text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

In these lectures I try to give a physicists picture of (some aspects of) supersymmetry and its representations. Since the majority of the audience at the meeting were mathematicians, I presented a lot of background that is normally taken for granted. In taking this course, the choice of what to include and what to leave out becomes even more difficult than is usually the case. Ideally, had I been able to request a similar contribution from a mathematician I myself would have wanted a translation table of the kind “When they say… they mean…”, but the present article is no such thing. In the end, in the written version, I have included additional explanations wehere I feel that a few words may clarify the presentation substantially for a newcomer to the subject. One problem is, of course, that I don’t know what points may create difficulties. I don’t want to make too much of the “clash of cultures”, but it is abundantly clear that, e.g., the use of indices creates one communication problem. Rather than modifying the presentation to conform with an index-free notation, however, I have kept to the physicists notation in a hope that a reader may use the text to understand how indices are used to keep track of transformation properties in the physics literature.

I must stress that the title I have given my contribution is correct; I have only included the material I thought I needed to get to the relation between supersymmetry and complex geometry as soon as possible without totally sacrifying the general picture. This is also reflected in my list of references, which is sadly inadequate. However, I believe it includes enough standard texts (, , , ) that the reader may find his way to all the basic sources through them. A couple of the general references are further particularly suited for a mathematical audience, namely  and .

The lectures are divided into two parts, introductory material (Sections 1, 2 and 3) and the relation between supersymmetry and complex geometry.. (Section 4). For the first part I draw from numerous sources, consiously and subconsiouly. For the second part my main material is the three articles ,  and .

## 2 Relativistic symmetries

References for this section are the text books and articles referred to in the introduction along with any good book on quantum field theory such as  or . Also the (old) review articles  and  may provide useful background. If one is more generally interested in graded algebras and their representations samples of the possible references are , , , , , , , .

### 2.1 The Poincaré algebra

In theoretical high-energy physics we study the motion of particles, strings and branes in various ambient space times. This means that we are interested in manifolds with a range of dimensions, from zero spacelike and one timelike (the particle) to 25 spacelike and one timelike (the target space333Target space and ambient space-time are synonymous in this text. of the bosonic string). In all these dimensions we mainly focus on relativistically invariant models, however. Thus the fundamental structure is given by the (tangent space) group $`ISO(D1,1)`$, the $`D`$-dimensional Poincaré group. The generators of its Lie-algebra $`\text{i}\text{s}\text{o}(D1,1)`$ satisfy the following algebra

$`[P_a,P_b]=0`$
$`[M_{ab},P_c]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta _{c[a}P_{b]}`$
$`[M_{ab},M_{cd}]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta _{c[a}M_{b]d}cd,`$ (1)
where444We use the bracket notation to indicate symmetry or skewness, i.e. (ab) denotes symmetrization and \[ab\] denotes antisymmetrization, with no combinatoical factors. $`P_a`$ generate translations, $`M_{ab}`$ generate Lorentz transformations, and $`\eta `$ is the Minkowski metric whose relation to the spacetime metric $`g`$ is

$$ds^2=g_{mn}dX^mdX^n=\eta _{ab}e_m^ae_n^bdX^mdX^n,$$
(2)
where the line-element $`ds^2`$ is expressed in using the coordinates $`X^m`$ in the space-time. The one forms $`e^a=e_m^adX^m`$ are often called “viel-beins” in the physics literature. As a further note on notation, “curved” (space-time) indices are taken from the middle of the alphabet, tangent space indices are from the beginning of the alphabet and the summation convention is used (repeated indices are summed over).

The algebra (1) shows that $`P_a`$ transforms in the fundamental representation of the Lorentz group (LG), i.e., as a vector, and that $`M_{ab}`$ itself transforms as an (antisymmetric) second rank tensor.

One is typically interested only in the proper Lorentz group, $`SO(D1,1)^{}`$, given by matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }=\eta ,det\mathrm{\Lambda }=+1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^00`$. This semi-simple Lie-group is not simply connected. Its universal covering group is $`Spin(D1,1)`$. An element in the fundamental representation of this group is called a spinor and we will denote it by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha T_S`$. All (finite dimensional) representations of the LG may be obtained from tensor products $`T_ST_ST_S\mathrm{}`$, a useful fact that, e.g., later allows us to use pairs of spinor indices to represent vector indices.

The representations of the LG fall into two distinct classes, those with integer spin, the bosons, and those with half integer spin, the fermions. To be more precise, the names refer to the elementary particles that transform in the corresponding representations. Fermions are the constituents of matter and bosons govern the forces in nature. The obey different statistics; many bosons can occupy the same state (c.f. Bose-Einstein condensate) while only one fermion can be in a particular state in the Hilbert space (the Pauli exclusion principle).

### 2.2 Minkowski space $``$

A useful way of representing the Poincaré group is in terms of fields555I am using the word “field” in the standard physicist way, meaning (usually $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$) functions. over Minkowski space $``$, with the generators of the algebra (1) described by differential operators acting on these fields. The Minkowski space itself may be thought of as the quotient of the Poincaré group with the Lorentz group

$$ISO(D1,1)/SO(D1,1).$$
(3)
Since this is analogous to the way in which Superspace is defined in subsection 3.1, it pays to look at the construction in some detail in this simpler context.

A point in $``$ is parametrized as

$$h(x)=e^{ix^aP_a}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(4)
and the group acts by left multiplication

$$h(gx)=h(x^{})gh(x)modSO(D1,1).$$
(5)
For a translation $`g=e^{i\xi ^aP_a}`$, with parameter $`\xi `$, this yields

$`gh`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\xi ^aP_a}e^{ix^aP_a}=e^{i(x^a+\xi ^a)P_a+\frac{i}{2}[\xi P,xP]+\mathrm{}}`$ (6)
$`=e^{i(x^a+\xi ^a)P_a}`$
$`h(x^{}),`$
where the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula becomes trivial since translations commute, as seen in (1). A translation thus induces the following coordinate change:

$$x^a=x^a+\xi ^a,\delta x^a=\xi ^a,$$
(7)
where the last relation gives the infinitesimal transformation. The corresponding calculation for a Lorentz transformation $`g=e^{i\omega ^{ab}M_{ab}}`$ with parameter $`\omega ^{ab}`$ is less trivial since the generators $`P`$ and $`M`$ don not commute. The BCH formula thus contributes nontrivially. One also has to make use of the quotient structure when calculating

$`h(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`gh=e^{i\omega ^{ab}M_{ab}}e^{ix^cP_c}`$ (8)
$`=e^{i\omega ^{ab}M_{ab}}e^{ix^cP_c}e^{i\omega ^{ab}M_{ab}}`$
$`=e^{x^c(e^{i\omega M}P_ce^{i\omega M})}`$
$`=e^{x^c(e^\omega )_c^aP_a},`$
where all operations are performed $`modSO(D1,1)`$. The induced action of on the coordinate is thus

$$x^a=x^b(e^\omega )_b^a\delta x^a=x^b\omega _b^a.$$
(9)
### 2.3 Fields over $``$

Now that we know howe the Poincaré transformations act on the Minkowski coordinate $`x`$, we find representations in terms of (scalar) fields $`f`$ by requiring that they transform as

$$f^{}(x^{})=f(x).$$
(10)
Under an infinitesimal transformation $`xx+\delta x`$, the fields thus obey

$$\delta f(x)f^{}(x)f(x)=\delta x^a_af(x),$$
(11)
where $`_a/x^a`$, and (11) defines what we are to mean by the infinitesimal variation of a field. Inserting the infinitesimal coordinate transformations in (7) and (9), we find the action of a translation or a Lorentz transformation on a scalar field. We emphasized “scalar” to indicate the alternative possibility that $`f`$ also transforms in some matrix representation of the Lorentz group. E.g., it may transform as a Lorentz vector, which we indicate by a vector index

$$\delta _\omega f_a=[\omega M,f_a]=\frac{i}{2}\omega ^{bc}\eta _{a[b}f_{c]},$$
(12)
(c.f. the transformation of $`P_a`$ in (1)). If it transforms as a spinor instead, we endow $`f`$ with a spinor index, and a Lorentz transformation reads

$$\delta _\omega f_\alpha =[\omega M,f_\alpha ]=\frac{i}{2}\omega ^{bc}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc})_\alpha ^\beta f_\beta ,$$
(13)
where the Dirac algebra is

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\}=2\eta _{ab}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(14)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b]}.$$
(15)
Combining (7), (9) and (11) with the possibility of a matrix representation and defining

$$\delta f=i[\omega M+\xi P,f],$$
(16)
we see that we may represent the generators of $`ISO(D1,1)`$ as operators on the fields $`f`$ as follows:

$`P_a`$ $``$ $`i_a`$
$`M_{ab}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}x_{[a}_{b]}i\text{𝕄},`$ (17)
where 𝕄 is the appropriate matrix representation.

### 2.4 Internal symmetries

In addition to the transformation properties under the LG described in the previous subsection, the fields may also transform in some representation of an internal symmetry group $`𝒢`$. We indicate this by an additional index $`i`$ on the fields. Thus, e.g., $`f_\alpha ^i(x)`$ is a spinor field which transforms in some matrix representation of $`𝒢`$,

$$\delta _\lambda f_\alpha ^i=\lambda ^I(B_I)_j^if_\alpha ^j,$$
(18)
where $`\lambda `$ is a transformation parameter which is taken to depend on $`x`$ for gauge symmetry. Popular internal (gauge) symmetry groups are $`𝒢=U(1)`$ (electro magnetsim), $`𝒢=SU(2)`$ (weak interactions) and $`𝒢=SU(3)`$ (strong interactions).

