserving the metric

$$\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=(\underset{ttimes}{\underset{}{+\mathrm{}+}}\underset{7ttimes}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}})$$
(2.2)
In the following we will keep the notation $`\mathrm{"}t\mathrm{"}`$ for any of the vector timelike indices and we will denote $`\mathrm{"}s\mathrm{"}`$ any of the $`7t`$ vector spacelike indices of the metric.
In equations (2.1) $`T^r`$, $`r=1,2,3`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ generators, $`\sigma _A^{rC}`$ are the usual Pauli matrices and we set $`\sigma _{AB}^r=\sigma _{BA}^r\sigma _A^{rC}ϵ_{CB}`$, where $`ϵ_{AB}=ϵ_{BA}=ϵ^{BA}=ϵ^{AB}`$ is the antisymmetric $`SU(2)`$ tensor which can be used to raise and lower the $`SU(2)`$ indices according to the following rules:

$`T^\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}=ϵ^{AB}T_B^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ (2.3)
$`T_\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}=T_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^Bϵ_{BA}`$ (2.4)
Note that, since the bosonic subgroup is $`SO(t,s)`$, $`t+s=7`$, the spinor Clifford algebra is seven–dimensional. Indeed $`Q_{A\alpha }`$, $`\alpha =1\mathrm{}8`$, $`A=1,2`$ are the odd generators of the superalgebra (supersymmetry charges) consisting of seven–dimensional 8-component symplectic–Majorana spinors, and $`C_{()\alpha \beta }`$ is the symmetric charge conjugation matrix in $`D=7`$ satisfying $`C_{()}^T=C_{()}`$, $`C_{()}^2=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Note that the $`D=7`$ gamma matrices are $`C_{()}`$–antisymmetric, that is they satisfy

$$\gamma _{\widehat{a}}^T=C_{()}^1\gamma _{\widehat{a}}C_{()}$$
(2.5)
We note that the symplectic–Majorana condition holds for both cases $`t=1`$, $`t=2`$ since we have $`\rho =st=5`$, $`\rho =st=3`$ respectively, so that the symplectic–Majorana condition on the spinors can be imposed for both signatures ,

$`t=1,s=6\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=(+)`$ (2.6)
$`t=2,s=5\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=(++)`$ (2.7)
In fact the spinor charges $`Q_{A\alpha }`$ satisfy in both cases the symplectic–Majorana condition

$$\overline{(Q_A)}=ϵ^{AB}Q_B^TC_{()}$$
(2.8)
On the other hand, the definition of the Dirac conjugate spinor is given by

$$\overline{(Q_A)}=(Q_A)^{}G^1$$
(2.9)
We have two possible choices for the matrix $`G`$ in $`D=t+s`$ dimensions : the first choice corresponds to the product of all the timelike gamma matrices, that is:

$$G_I=\gamma ^0\mathrm{}\gamma ^{t1}$$
(2.10)
while the second choice corresponds to take the product of all the spacelike gamma matrices:

$$G_{II}=\gamma ^{Ds}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{D1}$$
(2.11)
Correspondingly the hermitian conjugate of the gamma matrices is given by:

$$\gamma ^a=\eta G^1\gamma ^aG$$
(2.12)
where the phase $`\eta `$ takes two different values according to the two choices of $`G`$, namely

$$\eta _I=(1)^{t1};\eta _{II}=(1)^s$$
(2.13)
For seven dimensional spinors we choose to use $`G_I`$ for both signatures. However the consideration of both conventions will be relevant when we will reduce the MCE to retrieve the six dimensional theory.
We note that the consistency of the last equation of (2.1) requires an appropriate definition of the hermitian conjugate of the anticommutator in order that both $`T_r`$ and $`M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$ be antihermitian generators for both signatures. It is convenient to discuss this point in terms of the dual formulation of the algebra (2.1). Introducing the $`F^t(4)`$ Lie algebra valued 1-forms $`\omega ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$, $`A^r`$, $`\psi ^{A\alpha }`$ satisfying:

$$\omega ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}(M_{\widehat{c}\widehat{d}})=\delta _{\widehat{c}\widehat{d}}^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}},A^r(T_s)=\delta _s^r,\psi ^{A\alpha }(Q_{B\beta })=\delta _B^A\delta _\beta ^\alpha $$
(2.14)
and using the well known relation

$$d\mu ^A(X_B,X_C)=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^A([X_B,X_C])$$
(2.15)
where $`X_B`$, $`X_C`$ are the generators of the super–Lie algebra, and $`\mu ^A`$ are their dual forms, one easily obtains (omitting the wedge product symbol):

$`d\omega ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\omega _{\widehat{c}}^{\widehat{a}}\omega ^{\widehat{c}\widehat{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\psi ^A=0`$
$`d\psi _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\gamma _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\psi _A+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g\sigma _{AB}^rA_r\psi ^B=0`$
$`dA^r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_ti\sigma _{AB}^r\overline{\psi }^A\psi ^B=0`$ (2.16)
Note that $`\psi _A`$ satisfies the same properties as $`Q_A`$, namely it is a symplectic–Majorana spinor 1-form obeying

$$\overline{(\psi _A)}\psi ^{}G^1=ϵ^{AB}\psi _B^TC_{()}$$
(2.17)
When the algebra $`F^t(4)`$ is written in this form, one can easily check its closure under $`d`$-differentiation, which amounts to the closure of the Jacobi identities in equations (2.1). One finds that it closes if and only if $`g=\frac{3}{2}`$. The verification relies on the following Fierz identity valid for symplectic–Majorana spinor 1-forms in $`D=7`$:

$$\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\psi _A\overline{\psi }_B\gamma ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\psi ^B+3\psi ^B\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B=0$$
(2.18)
We now observe that in arbitrary dimension $`D=t+s`$, the reality of the currents $`j^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}\psi _B`$ (where $`\gamma ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}`$ is a totally antisymmetric product of gamma matrices) depends on the values of $`t`$ and $`s`$ appearing in the metric $`\eta _{ab}`$. Indeed we have

