text:
# Variable Thermal Emission from Aql X-1 in Quiescence

## 1 Introduction

Brown, Bildsten & Rutledge (Brown et al., 1998, BBR98 hereafter) showed that the core of a transiently accreting neutron star (NS), such as Aql X-1 (for reviews of transient neutron stars, see Chen et al. (1997); Campana et al. (1998a)), is heated to a steady-state temperature by nuclear reactions deep in the crust during the accretion outbursts. The timescale for the core to reach this steady-state is $``$$`10^4`$ yr (see also Colpi et al. (2000)), after which the NS emits a thermal luminosity in quiescence of (BBR98)

$$L_q=8.7\times 10^{33}\left(\frac{\dot{M}}{10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1}\right)\frac{Q}{1.45\mathrm{MeV}/m_p}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
where $`\dot{M}`$ is the time-averaged mass-accretion rate onto the NS, and $`Q`$ is the amount of heat deposited in the crust per accreted nucleon (Haensel & Zdunik (1990); see Bildsten & Rutledge (2000) for a discussion). Rutledge et al. (Rutledge et al., 2001a, R01 hereafter) showed that, in the case of Aql X$``$1, the quiescent X-ray luminosity was within observational uncertainties of that predicted on the basis of its time-averaged accretion luminosity. This observation, and similar observations of other quiescent transient neutron stars (qNSs), strongly supports the scenario that deep crustal heating provides a “rock bottom” quiescent luminosity.

This quiescent thermal emission does not preclude that accretion onto the NS surface (at a rate $`\dot{M}_c`$) continues in quiescence at a substantially lower rate than during outburst. Narayan et al. (1997) argued that the analogous black hole (BH) systems accrete during quiescence via an advective flow that radiates inefficiently and makes quiescent BHs dim or non-detectable. This same accretion flow onto the NSs should be observable, with efficiencies $`ϵ=0.20`$ ($`L_\mathrm{X}ϵ\dot{M}_cc^2`$). Statistical comparisons show that the BHs are, on average, less luminous than NSs by a factor of $``$10 Barret & Vedrenne (1994); Narayan et al. (1997); Asai et al. (1998), although in individual cases they may be more luminous (V404 Cyg is an example of a BH which is more luminous than most qNSs; Kong et al. (2002)). While this average difference in luminosity argues for a difference between the emission properties of NSs and of BHs, perhaps due to the presence of a surface in the former, detailed X-ray spectroscopy is still required to distinguish quiescent NSs from quiescent BHs in individual cases where the compact object mass is not measured nor type-I X-ray bursts observed Rutledge et al. (2000).

Assessing the relevance of accretion as a source of the NS quiescent emission is hampered by the difficulty of predicting $`\dot{M}_c`$. In the context of an advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF; Narayan & Yi (1994)), $`\dot{M}_c`$ is set by the evaporation rate from the disk which is in turn related to the unknown disk truncation radius. Similar limitations apply for other low $`\dot{M}`$ solutions, such as the Adiabatic Inflow/Outflow Solution (ADIOS; Blandford & Begelman (1999)). We are thus searching for direct indicators of quiescent accretion onto the NS: short term (timescales much less than the orbital period) intensity variability, and evidence of metals in the photosphere (BBR98; Bildsten & Rutledge (2000)).

An intensity decrease of 40$`\pm `$8% across 5 yrs in Cen X-4 may well be explained as crustal cooling from a long ($``$100 yr) recurrence time NS Rutledge et al. (2001c). Previous observations have shown shorter term variability ($`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}`$1 day). In Cen X-4 Campana et al. (1997), the intensity decreased by a factor of $`3`$ over 4 days111Our re-analysis of the data found that the ROSAT/HRI countrate decreased by a factor of 4.1$`\pm `$0.6 over 4.4 days. in 1997, approximately 18 years after the previous known outburst. Since, in crustal cooling variability, the timescale for variability scales with the time since the most recent outburst, four-day variability is much too short a timescale to occur 18 years post-outburst to be explained by this mechanism Ushomirsky & Rutledge (2001).