It is of course tempting, in the name of unification, to try to find a larger group which encompasses both the Poincaré group and the internal symmetry group in a non-tivial way. All such attepts came to an halt in the late 1960’s due to the famous “No-Go” theorem of Coleman and Mandula (CM) , where the requirements of a relativistic quantum theory are used to limit the possibilities. In brief (leaving out some technicalities) it states that if

> (1) the S-matrix is based on a local relativistic field theory in space time,
> (2) there are only a finite number of different particles associated with one particle states at a given mass,
> (3) there is an energy gap between the vacuum and the one-particle states,

then:

> The most general Lie-algebra of symmetries of the S-matrix has generators $`P_a,M_{ab}`$ and $`B_I`$, where the $`B_I`$’s are Lorentz scalars and belong to a compact Lie-group $`𝒢`$.

The setting for this theorem is really $`D=4`$, so the conclusion is that the group structure has to be $`SO(3,1)𝒢`$.

### 2.5 Supersymmetry

In the 1970’s, with the advent of supersymmetry, it was realized that there is a loop-hole in the CM theorem, and it was extended by Haag, Lopuszanski and Sohnius to allow for $`Z_2`$ graded Lie-algebras . The result may be most simply stated by giving the most general super-algebra allowed (in $`D=4`$). In addition to the Poincaré algebra (1), we also have

$`[M_{ab},B_I]=0`$
$`[P_a,B_I]=0`$
$`[B_I,B_J]=ic_{IJ}^KB_K`$
$`\{Q_\alpha ^i,Q_\beta ^j\}=2\delta ^{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^aC)_{\alpha \beta }P_a+C_{\alpha \beta }Z^{[ij]}+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_5C)_{\alpha \beta }Y^{[ij]}`$
$`[M_{ab},Q_\alpha ^i]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab})_\alpha ^\beta Q_\beta ^i`$
$`[B_I,Q_\alpha ^i]=(B_I)_i^jQ_\alpha ^i`$
$`[P_a,Q_\alpha ^i]=0`$
$`[𝒪,Z]=[𝒪,Y]=0,`$ (19)
where the three first realations say that the generators of the group 666Note that the internal group has to be $`O(𝒩)`$ or a subgroup thereof. $`c_{IJ}^K`$ are its structure constants. $`𝒢=O(𝒩)`$ are Poincaré scalars, in accordance with the CM theorem. The radically new structure is carried by the $`𝒩`$ odd generators $`Q`$. As seen from (19) they are translationally invariant Lorentz spinors that carry a non-trivial representation of the internal group $`𝒢`$. They come together with the anticommutator $`\{,\}`$, under which they close to a translation plus terms that depend on the central charges $`Z`$ and $`Y`$. (The last relation in (19) is meant to indicate that $`Z`$ and $`Y`$ commute with all generators.) The central charges are antisymmetric in their $`𝒢`$ indices, and C, finally, is the charge conjugation matrix.

The spinors in (19) are Majorana spinors, i.e., they obey the “reality condition” $`Q=C\overline{Q}^T`$. In general, in $`D`$ dimensions the spinors have $`2^{\left[\frac{D}{2}\right]}`$ complex components (where square bracket denotes ‘integer part of’). Depending on the dimension $`D`$, one may impose “reality” and/or chirality conditions on the spinors according to the following table (adapted from )777The table refers to space-time signature (-++…). In (-++….+-), which is sometimes considered, there are other possibilities. Note also that we are discussing conditions over and above the Dirac equation which is always assumed for the spinor fields.

| D | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Spinor type | M | MW | M | W | D | W | D | W | M | MW |
| Real spinor dim | 32 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Real/Complex | R | R | R | C | C | C | C | C | R | R |
| N | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 16 | (16,16) |
|  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | (8,8) |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | (4,4) |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 2 | (2,2) |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | (1,1) |
| Table 1 | | | | | | | | | | |

In this table, $`M`$ denotes Majorana, $`D`$ denotes Dirac and $`W`$ denotes Weyl conditions. The Majorana condition was given above, Dirac just means a Dirac spinor, i.e., no additional constaraints, and the Weyl condition in even $`D`$ dimensions is

$$\psi =P_{}\psi =\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+1})\psi ,$$
(20)
where $`\psi `$ is called a Weyl spinor and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D+1}`$ is the totally antisymmetrized product of the $`D`$ Dirac-matrices (suitably normalized to make $`P_{}`$ a projection operator.) In four dimensions one may impose either the Majorana or the Weyl condition, as we will see below. In two dimensions, finally, by $`(p,q)`$ we have indicated the possibility of having separate right and left moving supersymmetries.888One may in fact introduce this possibility also, e.g., in $`D=6`$ and $`10`$.

The reader may ask what restricts the entries in Table 1 to $`D11`$ and/or $`N16`$. The reason is as follows. We know what equations various spins should obey, and we also know the spin content of the irreducible representations of spersymmetry (see subsection 3.3). For $`N=8`$ in $`D=4`$ the spin content is $`(2,3/2,1,1/2,0)`$, whereas higher $`N`$ will necessarily contain spin $`2`$. But “higher spin” field theories (with a finite number of higher spin fields) are in general unphysical as interacting theories. Since $`N=8`$ in $`D=4`$ is $`N=1`$ in $`D=11`$, this sets the limit.

### 2.6 $`D=4`$ Supersymmetry

In $`D=4`$ we illustrate explicitly the equivalence between Majorana and Weyl spinors as well as how to build the tensors from spinor representations.

In $`D=4`$ the Weyl projection operators are given by $`P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$. We utilize the isomorphism $`Spin(3,1)SL(2,\text{})`$ to introduce a convenient notation for the Weyl spinors. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ now be a spinor that transforms with the SL(2,) matrix $`N_\alpha ^\beta `$, and denote by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ a spinor that transforms in the conjugate representation according to $`\overline{N}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}`$. Introducing also the two sets of SL(2,) matrices $`\sigma _a=(1,\underset{¯}{\sigma })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a=(1,\underset{¯}{\sigma })`$ with $`\underset{¯}{\sigma }`$ being the Pauli matrices, we use a representation of the Dirac algebra where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _a\\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
The relations between $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ may be stated as

$$(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a)^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }=ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }(\sigma _a)_{\beta \dot{\beta }},$$
(22)
where

$$(ϵ_{\alpha \beta })=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)=(ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }})=(ϵ^{\alpha \beta })=(ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}).$$
(23)
In this representation

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }& 0\\ 0& ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\end{array}\right),$$
(24)
and a Majorana spinor may be written

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
It is a straightforward matter to convince one-self that (25) indeed satisfies $`C\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^T=\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and that

$`P_+\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (28)
$`P_{}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right),`$ (31)
thus explicitly demonstrating the equivalence between the Majorana and Weyl representations in four dimensions. In fact, in four dimensions the latter representation is often preferred. In that context it is also convenient to represent vector indices as pairs of spinor indices according to

$$V_a(\sigma ^a)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}V_aV_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}.$$
(32)
This notation becomes particularly useful when discussing representations of susy in superspace.

## 3 Superspace

The main references for this section are the books ,, and , but also the review article .

### 3.1 Induced representation

Superspace is defined via the natural generalization of the Minkowski-space construction described in Sec 2.2 above. Denoting the graded ($`N=1`$) Poincaré group by SISO(D-1,1) and specifying to $`D=4`$, the relevant part of the superalgebra reads

$`\{Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}=P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$
$`[M_{\alpha \beta },Q_\gamma ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{\gamma (\alpha }Q_{\beta )}`$
$`[M_{\alpha \beta },P_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{\gamma (\alpha }P_{\beta )\dot{\gamma }}`$
$`[M_{\alpha \beta },M_{\gamma \delta }]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(ϵ_{\gamma (\alpha }M_{\beta )\delta }+\gamma \delta ),`$ (33)
where the antisymmetric generator of Lorentz transformations, $`M_{ab}`$, is represented by its irreducible (symmetric) spinor parts according to

$$M_{ab}M_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }\beta \dot{\beta }}=iϵ_{\alpha \beta }\overline{M}_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}+iϵ_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}M_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(34)
From the algebra we exponentiate to get the group elements. This requires introduction of Grassmann valued (anti commuting) spinor parameters. 999This exponentiation with parameters that are nilpotent is not mathematically well defined. For this reason, mathematicians prefer to extend the functions on the previously discussed quotient by allowing them to depend on Grassmann parameters instead. Operationally, I believe the net result amounts to the same thing. See, e.g.,  for a stringent definintion of Superspace from this point of view. A general group element is thus written

$$g=e^{i(\xi P+ϵQ+\omega M)},$$
(35)
where we use the short hand $`ϵQ`$ for $`ϵ^\alpha Q_\alpha +\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{Q}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, and $`\omega M`$ for $`\omega ^{\alpha \beta }M_{\alpha \beta }+\overline{\omega }^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\overline{M}_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$. In analogy with our discussion of Minkowski space $``$, we parametrize a point in the neighbourhood of the identity in $`SISO(3,1)/SO(3,1)`$ by $`x`$ and $`\theta `$ according to

$$h(x,\theta )h(Z^A)=e^{i(xP+\theta Q)},$$
(36)
(where $`Z^A=x^a,\theta ^\alpha ,\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$), and find the action on $`x`$ and $`\theta `$ through $`h(Z^{})=gh`$ mod SO(3,1). We then represent the generators as differential operators on superfields, i.e., on funtions $`\varphi (z)`$. We first state the result and then supply the necessary explanations. The operators are (cf. eqn (17)

$`P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}}i_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$
$`Q_\alpha =i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}i_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$
$`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}i\overline{}_{\dot{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$
$`M_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}x_{(\alpha }^{\dot{\gamma }}_{\beta )\dot{\gamma }}+i\theta _{(\alpha }_{\beta )}i\text{𝕄}_{\alpha \beta }.`$ (37)
Here the $`\theta `$’s, like all the spinors, are anticommuting, which means that derivatives with respect to $`\theta `$ is defined as Berezin integrals/deivatives . We take the derivatives to act from the left according to $`_\alpha \theta ^\beta =\delta _\alpha ^\beta `$, and the corresponding integration is $`𝑑\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta =\delta _\alpha ^\beta `$. There is a wealth of results on the geometry of superspace, but we shall only need a few items.

