text:
# Spin polarized parametric pumping

## I Introduction

Recently, there is considerable interest in the parametric pumping. The parametric pump is facilitated by cyclic variations of pumping potentials inside the scattering system and has been realized experimentally by Switkes et al. On theoretical side, much progress has been made towards understanding of various features related to the parametric pump. This includes quantization of pumped charge, the influence of discrete spatial symmetries and magnetic field, the rectification of displacement current, as well as the inelastic scattering to the pumped current. The concept of optimal pump has been proposed with the lower bound for the dissipation derived. Within the formalism of time-dependent scattering matrix theory, the heat current and shot noise in the pumping process has also been discussed. Recently, the original adiabatic pumping theory has been extended to account for the effect due to finite frequency, Andreev reflection in the presence of superconducting lead, and strong electron interaction in the Kondo regime. This gives us more physical insight of parametric pumping. For instance, the experimental observed anomaly of pumped current at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ can be explained using finite frequency theory as due to the quantum interference of different photon assisted processes. When superconducting lead is present, the interference between the direct reflection and multiple Andreev reflection gives rise to an enhancement of pumped current which is four times of that of normal system. It will be interesting to further extend the parametric theory to the case where the ferromagnetic leads are present. With the theory extended, many new physics are foreseen which may lead to new operational paradigms for future spintronic devices. In this paper, we have developed a parametric pumping theory for a nonmagnetic system with two ferromagnetic leads whose magnetic moments orient at an angle $`\theta `$ with respect to each other. Our theory is based on nonequilibrium Green’s function approach and focused on current perpendicular to plane geometry. Parametric pump generates current at zero external bias. It would be interesting to see the interplay of the role played by pumping potential and external bias if the leads are maintain at different chemical potential. Hence in our theory, the external bias is also included. In the adiabatic regime, the pumped current is proportional to pumping frequency. In this regime, we have derived the parametric pumping theory for finite pumping amplitude. At the finite pumping frequency, the system is away from equilibrium, we have performed perturbation up to the second order in pumping amplitude and obtained the pumped current at finite frequencies. The newly developed theory allows us to study the pumped current for a variety of parameters, such as the pumping amplitude, pumping frequency, phase difference between two pumping potentials, the angular dependence between the magnetization of two leads, as well as the external bias. We have applied our theory to a tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) junction. Due to the reported room temperature operation of TMR, the fundmental principle and transport properties of TMR devices has attracted increasingly attention. Our numerical results show interesting spin valve effect for pumped current. The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we derive the general theory of a parametric pump in the presence of ferromagnetic leads. The numerical results and summary are presented in section III.

## II General theory

The system we examine consists of a nonmagnetic system connected by two ferromagnetic electrodes to the reservoir. The magnetic moment $`𝐌`$ of the left electrode is pointing to the $`z`$-direction, the electric current is flowing in the $`y`$-direction, while the moment of the right electrode is at an angle $`\theta `$ to the $`z`$-axis in the $`xz`$ plane. The Hamiltonian of the system is of the following form

$$H=H_L+H_R+H_0+V_p+H_T$$
(1)
where $`H_L`$ and $`H_R`$ describe the left and right electrodes

$$H_L=\underset{k\sigma }{}(ϵ_{kL}+\sigma M)c_{kL\sigma }^{}c_{kL\sigma }$$
(2)
$`H_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}[(ϵ_{kR}+\sigma M\mathrm{cos}\theta )c_{kR\sigma }^{}c_{kR\sigma }`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}M\mathrm{sin}\theta [c_{kR\sigma }^{}c_{kR\overline{\sigma }}].`$ (4)
In Eq. (1), $`H_0`$ describes the nonmagnetic (NM) scattering region,

$$H_0=\underset{n\sigma }{}ϵ_nd_{n\sigma }^{}d_{n\sigma }.$$
(5)
$`V_p`$ is the time-dependent pumping potential and $`H_T`$ describes the coupling between electrodes and the NM scattering region with hopping matrix $`T_{k\alpha n}`$. To simplify the analysis, we assume the hopping matrix to be independent of spin index, hence

$$H_T=\underset{k\alpha n\sigma }{}[T_{k\alpha n}c_{k\alpha \sigma }^{}d_{n\sigma }+c.c.].$$
(6)
In these expressions $`ϵ_{k\alpha }=ϵ_k^0+qV_\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =L,R`$; $`c_{k\alpha \sigma }^{}`$ (with $`\sigma =,`$ or $`\pm 1`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }=\sigma `$) is the creation operator of electrons with spin index $`\sigma `$ inside the $`\alpha `$-electrode. Similarly $`d_{n\sigma }^{}`$ is the creation operator of electrons with spin $`\sigma `$ at energy level $`n`$ for the NM scattering region. In writing down Eqs.(2) and (4), we have made a simplification that the value of molecular field $`M`$ is the same for the two electrodes, thus the spin-valve effect is obtained by varying the angle $`\theta `$. Essentially, $`M`$ mimics the difference of density of states (DOS) between spin up and down electrons in the electrodes. In this paper, we only consider the single electron behavior. The charge quantization is not considered so that our system is not in the Coulomb blockade regime. In addition, for the nonmagnetic regions we are interested in, the Kondo effect can be neglected.

To proceed, we first apply the following Bogliubov transformation to diagonalize the Hamiltonian of the right electrode,

$$c_{kR\sigma }\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)C_{kR\sigma }\sigma \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)C_{kR\overline{\sigma }}$$
(7)
$$c_{kR\sigma }^+\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)C_{kR\sigma }^+\sigma \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)C_{kR\overline{\sigma }}^+$$
(8)
from which we obtain the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_\alpha =\underset{k\sigma }{}[(ϵ_{k\alpha }+\sigma M)C_{k\alpha \sigma }^{}C_{k\alpha \sigma }$$
(9)
$`H_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kn\sigma }{}}[T_{kLn}C_{kL\sigma }^{}d_{n\sigma }+T_{kRn}(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}C_{kR\sigma }^{}`$ (10)
$``$ $`\sigma \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}C_{kR\overline{\sigma }}^{})d_{n\sigma }+c.c.].`$ (11)
In the following subsections, we will consider two cases: (1). parametric pumping in the low frequency limit with finite pumping amplitude. (2). pumping in the weak pumping limit with finite pumping frequency.

### A Pumping in the low frequency limit

In the subsection, we examine the pumping current at low frequency limit while maintaining pumping amplitude finite. In this limit, the system is nearly in equilibrium and we will use the equilibrium Green’s function to characterize the pumping process. Using the distribution function, the total charge in the system during the pumping is given by

$$Q(x,t)=iq(dE/2\pi )(𝐆^<(E,\{V(t)\}))_{xx}$$
(12)
where $`𝐆^<`$ is the lesser Green’s function in real space, $`x`$ labels the position, and $`\{V(t)\}`$ describes a set of external parameters which facilitates the pumping process. Within Hartree approximation, $`𝐆^<`$ is related to the retarded and advanced Green’s functions $`𝐆^r`$ and $`𝐆^a`$,

$$𝐆^<(E,\{V\})=𝐆^r(E,\{V\})i\underset{\alpha }{}𝚪_\alpha f_\alpha (E)𝐆^a(E,\{V\}).$$
(13)
where $`f_\alpha (E)=f(EqV_\alpha )`$. In the low frequency limit, the retarded Green’s function in real space is given by

$$𝐆^r(E,\{X\})=\frac{1}{EH_0𝐕_p𝚺^r}$$
(14)
where $`𝚺^r_\alpha 𝚺_\alpha ^r`$ is the self energy, and $`𝚪_\alpha =2Im[𝚺_\alpha ^r]`$ is the linewidth function. In above equations, $`𝐆^{r,a,<}`$ denotes a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with matrix elements $`G_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}^{r,a<}`$ and $`\sigma =,`$. $`𝐕_p=V_p𝐈`$ where $`𝐈`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix in the spin space. In real space representation, $`V_p`$ is a diagonal matrix describing the variation of the potential landscape due to the external pumping parameter $`V`$. The self-energies are given