A second means by which active accretion onto the NS would be indicated during quiescence is the presence of metals in the photosphere. For very low accretion rates (an order of magnitude estimate is $`\dot{M}_c`$$`10^{13}`$ $`M_{}`$yr-1) a transient NS will have a pure H atmosphere because the heavy element settling time is $`10`$ s at the photosphere Bildsten et al. (1992). At accretion rates above this, metals continuously populate the photosphere at such densities that their presence may be observable as absorption lines or edges (see Fig. 7).

Aql X-1 has been detected in X-ray quiescence six times: once with the ROSAT/HRI and twice with ROSAT/PSPC Verbunt et al. (1994), once with ASCA Asai et al. (1998), once with BeppoSAX Campana et al. (1998b), and once with Chandra (R01). In all but the last (R01), the emission was interpreted as blackbody, although a significant power-law component was detected by Campana et al. (1998b), which dominated the emission above $``$2 keV, similar to a component observed from Cen X-4 Asai et al. (1996a); Campana et al. (2000); Rutledge et al. (2001c). R01 examined a number of spectral models, discarding them in favor of a H atmosphere spectrum associated with emission from the NS photosphere.

We report here three additional Chandra detections in quiescence. In three of four Chandra observations of Aql X$``$1 in quiescence, we detect neither short term variability, nor absorption lines; however, in the fourth observation, we detect both variability and a possible absorption line. While other explanations are not excluded, the presence of both short-term ($`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$$`10^4`$ sec) variability and absorption during the fourth observation, combined with the absence of both during the other three observations, is evidence for active accretion onto the NS in quiescence. The modest significance ($`5\sigma `$) of the absorption line does not permit detailed spectroscopic study; however, its presence— should it be confirmed with higher S/N observations—opens up the opportunity to measure the redshift at the NS photosphere. Simultaneous measurements of the redshift, which is a function of $`M/R`$, and $`R`$ would constrain the NS equation of state.

We begin, in § 2, by reviewing the distance and reddening to Aql X$``$1. We then describe, in § 3, our observations, timing analysis, and spectral analysis. Section 4 discusses our interpretation of the spectra and its implications.

## 2 Aql X-1: Distance and Reddening

Callanan, Filippenko & Garcia Callanan et al. (1999) showed that the optical counterpart to Aql X-1 is a faint star 0.46″ from the previously mis-identified counterpart. This led to the counterpart’s identification as a late type star (spectral type K7 to M0) with a quiescent magnitude $`V=21.6`$ with reddening of $`E(BV)=0.5`$$`\pm `$0.1 Chevalier et al. (1999). For standard conversions222The formal uncertainty in this conversion is 2%, however there are clear systematic deviations of 25% to factors of $``$few in some X-ray sources; this may be due in part to the assumed X-ray spectral model. ($`A_V/E(BV)`$=3.1, Fitzpatrick (1999); $`N_\mathrm{H}`$/$`A_V`$=1.79$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 mag-1, Predehl & Schmitt (1995)), this corresponds to an X-ray column density of $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$=0.28$`\pm `$0.06 ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$=$`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$$`10^{22}`$ cm-2). Thorstensen et al. (1978) note that a nearby (1.4′) B-type star has an optical reddening $`E(BV)`$=0.73 mag (no uncertainty given), implying $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$=0.40. These values are comparable to the integrated galactic HI measurements in the direction of Aql X$``$1 of $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$=0.34$`\pm `$0.01 (Dickey & Lockman (1990), from W3nH333http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov; the uncertainty was found as $`\sigma _1^{}/\sqrt{N}`$, where $`\sigma _1^{}`$ is the dispersion of the $`N`$ measurements within 1 degree, and $`N=7`$). These $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ values are listed in Table 4. These values will be used for comparison with the results from spectral fitting in the following section.