The covariant derivatives are differential operators $`D`$ that anti-commute with the supersymmetry generators $`\{D,Q\}=0`$. They are

$`D_\alpha =_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$
$`\overline{D}_\alpha =\overline{}_{\dot{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},`$ (38)
and their existence might have been anticipated from the fact that left and right multiplication commutes and that the $`Q`$’s were defined using left multiplication. From the point of view of superspace geometry their (anti) commutation relation

$$\{D_\alpha ,\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}=i_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},$$
(39)
signals that even “flat” superspace has torsion. The usefulness of the $`D`$’s lies in the fact that they anticommute with the $`Q`$’s, since this allow us to impose invariant conditions on the super fields.

### 3.2 Superfields

The differential operators (37) allow us to represent supersymmetry on fields oveer superspace $`^{(p,q)}`$ as we represent the Poincaré group on fields over $``$ (here $`(p,q)`$ denotes $`p`$ bosonic and $`q`$ spinorial coordinates). For example, using the explicit form of the $`Q`$’s given in (37) we evaluate the anticommutator of two $`Q`$’s acting on a scalar superfield $`\varphi (z)`$

$$\{Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}\varphi (z)=i_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\varphi (z).$$
(40)
From the point of view of functions on Minkowski space, a superfield is a collection of ordinary fields over $``$. This is seen if we make a formal Taylor expansion in the Grassmann coordinates $`\theta `$ of, e.g., a real (so called vector) superfield

$`\varphi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`C(x)+\theta ^\alpha \chi _\alpha (x)+\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\alpha }}(x)\theta ^2M(x)\overline{\theta }^2\overline{M}(x)+\theta ^\alpha \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}A_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(x)`$ (41)
$`\overline{\theta }^2\theta ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha (x)\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\lambda }_\alpha (x)+\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2B(x).`$
Although the Taylor series quickly terminates in this case (N=1 in four dimensions), it is more economical to define the component fields using the covariant derivatives (38). With $`|`$ denoting “the $`\theta `$ independent part of”, the above component fields are

$`\varphi (z)|=C(x)D_\alpha \varphi (z)|=\chi _\alpha (x)\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}(z)|=\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\alpha }}(x)`$
$`[D_\alpha ,\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}]\varphi (z)|=A_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(x)D^2\varphi (z)|=M(x)\overline{D}^2\varphi (z)|=\overline{M}(x)`$
$`\overline{D}^2D_\alpha \varphi (z)|=\lambda (x)D^2\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\varphi (z)|=\overline{\lambda }(x)D^2\overline{D}^2\varphi (z)|=B(x),`$ (42)
where $`D^2D^\alpha D_\alpha `$. The “supermultiplet” of $``$ fields represented by $`\varphi (z)`$ and transforming into each other under supersymmetry transformations is thus a collection of scalar, spinor and vector fields101010In a physical model, not all of these fields will be dynamical. They have different mass-dimensions and some of the fields will be auxiliary.

$$(C,\chi ,\overline{\chi },A_a,M,\overline{M},\lambda ,\overline{\lambda },B).$$
(43)
In analogy to (16), a supersymmetry transformation of a superfield is

$$\delta \varphi (z)=i[ϵ^\alpha Q_\alpha +\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\varphi ].$$
(44)
To illustrate the result on the component fields, we first introduce the concept of a chiral superfield, which is simply a (complex) superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which satisfies

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(45)
As mentioned earlier, this is a covariant condition, i.e., $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\delta (\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi })`$, as is seen from (44) and $`\{Q,\overline{D}\}=0`$. We define the components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as follows

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|=𝒜(x),D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }|=\lambda _\alpha (x),D^2\mathrm{\Phi }|=(x).$$
(46)
With, correspondingly,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }|=\delta 𝒜(x),D_\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Phi }|=\delta \lambda _\alpha (x),D^2\delta \mathrm{\Phi }|=\delta (x),$$
(47)
we find the component transformations

$$\delta 𝒜=ϵ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha ,\delta \lambda _\alpha =ϵ_\alpha i\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜,\delta =i\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}_{\dot{\alpha }}^\alpha \lambda _\alpha .$$
(48)
In fact, starting from these transformations, one may show that the algebra clooses on all the fields.

### 3.3 Representations

In the previous subsection we saw how supersymmetry may be represented on superfields. In particular, a chiral superfield was seen to be a smaller representation than an arbitrary superfield (it has fewer component fields). The question thus arises of what are the irreducible representations of supersymmetry.

Staying with the superfields in four dimensions, we first give the projection operators that project onto the irreducible superfields. This is in analogy with the way a Lorentz vector $`V_a`$ is split into irreducible pieces according to

$$V_a=[(\mathrm{\Pi }^L+\mathrm{\Pi }^T)V]_a,$$
(49)
where

$`(\mathrm{\Pi }^L)_a^b^2_a^b(\mathrm{\Pi }^T)_a^b^2\delta _a^{[b}^{c]}_c,`$
(50)
(such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^L+\mathrm{\Pi }^T=1`$). Explicitly

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }^LV)_a=^2_a(^bV_b)^2_aS,(\mathrm{\Pi }^TV)_a=^2\delta _a^b^c_{[c}V_{b]}^2^cF_{ca},$$
(51)
where $`S`$ and $`F`$ are irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. The corresponding operators on superfields are (for $`N=1`$ in four dimensions)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=^2D^2\overline{D}^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1=^2D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2=^2\overline{D}^2D^2,`$ (52)
such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0+\mathrm{\Pi }_1+\mathrm{\Pi }_2=1`$. This is not quite sufficient, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ has to be further specified as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{1\pm }`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{1\pm }\psi =^2D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha \frac{1}{2}(\psi +\overline{\psi }).$$
(53)
Then an arbitrary (complex) scalar superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ contains a chiral superfield, two vector superfields and an antichiral superfield (in that order) according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Pi }_{1\pm }\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\mathrm{\Pi }_2\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(54)
thus displaying the irreducible parts of the superfield.

Another question regarding representations of supersymmetry has to do with the particle content and representations as states in a Hilbert space. We will use Wigners “little group” method to find those.

The N-extended supersymmetry algebra in four dimensions involves the anticommutator (see (19))

$$\{Q_\alpha ^i,Q_\beta ^j\}=2\delta ^{ij}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^aC)_{\alpha \beta }P_a.$$
(55)
For particles with mass $`m0`$ we choose $`P_a=(m,0,0,0)`$. Rescaling the charges, $`Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, by a factor $`(m)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ we have the Clifford algebra

$$\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ^i,\stackrel{~}{Q}_\beta ^j\}=\delta _{i\alpha ,j\beta },i\alpha =1,\mathrm{},4N.$$
(56)
rewriting this in Weyl notation,

$`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ^i,\stackrel{~}{Q}_\beta ^j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}^i,\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\beta }}^j\}=0`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ^i,\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\beta }}^j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\delta _{\alpha \dot{\beta }},`$ (57)
we recognize a set of 2N pairs of annihilation and creation operators, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ^ia_\alpha ^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}^ia_{\dot{\alpha }}^i`$. Introducing the Clifford vaccum $`|0>`$ such that $`a_\alpha ^i|0>=0`$, a general state is

$$|n_{11},n_{12},\mathrm{},n_{1N},n_{21},\mathrm{},n_{2N}>=\underset{\alpha =1,2i=1,2,\mathrm{}N}{}(a_{\dot{\alpha }}^i)^{n_{\alpha i}}|0>,$$
(58)
where $`n_{\alpha i}`$ denotes the occupation number of the state created by $`a_{\dot{\alpha }}^i`$. There are clearly $`2^{2N}`$ such states. For example, when N=1 , the possibilities are

$$|0>,a{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{}|0>,a{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{}a{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\dot{\beta }}{}^{}|0>=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}a^{}a^{}|0>,$$
(59)
representing a Lorentz scalar, a spinor (two states) and a scalar respectively.

The massless representations are similarily derived. Starting from the massless four momentum $`P_a=(P,0,0,P)`$, we have the anticommutation relation

$$\{Q_\alpha ^i,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\beta }}^j\}=2\delta _{ij}P_{\alpha \dot{\beta }},$$
(60)
where

$$P_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}=2P\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(61)
In a way analogous to the massive case, this leads to a set of annihilation and creation operators, $`a^i`$ and $`a^i`$ which step down and up half a unit in helicity and satisfy

$$\{a^i,a^i\}=\delta ^{ij}.$$
(62)
Again we introduce a Clifford vacuum which is annihilated by $`a^i`$, and create the states with $`a^i`$. Since we only have one set of operators for each $`i`$, instead of two, there are $`2^N`$ states in the massless representation.

With $`j_{MAX}J`$ depending on the helicity of the Clifford vacuum, we find the following table of massless states and their multiplicity for various number of supersymmetries N.

| N= Helicity | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| J | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| J-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| J-1 |  | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 21 | 28 |
| J-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ |  |  | 1 | 4 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 56 |
| J-2 |  |  |  | 1 | 5 | 15 | 35 | 70 |
| J-$`\frac{5}{2}`$ |  |  |  |  | 1 | 6 | 21 | 56 |
| J-3 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 7 | 28 |
| J-$`\frac{7}{2}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 8 |
| J-4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Table 2 | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

The multiplicity is simply the binomial coefficient

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ k\end{array}\right)$$
(63)
for the totally antisymmetric product of $`k`$ creation operators. One observes from Table 2 that for N=8 we need a $`J`$ of at least 2, for N=4 $`J`$ has to be at least 1, for the smallest (CPT conjugate) multiplet with helicities $`J,\mathrm{}.J`$. For other N, e.g, for N=1, we cannot choose a $`J`$ to satisfy CPT conjugation, and for a physical theory we have to add the charge conjugated states.

## 4 Supersymmetry and Complex Geometry

The complex geometry in this section is from the books , , and the background material relating to supersymmetry is found in , , . The main part of the section, however, is from the articles , and .