$$𝚺_\alpha ^r(E)=\widehat{R}_\alpha \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^r& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^r\end{array}\right)\widehat{R}_\alpha ^{}$$
(15)
and

$$𝚺_\alpha ^<(E)=if_\alpha \widehat{R}_\alpha \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^0\end{array}\right)\widehat{R}_\alpha ^{}$$
(16)
with the rotational matrix $`\widehat{R}_\alpha `$ for electrode $`\alpha `$ defined as

$$\widehat{R}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha /2& \mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha /2\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha /2& \mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha /2\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
Here angle $`\theta _\alpha `$ is defined as $`\theta _L=0`$ and $`\theta _R=\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \sigma }^r`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \sigma mn}^r=\underset{k}{}\frac{T_{k\alpha m}^{}T_{k\alpha n}}{Eϵ_{k\alpha \sigma }^0+i\delta }$$
(18)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \sigma }^0=2Im(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \sigma }^r)`$ is the linewidth function when $`\theta =0`$.

In order for a parametric electron pump to function at low frequency, we need simultaneous variation of two or more system parameters controlled by gate voltages: $`V_i(t)=V_{i0}+V_{ip}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\varphi _i)`$. Hence, in our case, the potential due to the gates can be written as $`V_p=_iV_i𝚫_i`$, where $`𝚫_i`$ is potential profile due to each pumping potential. For simplicity we assume a constant gate potential such as that $`(𝚫_1)_{xx}`$ is one for $`x`$ in the first gate region and zero otherwise. If the time variation of these parameters are slow, i.e. for $`V(t)=V_0+\delta V\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$, then the charge of the system coming from all contacts due to the infinitesimal change of the system parameter ($`\delta V0`$) is

$$dQ_p(t)=\underset{i}{}_{V_i}Tr[Q(x,t)]\delta V_i(t)$$
(19)
it is easily seen that the total charge in the system in a period is zero which is required for the charge conservation. To calculate the pumped current, we have to find the charge $`dQ_{p\alpha }`$ passing through contact $`\alpha `$ due to the change of the system parameters. Using the Dyson equation $`_{V_i}𝐆^r=𝐆^r\mathrm{\Delta }_i𝐆^r`$, the above equation becomes,

$`dQ_p(t)=q{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}\mathrm{Tr}[𝐆^r𝚫_j𝐆^r𝚪_\beta 𝐆^a`$ (20)
$`+𝐆^r𝚪_\beta 𝐆^a𝚫_j𝐆^a]f_\beta (E)\delta V_j(t)`$ (21)
$`=q{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }\underset{j}{}\underset{\beta }{}f_\beta \mathrm{Tr}[_E[𝐆^r𝚪_\beta 𝐆^a𝚫_j]]\delta V_j(t)}`$ (22)
where the wideband limit has been taken. Integrating by part, we obtain

$$dQ_p(t)=q𝑑E\underset{\beta }{}(_Ef_\beta )\underset{j}{}\frac{dN_\beta }{dV_j}\delta V_j(t)$$
(23)
where we have used the injectivity

$$\frac{dN_\beta }{dV_j}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}[𝐆^r𝚪_\beta 𝐆^a𝚫_j]$$
(24)
Using the partial density of states $`dN_{\alpha \beta }/dV_j`$ defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\alpha \beta }}{dV_j}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝐆^r𝚪_\alpha 𝐆^r\mathrm{\Delta }_j+c.c.]\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[i𝐆^r𝚪_\beta 𝐆^a𝚪_\alpha 𝐆^r\mathrm{\Delta }_j+c.c.]`$ (26)
with $`_\alpha dN_{\alpha \beta }/dV_j=dN_\beta /dV_j`$, we obtain

$$dQ_{p\alpha }(t)=q𝑑E\underset{\beta }{}(_Ef_\beta )\underset{j}{}\frac{dN_{\alpha \beta }}{dV_j}\delta V_j(t)$$
(27)
If we include the charge passing through contact $`\alpha `$ due the external bias, then

$`dQ_\alpha (t)=q{\displaystyle 𝑑E\underset{\beta }{}(_Ef_\beta )\underset{j}{}\frac{dN_{\alpha \beta }}{dV_j}\frac{dV_j(t)}{dt}dt}`$ (28)
$`q{\displaystyle 𝑑E\underset{\beta }{}\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_\alpha 𝐆^r𝚪_\beta 𝐆^a](f_\alpha f_\beta )dt}`$ (29)
Furthermore, the total current flowing through contact $`\alpha `$ due to both the variation of parameters $`V_j`$ and external bias, in one period, is given by

$$J_\alpha =\frac{1}{\tau }_0^\tau 𝑑t𝑑Q_\alpha /𝑑t$$
(30)
where $`\tau =2\pi /\omega `$ is the period of cyclic variation. If there are two pumping parameters, Eq.(30) can be written as when $`\alpha =1`$,

$`J_1^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\tau }}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑E_E(f_1f_2)\underset{j}{}}`$ (31)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{11}}{dV_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_j(t)}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{12}}{dV_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_j(t)}{dt}}]dt`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\tau }}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑E\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_1𝐆^r𝚪_2𝐆^a](f_1f_2)}`$ (33)
and

$`J_1^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\tau }}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑E_E(f_1+f_2)\underset{j}{}}`$ (34)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{11}}{dV_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_j(t)}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{12}}{dV_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_j(t)}{dt}}]dt`$ (35)
where $`J_1=J_1^{(1)}+J_2^{(2)}`$. In Ref., $`J_1^{(1)}`$ has been identified as the current due to the external bias and $`J^{(2)}`$ as pumping current. For $`\theta =0,\pi `$, all the $`2\times 2`$ matrix are diagonal. In this case, it is easy to show that Eq.(30) agrees with the result of Ref.. If the external bias is zero, Eq.(30) reduces to the familiar formula when there are two pumping potentials,

$$J_\alpha =\frac{q\omega }{2\pi }_0^\tau 𝑑t\left[\frac{dN_\alpha }{dX_1}\frac{dX_1}{dt}+\frac{dN_\alpha }{dX_2}\frac{dX_2}{dt}\right]$$
(36)
### B Finite frequency pumping in the weak pumping limit

In this subsection, we will calculate the pumping current at finite frequency. The Keldysh nonequilibrium Green’s function approach used here is in the standard tight-binding representation. We could not use the momentum space version because the time dependent perturbation (pumping potential) inside the scattering region is position dependent. Hence it is most suitable to use a tight-binding real space technique. In contrast, in previous investigations on photon-assisted processes the time-dependent potential is uniform throughout the dot and therefore a momentum space method is easier to apply.