$`(j^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n})^{}=\beta \chi j^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}`$
$`\chi _I=(1)^{\frac{1}{2}(tn1)(tn)}`$
$`\chi _{II}=(1)^{\frac{1}{2}(ns1)(ns)}`$ (2.19)
where the subscripts $`I`$ and $`II`$ refer to the two possible choices for the matrix $`G=\{G_I,G_{II}\}`$ and $`\beta =\pm 1`$ is the arbitrary phase appearing in the convention one uses for the definition of the complex conjugate of the product of two spinors, namely ,

$$(\lambda \mu )^{}=\beta \lambda ^{}\mu ^{}=\beta \mu ^{}\lambda ^{}$$
(2.20)
One can verify that the two currents appearing in equations (2.16) behave under complex conjugation ( using $`G=G_I`$) as shown in Table 1:

Consistency of equations (2.16) requires that $`\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\psi _B`$ is real and $`\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B`$ is pure imaginary, so that, if we want to have the same algebra for both signatures, we have to choose $`\beta =1`$ for $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$ and $`\beta =1`$ for $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$. Alternatively one could use the same convention for $`\beta `$, say $`\beta =1`$, in which case equations (2.16) would refer to the $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$ case, while the $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$ would give analogous equations with an $`i`$ factor in front of the two currents. We choose the first alternative and the corresponding algebra of (anti)–commutators is the one written in equations (2.1) which indeed corresponds to both choices for $`\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$.
The foregoing discussion is propaedeutical to the search of $`deSitter`$ and $`AntideSitter`$ supersymmetric $`D=6`$ backgrounds. To reach this goal we reduce the seven dimensional indices $`\widehat{a},\widehat{b}=0,1\mathrm{}6`$ to six dimensional ones $`a,b=0,1\mathrm{}5`$ plus the index $`6`$. Furthermore the reduced 1–forms can be now interpreted as living on the pull-back of $`F^t(4)`$ to the coset $`F^t(4)/SO(1,5)SU(2)SO(t,s)/SO(1,5)`$ for both choices of $`t`$ and $`s`$ (2.6), (2.7).
In order to obtain such backgrounds in $`D=6`$ we reduce the indices in such a way that the index ”6” is of type $`\mathrm{"}t\mathrm{"}`$ for the signature $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$, corresponding to an $`AdS`$ background, while to obtain a $`dS`$ background we start from the signature $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$ and perform the reduction in such a way that the index $`\mathrm{"}6\mathrm{"}`$ is of type $`\mathrm{"}s\mathrm{"}`$. Note that the procedure is consistent also for the odd part of the algebra, because the gamma matrices are the same in $`D=6`$ and $`D=7`$, and the spinors in $`D=6`$ with Minkowski signature $`(t,s)=(1,5)`$, are still symplectic-Majorana since $`\rho =st=4`$. Furthermore we can still use $`C_{()}`$ as charge conjugation matrix, since in six dimensions we have two possible charge conjugation matrices $`C_{(+)}`$, $`C_{()}`$ and we can choose $`C_{()}`$ coincident with the $`C_{()}`$ defined for the $`D=7`$ spinor algebra. However, there is a difference between the two cases: reducing on a $`\mathrm{"}s\mathrm{"}`$ type direction ($`dS_6`$ case) the number of timelike gamma matrices is unchanged, so we can keep the definition of the barred spinor in $`D=6`$ as

$$\overline{\psi }_A=\psi _A^{}\gamma ^0\psi _A^{}G_I^1$$
(2.21)
On the other hand, if we reduce on a $`\mathrm{"}t\mathrm{"}`$ direction ($`AdS_6`$ case), the seven dimensional definition $`\overline{\psi }_A=\psi _A^{}(\gamma ^0\gamma ^6)`$ contains the $`\gamma ^6`$ matrix that is no more associated to a space-time direction in $`D=6`$. This is a crucial point, and the consequences can be understood considering that in the two cases we have:

$`AdS:\eta _{66}=1\gamma _6=\gamma ^6\gamma _6^{(+)},(\gamma _6^{(+)})^2=1,(\gamma _6^{(+)})^{}=\gamma _6^{(+)}`$
$`dS:\eta _{66}=1\gamma _6=\gamma ^6\gamma _6^{()},(\gamma _6^{()})^2=1,(\gamma _6^{()})^{}=\gamma _6^{()}`$ (2.22)
From a $`D=6`$ point of view, the matrix $`\gamma _6`$ is usually called $`\mathrm{"}\gamma _7\mathrm{"}`$ and is defined as $`\gamma _7=\alpha \gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3\gamma _4\gamma _5`$ with $`|\alpha |=1`$. If we want to preserve the properties (2.22) we choose

$$\gamma _7=\gamma _6^{()}=i\gamma _6^{(+)}=i\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3\gamma _4\gamma _5$$
(2.23)
This means that starting from $`D=7`$ with $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$, where

$$\overline{\psi }_A=\psi _A^{}(\gamma ^0\gamma _{(+)}^6)$$
(2.24)
and reducing on a $`\mathrm{"}t\mathrm{"}`$ type direction, the Dirac conjugate spinor in $`D=6`$ turns out to be defined as

$$\overline{\psi }_A=\psi _A^{}(\gamma ^0\gamma _{(+)}^6)=\psi _A^{}(i\gamma ^0\gamma ^7)=\psi _A^{}(\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3\gamma _4\gamma _5)\psi _A^{}G_{II}^1$$
(2.25)
that is, we must use convention $`II`$ to define the Dirac conjugate spinor.
We can now perform the pull–back to the six dimensional superspace. Note that since we are doing the pull-back $`F^t(4)F^t(4)/SO(1,5)`$ the spin connection components $`\omega ^{a6}`$ assume the meaning of the vielbein cotangent frame on the coset. Introducing a (real) rescaling parameter $`m`$ we set:

$`\omega ^{a6}2mV^a`$
$`\psi _A\sqrt{2m}\psi _A`$
$`A_r2mA_r`$
$`g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}g`$
so that the M.C.E. (2.16) reduce to the following form:

$`𝒟V^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^a\gamma ^{6(\pm )}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.26)
$`^{ab}+4m^2V^aV^b\eta _{66}+m\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^{ab}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.27)
$`dA^r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_ti\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B\sigma ^{rAB}=0`$ (2.28)
$`D\psi _A+m\gamma _a\gamma _6^{(\pm )}\psi _AV^a=0`$ (2.29)
where $`^{ab}`$ is the Lorentz curvature 2–form in $`D=6`$, namely

$$^{ab}=d\omega ^{ab}\omega _c^a\omega ^{cb}$$
(2.30)
and the $`SU(2)`$ vector field strength is defined as

$$^r=dA^r\frac{1}{2}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_t$$
(2.31)
Moreover, we have defined the Lorentz covariant derivatives in $`D=6`$ as follows