### 4.1 Notation

In this subsection we collect some definitions and notation needed later.
For any $`d=2n`$ dimensional real manifold $``$ with coordinates $`x^i`$, we may locally introduce complex coordinates as

$$z^i=\left\{\begin{array}{c}z^A=x^i+ix^{i+n}\\ \overline{z}^{\overline{A}}=x^iix^{i+n}\end{array}\right\}i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(64)
A mixed second rank tensor $`J_j^i`$ such that $`J_m^iJ_j^m=1`$ is called an almost complex structure on $``$. A metric $`g_{ij}`$ which preserves $`J_j^i`$

$$J_j^ig_{im}J_n^m=g_{jn},J_j^ig_{in}J_{jn}=J_{nj},$$
(65)
is called an almost hermitean metric. To make everything globally well defined and ensure that there exist canonical complex coordinate patches related by holomorphic transition functions, integrability conditions are needed. They may be phrased as the vanishing of the Nijenhuis tensor

$$N_{ij}^k=J_{[i}^n_{|n|}J_{j]}^k+J_n^k_{[j}J_{i]}^n=0.$$
(66)
The integrability conditions remove “almost” from the definitions above. In the canonical coordinates the complex structure takes the form

$$J_j^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\delta _A^B& 0\\ 0& i\delta _{\overline{A}}^{\overline{B}}\end{array}\right),$$
(67)
and the components $`g_{AB}`$ and $`g_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}`$ of the hermitean metric vanish.

If we further require the fundamental 2-form

$$\omega J_j^ig_{ik}dx^jdx^k=2ig_{A\overline{A}}dz^Ad\overline{z}^{\overline{A}},$$
(68)
to be closed, the manifold is Kähler. In such a manifold, the Levi-Civita covariant derivative of the complex structure vanishes

$$_iJ_j^k=0,$$
(69)
and the metric has a Kähler potential $`K`$

$$g_{A\overline{A}}=\frac{^2K}{z^A\overline{z}^{\overline{A}}}$$
(70)
The converse is also true, if $`J=0`$ then the Nijenhuis tensor vanishes and $`g=\overline{}K`$.

When the manifold carries three covariantly constant complex structures $`J^{(X)},X=1,2,3`$, and these complex structures satisfy the $`SU(2)`$ algebra

$$J_i^{(X)j}J_j^{(Y)k}=\delta ^{XY}\delta _i^k+ϵ^{XYZ}J_i^{(Z)k},$$
(71)
the geometry is hyperkähler.

The various spaces described in this section are also characterized by their holonomy. The holonomy group $`_p`$ at a point $`p`$ is the subgroup of the tangent space group obtained by paralell transporting vectors around closed loops in $``$. The restriction to contractible loops is the restricted holonomy $`_p^{}`$. When $``$ is simply connected $`_p_p^{}`$ and is always a subgroup of $`GL(d,\text{})`$. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Levi-Civita connection, the holonomy group is further a subgroup of $`O(d)`$, so a subgroup of $`O(2n)`$ for a complex manifold. For a Kähler manifold it is smaller: E.g., if $``$ is Ricci-flat the holonomy is $`SU(n)`$.

### 4.2 Nonlinear sigma models

A link between supersymmetry and complex geometry was first established in the context of supersymmetric non-linear sigma models, (NLSM’s), , , . A sigma model is a map from a manifold $``$, oftent taken to be space-time, and a Target space $`𝒯`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A:𝒯,$$
(72)
mapping the coordinates

$$x^a𝒯\mathrm{\Phi }^A(x).$$
(73)
This map is obtained by extremizing the action

$$S=𝑑xG_{AB}(\mathrm{\Phi })_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_b\mathrm{\Phi }^B\eta ^{ab},$$
(74)
which gives the equation

$$\eta ^{ab}_a\mathrm{\Phi }^B_B_b\mathrm{\Phi }^A=0,$$
(75)
with

$$_AV^B=_AV^B+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AC}^AV^C,$$
(76)
the target space covariant derivative. The Levi-Civita connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is formed from the target space metric $`G_{AB}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AC}^A\frac{1}{2}G^{CD}(G_{D(A,B)}G_{AB,C}).$$
(77)
To get an indication of how the relation between NLSM’s and complex geometry we look at an example:

The complex projective space

$$\text{}\text{}^{(n)}=U(n+1)/U(n)\times U(1),$$
(78)
is Kähler. Now $`U(n+1)/U(n)\times U(1)`$ may be thought of as the surface

$$u^A\text{}^{n+1};\underset{I=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\overline{u}^{\overline{A}}u^A=1,$$
(79)
in $`\text{}^{n+1}`$. The space $`\text{}\text{}^{(n)}`$ is thus given by the equivalence class111111There are only phase independence left from the projective requirement due to the constraint in (79).

$$(u^1,\mathrm{},u^{n+1})e^{i\varphi }(u^1,\mathrm{},u^{n+1}),$$
(80)
with $`u^A`$ as in (79). How may we describe this in terms of a NLSM? We want the model to incorporate the structure of the manifold and to also provide us with a metric on that manifold. If we promote the coordinates in (79) to functions from some space $``$ and take the sigma model action to be

$$S=𝑑x_a\overline{u}^{\overline{A}}(x)^au^A(x);\underset{I=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\overline{u}^{\overline{A}}(x)u^A(x)=1,$$
(81)
we have a start. But we still have to encode the independence of phases (80) at each point. In physics terms this is the question of how to promote the rigid $`U(1)`$ symmetry to a local one, to gauge a sigma model. It entails introducing a gauge field $`A_a(x)`$ via minimal coupling

$$SS_G=𝑑x(_a+iA_a(x))\overline{u}^{\overline{A}}(x)(^aiA_a(x))u^A(x).$$
(82)
Next we eliminate $`A`$ by extremizing $`S_G`$. This does not break the gauge invariance, it means that we choose a particular $`A`$ expressed in the other fields. In terms of that particular $`A`$

$$S_G𝑑x\left(_a\overline{u}^{\overline{A}}^au^A+\frac{1}{4}(\overline{u}^{\overline{A}}\underset{a}{\overset{}{}}u^A)(\overline{u}^{\overline{B}}\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{}{}}u^B)\right).$$
(83)
Finally, we rewrite this in coordinates that solve the constraint in (79)

$`u^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z\overline{z}}}}z^A,,A=1,\mathrm{},n`$
$`u^{n+1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z\overline{z}}}},`$ (84)
where $`z\overline{z}z^A\overline{z}^{\overline{A}},A=1,\mathrm{},n`$. This gives

$$S_G=𝑑x\frac{1}{1+z\overline{z}}\left(\delta ^{AB}\frac{z^A\overline{z}^{\overline{B}}}{1+z\overline{z}}\right)_a\overline{z}^{\overline{A}}^az^B.$$
(85)
We recognize the Fubini-Study metric on $`\text{}\text{}^{(n)}`$. The corresponding Kähler potential is $`K=ln(1+z\overline{z})`$.

This example is our first encounter with a quotient construction, which will play an important role later.

### 4.3 The bosonic quotient construction

In the example in the previous subsection, we start from the Kähler manifold $`\text{}^{n+1}`$ with potential $`K=\overline{u}^Au^A`$ and construct another, $`\text{}\text{}^{(n)}`$ as the space of gauge orbits by “gauging the isometries” and choosing a particular gauge potential that extremizes the action.121212We are glossing over the presense of the constraint in (79) to bring out the essentials.These ideas generalize.

Suppose we have a NLSM (74) with target space $`𝒯`$:

$$S=𝑑xG_{AB}(\mathrm{\Phi })_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_b\mathrm{\Phi }^B\eta ^{ab},$$
(86)
and an isometry, i.e., a vector field $`k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ such that

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A=\lambda ^qk_q^B(\mathrm{\Phi })=[\lambda ^qk_q^B(\mathrm{\Phi })/\mathrm{\Phi }^B,\mathrm{\Phi }^A]=_{\lambda k}\mathrm{\Phi }^A,_{\lambda k}G_{AB}=0,$$
(87)
where $`_{\lambda k}`$ denotes Lie derivative along $`k`$. Since the variation of the action (86) is

$$\delta S=𝑑x\left(_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_b\mathrm{\Phi }^B\eta ^{ab}_{\lambda k}G_{AB}\right),$$
(88)
it follows that an isometry is an invariance of the action $`S`$. In a general situation, the isometry will be non-abelian

$$[k_q,k_p]=c_{qp}^rk_r,$$
(89)
corresponing to a non-abelian isometry group $`𝒢`$.

We gauge the isometry (87) by substituting

$$_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^AA_a^qk_q^A=_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A[A_a^qk_q^B/\mathrm{\Phi }^B,\mathrm{\Phi }^A].$$
(90)
(C.f. (82)). This results in

$$SS_G=𝑑xG_{AB}(\mathrm{\Phi })_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_b\mathrm{\Phi }^B\eta ^{ab}.$$
(91)
Proceeding as in the example, we eliminate $`A`$ by extremising $`S_G`$, which gives

$$A_a^q=\text{}^{1pq}G_{AB}k_p^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^B,$$
(92)
where

$$\text{}_{qp}k_q^AG_{AB}k_p^B,$$
(93)
and

$$S_G=𝑑x\left(G_{AB}\text{}^{1pq}k_{pA}k_{qB}\right)_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A^a\mathrm{\Phi }^B𝑑x\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A^a\mathrm{\Phi }^B.$$
(94)
It is easy to see that the new target space metric $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}`$ projects onto the original manifold modulo the $`k`$-orbits, i.e., it is a metric on the quotient space $`𝒯/𝒢`$.

The quotient construction described above gives a new target space geometry (the coset) starting from one which has isometries. It remains to see under which conditions the two geometries are of the same typer (as in the $`\text{}^{n+1}\text{}\text{}^{(n)}`$ example). In particular we shall be interested in when the supersymmetry of the original NLSM is carried over to the quotient. To that end we first need to study supersymmetic NLSM’s.