Assuming the time-dependent perturbations located at the different sites, $`j=i_0,j_0`$, and $`k_0`$ etc, with

$$V_j(t)=V_j\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\varphi _j)$$
(37)
When there is no interaction between electrons in the ideal leads $`L`$ and $`R`$, the standard nonequilibrium Green’s function theory gives the following expression for the time dependent current,

$`J_\alpha (t)`$ $`=`$ $`q{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt_1\mathrm{Tr}[𝐆^r(t,t_1)𝚺_\alpha ^<(t_1,t)`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`𝐆^<(t,t_1)𝚺_\alpha ^a(t_1,t)+c.c.]`$ (39)
and transmission coefficient

$$T(E)=\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_L^r(E))𝐆^r(E)𝚪_R^r(E))𝐆^a(E)]$$
(40)
where the scattering Green’s functions and self-energy are defined in the usual manner:

$$𝐆_{ij\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{r,a}(t_1,t_2)=i\theta (\pm t_1t_2)\{d_{i,\sigma }(t_1),d_{j,\sigma ^{}}^+(t_2)\}$$
(41)
$$𝐆_{ij,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}^<(t_1,t_2)=id_{j,\sigma ^{}}^+(t_2)d_{i,\sigma ,}(t_1)$$
(42)
$$𝚺_{\alpha ij}^{r,a,<}(t_1,t_2)=\underset{k}{}T_{\alpha ki}^{}T_{\alpha kj}𝐠_\alpha ^{r,a,<}(t_1,t_2)$$
(43)
The average current $`J_L(t)`$ from the left lead can be written as

$`<J_L(t)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }dt{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt_1Tr[𝐆_{11}^r(t,t_1)𝚺_L^<(t_1,t)`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`𝐆_{11}^<(t,t_1)𝚺_L^a(t_1,t)+c.c.]`$ (45)
In the absence of pumping, the retarded Green’s function is defined in terms of the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$,

$$𝐆^{0r}(E)=\frac{1}{EH_0𝚺^r}$$
(46)
and $`𝐆^{0<}`$ is related to the retarded and advanced Green’s functions $`𝐆^{0r}`$ and $`𝐆^{0a}`$ by,

$$𝐆^{0<}(E)=𝐆^{0r}(E)𝚺^<(E)𝐆^{0a}(E)$$
(47)
Now we make use of the time-dependent pumping potentials $`V_j(t)`$ as the perturbations to calculate all kinds of Green’s functions up to the second order, and corresponding average current.

First, we calculate the current corresponding to the term $`𝐆_{11}^r(t,t_1)𝚺_L^<(t_1,t)`$ in Eq.(45). Dyson equation for $`𝐆_{11}^r(t,t_1)`$ gives the second order contribution:

$`𝐆_{11}^{(2)r}(t,t_1)={\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y𝐆_{1j}^{0r}(tx)}`$ (48)
$`𝐕_j(x)𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(xy)𝐕_k(y)𝐆_{k1}^{0r}(yt_1)`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}𝐆_{1j}^{0r}𝐕_j𝐆_{jk}^{0r}𝐕_k𝐆_{k1}^{0r}`$ (50)
Substituting Eq.(50) into Eq.(45) and completing the integration over time $`x,y,t_1,t`$, it is not difficult to calculate the average current $`<J_{L1}>`$ due to the first term in Eq.(45) (see appendix for details),

$`<J_{L1}(t)>={\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}Tr[𝚺_L^<𝐆_{1j}^{0r}`$ (51)
$`[𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}+𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_+)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}]𝐆_{k1}^{0r}]`$ (52)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}=\varphi _k\varphi _j`$ is the phase difference, $`E_\pm =E\pm \omega `$, and $`G^{r,a,<}G^{r,a,<}(E)`$.

Now we calculate the second term $`𝐆_{11}^<(t,t_1)𝚺_L^a(t_1,t)`$ in Eq.(45). Using Keldysh equation, $`𝐆^<=𝐆^r𝚺^<𝐆^a`$ , we have

$$𝐆_{jk}^<=𝐆_{j1}^r𝚺_L^<𝐆_{1k}^a+𝐆_{jN}^r𝚺_R^<𝐆_{Nk}^a$$
(53)
where $`𝚺_\alpha ^<=i𝚪_\alpha f_\alpha `$. Expanding $`G^{r,a}`$ up to the second order in pumping parameters, we obtain the second order contribution from $`𝐆_{11}^<`$,

$`𝐆_{11}^{(2)<}=𝐆_{11}^r𝚺_L^<𝐆_{11}^a+𝐆_{1N}^r𝚺_R^<𝐆_{N1}^a`$ (56)
$`=𝐆_{11}^{(2)r}𝚺_L^<𝐆_{11}^{0a}+𝐆_{11}^{(1)r}𝚺_L^<𝐆_{11}^{(1)a}+𝐆_{11}^{0r}𝚺_L^<𝐆_{11}^{(2)a}`$
$`+𝐆_{1N}^{(2)r}𝚺_R^<𝐆_{N1}^{0a}+𝐆_{1N}^{(1)r}𝚺_R^<𝐆_{N1}^{(1)a}+𝐆_{1N}^{0r}𝚺_R^<𝐆_{N1}^{(2)a}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}[𝐆_{1j}^{0r}𝐕_j𝐆_{jk}^{0r}𝐕_k𝐆_{k1}^{0<}+𝐆_{1j}^{0r}𝐕_j𝐆_{jk}^{0<}𝐕_k𝐆_{k1}^{0a}`$ (58)
$`+𝐆_{1j}^{0<}𝐕_j𝐆_{jk}^{0a}𝐕_k𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$
where we have used Eq.(53) to simplify the expression. After some algebra, we have the following three expressions corresponding to each term in Eq.(58),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝚺_L^a𝐆_{1j}^{0r}`$ (59)
$`[𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_+)]𝐆_{k1}^{0<}]`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}Tr[𝚺_L^a𝐆_{1j}^{0r}`$ (61)
$`[𝐆_{jk}^{0<}(E_{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}𝐆_{jk}^{0<}(E_+)]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}Tr[𝚺_L^a𝐆_{1j}^{0<}`$ (63)
$`[𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_+)]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$ (64)
The final pumped current is the sum of Eq.(52), (60), (62), (64) and their complex conjugates, in addition to the current directly due to the external bias (see second term of Eq.(33)). If the external bias is zero, the expression of the pumped current can be simplified significantly. Note that in the equilibrium, the lesser Green’s function satisfys the fluctuation-dissipation theorem,

$$𝐆^{0<}(E)=f(E)\left[𝐆^{0r}(E)𝐆^{0a}(E)\right]$$
(65)
and

$$𝐆^{0<}(E_\pm )=f(E_\pm )\left[𝐆^{0r}(E_\pm )𝐆^{0a}(E_\pm )\right]$$
(66)
(52)+(60)+(64) leads to

$`i{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_L𝐆_{1j}^{0r}f(E)`$ (67)
$`[𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}𝐆_{kj}^{0r}(E_+)]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$ (68)
while (52)+(60)+(64) gives to

$`i{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_L𝐆_{1j}^{0r}f(E)`$ (69)
$`[𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_{})e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_+)]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$ (70)
furthermore, (62)+c.c. becomes

$`i{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_L𝐆_{1j}^{0r}`$ (71)
$`[f_{}(𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_{})𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_{}))e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}`$ (72)
$`+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}f_+(𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_+)𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_+))]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$ (73)
where $`f_\pm =f(E_\pm )`$.

Combining Eqs.(68), (70) and (73), we finally obtain

$`J_L=i{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{qV_jV_k}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝚪_L𝐆_{1j}^{0r}`$ (74)
$`[(f_{}f)(𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_{})𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_{}))e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}`$ (75)
$`+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}}(f_+f)(𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E_+)𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E_+))]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}]`$ (76)
In the limit of small frequency, we expand Eq.(76) up to the first order in frequency and use the fact that

$$𝐆^{0r}𝐆^{0a}=i𝐆^{0r}𝚪𝐆^{0a}$$
(77)
and Dyson equation,

$$𝐆_{ji}^{0r}𝐆_{ik}^{0r}=\frac{𝐆_{jk}^{0r}}{𝐕_𝐢}$$
(78)
we obtain,

$`J_L={\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q\omega V_jV_k\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj})}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }_Ef(E)}`$ (79)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{𝚪_L𝐆_{1j}^{0r}(E)\left[𝐆_{jk}^{0r}(E)𝐆_{jk}^{0a}(E)\right]𝐆_{k1}^{0a}(E)\right\}`$ (80)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{iq\omega V_jV_k\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk})}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }_Ef(E)}`$ (81)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝚪_L{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆_{11}^{0r}}{𝐕_j}}𝚪_L{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆_{11}^{0a}}{𝐕_k}}+𝚪_L{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆_{12}^{0r}}{𝐕_j}}𝚪_R{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆_{21}^{0a}}{𝐕_k}}\right]`$ (82)
which is the same as Ref. when $`\theta =0`$.