$`𝒟V^a=dV^a\omega ^{ab}V_b`$ (2.32)
$`𝒟\psi _A=d\psi _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _{ab}\omega ^{ab}\psi _A`$ (2.33)
and the $`SU(2)\times SO(1,5)`$ covariant derivative on $`\psi _A`$ as

$$D\psi _A=𝒟\psi _A+\frac{i}{2}\sigma _{AB}^rA_r\psi ^B$$
(2.34)
Equations (2.26)–(2.29) define a supersymmetric vacuum configuration of $`D=6`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity in terms of the superforms $`V^a`$, $`\omega ^{ab}`$, $`A_r`$, $`\psi _A`$.
If we now perform $`d`$-differentiation of equations (2.26)–(2.29), we find that they of course close, since they are merely a rewriting of equations (2.16); however the relevant Fierz identity to be used in this case, namely in $`D=6`$ is the following

$$\frac{m}{4}\gamma _{ab}\psi _A\overline{\psi }_B\gamma ^{ab}\psi ^B+g\psi ^B\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B+\frac{m}{2}\gamma _6\gamma _a\psi _A\overline{\psi }_B\gamma ^6\gamma ^a\psi ^B=0$$
(2.35)
which only holds when $`g=3m`$. Indeed in this case equation (2.35) reduces to equation (2.18) written in six dimensional formalism.
Note that the dependence of this equations from the signature $`(t,s)`$ is hidden in the different values of $`\eta _{66}`$ and properties of $`\gamma _6^{(\pm )}`$ as given in equations (2.22).
In particular, we see that, restricting the forms to space-time, so that $`\psi _{A\mu }=0`$, equation (2.27) gives

$$_{cd}^{ab}=4m^2\eta _{66}\delta _{cd}^{ab}_{\mu \nu }=20\eta _{66}m^2g_{\mu \nu }$$
(2.36)
so that, depending on the signature $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$ or $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$, we get a supersymmetric $`AntideSitter`$ or $`deSitter`$ background with cosmological constant $`\pm 20m^2`$ respectively. As we stressed in the introduction, the fact that we can obtain a supersymmetric $`deSitter`$ configuration is a peculiar property of the six dimensional theory based on the $`F(4)`$ supergroup which admits two real sections, one with bosonic subgroup $`SO(2,5)\times SU(2)`$ and the other with bosonic subgroup $`SO(1,6)\times SU(2)`$.
On the other hand, the supersymmetric configuration described before, is not complete, since the $`D=6`$ $`F(4)`$ supergravity theory contains, besides the previously treated degrees of freedom, also an additional vector $`A_\mu `$ and a 2–form $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. The way to introduce these extra fields in the configuration is well known ,  and consists in enlarging the MCE (2.26)–(2.29) into a Free Differential Algebra (FDA). Indeed let us add the following 2–form and 3–form equations to the MCE (2.26)–(2.29):

$`dAmB+\alpha \overline{\psi }_A\gamma _6^{(\pm )}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.37)
$`dB+\beta \overline{\psi }_A\gamma _a\psi ^AV^a=0`$ (2.38)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are suitable constants. Performing $`d`$–differentiation of equations (2.37)–(2.38), using the Fierz identity

$$\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _a\psi ^A\overline{\psi }_B\gamma ^6\gamma ^a\psi ^B=0$$
(2.39)
the MCE (2.16) and the fact that and $`\gamma _{ab}\gamma _6`$ is $`C_{()}`$ symmetric, one easily finds

$$\beta =2\alpha \eta _{66}$$
(2.40)
From Table 1 we see that in signature $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$ the vector current has the same reality as the tensor current, therefore it is real; vice versa in signature $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$ they have opposite reality, that is the vector current is pure imaginary. Hence we choose $`\beta =2`$ and $`\beta =2i`$ for $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$ or $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$ respectively, to respect the reality of the fields $`A`$ and $`B`$.
At this point we have all the necessary ingredients to construct the six dimensional supergravity theories which will admit as supersymmetric background either a six dimensional $`AntideSitter`$ ($`(t,s)=(2,5)`$) or a $`deSitter`$ configuration ($`(t,s)=(1,6)`$). Hereafter we will refer to these two theories as $`AdS_6`$ or $`dS_6`$ supergravity respectively.
Actually $`AdS_6`$, $`N=2`$, $`F(4)`$ supergravity which was constructed by Romans , by means of the Noether approach, using the supergravity multiplet only was reformulated in terms of a FDA in superspace in references ,. Furthermore its coupling to matter multiplets and the gauging of a compact group was given. However, the starting FDA used in , was defined with a different representation for the gamma matrices. We can map our FDA (2.26)–(2.29), (2.37)–(2.38) into that of , by the following redefinition which preserves the square of the gamma matrices (and hence the metric $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$):

$$\gamma ^ai\gamma ^a\gamma ^{6(+)}\gamma ^7\gamma ^a$$
(2.41)
With the previous redefinition, the Dirac conjugate spinor in six dimensions, which was previously defined using convention $`II`$ (see equation (2.25)) must be now defined using convention $`I`$. In fact, for seven dimensional spinors with $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$ we had $`\psi ^{}G_I^1\psi ^{}(\gamma ^0\gamma ^{6(+)})`$. If we now go to six dimensions, the spinors do not reduce, and performing the redefinition (2.41) we obtain

$$\psi ^{}(\gamma ^0\gamma ^{6(+)})\psi ^{}(\gamma _7\gamma ^0\gamma ^{6(+)})=i\psi ^{}\gamma ^0i\psi ^{}G_I^1$$
(2.42)
and the $`AdS_6`$ FDA takes the following form:

$`𝒟V^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^a\psi ^A=0`$ (2.43)
$`^{ab}+4m^2V^aV^b+m\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^{ab}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.44)
$`dA^r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_ti\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B\sigma ^{rAB}=0`$ (2.45)
$`D\psi _Aim\gamma _a\psi _AV^a=0`$ (2.46)
$`dAmBi\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\psi ^A=0`$ (2.47)
$`dB+2\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _a\psi ^AV^a=0`$ (2.48)
The corresponding supergravity has been thoroughly discussed in , and we do not dwell on it anymore.
Our interest instead is to construct the $`deSitter`$ supergravity and in order to profit of the results obtained in the $`AdS_6`$ case, it is convenient to redefine also for $`dS_6`$ supergravity the gamma matrix representation as follows:

$$\gamma ^a\gamma ^a\gamma ^{6()}\gamma ^7\gamma ^a$$
(2.49)
With the previous redefinition, the Dirac conjugate spinor in six dimensions must be defined using convention $`II`$, that is with opposite convention with respect to equation (2.21). Indeed, for seven dimensional spinors with $`(t,s)=(1,6)`$ we have $`\psi ^{}G_I^1\psi ^{}\gamma ^0`$. Proceeding as before and using now (2.49) we obtain

$$\psi ^{}\gamma ^0\psi ^{}\gamma _7\gamma ^0=\psi ^{}(i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4\gamma ^5)\gamma ^0i\psi ^{}G_{II}^1$$
(2.50)
The resulting FDA for $`dS_6`$ supergravity is therefore

$`𝒟V^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^a\psi ^A=0`$ (2.51)
$`^{ab}4m^2V^aV^b+m\overline{\psi }_A\gamma ^{ab}\psi ^A=0`$ (2.52)
$`dA^r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gϵ^{rst}A_sA_ti\overline{\psi }_A\psi _B\sigma ^{rAB}=0`$ (2.53)
$`D\psi _Am\gamma _a\psi _AV^a=0`$ (2.54)
$`dAmBi\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\psi ^A=0`$ (2.55)
$`dB2i\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _a\psi ^AV^a=0`$ (2.56)
As a check of our computation we can verify that all the terms involving bilinear currents in equations (2.43)–(2.48), (2.51)–(2.56) are real, consistently with the fact that the bosonic fields must be real. Indeed, taking into account that the Dirac conjugate of the spinors in both cases have an extra $`i`$ factor with respect to the usual definition (2.42), (2.50), that the $`\gamma _7`$ matrix has an explicit $`i`$ factor (2.23) and using furthermore the relation

$$\gamma _7\gamma _{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}=\frac{i}{(Dp)!}ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_pb_{p+1}\mathrm{}b_D}\gamma ^{b_{p+1}\mathrm{}b_D}$$
(2.57)
one obtains the phases shown in Table 2 for the relevant six dimensional currents

We can see that if we set, consistently with the choice in $`D=7`$, $`\beta =1`$ for the $`dS_6`$ case and $`\beta =1`$ for the $`AdS_6`$ one, all the terms containing the bilinear currents in equations (2.43)–(2.48), (2.51)–(2.56) are real, implying the reality of the corresponding bosonic terms.
A further check is given by the comparison of equations (2.46) and (2.54): indeed these two equations can be interpreted as the vanishing of the $`AdS_6`$ and $`dS_6`$ covariant derivatives. They differ by a factor $`i`$ in the terms proportional to $`m`$ and one can wonder whether they are both consistent with the symplectic-Majorana condition (2.8). The answer is yes; indeed, let us consider a covariant derivative $``$ defined with a parameter $`q`$, where $`q=im`$ for $`AdS_6`$ and $`q=m`$ for $`dS_6`$:

$$\psi _A=D\psi _Aq\gamma _a\psi _AV^a$$
(2.58)
and let us apply the symplectic–Majorana condition (2.17) to the spinor $`\psi _A`$; using equations (2.5) and (2.12), we have:

$`\overline{\psi _A}=D\psi _A^{}G^1q^{}\psi _A^{}G^1G\gamma _a^{}G^1V^a=D\overline{\psi }_Aq^{}\eta \overline{\psi }_A\gamma _aV^a`$
$`ϵ^{AB}\psi _B^TC_{()}=ϵ^{AB}D\psi _B^TC_{()}qϵ^{AB}\psi _B^TC_{()}C_{()}^1\gamma _a^TC_{()}V^a=D\overline{\psi }_A+q\overline{\psi }_A\gamma _aV^a`$
Equating the two r.h.s, and using equation (2.13) we see that the only two consistent choices are: $`q=im`$ using convention $`I`$, that is in the $`AdS_6`$ case, and $`q=m`$ using convention $`II`$, that is in the $`dS_6`$ case.

## 3 $`D=6`$ $`deSitter`$ supergravity: transformation rules and Lagrangian

In this section we give the form of the supersymmetry transformation laws and the Lagrangian of $`dS_6`$ supergravity.
Since the underlying algebra is quite analogous to the $`AdS_6`$ algebra, it is simple to transform the result of the $`AdS_6`$ theory into the present case. Indeed it is easy to verify (see Appendix B) that formally we can map the $`AdS_6`$ FDA (2.43)–(2.48) into the $`dS_6`$ FDA (2.51)–(2.56) by the following substitutions:

$`m`$ $``$ $`im`$
$`g`$ $``$ $`ig`$
$`A^r`$ $``$ $`iA^r`$
$`A`$ $``$ $`iA`$
$`B`$ $``$ $`B`$
$`\psi _A`$ $``$ $`\psi _A`$
$`\overline{\psi }_A`$ $``$ $`i\overline{\psi }_A`$ (3.59)
Out of the vacuum we must also perform the following substitutions to get the correct form of the superspace curvatures and hence of the supersymmetry transformation laws:

$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`\sigma `$
$`\chi _A`$ $``$ $`i\chi _A`$
$`\overline{\chi }_A`$ $``$ $`i\overline{\chi }_A`$
$`\lambda _A^I`$ $``$ $`i\lambda _A^I`$
$`\overline{\lambda }_A^I`$ $``$ $`i\overline{\lambda }_A^I`$
$`A^I`$ $``$ $`iA^I`$
where $`\chi _A`$ is a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ field and $`\sigma `$ a scalar field belonging to the graviton multiplet, $`A^I`$, $`\lambda _A^I`$, $`P_\alpha ^I`$ ($`\alpha =1,2,3,4`$, $`I=1,\mathrm{}n`$) are the vectors, spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and scalars of the $`n`$ vector multiplets (the scalars are described by the vielbein of the coset $`SO(4,n)/SO(4)SO(n)`$). These substitutions, besides reproducing the $`dS_6`$ FDA (2.51)–(2.56), and the supersymmetry transformation laws out of the vacuum given below, leave unchanged the gauge invariance

$$BB+d\lambda ,AA+m\lambda $$
(3.61)
the $`R`$–symmetry and the Fierz identity (2.35).
Using the map (3.59) we can recover the $`dS_6`$ supersymmetry transformation laws and Lagrangian by applying it to the corresponding transformation laws and Lagrangian of $`AdS_6`$ theory. We have checked that the resulting theory coincides with the one obtained performing explicit calculation of the Bianchi identities and of the Lagrangian in the geometric approach. Note that, equation (3.59), (3) tells us that the kinetic terms of the vectors undergo a changes of sign with respect to the $`AdS_6`$ theory, implying that they behave as ghosts and also the cosmological constant undergoes a change of sign. This was to be expected since if one applies the Noether method to construct the $`D=6`$ $`F(4)`$ theory as in reference  the resulting theory, with positive definite vector kinetic terms, is unique and of $`AdS_6`$ type.
We note however that, differently from what happens to variant supergravities discussed in the literature  the $`R`$–symmetry group of our $`dS_6`$ supergravity remains $`SU(2)`$, that is it remains compact compared to the conventional $`AdS_6`$ supergravity. This is consistent with the fact that all the three vectors $`A^r`$ in the adjoint of $`SU(2)`$ have become ghosts in the $`dS_6`$ theory.
For the sake of clarity we begin to give the supersymmetry transformation laws for the theory without matter coupling, where all the important changes with respect to the $`AdS_6`$ theory already take place. We have

$`\delta V_\mu ^a`$ $`=\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^a\epsilon ^A`$ (3.62)
$`\delta B_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=4ie^{2\sigma }\overline{\chi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^A+4ie^{2\sigma }\overline{\epsilon }_A\gamma _7\gamma _{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}^A`$ (3.63)
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=2ie^\sigma \overline{\chi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _\mu \epsilon ^A+2ie^\sigma \overline{\epsilon }_A\gamma ^7\psi _\mu ^A`$ (3.64)
$`\delta A_\mu ^r`$ $`=2ie^\sigma \overline{\chi }^A\gamma _\mu \epsilon ^B\sigma _{AB}^r+2ie^\sigma \sigma ^{rAB}\overline{\epsilon }_A\psi _{B\mu }`$ (3.66)
$`\delta \psi _{A\mu }`$ $`=D_\mu \epsilon _A+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^\sigma [ϵ_{AB}F_{\nu \lambda }\gamma _7\sigma _{rAB}F_{\nu \lambda }^r](\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \lambda }6\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^\lambda )\epsilon ^B+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{32}}e^{2\sigma }H_{\nu \lambda \sigma }\gamma _7(\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \lambda \sigma }3\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^{\lambda \sigma })\epsilon _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ge^\sigma \gamma _\mu \epsilon _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}me^{3\sigma }\gamma _\mu \epsilon _A`$
$`\delta \chi _A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \sigma \epsilon _A{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^\sigma [ϵ_{AB}F_{\mu \nu }\gamma _7+\sigma _{rAB}F_{\mu \nu }^r]\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^B`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{32}}e^{2\sigma }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\gamma _7\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\epsilon _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ge^\sigma \epsilon _A+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}me^{3\sigma }\epsilon _A`$
$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=\overline{\chi }_A\epsilon ^A`$ (3.67)
From the transformation laws (3.62)–(3.67), it is easy to see that one can obtain a $`deSitter`$ supersymmetric background choosing $`g=3m`$. (Recall that in the vacuum, besides putting to zero the field-strengths, we also set $`\sigma =0`$). In this way we obtain:

$`\delta \chi _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(g3m\right)\epsilon _A=0`$ (3.68)
$`\delta \psi _{A\mu }D_\mu \epsilon _A({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g)\gamma _\mu \epsilon _A=D_\mu \epsilon _Am\gamma _\mu \epsilon _A=_\mu ^{dS}ϵ_A`$ (3.69)
$`R^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{cd}^{ab}V^cV^d=4m^2V^aV^bR_{\mu \nu }=20m^2g_{\mu \nu }`$ (3.70)
$`\left(_{\mu \nu }^r=_{\mu \nu }mB_{\mu \nu }=H_{\mu \nu \rho }=\chi _A=\psi _{A\mu }=\sigma =0\right)`$ (3.71)
which corresponds to a $`dS`$ configuration with $`dS`$ radius $`R_{dS}^2=(4m^2)^1`$

$`(detV)^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}e^{2\sigma }[\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{}^{\mu \nu }+_{\mu \nu }^r_r^{\mu \nu }]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}}e^{4\sigma }H_{\mu \nu \rho }H^{\mu \nu \rho }+`$ (3.72)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \psi _\rho ^A+2\overline{\chi }_A\gamma ^\mu _\mu \chi ^A+^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma +`$
$`2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ge^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}me^{3\sigma })\overline{\psi }_{\mu A}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ^A+4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ge^\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}me^{3\sigma })\overline{\psi }_{\mu A}\gamma ^\mu \chi ^A+`$
$`𝒲^{ds}(\sigma ;g,m)`$
where

$`𝒲^{ds}=g^2e^{2\sigma }+4mge^{2\sigma }m^2e^{6\sigma }`$
$`\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }mB_{\mu \nu }`$
We note the ”wrong” sign in the vector kinetic term is in agreement with our previous discussion. If we count the number of bosonic ghosts and non ghosts degrees of freedom, we find that they are $`16+16`$ in agreement with the considerations of reference .
We further observe that $`𝒲^{dS}=𝒲^{AdS}`$ so that $`𝒲^{dS}`$ has the same critical points of $`𝒲^{AdS}`$ for $`g=3m`$. However, while in the $`AdS_6`$ case the critical point is a maximum, the dilaton mass is negative (but satisfies the Breitenlhoner–Friedman bound), in our case instead we have a minimum of the potential and positive mass for the dilaton ($`m_\sigma ^2=24m^2`$ or $`m_\sigma ^2=6`$ in $`deSitter`$ radius units). We also note that since the vacuum is supersymmetric, the corresponding extremum is stable.
The above considerations can be straightforwardly extended to the $`deSitter`$ supergravity coupled to an arbitrary number of vector multiplets; one expects that in this case also the vectors of the vector multiplets become ghosts and again the scalar potential has a reversed sign with respect to the $`AdS_6`$ case. This is in fact what happens and the complete supersymmetry transformation rules and the Lagrangian are given in the Appendix A.