### 4.4 N=1 Supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models

We want to find a supersymmetric extension of (74), and first need to introduce actions in superspace. Schematically, an action is written

$$S=𝑑x𝑑\theta (\mathrm{\Phi },D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{}),$$
(95)
where the measure $`dxd\theta `$ will depend on the kind of superspace under consideration. Explicitly, for $`^{(p,q)}`$ the full superspace measure is $`d^pxd^q\theta `$. (We will mostly consider $`(p,q)=(4,4)`$.) As introduced in subsection 3.1, the integral over $`\theta `$ is equivalent to a derivative, $`d\theta =/\theta =D_\theta |`$, a fact that we will often use. E.g., the invariance of this action under a susy transformation may be shown as follows (recall that $`|`$ denotes “the $`\theta `$-independent part of”)

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dxd\theta \delta ={\displaystyle }dxd\theta ϵQ={\displaystyle }dxD^qϵQ|`$ (96)
$`={\displaystyle }dxϵQD^q|={\displaystyle }dxϵDD^q|0,`$
where the last relation $`0`$ means “$`=0`$ up to total derivatives”, and follows from the supersymmetry algebra for a product of more than $`qD`$’s.

Specializing to four dimensions, the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that contain scalar component fields but not vectors are the chiral superfields $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }=D_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$. A general action in superspace for a set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ of such fields is

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}),$$
(97)
where we use Weyl spinor notation. Keeping the definition (46) in subsection3.2 in mind, we expand the action, again exploring the relation between $`\theta `$-derivatives and integrals

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}})}`$
$`={\displaystyle }d^4xD^2\overline{D}^2K|={\displaystyle }d^4x(2K_{A\overline{B}}A^A\overline{A}^{\overline{A}}+\mathrm{})`$ (98)
where indices on $`K`$ denote derivatives with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s and where only the purely bosonic content is displayed in the last equaility. This shows that as a bosonic sigma model, we are dealing with a Kähler target space with Kähler potential $`K`$ and metric $`K_{A\overline{B}}`$ (ignoring the $`2`$, which is due to our conventions). In keeping with this observation, we rename the lowest component in (46), $`A^Az^A`$ (and $`\lambda \psi `$), and interpret the remaining terms in the expansion geometrically. We find

$`{\displaystyle }d^4xD^2\overline{D}^2K|={\displaystyle }d^4x`$ $`\{2G_{A\overline{B}}(z^A\overline{z}^{\overline{B}}i\psi ^A\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}i\psi ^A\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}^A\overline{}^{\overline{B}})`$ (99)
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{AB}C}(^C\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}\overline{\psi }^{\overline{A}}2i\psi ^C\overline{z}^{\overline{B}}\overline{\psi }^{\overline{A}})`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB\overline{C}}(\overline{}^{\overline{C}}\psi ^B\psi ^A+2i\psi ^Az^B\overline{\psi }^{\overline{C}})`$
$`+(R_{C\overline{A}D\overline{B}}+G^{E\overline{E}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CD\overline{E}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{BD}E})\psi ^D\psi ^C\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}\overline{\psi }^{\overline{A}}\},`$
where we have introduced the curvature $`R_{C\overline{A}D\overline{B}}`$ and connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{AB}C},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB\overline{C}}`$ for the metric $`G_{A\overline{B}}`$. The spinorial contractions are indicated by ‘$``$’ or are the obvious ones. Eliminating the auxiliary field $``$ finally gives the fully geometric form of the component action

$$d^4x\left\{2G_{A\overline{B}}\left(z^A\overline{z}^{\overline{B}}i\psi ^A𝒟\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}i𝒟\psi ^A\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}\right)+R_{C\overline{A}D\overline{B}}\psi ^D\psi ^C\overline{\psi }^{\overline{B}}\overline{\psi }^{\overline{A}}\right\},$$
(100)
where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }z\psi \overline{\psi }`$ terms are incorporated in the derivative terms $`\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }`$.

To conclude this section, a supersymmetric NLSM in four dimensions necessarily has a Kähler target space $`𝒯`$. The canonical complex coordinates are the lowest components of the chiral superfields. Integrability et c is thus manifest (locally).

### 4.5 Isometries in Kähler spaces

In complex coordinates, the isometry (87) becomes

$`\delta z^A`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^qk_q^A`$
$`\delta \overline{z}^{\overline{A}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^q\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}}.`$ (101)
For a holomorphic isometry $`k=k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`\overline{k}=\overline{k}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$, and the requirement that they leave $`S`$ in (97) invariant means that they have to leave $`K`$ invariant up to a Kähler gauge transformation

$$\delta K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\lambda ^q(K_Ak_q^A(\mathrm{\Phi })+K_{\overline{A}}\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}))=\lambda ^q(\eta _q(\mathrm{\Phi })+\overline{\eta }_q(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})).$$
(102)
The right hand side of (102) will give zero in the superspace integral due to the (anti)chirality of the fields. In fact, the condition (102) for the holomorphic $`k`$’s is sufficient to show that $`_k\overline{}K=0`$, i.e., that they generate an isometry and satisfy Killing’s equation

$$_Ak_{\overline{A}}+_{\overline{A}}\overline{k}_A=0.$$
(103)
The relation (102) only determines $`\eta `$ up to an imaginary constant. This is reflected in an ambiguity in the the (real) Killing potential $`X_q(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ defined by

$`k_q^AK_A=iX_q+\eta _q`$
$`\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}}K_{\overline{A}}=iX_q+\overline{\eta }_q.`$ (104)
Clearly $`X_q`$ is correspondingly defined only up to a real constant. From (104) it follows, using the properties of $`k`$, that

$`k_{q\overline{B}}k_q^AK_{A\overline{B}}=iX_{q\overline{B}}`$
$`\overline{k}_{qB}=iX_{qB},`$ (105)
hence the name “Killing potential”. It further follows that

$$\overline{k}_q^{\overline{B}}X_{p\overline{B}}+k_p^BX_{qB}=0,$$
(106)
and, hence, that

$$\delta X_p=i\lambda ^q(\overline{k}_{[q}^{\overline{A}}X_{p]\overline{A}}+k_{[q}^AX_{p]A}).$$
(107)
This expression for the transformation of the Killing potential will be needed later.

For holomorphic Killing vectors, the algebra (89) becomes

$$k_{[p}^Ak_{q]}^B,_A=c_{pq}^rk_r^B,$$
(108)
and its complecx conjugate. In conjunction with the transformation of the Kähler potential $`K`$

$$\delta K=\lambda ^q(K_Ak_q^A+K_{\overline{A}}\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}})=\lambda ^q(\eta _q+\overline{\eta }_q),$$
(109)
and analyticity, we may use (108) to derive the transformations of $`\eta `$:

$`k_{[p}^A\eta _{q]A}=c_{pq}^r\eta _r+io_{pq}`$
$`\overline{k}_{[p}^{\overline{A}}\overline{\eta }_{q]\overline{A}}=c_{pq}^r\eta _rio_{pq}.`$ (110)
It is important for the gauging of the isometries that the $`\eta `$’s transform equivariantly. When the constants $`o_{pq}`$ are not removable, they thus constitute an obstruction to gauging the isometries. From the Jacobi identities one finds that they have to satisfy $`o_{p[q}c_{rs]}^t=0`$. This is the case if $`o_{pq}=c_{pq}^r\xi _r`$ for some real constant $`\xi `$, and the shift $`\eta \eta +i\xi `$ then removes the obstructions, except for invariant abelian subgroups. Indeed, for semi-simple groups, even non-compact ones, we may choose $`\xi _q=c_{qp}^ro_{rs}g^{ps}`$, with $`g`$ the Killing metric.

As an illustration of the previous discussion, let us look at the an example where the isometry group is Abelian and the obstructions not removable. Take the Kähler potential to be $`K=\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ corresponding to the flat metric $`G=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Then the translations generated by

$`k_1=/\mathrm{\Phi }+/\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\overline{}`$
$`k_2=i(\overline{}),`$ (111)
are isometries. From the variation $`\delta K`$, we find

$$\eta _1=\mathrm{\Phi },\eta _2=i\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(112)
Calculating the effect of a transformation as in (110), we have

$$k_{[1}^A\eta _{2]A}=2io_{12}=2i.$$
(113)
Since the isomety is abelian, this obstruction is not removable, and the implication is that we can only gauge a linear combination of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$.

### 4.6 Gauging isometries in N=1 susy sigma models

let us first discuss some generalities before taking on the isometries. We study chiral fields that transform under some representation of a Yang-Mills group $`𝒢`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A{}_{}{}^{}=\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)_B^A\mathrm{\Phi }^B,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}{}_{}{}^{}=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{B}}\left(e^{i\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)_{\overline{B}}^{\overline{A}},$$
(114)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^A\mathrm{\Lambda }^q(T_q)_B^A`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^q(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ a chiral superfield and $`T_q`$ the generators of the lie-algebra g of $`𝒢`$

$$[T_q,T_p]=ic_{pq}^rT_r.$$
(115)
Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, the group $`𝒢`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ through its complexification $`𝒢^C`$ ($`T_q(T_q,iT_q)`$).

The gauge potential is an adjoint vector superfield $`V=V^qT_q`$. It transforms as

$$e^V^{}=\left(e^{i\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)e^V\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right),$$
(116)
which means that we may define a superfield $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^A`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^A`$ which transforms in $`𝒢_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rather than in $`𝒢_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^B\left(e^V\right)_B^A,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}_{}{}^{}=\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}e^{i\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right).$$
(117)
This is precisely what is needed to construct invariant actions. To this end we also introduce the gauge covariant superspace derivatives

$$_𝒜=(_\alpha ,_{\dot{\alpha }},_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})(e^VD_\alpha e^V,\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }},\{_\alpha ,_{\dot{\alpha }}\}).$$
(118)
With these tools we write the gagued NLSM action in superspace as (cf (98))

$$d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}})d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}),$$
(119)
and instead of (46) we use an the component expansion

$$z^A=\mathrm{\Phi }^A|,\psi _\alpha =_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^A|,^A=^2\mathrm{\Phi }^A|,$$
(120)
for the chiral fields along with

$$A_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^q=i(_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}|_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^q,\lambda _\alpha ^q=i\overline{D}^2_\alpha |W_\alpha |,D^q{}_{}{}^{}=\frac{i}{2}\{^\alpha ,W_\alpha \}|,$$
(121)
for the physical components of the vector multiplet.