## III Results

We now apply our formula Eqs.(33), (35) and (76) to a TMR junction. For current perpendicular to the plane geometry, the TMR junction can be modeled by an one-dimensional quantum structure with a double barrier potential $`U(x)=X_1\delta (x+a)+X_2\delta (xa)`$ where $`2a`$ is the well width. For this system the Green’s function $`G(x,x^{})`$ can be calculated exactly. The adiabatic pump that we consider is operated by changing barrier heights adiabatically and periodically: $`X_1=V_0+V_p\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)`$ and $`X_2=V_0+V_p\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+\varphi )`$. In the following, we will study zero temperature behavior of the pumped current. In the calculation, we have chosen $`M=37.0`$ and $`V_0=79.2`$. Finally the unit is set by $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$.

We first study the pumped current with two pumping potentials in the adiabatic regime. Fig.1 depicts the transmission coefficient $`T`$ versus Fermi energy at several angles $`\theta `$. As expected, among different angles, $`T`$ is the largest at $`\theta =0`$ and smallest at $`\theta =\pi `$ with the ratio $`T_{max}(0)/T_{max}(\pi )4`$. This gives the usual spin valve effect. Fig.2 plots the pumped current versus Fermi energy at different $`\theta `$. Here we have set the phase difference of two pumping potentials to be $`\pi /2`$. Similar to the transmission coefficient, we obtain largest pumped current at $`\theta =0`$ and smallest current at $`\theta =\pi `$. We found that the ratio $`I_{max}(0)/I_{max}(\pi )`$ is about the same as that of transmission coefficient. As the pumping amplitude doubles, the peak of pumped current is broadened and the maximum pumped current is doubled (see inset of Fig.2). This is understandable since at large pumping amplitude the instantaneous resonant level oscillates with a large amplitude and hence can generate heat current in a broad range of energy. The spin valve effect of pumped current is illustrated in Fig.3 where the pumped current versus $`\theta `$ is shown when the system is at resonance. We see that the pumped current is maximum at $`\theta =0`$ and decreases quickly as one increases $`\theta `$ from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$. For larger pumping amplitude, we have similar behavior (inset of Fig.3). In Fig.4, we plot the pumped current as a function of phase difference $`\varphi `$ between two pumping potentials. We see that the pumped current is antisymmetric about the $`\varphi =\pi `$. The nonlinear behavior is clearly seen which deviates from the sinusoidal behavior at small pumping amplitude. In Fig.5, we show the pumped current in the presence of external bias. In the calculation we assume that $`V_L=\omega V/2`$ and $`V_R=\omega V/2`$ so that the external bias is against the pumped current when $`V`$ is positive. Due to the external bias, the total pumped current (dashed line) decreases near resonant energy and reverses the direction at other energies. Now we turn to the case of finite frequency pumping. We first present our results (Fig.6 to Fig.8) at small pumping frequency $`\omega =0.002`$. In Fig.6 we plot the pumped current as a function of phase difference $`\varphi `$ near the resonant energy. At $`\theta =0`$, the magnitude of pumped current is much larger than that at $`\theta =\pi /2`$ or $`\pi `$. We notice that at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$, the pumped current is nonzero similar to the experimental anomaly observed experimentally for nonmagnetic system. The pumped current away from resonant energy is shown in Fig.7. At $`\theta =0`$, we see that the pumped current is sharply peaked at resonant energy. The pumped current is positive for $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ and negative for $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi `$. At $`\theta =\pi /2`$ or $`\pi `$, the pumped current at $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ (dashed line) is much larger than that at other angles. Fig.8 displays the pumped current as a function of $`\theta `$ near resonant energy. For $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ (dotted line), we see the usual behavior that large pumped current occurs at $`\theta =0`$ and it decreases to the minimum at $`\theta =\pi `$. For $`\varphi =0`$ or $`\pi `$, however, we see completely different behavior. The pumped current is the still the largest at $`\theta =0`$ but the direction of the pumped current is reversed. As one increases $`\theta `$, the pumped current decreases and reaches a flat region with almost zero pumped current. Now we study the effect of frequency to the pumped current versus $`\theta `$ (see Fig.9). We will fix the phase difference to be $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ and energy near resonance. At small frequency $`\omega =0.002`$ (dashed line), the pumped current versus $`\theta `$ show usual behavior. When the frequency is increased to $`\omega =0.004`$ (dot-dashed line), two peaks show up symmetrically near $`\theta =\pm \pi /4`$ while the minimum is still at $`\theta =\pi `$. As frequency is increased further to $`\omega =0.006`$ (dotted line), the pumped current near $`\theta =0`$ reverses the direction and the new peak position shifts to $`\theta 0.35\pi `$. Upon further increasing $`\omega `$, the curve of pumped current versus $`\theta `$ develops a flat region between $`\theta =\pm 0.35\pi `$ with positive current while the magnitude of the negative pumped current at $`\theta =0`$ becomes larger (see Fig.9b). Finally, at even larger frequency $`\omega =0.1`$, all the pumped currents are negative. This behavior can be understood from the photon assisted process. The quantum interference between contributions due to photon emission (or absorption) near two pumping potentials is essential to understand the nature of pumped current. In addition to the interference effect, the pumped current is also affected by a competition of between the photon emission and absorption processes which tend to cancel to each other. It is the interplay between this competition and interference that gives rise to the interesting spin valve effect for the pumped current. Finally, we show in Fig.10 the pumped current versus pumping frequency. We see that at small frequency the current is positive and small, at large frequency the current is much large and is negative.

In summary, we have developed a general theory for parametric pumping in the presence of ferromagnetic leads. Our theory is based on the nonequilibrium Green’s function method and is valid for multi-modes (in two or three dimensions) and can be easily extended to the case of multi-probes (although most of calculations are for two probes). In the parametric pumping, two kinds of driving forces are present: multiple pumping potentials inside the scattering system as well as the external bias in the multi-probes. Two cases are considered. In the adiabatic regime, the system is in near equilibrium. In this case our theory is for general pumping amplitude. At finite frequency, the system is away from equilibrium. Our theory is up the quadratic order in pumping amplitude. This theory allows us to examine the pumped current in broader parameter space including pumping amplitude, pumping frequency, phase difference between two pumping potentials, the angle between magnetization of two leads.

## Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge support by a RGC grant from the SAR Government of Hong Kong under grant number HKU 7091/01P.

## IV Appendix

Now we show that

$`B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_1\mathrm{Tr}[𝐅_0(t_1,t)𝐆(t,t_1)]`$ (83)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{V_\alpha V_\beta }{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Tr}[𝐅_0(E)𝐅_1(E)[𝐅_2(E_+)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \alpha }}`$ (84)
$`+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \alpha }}𝐅_2(E_{})]𝐅_3(E)]`$ (85)
where

$$𝐆𝐅_1𝐕_\alpha 𝐅_2𝐕_\beta 𝐅_3$$
(86)
and $`F_i`$’s ($`i=0,1,2,3`$) satisfy $`F_i(t_1,t_2)=F_i(t_1t_2)`$.