The orbital period has been measured at $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=18.95\mathrm{hr}`$ via photometric observations both in outburst Chevalier & Ilovaisky (1998b); Garcia et al. (1999) and quiescence Welsh et al. (2000). While Chevalier et al. Chevalier et al. (1999) estimated the distance to the binary as 2.5 kpc, a re-examination of the arguments producing this distance (which neglected the need for Roche-lobe overflow in the primary) finds that it is between 4 and 6.5 kpc (R01); we adopt 5 kpc as our fiducial distance. This 20% uncertainty is neglected in our quoted uncertainties in $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, which only take into account the statistical uncertainty in our spectral fits. The system’s orbital inclination is estimated to be $`>36^{}`$ Welsh et al. (2000).

## 3 Observations and Analysis

Aql X$``$1 was observed on four occasions, with identical instrumental set-up using the Chandra/ACIS-S detector, backside-illuminated chip. The X-ray source was placed 4′ off-axis and the read-out limited to 1/8 of the chip area with time resolution of 0.44104 seconds; these settings mitigate pile-up to $`<1\%`$ of the detected photons. In all observations, source counts were extracted from an 8 pixel radius about the source position; background was taken from an annulus of inner and outer radius of 10 and 50 pixels, respectively. The spacecraft roll angle differed between each observation. The X-ray source, however, fell on the same physical pixels which, due to the spacecraft dither (used to average over QE non-uniformity and bad pixels) and larger PSF, spanned $``$ 50 detector pixels in both directions across the chip. In each of the four observations, the counts were centered near (chipx, chipy)=(690,710), with deviations between observations of $`\pm `$4 pixel; there are no known bad pixels within 50 pixels of this location. The expected background countrate in the source region was always $`<`$1%. Analysis of the first of these observations is described elsewhere (R01). An observation list is in Table 1.

For the analysis we use CIAO 2.2.0.1 with CALDB 2.9; the ACIS-S3 chip calibration was improved in CALDB 2.7444http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Links/Acis/acis/Cal\_prods/matrix/matrix.html; analyses of astrophysical sources shows no evidence of systematic deviations $`>`$15%. However, the effects of a recently reported time dependence in the ACIS response is discussed in Sec. 3.4.

The first observation triggered as a Target of Opportunity, following the end of a bright X-ray outburst (see Fig. 1) – the brightest observed yet with RXTE/ASM Jain et al. (2000); Rutledge (2000). The other three observations followed after a space of 2, 3 and 4 months from the first observation. The countrates in Table 1, in three separate passbands, show significant variability between observations 1, 2 and 3; observations 3 and 4 show identical countrates in all passbands. In the 0.5-10 keV passband, the countrate decreased by 51$`\pm `$8% between observations 1 and 2 (over a period of 81 days), increased by 35$`\pm `$4% between obs. 2 and 3 (across 32 days), and then remained consistent with constant ($`\pm `$6%) across 28 days).

### 3.1 Short-Term ($`<`$$`10^4`$ sec) Variability

Using the same approach as in R01, we produced power density spectra (PDS) using all counts detected (no energy constraints, corresponding roughly to 0.2-10 keV) to search for broad-band variability (see Lewin et al. (1988) for the use of PDS in measuring broad-band variability in X-ray sources). We produced Fourier transforms of the time-series data, with time resolution of 0.44104 sec Press et al. (1995). From these, we produced the PDS (the sum of the squares of the Fourier components as a function of frequency), and rebinned them logarithmically in frequency. The resulting PDS are shown in Fig. 2.