## 4 Acknowledgements

We thank Sergio Ferrara for useful discussions and for a critical reading of the manuscript. One of us (S.V.) acknowledeges J. de Boer for useful discussions.
Work supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-200-00131 Quantum Spacetime, in which R. D’Auria and S. Vaulá are associated to Torino University.

## Appendix A: The gauged matter coupled theory

In this appendix we will briefly discuss the structure of the gauged matter coupled theory; for a more detailed explanation on the complete procedure see , .
The only kind of supersymmetric matter in $`D=6`$, $`N=2`$ is given by the vector multiplets, which contain the following fields:

$$(A_\mu ,\lambda _A,\varphi ^\alpha )^I$$
(A.1)
where $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$ and the index $`I`$ labels an arbitrary number $`n`$ of such multiplets.
With $`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ we will indicate the field strengths associated to the vector fields $`A_\mu ^I`$; since the duality group is $`G=SO(4,n)\times O(1,1)`$, they can be arranged with the graviton multiplet field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^r`$ into an unique $`SO(4,n)`$ vector $`F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}3+n`$, transforming in the fundamental representation of $`SO(4,n)`$.
The $`4n`$ scalars parametrize the coset manifold $`SO(4,n)/SO(4)\times SO(n)`$; they appear in the supersymmetry transformation rules by means of the coset representative $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the matter coset manifold, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},3+n`$; decomposing the $`SO(4,n)`$ indices with respect to $`H=SO(4)\times SO(n)`$ we have:

$$L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(L_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda },L_I^\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(A.2)
where $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$ and $`I=4,\mathrm{},3+n`$. Furthermore, since we are going to gauge $`SU(2)𝒢SO(4)\times SO(n)`$, where $`𝒢`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional subgroup of $`SO(n)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ is the diagonal subgroup of $`SO(4)`$ as in pure supergravity, we will also decompose $`L_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$$L_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(L_{0}^\mathrm{\Lambda },L_r^\mathrm{\Lambda }),\text{with }r=1,2,3.$$
(A.3)
The cotangent frame on the scalar coset manifold is given by the vielbein $`\widehat{P}_{0}^I`$, $`\widehat{P}_r^I`$. They are the $`(I,\alpha )`$ components of the gauged left invariant 1-form $`L^1L`$

$`\widehat{P}_{0}^I`$ $`=`$ $`\left(L^1\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }^IL_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\; 0}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`\widehat{P}_r^I`$ $`=`$ $`\left(L^1\right)_\mathrm{\Lambda }^IL_r^\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (A.4)
where the covariant derivative is defined as

$$L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }=dL_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }A^\mathrm{\Gamma }L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(A.5)
where $`f_{\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the structure constants of $`SU(2)𝒢`$
For simplicity of notation, it is useful to introduce the ”dressed” non abelian vector field strengths:

$`\widehat{T}_{[AB]\mu \nu }ϵ_{AB}L_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\left(F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }mB_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\right)`$ (A.6)
$`T_{(AB)\mu \nu }\sigma _{AB}^rL_{r\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (A.7)
$`T_{I\mu \nu }L_{I\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (A.8)
The fermionic supersymmetry transformation rules of the gauged theory, contain shift terms linear in the parameters $`g`$, $`g^{}`$ and $`m`$ (respectively, the gauge coupling constants of $`SU(2)`$ and $`𝒢`$ and (one half) the inverse of the $`dS_6`$ radius); they have been computed for the gauged matter coupled $`AdS_6`$ $`F(4)`$ theory in references , , to which we refer the interest reader for notations and definitions. The fermionic gauge shifts were denoted as follows:

$`\delta \psi _{A\mu }=\mathrm{}S_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}\gamma _\mu \epsilon ^B`$ (A.9)
$`\delta \chi _A=\mathrm{}N_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}\epsilon ^B`$ (A.10)
$`\delta \lambda _A^I=\mathrm{}M_{AB}^{I(g,g^{},m)}\epsilon ^B`$ (A.11)
We find that the matrices $`N_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}`$ and $`M_{AB}^{I(g,g^{},m)}`$, in the present $`dS_6`$ case, are exactly the same as before while the gravitino shift acquires a factor $`i`$, so that we define a new matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}`$ which is given in terms of the old one by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}=iS_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}$$
(A.12)
The resulting supersymmetry transformation rules for the gauged matter coupled $`F(4)`$ $`dS_6`$ supergravity are therefore:

$`\delta V_\mu ^a`$ $`=\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^a\epsilon ^A`$ (A.13)
$`\delta B_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=4ie^{2\sigma }\overline{\chi }_A\gamma _7\gamma _{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^A+i4e^{2\sigma }\overline{\epsilon }_A\gamma _7\gamma _{[\mu }\psi _{\nu ]}^A`$
$`\delta A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=2ie^\sigma \overline{\epsilon }^A\gamma _7\gamma _\mu \chi ^BL_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ_{AB}2ie^\sigma \overline{\epsilon }^A\gamma _\mu \chi ^BL^{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}\sigma _{rAB}+ie^\sigma L_{\mathrm{\Lambda }I}\overline{\epsilon }^A\gamma _\mu \lambda ^{IB}ϵ_{AB}+`$
$`+2ie^\sigma L_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\epsilon }_A\gamma ^7\psi _Bϵ^{AB}+2ie^\sigma L^{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}\sigma _r^{AB}\overline{\epsilon }_A\psi _B`$
$`\delta \psi _{A\mu }`$ $`=𝒟_\mu \epsilon _A+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^\sigma [\widehat{T}_{[AB]\nu \lambda }\gamma _7T_{(AB)\nu \lambda }](\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \lambda }6\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^\lambda )\epsilon ^B+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{32}}e^{2\sigma }H_{\nu \lambda \rho }\gamma _7(\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \lambda \rho }3\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^{\lambda \rho })\epsilon _A+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}\gamma _\mu \epsilon ^B+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\psi _{C\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _7\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^7\psi _{C\mu }\gamma _\nu \epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^\nu \psi _{C\mu }+\gamma _7\gamma _\nu \epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^7\gamma ^\nu \psi _{C\mu }+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _{\nu \lambda }\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^{\nu \lambda }\psi _{C\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _7\gamma _{\nu \lambda }\epsilon _A\overline{\chi }^C\gamma ^7\gamma ^{\nu \lambda }\psi _{C\mu }`$
$`\delta \chi _A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \sigma \epsilon _A{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}e^\sigma [\widehat{T}_{[AB]\mu \nu }\gamma _7+T_{(AB)\mu \nu }]\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^B{\displaystyle \frac{i}{32}}e^{2\sigma }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\gamma _7\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\epsilon _A+`$
$`+N_{AB}^{(g,g^{},m)}ϵ^B`$
$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=\overline{\chi }_A\epsilon ^A`$
$`\delta \lambda _A^I`$ $`=\widehat{P}_{ri}^I\sigma _{AB}^r_\mu \varphi ^i\gamma ^\mu \epsilon ^B+\widehat{P}_{0i}^Iϵ_{AB}_\mu \varphi ^i\gamma ^7\gamma ^\mu \epsilon ^B{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^\sigma T_{\mu \nu }^I\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\epsilon _A+M_{AB}^{I(g,g^{},m)}\epsilon ^B`$
$`\widehat{P}_{0i}^I\delta \varphi ^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\lambda }_A^I\gamma _7\epsilon ^A`$
$`\widehat{P}_{ri}^I\delta \varphi ^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\lambda }_A^I\epsilon _B\sigma _r^{AB}`$
The complete supersymmetric gauged Lagrangian can be obtained with a standard procedure using equations (A.13) or by using the map (3.59), (3) to the corresponding $`AdS_6`$ Lagrangian given in reference . We limit ourselves to write down the most interesting terms. Our result is:

$`_{\text{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}e^{2\sigma }𝒩_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{}_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}}e^{4\sigma }H_{\mu \nu \rho }H^{\mu \nu \rho }+`$ (A.14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_{A\mu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \psi _\rho ^A+2\overline{\chi }_A\gamma ^\mu _\mu \chi ^A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\overline{\lambda }_A^I\gamma ^\mu _\mu \lambda _I^A+`$
$`+^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{P}_i^{I0}\widehat{P}_{I0j}+\widehat{P}_i^{Ir}\widehat{P}_{Ir,j}\right)^\mu \varphi ^i_\mu \varphi ^j;`$
$`_{\text{Chern–Simons}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \lambda \tau }B_{\mu \nu }\left(\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{}_{\rho \sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{}_{\lambda \tau }^\mathrm{\Sigma }+mB_{\rho \sigma }\widehat{}_{\lambda \tau }^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m^2B_{\rho \sigma }B_{\lambda \tau }\right)`$ (A.15)
$`_{\text{gauging}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\psi }_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{AB}\psi _\nu ^B++4\overline{\psi }_\mu ^A\gamma ^\mu \overline{N}_{AB}\chi ^B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\psi }_\mu ^A\gamma ^\mu \overline{M}_{AB}^I\lambda _I^B+`$ (A.16)
$`𝒲^{ds}(\sigma ,\varphi ^i;g,g^{},m).`$
The fermionic gauge shifts and the scalar potential of $`_{\text{gauging}}`$ appearing in equation (A.16) have been given in references , . We note that, as it was to be expected from the covariance of the vectors under duality group $`SO(4,n)O(1,1)`$, also the matter multiplet vector fields become ghosts.
Moreover, also for the matter coupled theory, the potential $`𝒲^{ds}`$ has the opposite sign with respect to the $`AdS_6`$ case, $`𝒲^{ds}=𝒲^{Ads}`$. The dilaton and the matter scalar fields are not ghosts, but they all have positive mass, corresponding to a minimum of the potential. The linearized equations of motion for the scalar fields are:

$`\mathrm{}\sigma +24m^2\sigma =0`$ (A.17)
$`\mathrm{}q^{I0}+16m^2q^{I0}=0`$ (A.18)
$`\mathrm{}q^{Ir}+24m^2q^{Ir}=0`$ (A.19)
If we use as mass unity the inverse $`dS`$ radius, which in our conventions is $`R_{dS}^2=4m^2`$ we get:

$`m_\sigma ^2=6`$
$`m_{q^{I0}}^2=4`$
$`m_{q^{Ir}}^2=6`$ (A.20)
## Appendix B: An alternative approach to the <br>construction of $`dS_6`$ $`F(4)`$ superalgebra

In this appendix we give a detailed discussion and justification with regard to the derivation of the map (3.59), (3) which have been used in the main text.
Let us consider the $`F(4)`$ $`AdS_6`$ FDA (2.43)–(2.48); in order to obtain from it a $`dS_6`$ supersymmetric FDA, the most important point is of course to change the sign in front of $`4m^2`$ in (2.44) and to try to adjust the coefficients in the various terms of the other equations by imposing the $`d`$–closure of the new FDA. On the other hand, in the approach given in the main body of the paper, we have seen that the $`AdS_6`$ and the $`dS_6`$ background can be obtained reducing respectively on an $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }t_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ type direction or on an $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }s_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ direction, which implies a different definitions of the Dirac conjugate spinor (2.25), (2.21) for the two theories. Note that this is a general feature of $`D`$–dimensional theories with the same background signature $`D=t+s`$ that are obtained reducing a $`D+1`$ supergravity on a $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }t_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ type direction, $`D+1=(t+1)+s`$, or on a $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }s_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ type direction, $`D+1=t+(s+1)`$.
To recover the $`dS_6`$ theory we can now proceed as follows. Consider the FDA (2.26)–(2.29), (2.37), (2.38) for the $`AdS_6`$ case, where the Dirac conjugate spinors are defined according to convention $`I`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We recall that because of redefinitions (2.42), (2.50), there has been an interchange between convention $`I`$ and $`II`$. If we now change convention $`I`$ into convention $`II`$ for the Dirac conjugate spinors (according to the reduction on a $`\mathrm{"}s\mathrm{"}`$ type direction), the algebra is formally the same and closes as well for $`g=3m`$, but the fact that some currents have changed reality means that some of the bosonic fields have become purely imaginary. Actually, fixing $`\beta =1`$, from Table (2) we see that while all the fields are real for the $`AdS_6`$ case (following convention $`I`$), using convention $`II`$, $`_{ab}`$, $`^r`$ and $`\widehat{}dAmB`$ are purely imaginary. Since the derivation of the supersymmetry transformation rules and the construction of the Lagrangian are not affected by the presence of purely imaginary fields, we can take for this new theory (which has both real and imaginary fields) the same supersymmetry transformation rules and Lagrangian of $`F(4)`$ $`AdS_6`$, but using Dirac conjugate spinors defined according to convention $`II`$. At this point we may rewrite the new theory in terms of real fields only. Of course, this has to be done preserving the $`R`$–symmetry group and the gauge invariance