Taking the Fourier transform,

$$𝐅(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑Ee^{iEt}𝐅(E)$$
(87)
we obtain

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }𝐅_0(E)e^{iE(t_1t)}𝑑x𝑑y}`$ (88)
$`[𝐅_1(tx)V_\alpha (x)𝐅_2(xy)V_\beta (y)𝐅_3(yt_1)]`$ (89)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,5}{}\frac{dE_i}{2\pi }\frac{dE}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t_1𝑑x𝑑y}`$ (90)
$`𝐅_0(E)𝐅_1(E_1)𝐕_\alpha (E_2)𝐅_2(E_3)𝐕_\beta (E_4)𝐅_3(E_5)`$ (91)
$`e^{i(EE_1)t}e^{i(E_5E)t_1}e^{i(E_1E_2E_3)x}e^{i(E_3E_4E_5)y}`$ (92)
where

$$𝐕_\alpha (E)=\pi V_\alpha [e^{i\varphi _\alpha }\delta (E_+)+e^{i\varphi _\alpha }\delta (E_{})]$$
(93)
Integrating over x and y yields,

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,5}{}\frac{dE_i}{2\pi }\frac{dE}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t_1𝐅_0(E)}`$ (94)
$`𝐅_1(E_1)𝐕_\alpha (E_2)𝐅_2(E_3)𝐕_\beta (E_4)𝐅_3(E_5)e^{i(EE_1)t}`$ (95)
$`e^{i(E_5E)t_1}(2\pi )^2\delta (E_1E_2E_3)\delta (E_5E_4E_5)`$ (96)
Integrating over $`t_1,t`$ and using Eq.(93), we have

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{dE_2}{2\pi }\frac{dE_4}{2\pi }\frac{dE_5}{2\pi }\frac{dE}{2\pi }\frac{𝐅_0(E)}{i[E_5Ei\delta ]}}`$ (97)
$`𝐅_1(E_2+E_4+E_5)𝐕_\alpha (E_2)𝐅_2(E_4+E_5)`$ (98)
$`𝐕_\beta (E_4)𝐅_3(E_5)\delta (E_2+E_4)`$ (99)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{V_\alpha V_\beta }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE_5}{2\pi }\frac{dE}{2\pi }\frac{𝐅_0(E)}{i[E_5Ei\delta ]}𝐅_1(E_5)}`$ (100)
$`[𝐅_2(E_5+\omega )e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \alpha }}+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \alpha }}𝐅_2(E_5\omega )]𝐅_3(E_5)`$ (101)
Using the theorem of residue, we have

$$𝑑E\frac{F_0(E)}{i[E_5Ei\delta ]}=2\pi F_0(E_5)$$
(102)
we thus obtain Eq.(85).

<sup>a)</sup> Electronic mail: jianwang@hkusub.hku.hk


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Giant gravitons are massless particles in supergravity which expand into branes. In $`AdS\times S`$ backgrounds they are massless particles with large angular momentum on the sphere. As first described by McGreevy, Susskind and Toumbas  these particles blow-up into branes which are expanded within the sphere.

A particularly interesting feature, shown by Das, Trivedi and Vaidya  is that giant gravitons exist in more general backgrounds including the near-horizon limits of non-extremal brane backgrounds which preserve no supersymmetry.

Myers and Tafjord  found evidence that particular type IIB supergravity backgrounds (superstar geometries) contain giant gravitons, by looking at dipole moments of the five-form field strength, which are non-vanishing in the presence of expanded D3-brane sources. This was further investigated in the analogous eleven-dimensional supergravity backgrounds . In , giant graviton probe calculations were performed in the superstar background to show that in a simple case (with only one non-zero angular momentum on the sphere) the giant gravitons which were supposed to source the singularity of the geometry could consistently be placed at this singularity.

The ten-dimensional geometries investigated in  arise as lifts  of certain gauged supergravity solutions describing the extremal limit of charged black-holes in five dimensions . In trying to understand the general multi-charge superstar geometry probe calculation which was left undone in  we found that these calculations can be performed in any background which is a lift of a solution of one of these gauged supergravities. This shows that giant graviton states which are degenerate with massless particle states exist (at the level of classical solutions) in a large class of backgrounds which in general preserve no supersymmetry. This requires a number of remarkable cancellations between terms in the probe calculations. We comment on the possible relevance of this result in the conclusion.

The paper is structured as follows. We focus on the lifts of U$`(1)^3`$ gauged five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity to type IIB supergravity although similar results can be expected to hold for the closely related cases of lifts of U$`(1)^4`$ four-dimensional and U$`(1)^2`$ seven-dimensional gauged supergravities to eleven-dimensional supergravity. In section 2 we review the truncation ansatz and rearrange it into a suitable form for our calculations. In particular we present the results of integrating the five-form field strength to find the four-form gauge potential which couples to D3-branes. In section 3 we perform a probe computation with a massless particle and see that it behaves like a charged massive particle in five dimensions. We then show in section 4 that we get the same result from a giant graviton probe computation. In section 5 we apply these results to the specific case of the ten-dimensional superstar geometries and show that in general the naked singularities of these spacetimes appear to repel the giant gravitons which are supposed to source them. We finish with some comments and suggestions for future investigation.

## 2 The truncation ansatz

The bosonic fields of the five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity with gauge group $`U(1)^3`$ are the metric, three $`U(1)`$ gauge fields $`A^i`$ (i=1,2,3) and two scalar fields which are usefully parametrized as $`X_i`$ obeying $`X_1X_2X_3=1`$.

The Lagrangian for the theory is

$$e^1=R\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}(X_i^1X_i)^2+\frac{4}{L^2}\underset{i}{}X_i^1\frac{1}{4}\underset{i}{}X_i^2(F_{(2)}^i)^2\frac{1}{4}e^1ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \lambda }F_{\mu \nu }^1F_{\rho \sigma }^2A_\lambda ^3$$
(1)
which leads to the equations of motion:

$`d(X_1^2_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^1)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{(2)}^2F_{(2)}^3\mathrm{and}\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{permutations},`$ (2)
$`d(X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}M_{ij}[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{L^2}}ϵ_{(1,4)}X_j^1X_j^2F_{(2)}^j_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^j],`$ (3)
where $`M_{ij}=\delta _{ij}1/3`$.

The ten dimensional lift ansatz is  111The lift in the case without the scalar fields (i.e. $`X_i=1`$) was first found in .:

$$ds_{10}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_{1,4}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\underset{i}{}X_i^1(L^2d\mu _i^2+\mu _i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]^2)$$
(4)
and $`F_{(5)}=G_{(5)}+G_{(5)}`$ where

$`G_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(X_i^2\mu _i^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)ϵ_{(1,4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_id(\mu _i^2)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^2d(\mu _i^2)[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i`$
Here, $`ds_{1,4}^2`$ and $`ϵ_{(1,4)}`$ are the metric and volume form of the five dimensional geometry and $`_{(1,4)}`$ denotes the Hodge dual with respect to the five dimensional metric. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i}{}X_i\mu _i^2.$$
(6)
The three quantities $`\mu _i`$ are non-negative real variables subject to the constraint $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$ and we parametrize them by

$$\mu _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _1,\mu _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,\mu _3=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2.$$
(7)
where $`0\theta _1\pi /2`$ and $`0\theta _2\pi /2`$. The angles $`\varphi _i`$ are unconstrained with $`0\varphi _i<2\pi `$. I.e. each pair $`\{\mu _i,\varphi _i\}`$ are planar polar coordinates and the constraint on the $`\mu _i`$ describes the embedding of a unit $`S^5`$ in flat $`𝐑^6`$.