Visual examination of the PDS shows no evidence for broad-band power in observations 1-3 (there is marginally significant variability in observation 3, near 2$`\times 10^4`$ Hz); however, there is clear excess power at low frequencies during observation 4. We modeled the data as a power-law in frequency, plus a constant (Poisson) level ($`P(\nu )=A\nu ^\alpha +C`$); the best fit model gives a slope $`\alpha =1.8\pm 0.4`$ and an root-mean-square (RMS) variability of 32$`{}_{6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+8}`$%, integrated between 0.0001-1 Hz (0.2-10 keV). Similar modeling to observations 1-3 (holding the power-law slope fixed at the best-fit value of observation 4) provide 3$`\sigma `$ upper-limits between 18-29% rms during these observations (see Table 2). For comparison, we show the lightcurve of obs. 4 in Fig. 3. This is the first observation of short timescale ($`<10^4\mathrm{s}`$) variability observed from the intrinsic spectrum of a quiescent NS transient (that is, not attributable to changes in the intervening X-ray column density).

We estimate (based on spectral fiting, below) that the power-law component only contributes 12% of the counts in the detector in the 0.2-10 keV energy range. This is insufficient to produce 32% variability. We conclude that the variability is in the thermal component.

Since the ratio of X-ray to bolometric luminosity log($`L_X`$/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$)=0.5$`\pm `$0.2 from Aql X$``$1 in quiescence is more than three orders of magnitude greater than observed from coronal emission from the analogous RS CVn systems Bildsten & Rutledge (2000), we exclude the possibility that observed variability (at $``$30% of the quiescent luminosity) could be due to a coronal flare of the companion, since this would, again, be 3 orders of magnitude greater than flares seen from other systems (see also R01).

### 3.2 Spectral Analysis

Data were extracted, using psextract, into pulse-invariant (PI) spectra. We binned all spectral data identically, as shown in their best fit spectral figures (Figs 4a-d); the binning was selected so that: (1) low-energy bins are wider than the detector energy resolution; (2) the 0.45-0.60 keV bin integrates completely across the O-edge in the detector, over which the detection efficiency varies significantly; and (3) the high energy bins have comparable signal-to-noise. We analyzed the PI spectra using XSPEC v11.0.1 Arnaud (1996).

Our default spectral model is a H atmosphere spectrum Zavlin et al. (1996) plus power-law and galactic absorption555Neutron star H atmosphere emergent spectral models—and more complicated metallic models—have also been calculated by Zavlin et al. (1996), Rajagopal & Romani (1996) and more recently by Gaensicke et al. (2002). The H atmosphere models of these three references agree to within $``$few per cent at energies relevant to the present work, 0.1-3 keV.. Other spectral models (blackbody, Raymond-Smith plasma, pure power-law, disk blackbody) for this source in quiescence have been examined elsewhere (R01), using data from observation 1; note that in the present work, the analyzed data extends down to 0.3 keV, while in the previous work, data were not used below 0.5 keV.

We first fit the four spectra individually (§ 3.2.1), and followed this with combined fits of observations 1 and 2 (§ 3.2.2), and 3 and 4 (§ 3.2.3). This was done to address a systematic difference between the two groups of observations. We then attempted (§ 3.2.4) joint fits of all four observations to determine which spectral parameters changed between them.

#### 3.2.1 Spectral Fits to the Individual Observations

We began by fitting all four spectra individually with an H atmosphere model with galactic absorption and no power-law component. While obs. 1 and 2 are statistically acceptably fit (reduced chi-squared statistic $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=2.05/10 degrees of freedom, probability=0.03, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.10/10 dof, prob=0.36 respectively), obs. 3 and 4 are not ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=4.23/10 dof, prob=6$`\times 10^6`$, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=6.8/10 dof, prob=$`10^{10}`$ respectively). Visual examination of the spectra from obs. 3 and 4 show systematic excesses in counts above the model prediction at energies $`>`$3 keV. Such an excess has been observed previously from this source Campana et al. (1998b) and other qNSs (see § 4.2), and is typically modeled as a power-law component. We therefore include this component in all four spectral fits, to provide upper-limits on its flux in observations 1 and 2. The resulting best-fit spectral parameters for the individual observations are given in Table 3, and figures of the best-fit models and data are in Figs. 4a-d.

There is a systematic difference between the best-fit $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ value and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ values between the pairs of observations 1+2 and 3+4. We address this in the following sections, by comparing first the spectra of observations 1 and 2, then the spectra of observations 3 and 4.