Invariance of the ungauged action (98) under an isomorphism was shown above to be equivalent to $`\delta K=\lambda (\eta +\overline{\eta })`$. Now that we are promoting the constant $`\lambda `$ to a superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$), this is no-longer necessarily true. E.g.,

$$d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\lambda ^q\overline{\eta }_q=0,$$
(122)
but

$$d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{\eta }_q0,$$
(123)
in general. To amend this, we introduce a new chiral superfield $`\zeta `$ with transformation properties (in the ungauged case)

$$\delta \zeta =\eta _q(\mathrm{\Phi }^A)\lambda ^q,\delta \overline{\zeta }=\overline{\eta }_q(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}})\lambda ^q.$$
(124)
If the isometry under consideration is generated by $`k`$, we now define new holomorphic Killing vectors $`k^{}`$ in the enlarged target space with coordinates $`\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }`$:

$$k_q^{}k_q^A_A+\eta _q_\zeta ,\overline{k}_q^{}\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}}\overline{}_{\overline{A}}+\overline{\eta }_q\overline{}_{\overline{\zeta }}$$
(125)
The symmetries generated by $`k^{}`$ leave the new Kähler potential $`K^{}K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\zeta \overline{\zeta }`$ invariant. The new action is independent of $`\zeta `$ but it has important consequences for the gauged. It is this Kähler potential we will use when gaguging the isometries.

The transformations (114) describe transformations linearly realized on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and does not cover general isometries in arbitrary coordinates. To cover the general case we must gauge the isometries acting as in (87), or (87) for the holomorphic $`k`$’s:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A=\mathrm{\Lambda }^qk_q^A,\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^q\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}}.$$
(126)
The appropriate generalization of (116) is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^Ae^{_{iV\overline{k}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(127)
i.e., the action of an exponentiated Lie-derivative along the direction $`iV^q\overline{k}_q`$, representing a finite gauge transformation with parameter $`V^q`$. Accordingly, for the case at hand with Killing vectors $`k`$’ as in (125)

$`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{_{iV\overline{k}^{}}}\overline{\zeta }`$ (128)
$`=\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{^{}}1}{^{}}}\right)^{}\right)\overline{\zeta }=\overline{\zeta }+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{^{}}1}{^{}}}\right)\overline{\eta }_qV^q`$
$`=\overline{\zeta }+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{}1}{}}\right)\overline{\eta }_qV^q,`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{}_{iV\overline{k}^{}}`$, and the prime is removed in the last equality because $`V`$ and $`\eta `$ are independent of $`\zeta `$. As noted earlier, the $`\overline{\zeta }`$ term, is irrelevant in the action, and thus the gauged action is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left(K(\mathrm{\Phi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})\zeta \stackrel{~}{\zeta }\right)}`$ (129)
$`={\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left(K(\mathrm{\Phi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})i\left(\frac{e^{}1}{}\right)\overline{\eta }_qV^q\right)}.`$
Finally, we use the relation (104) to eliminate $`\eta `$ in favour of the Killing potential $`X`$ (which also entails removing the tilde from $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`K`$)

$$d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left(K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\left(\frac{e^{}1}{}\right)X_qV^q\right).$$
(130)
The last term is hermitean, although not manifestly so. Through the ambiguity in the definition of $`X`$ there is the possibility to include a so called Fayet-Iliopoulos term for each $`U(1)`$ factor in $`𝒢`$, i.e., a term of the type $`c_qV^q`$. (See the discussion of obstructions in subsection 4.5 above). The action (130) solves the problem of gauging isometries of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric NLSM’s.

We close this subsection with a simple example of a Kähler quotient construction.
Let us again look at the $`\text{}\text{}^{(n)}`$ model discussed in subsection 4.2, but now from the point of view of superspace. We start from the flat space Kähler potential in $`\text{}^{(n+1)}`$ which is

$$K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\underset{A=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^A\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}=e^{(\varphi ^0+\overline{\varphi }^0)}\left(1+\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi ^a\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{a}}\right),$$
(131)
where the last equality involves an obvious field redefinition and displays one of the isometries of the model. The corresponding Killing vector is

$$\varphi ^A=\lambda ^qk_q^A_A=i\lambda ^q\delta _q^0_0,\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{A}}=\lambda ^q\overline{k}_q^{\overline{A}}\overline{}_{\overline{A}}=i\lambda ^q\delta _q^0\overline{}_0.$$
(132)
We gauge this isometry by letting $`\varphi ^0+\overline{\varphi }^0\varphi ^0+\overline{\varphi }^0+V`$, which amounts to introducing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^0`$ in this case. We may also use the freedom discussed after (130) to include a Fayet-Iliopoulos term. Hence

$$K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})K(\mathrm{\Phi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})cV=e^{(\varphi ^0+\overline{\varphi }^0)}\left(1+\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi ^a\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{a}}\right).$$
(133)
We find the new quotient Kähler potential by extremizing the corresponding action with respect to $`V`$:

$$\delta VV=ln(1+\varphi ^a\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{a}})\varphi ^0\overline{\varphi }^0+const.,$$
(134)
which gives the quotient Kähler potential

$$K^{}(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })=cln(1+\varphi ^a\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{a}}),$$
(135)
and again we recognize the $`\text{}\text{}^{(n)}`$ Kähler potential for the metric (85).

### 4.7 N=2 supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models

To formulate the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric NLSM’s we ideally want a $`N=2`$ superspace where both supersymmetries are manifest. This means that we need to introduce a second set of $`\theta `$’s and extend the integration measure accordingly, so that an action will be written as

$$S=d^4xd^4\theta d^4\overline{\theta }.$$
(136)
However, such an action cannot accomodate a Lagrangian $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_H,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_H)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H`$ is the smallest $`N=2`$ representation, a so called hypermultiplet corresponding a pair of $`N=1`$ chiral superfields. To be more precise, a dimensional analysis of the measure shows that such an action will not have the right bosonic content for a NLSM. There are ways around this. Enlarging the superspace by additional bosonic coordinates one may find invariant subspaces and corresponding subintegrals that give correct results. We do not discuss these projective supererspaces - and harmonic superspaces  here, though. Instead our discussion of $`N=2`$ NLSM’s will be entirely in terms of $`N=1`$ superfields in $`N=1`$ superspace. Our starting point will thus be the action (98)

$$d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}).$$
(137)
One supersymmetry is thus manifest due to the $`N=1`$ formalism. For the second supersymmetry we make the ansatz

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A=\overline{D}^2(\overline{ϵ}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^A),\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{A}}=D^2(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }^{\overline{A}}).$$
(138)
The reason for the covariant derivatives is for the second supersymmetry to commute with the first, and they come squared to preserve the (anti-) chirality of the fields. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$, so they represent the general situation. The requirements of closure of the supersymmetry algebra and invariance of the action will constrain the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s and reveal an interesting target space geometry.

The superfield transformation parameter satisfies

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}ϵ=D^2ϵ=_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}ϵ=0.$$
(139)
Closure of the non-manifest supersymmetry means that

$$[\delta _{ϵ^1},\delta _{ϵ^2}]\mathrm{\Phi }^A=i(\overline{D}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{ϵ}^2D^\alpha ϵ^1(12))_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }^A,$$
(140)
and implies

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{B}}^A\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{\overline{B}}=\delta _B^A,\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{[\overline{D}}^C\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{B}]}^A=0,$$
(141)
along with their hermitean conjugate.(An additional condition turns out to be a field equation of the model.) Additional subscript again represent derivatives with respect to the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Invariance of the action (137) implies the further constraints

$`K_{A\overline{B}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{C}}^A=K_{A\overline{C}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{B}}^A`$
$`K_{A\overline{B}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{C}\overline{D}}^A+K_{A\overline{C}\overline{D}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{B}}^A=0`$
$`K_{A\overline{B}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{C}D}^A+K_{A\overline{B}D}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{C}}^A=0.`$ (142)
Putting all this together, we conclude that there are two additional integrable complex structures (from (141)) which are covariantly constant with respect to the hermitean Kähler metric $`G=\overline{}K`$ (from (142). There are thus three covariantly constant complex structures. The (lowest components of the) chiral superfields are the canonical coordinates for one of them. The complex structures are

$$J_j^{(3)i}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\delta _{AB}& 0\\ 0& i\delta _{\overline{A}\overline{B}}\end{array}\right)J_j^{(1)i}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Omega }_B^{\overline{A}}\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{B}}^A& 0\end{array}\right),J_j^{(2)i}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{\overline{A}}\\ i\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\overline{B}}^A& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(143)
We conclude that the symmetries and invariances of a $`N=2`$ susy NLSM requires the target space $`𝒯`$ to be hyperkähler.

### 4.8 Isometries in hyperkähler spaces

The isometries we will consider in the $`N=2`$ case are tri holomorphic, i.e., whereas a holomorphic Killing vector preserves the fundamental two-form (68) $`\omega =2iK_{A\overline{A}}dz^Ad\overline{z}^{\overline{A}}`$ corresponding to $`J^{(3)}`$, a tri-holomorphic Killing vector preserves in addition the two-forms related to $`J^{(1)}`$ and $`J^{(2)}`$, which means that

$$\rho _{\overline{B}[\overline{C}}_{\overline{D}]}\overline{k}^{\overline{B}}K_{A\overline{B}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{[\overline{C}}^A_{\overline{D}]}\overline{k}^{\overline{B}}=0.$$
(144)
This defines $`\rho `$ (and $`\overline{\rho }`$ through the hermitean conjugate relation). Such a Killing vector has a Killing potential with respect to each $`J`$, or, in arbitrary coordinates, $`k^iJ_{ij}^{(X)}=X^{(X)},_j`$. We combine $`X^{(1)}`$ and $`X^{(2)}`$ to a holomorphic potential $`P`$ and an antiholomorphic potential $`\overline{P}`$ with respect to $`J^{(2)}\pm iJ^{(2)}`$, respectively,

$$k^A\rho _{AB}=P,_B,\overline{k}^{\overline{A}}\overline{\rho }_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}=\overline{P},_{\overline{B}}.$$
(145)
These ingredients are all needed to describe the gauging of isometries of $`N=2`$ NLSM’s.