In what follows, we will need explicit expressions for $`F_{(5)}`$ and for the potential $`A_{(4)}`$ satisfying $`dA_{(4)}=F_{(5)}`$ which gives the coupling to D3-brane probes. The calculations needed to find these expressions can be found in appendices A and B, but the final answers are rather simple. The two pieces in the self-dual five-form $`F_{(5)}`$ are $`G_{(5)}`$, given above in equation (5) and

$`G_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(X_i^2\mu _i^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)L^2W{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)dx^\nu LZ_i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}X_i\mu _iZ_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^j`$
where $`W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\theta _1d\theta _2`$ is the volume form on the two-sphere spanned by $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3`$ and where 222We use similar notation to . $`Z_i=ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^jd\mu ^k`$, $`Z_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}d\mu ^k`$. For one-forms $`d\varphi _i`$ our notation is:

$$\underset{ki}{}d\varphi _k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{jk}{}ϵ_{ijk}d\varphi _jd\varphi _k$$

As shown in appendix B, $`F_{(5)}`$ can (almost) be written in a manifestly closed form from which it is easy to read off the pieces of $`A_{(4)}`$:

$`A_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i]`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mu _2^2{\displaystyle \underset{k3}{}}[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mu _3^2{\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i\mu _iZ_{1i}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]+\stackrel{~}{A}_{(4)}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{(4)}`$ is a four-form satisfying

$$d\stackrel{~}{A}_{(4)}=\frac{4}{3L}\underset{i}{}X_i^1ϵ_{(1,4)}\frac{L}{6}\underset{i}{}X_i^2F_{(2)}^i_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i\frac{L}{2}[Ld\varphi _1+A^1]F_{(2)}^2F_{(2)}^3$$
(10)
The precise form of the piece of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{(4)}`$ in the five-dimensional spacetime will depend on the particular solution for the $`X_i`$ and is not important for the calculations we will perform. Note that $`A_{(4)}`$ is only locally well-defined since it becomes singular if $`\mu _1`$ vanishes 333There are of course similar alternative expressions which become singular if $`\mu _2`$ or $`\mu _3`$ vanish. Note that these singularities are unavoidable since e.g. $`F_{(5)}`$ contains the volume-form on the 5-sphere which is closed but not exact.. In section 4 we will consider a D3-brane at constant $`\theta _1`$ so the above expression is well-defined (for $`\mu _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _10`$) and, for example, we can read off, after substituting equations (7) and some simple manipulations,

$$A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\varphi _2\varphi _3}^{(4)}=\frac{L^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\left(X_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+X_3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\right)$$
(11)
## 3 A massless particle probe

As a warm up for what follows we consider the action of a massless particle which carries some conserved angular momentum on the five-sphere but otherwise minimizes its energy in the internal space. For example a massless particle which is stationary on the internal sphere would appear simply as a massless particle in the remaining five dimensions. More generally we might expect that a massless particle with some angular momentum would appear massive and charged in five-dimensions.

For convenience we start from the action for a massive particle in ten-dimensions and later take the mass $`m`$ to zero.

$$S=m𝑑t\sqrt{det(𝒫(g))}$$
(12)
where $`𝒫(g)`$ is the pullback of the spacetime metric onto the particle’s world line and is given by

$$𝒫(g)=g_{mn}\dot{x}^m\dot{x}^n$$
(13)
Here $`x^m`$ are coordinates on ten-dimensional space with $`x^0=t`$ and $`\dot{x}^m`$ is the derivative of $`x^m`$ wrt. $`t`$. The metric $`g_{mn}`$ is given by equation (4) and it is convenient to use coordinates $`x^\mu (\mu =0\mathrm{}4),\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi _i`$. We consider a particle with angular momenta in the $`\varphi _i`$ directions but stationary in the $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ directions. The Lagrangian becomes:

$$=m\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x^\mu }\dot{x^\nu })\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\underset{i}{}X_i^1\mu _i^2(L\dot{\varphi _i}+A_\mu ^i\dot{x^\mu })^2}$$
(14)
Since all the fields in the lift ansatz are independent of $`\varphi _i`$, the action we have written down has no explicit $`\varphi _i`$ dependence and we can replace $`\dot{\varphi _i}(t)`$ with conjugate momenta $`P_i`$ which are conserved in time. The resulting Routhian is found to be:

$$=\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x^\mu }\dot{x^\nu }}\left(\underset{i}{}\frac{P_i^2X_i\mathrm{\Delta }}{L^2\mu _i^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{L}\underset{i}{}\dot{x^\mu }A_\mu ^iP_i.$$
(15)
where we have now taken the limit $`m0`$.

We need to find the minimum of the energy with respect to the $`\mu _i`$. If we define vectors $`𝐔`$ and $`𝐕`$ by:

$`U_i`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{X_i}{\mu _i^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_i}{L}}\text{ for i = 1,2,3}`$
$`V_i`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{X_i\mu _i^2}\text{ for i = 1,2,3}`$
Then

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_i^2X_i\mathrm{\Delta }}{L^2\mu _i^2}}\right)^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`|𝐔||𝐕|`$
$``$ $`𝐔.𝐕\text{ (Schwarz inequality)}`$
with equality iff. $`𝐔`$ and $`𝐕`$ are parallel. Thus the minimum of the energy occurs at $`\mu _i^2=(P_i/_jP_j)`$, taking into account the constraint $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$.

The resulting charged particle Lagrangian in five dimensions is:

$$=\frac{1}{L}\underset{i}{}\left(P_iX_i\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x^\mu }\dot{x^\nu }}+\dot{x^\nu }A_\nu ^iP_i\right).$$
(16)
It should be noted that in the calculation above, the choice of five-dimensional geometry (and background fields) and the motion of the particle probe in the five non-compact directions remains arbitrary throughout. It is perhaps rather surprising that it is possible to minimize the energy of a massless probe in the compact space independently of these details. Presumably this is illustrating some special properties of the lift ansatz. It would be interesting to understand this in more detail.

## 4 Giant graviton probes

In this section we consider probing the ten-dimensional lift ansatz of section 2 with giant gravitons. We find that, as with the massless particle probes of the previous section, it is possible to find minimum energy configurations in the compact directions without specifying a particular five-dimensional solution or any particular motion of the probe in the five non-compact dimensions. As with the massless particle probes, the giant gravitons behave simply as massive charged particles in five dimensions.

Our giant graviton probe will be a D3-brane with the topology of an $`S^3`$ lying inside the $`S^5`$. In particular the brane will ‘wrap’ the $`\theta _2`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ directions while moving rigidly in the $`\varphi _1`$ direction at fixed $`\theta _1`$. The motion of the probe in the non-compact directions remains arbitrary with the assumption that it is independent of $`\theta _2`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$, i.e. we only consider rigid motion of the brane. While it is not initially obvious that this is a consistent way of embedding the brane, we will see that it does in fact give a minimal energy configuration. Specifically we find that the brane action reduces to a particle action in five dimensions – independent of $`\theta _2`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ and with $`\theta _1`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }_1`$ constant.

The action for the D3-brane probe is:

$$S_3=T_3𝑑t𝑑\theta _2𝑑\varphi _2𝑑\varphi _3\left[\sqrt{det(𝒫(g))}+\dot{x^\nu }A_{\nu \theta _2\varphi _2\varphi _3}^{(4)}+\dot{\varphi _1}A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\varphi _2\varphi _3}^{(4)}\right]$$
(17)
Our first task in evaluating this action will be to find the pieces of the RR four-form potential $`A^{(4)}`$ which couple to the probe. It is straightforward to read off the relevant pieces of $`A^{(4)}`$ from equation (9). We find

$$\dot{x^\nu }A_{\nu \theta _2\varphi _2\varphi _3}^{(4)}+\dot{\varphi _1}A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\varphi _2\varphi _3}^{(4)}=\frac{L^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(18)
where $`\alpha =X_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+X_3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}L\dot{\varphi _1}+\dot{x^\nu }A_\nu ^1`$.

Combining this with the terms coming from the pullback of the metric we find

$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`T_3L^3{\displaystyle }dtd\theta _2d\varphi _2d\varphi _3[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}X_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha ^{1/2}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}{X_1\mathrm{\Delta }}}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}]`$
Since all the fields in the lift ansatz are independent of $`\varphi _1`$, the action we have written down has no explicit $`\varphi _1`$ dependence and we can replace $`\dot{\varphi _1}`$ with a conjugate momentum $`P_{\varphi _1}(\theta _2,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$ which is independent of time. The resulting Routhian is found to be:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{X_1\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}}\left(P_{\varphi _1}N{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }V_3}}\right)^2+N^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^6\theta _1X_1^2\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }V_3^2}}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\dot{x^\nu }A_\nu ^1P_{\varphi _1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }X_1\sqrt{P_{\varphi _1}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{X_1}}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1(P_{\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_3}}N\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2)^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\dot{x^\nu }A_\nu ^1P_{\varphi _1},`$
where $`N=V_3T_3L^4`$ and $`V_3=2\pi ^2`$ is the volume of a unit $`S^3`$ in $`𝐑^4`$.