#### 3.2.2 Observations 1 and 2

As neither of these spectra statistically require a power-law component, we investigate if the difference between them is due to $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$, or $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$. We jointly fit the two spectra with an absorbed H atmosphere plus power-law, permitting 1 of the three spectral parameters ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$, $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$) to vary in turn between the two observations. We include a power-law component to avoid systematic bias in the derived H atmosphere spectral parameters. The resulting best-fit parameters and statistics are given in Table 5.

The hypothesis of a variable $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ is rejected. A variable $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is statistically acceptable, although not physically motivated in the deep crustal heating model. Finally, the hypothesis of a variable $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ is statistically acceptable. We therefore attribute the difference between the spectra of these two observations to changes in the $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$, which decreased from 125$`{}_{9}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+12}`$ eV to 108$`{}_{7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+11}`$ eV over 81 days. These uncertainties include covariance with other spectral parameters (of which $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$are the strongest). When we hold all other parameters at their best-fit values, the uncertainties are 125$`\pm `$1 eV, and 108$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1}`$ eV (1 $`\sigma `$). Note that the best-fit $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$=0.43$`\pm `$0.03 is consistent with values found through other methods (Table 4).

Attributing the variability to the magnitude of the power-law component is statistically permitted by the data; however, in so doing, the best-fit photon index is required to be steep (4.5$`\pm `$0.2) as to necessarily dominate the emission across the full Chandra energy band ($`>`$95% of the 0.5-10 keV luminosity), the thermal component is not required statistically ($`R_{\mathrm{}}`$$`<`$7.2 km at a fiducial value of $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$=115 eV), and the value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ is a factor of 2 above the optically implied value. As we know of no physical scenario in which such a steep power-law spectrum is produced, and it would require the luminosity to be serendipitously consistent with that of a NS with $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$$``$15 km at the observed distance and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, we think this hypothesis unlikely. We therefore attribute the different intensities of observations 1 and 2 to a change in $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$.

#### 3.2.3 Observations 3 and 4: A Possible Counts Deficit in the 0.45-0.6 keV Bin

We jointly fit observations 3 and 4 with the same absorbed H atmosphere plus power-law spectrum. A statistically acceptable fit is found (Table 5). Thus, Aql X$``$1 observations #3 and #4 are consistent with having the same spectrum and intensity. The best fit $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$ (0.60$`\pm `$0.05) is greater than that found by other methods (Table 4), including the value found from joint spectral fitting from observations 1 and 2. The value of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is marginally larger than in observations 1 and 2 (46$`{}_{11}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+23}`$ km vs. 17.2$`{}_{3.6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.6}`$ km). In addition, the value of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is also larger than that found in a previous analysis of observation 1 alone (R01), in which we had used counts with energies $`>`$0.5 keV, and that found in analyses of ROSAT and ASCA data in which $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ was held fixed at the optically implied value Rutledge et al. (1999).

When we hold $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ fixed at the best-fit value from observations 1 and 2, the best-fit spectrum is marginally acceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.71/25 dof, prob=0.015). Examination of the spectral model and data (Fig. 5) indicates a deficit in the 0.45–0.6 keV energy bin: the number of detected counts appears significantly below that predicted by the best fit model. When the 0.45–0.6 keV energy bin is removed from the fit, the new best-fit model is significantly improved ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=0.76/23 dof; prob=0.78). This suggests a deficit of counts in the 0.45–0.6 keV range in observations 3 and 4 (largely, the latter).

The best-fit model (ignoring this energy bin, with $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ held fixed at the best-fit observation 1 and 2 values) predicts 20 and 25 counts in this bin for obs. 3 and 4 respectively (the difference in counts is due to different integration times). Only 14 and 10 counts are observed in observations 3 and 4. For an average countrate of 25 counts/bin, the Poisson probability of detecting $``$10 counts is 0.06%. Combining the two observations, the probability of detecting $``$24 counts (with an average of 45 counts/bin) is 0.04%. No such deficit is apparent in the spectra of observations 1 or 2.