### 4.9 Gauging isometries in N=2 susy sigma models

When the $`N=2`$ model (137) has triholomorphic isometries they may be gauged in a manner that closely follows the description in subsection 4.6. The new features to do with $`N2`$ supersymmetry is that the scalar superfields now come in pairs of chiral $`N=1`$ field that together constitute a $`N=2`$ hyper multiplet. Also the vector superfield $`V^q`$ gets an $`N=2`$ partner, a chiral superfield $`S^q`$ .

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\mathrm{\Phi }_+^A,\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^A),V^q(V^q,S^q).$$
(146)
The second supersymmetry (138) is affected by the gauging in that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Phi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$. In addition, for the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet it reads reads

$$\delta e^V=ϵ\overline{S}e^V+e^VS\overline{ϵ},\delta S=iW^\alpha D_\alpha ϵ.$$
(147)
(See (121)). The gauge transformations with parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are as in (126) with the additional

$$\delta S=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },S].$$
(148)
The gauged action, invariant under the local isometries, is the generalization of (130)

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left[K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\left(\frac{e^{}1}{}\right)X_qV^q+g_{pg}S^p\left(e^V\overline{S}e^V\right)^q\right]}`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle }d^4xd^2\theta (iS^qP_q)+h.c.\}.`$ (149)
The possibility to add Fayet-Iliopoulos terms discussed for $`N=1`$ generalizes to $`N=2`$

$$S_{FI}=d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }c_qV^q+\{d^4xd^2\theta i\widehat{c}_qS^q+h.c.\},$$
(150)
again with a sum over abelian factors.

The action (149) is the starting point for the $`N=2`$ quotient, the hyperkähler quotient construction , and we end with an example of this .

Starting from the action

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_+^{\overline{A}}\mathrm{\Phi }_+^Ae^V+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^A\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}^{\overline{A}}e^VcV\right)}`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle }d^4xd^2\theta (\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^A\mathrm{\Phi }_+^Ab)S)+h.c.\},`$ (151)
which is a gauged flat ($`\text{}^{2(n+1)}`$) $`N=2`$ action with Fayet-Iliopoulos terms ($`c`$ and $`b`$), invariant under the gauged abelian isometries

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^{}=e^{\pm i\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\pm ^{}=e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\pm ,V^{}=V+i(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(152)
We extremise this action with respect to the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet, i.e., with respect to $`V`$ and $`S`$

$`\delta V\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_+^{\overline{A}}\mathrm{\Phi }_+^Ae^V\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^A\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}^{\overline{A}}e^V=c`$
$`\delta S\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^A\mathrm{\Phi }_+^A=b,`$ (153)
where the last relation is known as the “moment map”. With the gauge choice

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_+^{n+1}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{n+1}\varphi ,$$
(154)
and the redefinitions

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^aU_\pm ^a\varphi ,a=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(155)
these moment map constraints are solved. Further defining

$$M_\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\pm ^A\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^A,$$
(156)
we solve the $`V`$ equations in (153) and rewrite the action (151) as

$$d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left[\sqrt{c^2+4M_+M_{}}c\left(ln(c+\sqrt{c^2+4M_+M_{}})lnM_+\right)\right].$$
(157)
The Lagrangian density inside the square brackets is the new Kähler potential on the $`N=2`$ quotient, which also has a hyperkähler target space $`𝒯`$. The quotient Kähler potential is a generalization of that of the $`\text{}\text{}^n`$ models and yields the Calabi metrics.

Acknowledgement: I gratefully acknowledge all my collaborators in Supersymmetry. In particular Nigel Hitchin, Chris Hull, Anders Karlhede and Martin Roček. The work is supported in parts by EU contract HPNR-CT-2000-0122 and by VR grant 650-1998368.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Nondemolition State Measurement via Atomic Scattering in Bragg Regime

## I Introduction

In twentieth century physics, quantum theory has been a fascinating playground to study the nature of electromagnetic radiations and matter. In this subject, measurement of an unknown state of electromagnetic field poses an interesting question . After the breakthrough made by tomographic technique , numerous methods such as quantum non-demolition , quantum endoscopy  and Autler Townes spectroscopy , have been suggested. In quantum non demolition (QND)  measurement schemes, field photon number is not altered by measurement process, which includes QND measurement via dispersive atom field coupling , optical Kerr effect  and atomic scattering .

Since, momentum distribution of deflected atoms from a quantized cavity field is a function of photon number  of the field, therefore, atomic scattering provides various methods to measure field photon statistics. Two such approaches have been employed: $`(i)`$ Resonant interactions of atoms with a quantized cavity standing light field ; $`\left(ii\right)`$ Nonresonant interaction of atoms with the quantized field, which are qantum nondemolition (QND) schemes. In QND state measurement schemes we reduce field statistics to a single Fock state, and then make repeated measurements to reproduce the field statistics . Such schemes have been discussed to measure the field photon number using a phase sensitive detection of atom  and atomic scattering in Raman-Nath regime . Atomic scattering using first order of Bragg regime has been employed to measure Fock state  of a cavity field.

In this paper, we study deflection of atoms, in any arbitrary order of Bragg regime, from a far detuned quantized cavity field. We apply this study to measure any quantum state using QND state measurement scheme. As an application of this method, we measure coherent state of electromagnetic field in a very high Q-cavity. In addition a set of experimental parameters is provided to perform the experiment within the frame work of the presently available technology.

In Sec. 2, we present experimental model of our system. In Sec. 3, we develop mathematical model of our system describing the dynamics of atom in a quantized cavity field. We present analytical prescription to study the momentum probability distributions for generalized Bragg regime and provide numerical confirmation of the derived results. Finally, in Sec. 4, we present our scheme to measure the quantum state of cavity field and successfully apply it to reconstruct coherent state. We also provide set of experimental parameters to realize the suggested scheme.

## II The Model

We consider a beam of atoms moving with centre of mass momentum $`P,`$ towards a cavity field. The incident atom is in the ground state and the field inside the cavity is an optical standing wave of wavelength, $`\lambda .`$ We have the injection rate to be small enough so that only one atom is in the cavity at a time. Moreover, we take large detuning between the cavity field frequency and the atomic transition frequency. This ensures that atom does not exit the cavity in excited state and there is no spontaneous emission which contributes a photon in arbitrary direction.

The effective Rabi frequency of the atom becomes $`|g|^2n/2\mathrm{}=\chi n,`$ where $`g`$ is coupling constant, and $`\mathrm{}=\nu w_0`$ is detuning between the field frequency, $`\nu ,`$ and the atomic transition frequency, $`w_0.`$ We probe the atomic scattering by taking the propagation direction at an angle $`\theta `$ to the normal, satisfying the Fresnel approximation. In this approximation the momentum component, $`P_z,`$ normal to the cavity field, is taken very large compared to the component, $`P_0,`$ along the cavity field, as shown in Fig. 1. This allows us to treat $`P_z`$ classically.

## III Atomic Scattering from Cavity Field

We describe the wave function of our system at any time, $`t,`$ in discrete momentum space as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{n}{}\underset{l}{}\left(C_{P_l}^{a,n}(t)|a,n,P_l+C_{P_l}^{b,n}(t)|b,n,P_l\right).$$
(1)
Here, $`C_{P_l}^{i,n}`$ is the probability amplitude indicating the atom in state $`i=a,b`$ at any interaction time $`t,`$ exiting with momentum $`P_l,`$ and the cavity with $`n`$ photons. The total Hamiltonian of the system, in dipole and in rotating wave approximations, is

$$H=\frac{P^2}{2M}+\mathrm{}\nu a^{}a+\mathrm{}w_0\sigma _z+\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}kx(g\sigma _+a+g^{}a^{}\sigma _{}).$$
(2)
Since, in presence of large detuning, the probability of finding the atom in excited state is very small, we may express the atomic dynamics by means of the effective Hamiltonian as

$$H_{eff}=\frac{P_x^2}{2M}\frac{\mathrm{}|g|^2}{2\mathrm{}}\hat{n}\sigma _{}\sigma _+\left(\mathrm{cos}2kx+1\right),$$
(3)
obtained by applying adiabatic approximation . During interaction with the field, for each complete Rabi cycle, momentum transferred to the atom by the field is either $`zero`$ or $`2\mathrm{}k`$ . Thus momentum of the exiting atom is given as $`P_l=P_0+l\mathrm{}k`$, where, $`l`$ is an even integer. Hence, Eq. $`\left(\text{3}\right)`$ leads to a set of infinite coupled rate equations for probability amplitudes $`C_{P_l}^{b,n}`$, viz.,

$$i\frac{C_{P_l}^{b,n}(t)}{t}=w_{rec}l(l+l_0)C_{P_l}^{b,n}(t)\frac{\chi n}{2}\left(C_{P_l+2\mathrm{}k}^{b,n}(t)+C_{P_l2\mathrm{}k}^{b,n}(t)\right).$$
(4)
Here, $`w_{rec}=\frac{\mathrm{}k^2}{2M}`$ is the recoil frequency of the atom and its initial momentum is taken to be, $`P_0=l_0\mathrm{}k.`$ Interestingly, Eq. $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ helps us to study atomic scattering in any regime.