Minimizing over $`\theta _1`$ is now straightforward. The expanded minimum occurs when $`P_{\varphi _1}(\theta _2,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)=\frac{1}{V_3}P_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2`$ for some constant $`P_1`$ and $`N\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1=P_1`$. (There is also a zero-size minimum when $`\theta _1=0`$ corresponding to the massless particle probe of the previous section.) It is easy to check that this form for $`P_{\varphi _1}`$ implies that $`\dot{\varphi _1}`$ is constant. If we substitute these values back into the Routhian and integrate over $`\theta _2`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ the resulting particle Lagrangian is:

$$=\frac{1}{L}\left(P_1X_1\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }+\dot{x^\nu }A_\nu ^1P_1\right)$$
(21)
It is remarkable that the complicated action of equation (19) should reduce to such a simple form when we consider minimum energy configurations in the compact directions. The crucial step is that the Routhian (20) rearranges into a sum of squares to make minimization over $`\theta _1`$ simple. That this occurs in the absence of supersymmetry is somewhat surprising and merits further investigation.

Equation (21) is the same Lagrangian for a charged particle in five dimensions which we saw in the previous section. The conclusion is that probing with the giant graviton is equivalent to probing with a massless particle in ten-dimensions and both are equivalent to probing with a charged massive particle in five-dimensions.

## 5 Superstars and giant gravitons

In this section we apply the giant graviton probe results which we have found for general lifts of the five-dimensional supergravity, to study a specific example - the superstar geometries of . These geometries are believed to be the supergravity backgrounds corresponding to a collection of giant gravitons in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$.

The five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity admits charged $`AdS`$ black hole solutions  which in the extremal limit can be written in the form

$$ds_{1,4}^2=(H_1H_2H_3)^{2/3}fdt^2+(H_1H_2H_3)^{1/3}(f^1r^2dr^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2),$$
(22)
$$A_{(1)}^i=q_iH_i^1dti=1,2,3,$$
(23)
$$X_i=H_i^1(H_1H_2H_3)^{1/3},$$
(24)
where we have introduced

$$f=(r^2q_3)^2+\frac{1}{L^2}H_1H_2H_3,$$
(25)
$$H_i=r^2+q_iq_3,$$
(26)
The $`q_i`$’s are the three $`U(1)`$ charges and without loss of generality we have chosen $`q_1q_2q_30`$. In this extremal limit there is a naked singularity at $`r=0`$.

These solutions can be lifted to ten-dimensions using the lift ansatz, equations (4) and (5), giving rise to the type IIB superstar geometries. We shall not use the explicit form of the ten-dimensional solution here (it can be found in references ), but we note that the five-form $`F_{(5)}`$ contains a piece:

$`F_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^2d(\mu _i^2)[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i=\mathrm{}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`L{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_id(\mu _i^2)[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]e_{\alpha _1}e_{\alpha _2}e_{\alpha _3}+\mathrm{}`$
where the $`e_{\alpha _i}`$ are a vielbein on the sphere in the AdS space with metric $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$. It was argued in  that this corresponds to the dipole sourced by a collection of giant gravitons at $`r=0`$. If $`n_i`$ represents the total number of giant gravitons with non-zero momentum in the $`\varphi _i`$ direction then the density of such giant gravitons can be shown to be :

$$\frac{dn_i}{d\mu _i}=2\frac{Nq_i}{L^2}\mu _i.$$
(28)
Using the result $`P_1=N\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1`$, (or more generally $`P_i=N(1\mu _i^2)`$,) derived in the previous section, this shows that the total angular momentum of the geometry carried by each set of giant gravitons is:

$$P_i^{total}=\frac{N^2}{2}\frac{q_i}{L^2}.$$
(29)
This is equal  to the total angular momentum carried by the five-dimensional geometry . The probe calculations of the previous section provide the necessary justification for the use of the formula $`P_i=N(1\mu _i^2)`$ in the general superstar backgrounds.

In order to identify the naked singularities in the superstar geometries as corresponding to a collection of giant gravitons we should further check whether giant graviton probes minimize their energy at the singularity. We consider giant graviton probes carrying angular momentum in the $`\varphi _i`$ direction. The results of the previous section show that it is equivalent to probe the five-dimensional charged black holes with the charged particle probe of equation (21). We insert the fields of equations (22)–(24) into the probe action (21) and look for a stationary solution ($`\dot{x}^\mu =0`$ for $`\mu 0`$.) The resulting energy of the probe is:

$$E_i=\frac{P_i}{L}\frac{f^{1/2}+q_i}{H_i}$$
(30)
The question we are interesting in answering is whether the singularity $`r=0`$ corresponds to a BPS minimum ($`E_i=P_i/L`$) for each type of probe. It turns out that there are several distinct cases to consider.

* $`q_1=q_2=q_3=0`$ – All three types of probe have a BPS minimum at $`r=0`$ as expected.
* $`q_2=q_3=0`$ with $`q_1`$ non-zero – The probe coupling to $`A^1`$ has a BPS minimum while the probes coupling to $`A^2`$ or $`A^3`$ appear to have non-BPS minima ($`E_{2,3}=\sqrt{1+q_{2,3}/L^2}P_{2,3}/L`$) at $`r=0`$.
* $`q_3=0`$ with $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ non-zero – For the probes coupling to $`A^1`$ or $`A^2`$, the energy saturates the BPS bound at $`r=0`$ but the gradient of the potential is non-zero indicating an attractive force at the singularity. For the probe coupling to $`A^3`$ the energy diverges as $`r0`$ and there is an infinite repulsive force.
* All $`q_i`$ non-zero – The singularity is repulsive to all three types of probe. Furthermore there is an infinite repulsive force on the probe coupling to $`A^3`$ (and on the probes coupling to $`A^i`$ in the special cases $`q_i=q_3`$.)

The meaning of these results is not entirely clear. For a singly charged superstar, the fact that a probe with the same type of charge as the background has a BPS minimum energy configuration at the singularity agrees with the interpretation of the singularity as a collection of giant gravitons. However, in the other cases agreement is not reached. A possible resolution is that curvature corrections to the supergravity background and to the D3-brane action could modify the results in these less supersymmetric cases.

## 6 Conclusions

We have considered giant gravitons probing solutions of type IIB supergravity which are lifts of solutions of a five-dimensional gauged supergravity. In particular we have shown that the structure of the lift ansatz ensures that the action for a giant graviton reduces to that of a massive charged particle in five dimensions. The mass and charge of this particle are equal, suggesting that this is the bosonic part of a superparticle action. So it seems that the consistent truncation ansatz applies not only to the pure supergravity fields but also to allowed sources in the form of brane actions which can be coupled to the supergravity action. The derivation of the particle action in this way is similar to the derivation of type IIA string and D-brane actions from M-brane actions using the truncation of eleven-dimensional supergravity to ten-dimensional type IIA supergravity .

In section 5 we looked at a specific example of a charged $`AdS`$ black hole solution of five-dimensional gauged supergravity which lifts to the superstar geometry in ten dimensions discussed in . We found, in the multi-charge case, that charged particle probes are repelled by the naked singularity and hence from the results of section 4, giant graviton probes are repelled by the superstar naked singularity. A possible conclusion might be that these singular geometries are unstable or that they are not sourced by giant gravitons. However, there is also a possibility that higher curvature corrections might change the situation. Irrespective of the precise interpretation, this is just a specific example of the more general result from section 4 that we can investigate the nature of singularities (at least within the context of giant graviton probes) without lifting to the ten-dimensional solution.