#### 3.2.4 Joint Fitting

To examine which spectral parameters are different between the four observations, we jointly fit all four spectra simultaneously. Because of the similarity between observations 3 and 4, we treat their spectra as being identical (i.e., all parameters for observations 3 and 4 are treated as the same), so we are examining the difference among three spectra, observations 1, 2 and 3+4. Table 6 contains a summary of our findings.

We fit the data with the absorbed H atmosphere + power-law spectrum and limited our fits to the 0.6–9.0 keV energy range, to avoid affects associated with the deficit below 0.6 keV in observation 4. As may be surmised from the different countrates, using a single spectrum with all five parameters ($`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\alpha `$, $`F_{X,pl}`$, and $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$) free but the same for all 3 spectra, the best-fit is unacceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=5.52/43 dof; prob=$`10^{28}`$). We then allowed each of the spectral parameters to vary between observations.

1. A fit with $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ allowed to vary is statistically acceptable, for values of $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$=121$`{}_{6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+13}`$ eV, 105$`{}_{6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+9}`$ eV, and 110$`{}_{5}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+12}`$ eV for observations 1, 2, and 3+4 respectively. When we hold all other parameters fixed at their best-fit values (to exclude covariance in the uncertainties) the values are 121$`\pm `$1, 105$`\pm `$1, and 110$`\pm `$1 eV.
2. When we permit only $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to vary between the three spectra, the best-fit is unacceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=3.05/41 dof; prob=2$`\times 10^{10}`$). Thus the changes between the spectra cannot be due only to a changing $`N_\mathrm{H}`$.
3. Although not physically motivated, when we permit only $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ to vary between the three spectra, we obtain an acceptable fit ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.13/41 dof; prob=0.26). The range of acceptable $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ values is small: 12.5–17.6 km.
4. We then fit the data with only $`F_{X,pl}`$ allowed to vary. The best fit was not statistically acceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.60/41 dof; prob=0.0085). When we permit both $`\alpha `$ and $`F_{X,pl}`$ to vary, the fit becomes acceptable; the changes between the power-law slopes are large, however, and the best-fit $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is larger than expected from theory, and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ is larger than that found through radio and optical observations. It is unlikely, therefore, that a variable power-law component is responsible for the different spectra.

The spectra of observations 1 and 2 are acceptably fit without a power-law component, and the combination of the three spectra are acceptably fit with only a changing $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$. This motivated a fit with the following parameters: no power-law component in observation 1 and 2; $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ held fixed at the radio measured value ($`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$=0.34); $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ held fixed at 13.0 km (a value which nearly all theoretical EOSs can produce; Lattimer & Prakash (2001)); and $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ varying. The best-fit is acceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.30/43 dof; prob=0.11). When we now expand the energy range of this fit to include 0.3–0.6 keV, however, the best fit becomes unacceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=2.63/51 dof; prob=2$`\times 10^9`$). Examination of the spectrum shows that the observed countrates are systematically lower than the predicted countrates in the 0.3–0.6 keV range. When we let both $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ float (with the same value in all three spectra), the best-fit spectral model is still not statistically acceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.62/49 dof; prob=0.0038). This unacceptable spectral model is shown in Fig. 6. The most discrepant point is the 0.45–0.6 keV bin from observation 4. When this point is removed, a new best-fit model is acceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.26/48 dof; prob=0.105).

Since the poor fit to the full data set can be attributed to the single low-energy bin in observation 4, one possibility is that $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ changed between observations 1+2 and observation 3+4. If we permit the values of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ to change between observation 1, 2 and 3+4, however, the spectrum is still not acceptably fit ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.66/47 dof; prob=3$`\times 10^3`$); therefore, the deficit is not explained by a changing $`N_\mathrm{H}`$.