In Bragg deflection, recoil frequency of the deflected atom is much larger than effective Rabi frequency , that is $`w_{rec}\chi n.`$ By comparing atomic scattering with optical Bragg scattering , we  can develop a condition on initial momentum of the incident atom, viz. $`P_0=\frac{l_0}{2}\mathrm{}k.`$ Here, $`l_o=2,4`$, $`6`$ etc., correspond to first, second, third order of Bragg scattering, respectively. By changing the component of momentum, $`P_0,`$ parallel to the cavity, we can change the order of Bragg scattering. In this regime, the conservation of energy provides us $`l=0`$and $`l=l_0,`$ which indicate only two possible directions of propagation for the scattered atom, one with initial momentum $`P_0`$ and the other with momentum $`P_0,`$ respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.

In presence of above mentioned conditions, Eq. $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ yields a set of coupled rate equations from $`l=0`$ to $`l=l_0`$ for Bragg regime, viz.

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_0}^{b,n}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}(\underset{¯}{C_{P_2}^{b,n}}+C_{P_2}^{b,n}),`$ (5)
$`i\underset{¯}{{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_2}^{b,n}}{t}}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{rec}(2)(2+l_0)C_{P_2}^{b,n}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}(C_{P_0}^{b,n}+C_{P_4}^{b,n}),`$ (6)
$`i\underset{¯}{{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_4}^{b,n}}{t}}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{rec}(4)(4+l_0)C_{P_4}^{b,n}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}(C_{P_2}^{b,n}+C_{P_6}^{b,n}),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`i\underset{¯}{{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_{l_0+4}}^{b,n}}{t}}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{rec}(l_0+4)(4)C_{P_{l_0+4}}^{b,n}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}(C_{P_{l_0+6}}^{b,n}+C_{P_{l_0+2}}^{b,n}),`$ (9)
$`i\underset{¯}{{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_{l_0+2}}^{b,n}}{t}}}`$ $`=`$ $`w_{rec}(l_0+2)(2)C_{P_{l_0+2}}^{b,n}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}(C_{P_{l_0+4}}^{b,n}+C_{P_{l_0}}^{b,n}),`$ (10)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_{l_0}}^{b,n}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}(C_{P_{l_0+2}}^{b,n}+\underset{¯}{C_{P_{l_02}}^{b,n}}).`$ (11)
At $`l=0`$ and at $`l=l_0,`$ the diagonal terms of above set of coupled equations vanish. In the Bragg limit, $`w_{rec}`$ is much larger than $`\chi n`$, the non-vanishing diagonal elements dominate the evolution. Hence, we ignore, adiabatically, the time derivatives of these probability amplitudes. Also the probability amplitudes outside this range acquire very little probability. Thus, we ignore all the underlined terms in above series. Now retaining only lowest order of $`\chi n/2`$ in the coefficients and back substituting the values, we obtain two coupled equations (for $`l_0>2`$) as

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_0}^{b,n}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`AC_{P_0}^{b,n}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}BC_{P_{l_0}}^{b,n},`$ (12)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{C_{P_{l_0}}^{b,n}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`AC_{P_{l_0}}^{b,n}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}BC_{P_0}^{b,n},`$ (13)
where,

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\chi n/2}{w_{rec}(l_02)(2)}},`$

and

$$|B|=\frac{\left(\chi n\right)^{^{\frac{l_0}{2}}}}{\left(2w_{rec}\right)^{\frac{l_0}{2}1}\left[(l_02)(l_04)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}4.2\right]^2}.$$
(14)
From Eqs. $`\left(\text{12}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{13}\right)`$, we obtain the probability of atom exiting with momentum $`P_0,`$ i.e. $`Q(P_0,t),`$ and that of exiting with momentum $`P_{l_0},`$ i.e. $`Q(P_{l_0},t),`$ as

$`Q(P_0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P(n)\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Bt\right),`$ (15)
$`Q(P_{l_0},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P(n)\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Bt\right),`$ (16)
where, $`P(n)`$ is photon statistics. Here, we have used the initial condition that atom enters the cavity with momentum $`P_0,`$ therefore, $`C_{P_0}^{b,n}(0)=1`$ and $`C_{P_{l_0}}^{b,n}(0)=0.`$ Thus, we find that the probability of finding the exiting atom in either of the two directions, flips as a function of interaction time $`t,`$ with frequency, $`|B|`$.

In the simplest case of first order Bragg scattering, Eq. $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ provides only two coupled rate equations, that is for $`l=0`$ and $`l=2.`$ This leads to the results obtained in Ref. ,

$`Q(P_0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P(n)\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}t\right),`$ (17)
$`Q(P_2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P(n)\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi n}{2}}t\right).`$ (18)
In order to verify our above mentioned analytical results obtained by means of adiabatic approximation and in presence of Bragg condition, we exactly solve a system of equations, numerically. The system of first order linear coupled differential equations is obtained from Eq. $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ from $`l=500`$ to $`l=+500.`$ We solve this set for Bragg regime and present the comparison for 2nd order Bragg scattering, that is for $`l_0=4`$, in Fig. 2. We find a good qualitative and quantitative agreement between analytical and numerical results.

## IV QND Cavity State Measurement

QND measurement process relies on the reduction of field statistics to a single Fock state by means of successive atomic interactions and then repeating the reduction process, such that, the statistics of the Fock states reproduces field statistics. From Eqs. $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{16}\right),`$ we see that momentum distribution of the scattered atoms depends on the photon statistics inside the cavity. If cavity life time is large compared to the time between injections of atoms, then it is possible to invert Eq. $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ or $`\left(\text{16}\right)`$. Interaction of an atom with the cavity field updates the cavity field statistics in a fashion controlled by its interaction time. The photon statistics, $`P(n),`$ gets multiplied by oscillatory function, which has periodic maximas and minimas. The position of the minimas changes with the interaction time of atom with the field. Interaction time of the atom is controlled by controlling the transversal velocity of the atom. Next atom is sent with different interaction time and eliminates some photon numbers in the distribution, until after a few number of atoms only one photon number state is left, which then does not change. By repeating this simulation and counting the number of times each Fock state is appearing, we reconstruct the original photon distribution.

In order to apply the procedure we reconstruct the field statistics of a coherent state developed in the cavity. For an interacting atom undergoing Bragg scattering, there exists two directions of propagation. Since undetected atom does not alter the distribution, we can fix our detector at one of the two directions. The reconstruction of photon statistics is based on the conditional probability, $`P\left(n/p_l\left(t\right)\right)=NP(p_l\left(t\right)/n),`$ where, $`l`$ denotes any of the two directions of propagation of deflected atoms, and $`N`$ is the normalization constant. Each atom enters the cavity with a different transversal velocity and, therefore interacts with the field for a different interaction time. The new statistics of the cavity field, after the interaction of the atom, updates, having some photon numbers from the field distribution, eliminated. This way lack of information about the field reduces with each measurement and the whole measurement sequence reduces the field to well defined number state, which then does not change until the field relaxes back to its original state. We display this procedure in Fig. 3. by displaying a simulation of eleven such atoms, with a nonrelaxing field initially described by a coherent state with on average of 10 photons. The effective Rabi frequency is kept as $`\chi =0.02w_{rec}`$ to remain within the limit of Bragg regime, and initial momentum is taken as $`P_0=4\mathrm{}k,`$ in order to have $`2nd`$ order Bragg scattering. We repeat the process of reduction of field statistics to a single Fock state and keep record of the number a Fock state is appearing. This leads us to reconstruct the statistics of the coherent field state, as we show in Fig. 4 (b). A comparison of original Poisson statistics with the reconstructed one displays a good agreement in Fig. 4.

We can realize the suggested scheme in laboratory by using the experimental set up of Ref. . We propagate a beam of rubidium atoms of mass $`M=1.42\times 10^{25}`$ Kg, through an optical quantum field of wavelength $`\lambda =0.8`$ $`\mu m`$. Therefore the atom experiences a recoil frequency, $`w_{rec}=2\pi \times 3.8`$ kHz, while passing through the field, provided it is detuned by an amount $`\mathrm{}=2\pi \times 80`$ MHz. With these parameters at hand, we take $`g=2\pi \times 112`$ kHz, such that, $`\chi 0.02w_{rec},`$ in order to realize Bragg regime.

## V Acknowledgment

We thank M. S. Zubairy and A. A. Khan for many helpful discussions on the subject.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Suggested experimental setup: We send a highly detuned atomic beam with momentum component $`P_0`$ along the field, which is very small compared to the normal component $`P_z.`$ The cavity field of amplitude, $`(`$x$`)`$ is quantized and is along x-axis. In Bragg regime there exist only two possible directions of deflection for the incident atom, with momentum $`P_0`$ and $`P_0`$.

Fig. 2. Numerical verification of higher order Bragg deflection: We study the occupation probabilities for 2nd order Bragg scattering of atoms entering with momentum $`P_0=2\mathrm{}k`$ and scattering with momentum (a) $`P_0`$ and (b) $`P_4,`$ as a function of interaction time $`\overline{t}=w_{rec}t`$. The probability of finding the atom in either of the two directions flips between the two states $`P_0`$ and $`P_4`$ with the same frequency, $`B,`$ as obtained by the analytical results of Eqs. $`\left(16\right)`$ and $`\left(17\right)`$ (dashed line) and by the exact numerical calculation of Eq. $`\left(4\right)`$ (solid line). All other probabilities are insignificant as they approach to zero. Here, $`\chi =0.02w_{rec}`$ and $`n=5.`$

Fig. 3. Reduction of an initial coherent field state to a single photon number state: In (a), we express initial distribution of coherent field with average photon number 10. Whereas (b), (c) and (d) display the field statistics after 2, 6 and 11 detected atoms, respectively. The field collapses to $`n=13`$ Fock state. We take the effective Rabi frequency $`\chi =0.02w_{rec},`$ as in Fig. 2.

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of photon statistics of the cavity field state: We display the field initially in coherent state centered at $`n=10,`$ in Fig. 4 (a), whereas in Fig. 4 (b), we plot the reconstructed field state. The total number of probe atoms being used is 100,000. The reconstructed statistics is in good agreement with the original field statistics.