Giant gravitons in $`AdS\times S`$ or $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ spacetimes are BPS branes preserving half the background supersymmetry. In  Mikhailov presented an elegant construction of the preserved supercharges and in doing so generalised the construction of giant gravitons to BPS objects preserving one quarter or one eighth of the background supersymmetry. This description is closely related to the amount of supersymmetry preserved by planar branes or branes wrapped on holomorphic curves in Minkowski spacetime. It would be interesting to examine these generalised giant gravitons in the context of general gauged supergravity backgrounds to see whether the lift ansatz provides the appropriate minimal surfaces for the branes to wrap even in the absence of supersymmetry, as we have seen for the usual giant gravitons.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Ian Davies, James Gregory, Emily Hackett-Jones, Clifford Johnson, Ken Lovis, Rob Myers, Tony Padilla, Chris Pope and Simon Ross for helpful discussions and correspondence. DCP is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

## Appendix A From $`G_{(5)}`$ to $`G_{(5)}`$

In order to dualise $`G_{(5)}`$ we will need to dualise several forms in ten-dimensions which split into a p-form, $`\alpha _{(p)}`$, in the AdS directions and a q-form, $`\beta _{(q)}`$, in the sphere directions. The following result will be useful:

$$_{(10)}(\alpha \beta )=()^{q(5p)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(qp)/2}(_{(1,4)}\alpha _{(5)}\beta ).$$
(31)
The remaining difficulty in dualising $`G_{(5)}`$ resides in the fact that the sphere metric is given in terms of constrained variables (the $`\mu _i`$’s.) Consider $`R^3`$ spanned by the $`\mu _i`$’s (without the constraint $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$) and with metric:

$$ds_3^2=\underset{i}{}X_i^1d\mu _i^2$$
(32)
Let S be the surface given by $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$ and denote the restriction of this metric to S by $`ds_2^2`$ . Suppose that $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ are a vielbein for $`R^3`$ with the metric $`ds_3^2`$, such that $`e_3=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}_i\mu _id\mu _i`$. Then the following identity holds for dualising forms within the surface S:

$$_{(2)}\alpha =_{(3)}(e_3\alpha ).$$
(33)
Thus, for example

$`Vol_S`$ $`=`$ $`_{(2)}1=_{(3)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _id\mu _i=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}W,`$ (34)
$`_{(2)}d(\mu _i^2)`$ $`=`$ $`_{(3)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mu _jd\mu _jd(\mu _i^2)=2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}X_iX_j\mu _i\mu _jZ_{ij}`$ (35)
where $`W=\frac{1}{2}_{ijk}ϵ_{ijk}\mu _id\mu _jd\mu _k`$ is the volume form on the sphere $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$ embedded in flat $`R^3`$ and $`Z_{ij}=_kϵ_{ijk}d\mu _k`$.

It is now relatively straightforward to dualise $`G_{(5)}`$ as given by equation (5). We find:

$`G_{(5)}=`$ $``$ $`L{\displaystyle \frac{2U}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}W{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}X_jdX_iZ_{ij}\mu _i\mu _j{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mu _l[Ld\varphi _l+A^l]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}F_{(2)}^iZ_{ij}\mu _jX_j{\displaystyle \underset{li}{}}\mu _l[Ld\varphi _l+A^l]`$
where $`U=_i(X_i^2\mu _i^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)`$. This expression for $`G_{(5)}`$ agrees (after some straightforward algebra) with equation (8).

## Appendix B Integrating $`F_{(5)}`$

Here we show that the forms of $`F_{(5)}=dA_{(4)}`$ where $`A_{(4)}`$ is given in equation (9) and of $`G_{(5)}+G_{(5)}`$ given in equations (5) and (8) are equal when the five-dimensional equations of motion hold. We start by evaluating

$`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i]\right)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\mu _i^2)X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2d(X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\mu _i^2)X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2X_i^2F_{(2)}^i_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]d(X_i^2_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i)`$
We can use the five-dimensional equations of motion (2) and (3) to replace the second and fifth terms. We find:

$`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i]\right)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\mu _i^2)X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mu _i^2M_{ij}ϵ_{(1,4)}X_j^1+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^2F_{(2)}^i_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\mu _i^2)X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}F_{(2)}^k`$
It is now easy to check, using the identity

$$U=\underset{i}{}(X_i^2\mu _i^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_i)=\underset{i}{}X_i^1(\mu _i^21)$$

that this differs from the expression for $`G_{(5)}`$ given in equation (5) by

$$\frac{4}{3L}\underset{i}{}X_i^1ϵ_{(1,4)}\frac{L}{2}\underset{i}{}\mu _i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]\underset{ki}{}F_{(2)}^k\frac{L}{6}\underset{i}{}X_i^2F_{(2)}^i_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i$$

We next evaluate

$`d\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)LZ_i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]\right)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)dx_\nu LZ_i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]`$
$`L{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\mu _i^21){\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}2\mu _jX_j(\mu _i\mu _j\delta _{ij})\right)W{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]`$
$`2LW{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i3\right)LW{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)LZ_i{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]\mu _jF_{(2)}^j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)dx_\nu LZ_i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{2U}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right)LW{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)LZ_i\mu _j{\displaystyle \underset{kj}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^j`$
This expression can now be seen to differ from equation (8) by

$$4LW\underset{k}{}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]L\underset{i}{}Z_i\underset{ki}{}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^i$$

As well as the equations of motion (3), we have used various useful identities which are listed below for convenience:

$`dZ_i`$ $`=`$ $`2\mu _iW`$ (39)
$`Z_id\mu _j`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{ij}\mu _i\mu _j)W`$ (40)
$`Z_{ij}\mu _k+Z_{ki}\mu _j+Z_{jk}\mu _i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (41)
$`Z_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i\mu _iZ_i\mu _j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i\mu _iZ_{ij}`$ (42)
So, adding together $`G_{(5)}`$ and $`G_{(5)}`$, we see that

$`F_{(5)}=`$ $`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i]\right)`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`d\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)LZ_i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3L}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^1ϵ_{(1,4)}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^2F_{(2)}^i_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}F_{(2)}^k`$
$`+`$ $`4LW{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]L{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Z_i{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^i`$
The first two terms of this expression have been written as the derivative of a globally well-defined potential. The next two terms are five forms on $`AdS_5`$ and so are manifestly closed, but their integrals will depend on the precise solution and are not needed here. The sum of the final three terms is closed but not exact. We can (partly) integrate these terms locally for $`\mu _10`$ to obtain the expression

$$d\left(\frac{L}{2}\mu _2^2\underset{k3}{}[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^3+\frac{L}{2}\mu _3^2\underset{k2}{}[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^2\right)$$

$$+d\left(L\frac{Z_1}{\mu _1}\underset{k}{}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]\right)\frac{L}{2}[Ld\varphi _1+A^1]F_{(2)}^2F_{(2)}^3$$

Putting this together with equation (42) (for $`j=1`$) we can write the five-form field strength in terms of a four-form potential, well-defined for $`\mu _10`$, plus terms which do not couple to the D3-branes we consider. So our final expression is

$`F_{(5)}=`$ $`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2[X_i^1_{(1,4)}dX_i+X_i^2[Ld\varphi _i+A^i]_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i]\right)`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mu _2^2{\displaystyle \underset{k3}{}}[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mu _3^2{\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]F_{(2)}^2\right)`$
$`+`$ $`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i\mu _iZ_{1i}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k[Ld\varphi _k+A^k]\right){\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}[Ld\varphi _1+A^1]F_{(2)}^2F_{(2)}^3`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3L}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^1ϵ_{(1,4)}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^2F_{(2)}^i_{(1,4)}F_{(2)}^i`$