$$BB+d\lambda ,AA+m\lambda $$
(B.1)
If $`^r`$ is pure imaginary we must define a real field strength $`\stackrel{~}{}^r=i^r`$; the only way to do it is to define

$`\stackrel{~}{A^r}=iA^r`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}=ig`$ (B.2)
Furthermore, in the limit $`m=0`$, corresponding to the theory where $`F(4)`$ is contracted to a group containing as a bosonic subgroup $`ISO(1,5)SO(4)`$, to preserve the $`SO(4)`$ $`R`$–symmetry group, the field $`A`$ must be redefined as $`A^r`$, that is

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=iA$$
(B.3)
Since the algebra closes for $`g=3m`$ we are also forced to define

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=im$$
(B.4)
Finally, since we want to maintain the gauge invariance (B.1), taking into account (B.3), (B.4), we define

$$\stackrel{~}{B}=B$$
(B.5)
Performing redefinitions (B.2)–(B.5) in the Lagrangian we obtain that the kinetic term of the new vector field strengths $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{}}d\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{m}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^r`$ have reversed sign with respect to $`\widehat{}`$ and $`^r`$, that is, they are ghosts, according to our previous finding. In addition we see that we do not have to perform any redefinition on the spin connection $`\omega ^{ab}`$, since according to the redefinition (B.4) on $`m`$ (see equation (2.44)) $`\omega ^{ab}`$ is defined as a real field.
We stress that, because of redefinition (B.4) the cosmological constant, in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ has changed sign with respect to the $`AdS_6`$ case we started from. This means that the new theory describes a $`dS_6`$ supersymmetric background.
To complete the discussion we have also to investigate whether the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ field $`\chi _A`$ and the dilaton field $`\sigma `$, that appear in the FDA out of the vacuum, do need appropriate redefinitions too. The superspace differential of the dilaton field $`\sigma `$ is defined in the $`AdS_6`$ as follows (see references , ):

$$d\sigma =_a\sigma V^a+\overline{\chi }_A\psi ^A$$
(B.6)
Following Table (2) we see that using convention $`II`$ the field $`\sigma `$ should be pure imaginary; obviously this this is not the case. In fact, since the dilaton $`\sigma `$ always appears as $`e^\sigma `$ in the $`AdS_6`$ transformation laws, it would be impossible to impose the symplectic–Majorana condition (2.17) on the fermions if we replaced $`e^\sigma e^{i\sigma }`$. This suggests that the dilatino $`\chi _A`$ should be redefined, in order to have a real scalar field $`\sigma `$, as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi _A}=i\chi _A$$
(B.7)
The same kind of reasoning applied to the matter fields, implies the following redefinitions:

$`\stackrel{~}{A}^I=iA^I`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_A^I=i\lambda _A^I`$ (B.8)
Equations (B.2)–(B.7) map the $`F(4)`$ theory with $`AdS_6`$ background into the $`F(4)`$ theory with $`dS_6`$ background. If we want to retrieve our previous results, obtained by explicit construction from the FDA (2.51)–(2.56), another inessential redefinition is needed: the Dirac conjugate of every spinor $`\mu `$ must be written as:

$$\stackrel{~}{\overline{\mu }}=i\overline{\mu }$$
(B.9)
This is just because when we wrote the $`F^t(4)`$ algebra (2.16), we wanted it to have the same form for both $`F^1(4)`$ and $`F^2(4)`$. Therefore we had to choose, in order to have real fields, $`\beta =1`$ for the $`(t,s)=(2,5)`$ case, from which the $`AdS_6`$ theory comes from.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2If we wanted to use $`\beta =1`$ for both theories and have real fields, we had to modify the $`F^2(4)`$ algebra (2.16) inserting some $`i`$ factors in front of the currents; in that case we wouldn’t need redefinition (B.9) to obtain the $`dS_6`$ theory.

The correctness of redefinition (B.7) can be checked considering that the variations under supersymmetry of the fermions $`\delta \psi _A`$, $`\delta \chi _A`$ and $`\delta \lambda _A^I`$ must satisfy the symplectic–Majorana condition (2.17) as the fermions do. One can in fact determine the reality of the coefficient in each term of the fermionic supersymmetry transformation rules (A.13), since it depends only on the number $`n`$ of gamma matrices that it contains and on the choice of the convention $`I`$ or $`II`$ for defining the Dirac conjugate spinor.
In fact, let us evaluate the transposition and the hermitian conjugation of the product of $`n`$ gamma matrices in $`D=6`$ using equations (2.5), (2.12), (2.13):

$`(\gamma _{a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{a_n})^T=(1)^nC_{()}^1\gamma _{a_n}\mathrm{}\gamma _{a_1}C_{()}`$
$`(\gamma _{a_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{a_n})^{}=\alpha G^1\gamma _{a_n}\mathrm{}\gamma _{a_1}G`$
$`\alpha _I=1\alpha _{II}=(1)^n`$ (B.10)
If we want that $`\delta \psi _A`$, $`\delta \chi _A`$ and $`\delta \lambda _A^I`$ satisfy the symplectic–Majorana condition (2.17) the following simple rule, descending from equations (B.10), must be obeyed: when $`n`$ is even the current must appear in the transformation rule with a real coefficient in both cases $`I`$ and $`II`$; when $`n`$ is odd, there must be an imaginary coefficient if we use convention $`I`$ and a real one if we use convention $`II`$.
This is exactly what we got for the $`AdS_6`$ case in reference , , and what we just obtained for the $`dS_6`$ by explicit construction and using redefinitions (B.2)–(B.8).