In summary, the differences in the three spectra are acceptably explained as entirely due to a changing $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ of the surface thermal emission. The differences cannot be explained as entirely due to either a changing power-law flux or to a variable $`N_\mathrm{H}`$. While a combination of variability in $`\alpha `$ and $`F_{X,pl}`$ provides a statistically acceptable fit, the required variation in the power-law slope $`\alpha `$ is large and the resultant best-fit values of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ are larger than we would *a priori* expect. We therefore conclude that the simplest explanation for the variation in the spectrum of Aql X$``$1 in quiescence is due to a change in $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ of a pure H atmosphere.

### 3.3 Re-examination of the Counts Deficit in Observation 4

We now turn our attention to the apparent deficit in counts in the 0.45–0.6 keV bin of observation 4. In particular, we examine whether it is possible to explain the deficit by some instrumental or analysis effect that is unrelated to the NS emission.

When we exchange the response matrix from obs. 4 to that from obs. 1, there is no effect on the spectral fit (the focal plane temperatures were the same in all observations, and the X-ray source was focussed at the same location on the S3 chip). The deficit is therefore not caused by a change in the calibrated spectral response particular to obs. 4.

What if the effective area of the 0.45-0.6 keV bin is simply different from that represented in CALDB v2.9? Could we simply change the expected number of counts (on the basis of the best-fit spectrum and the calibrated response) by the same constant factor, which would make all observed 0.45-0.6 keV countrate consistent with the expected number? The calibrated response is based on detailed knowledge of the telescope+detector system. We took the response matrix to be completely diagonal, such that a photon of energy $`E_n`$ would be detected as a count with energy $`E_n`$. While the system response is considerably more complicated, with significant non-diagonal elements, this zeroth order approximation can reveal if change in the 0.45-0.6 keV effective area can account for the observed discrepancy, or if higher order changes would be necessary.

In Table 8, we list the number of counts detected in the 0.45-0.6 keV energy bin $`x_i`$ during each observation $`i`$, and the number of counts predicted to be in the bin ($`\mu _i`$) by our best-fit spectral model (in which the 0.45–0.6 keV bin was ignored in observation 4). We then calculated a probability for the factor ($`f`$) by which we change the diagonal response,

$$Prob(f)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^4P_{\mathrm{Poisson}}(f\times \mu _i,x_i)$$

where $`P_{\mathrm{Poisson}}(\mu ,x)`$ is the Poisson probability of observing $`x_i`$ counts when $`\mu _i`$ is the expected average realization. We find, for our observed and predicted values of $`x_i`$ and $`\mu _i`$, that $`Prob(f)`$ is maximal when $`f=0.75`$ (that is, the observed counts would be most consistent with an effective area in the 0.45-0.6 keV bin which is 75% of the telescope+detector effective area represented in CALDBv2.9). We performed a Monte Carlo simulation, with 4 Poisson deviated counts, with mean counts of $`f\times \mu _i`$, calculating $`Prob_{\mathrm{Monte}\mathrm{Carlo}}(f=0.75)`$ for $`10^6`$ such realizations. We found that we would produce a value of $`Prob_{\mathrm{MonteCarlo}}(f=0.75)Prob(f=0.75)`$ 2.0% of the time (that is, even the most likely value of $`f`$ would produce the distribution of $`x_i`$ observed only 2% of the time). We thus marginally exclude the counts deficit as due to a different effective area in the 0.45-0.6 keV bin from that in CALDB 2.9. To attribute the observed discrepancy to a response inaccuracy, there must either be a significant difference between a non-diagonal element as modelled and its true value, or the diagonal element response in the 0.45–0.6 keV bin (and only that bin) may be time dependent.

We also examined the spectrum in PHA space as well as PI space, and find the same deficit of counts in observation 4. A statistically anomalous background subtraction (i.e, more than an average number of background counts in this spectrum) is not responsible for the deficit either; when we neglect the background entirely (which we estimate to be $``$9 counts of the 1137 counts observed in this spectrum), the deficit remains.

We therefore marginally exclude the deficit of counts to response matrix uncertainty under a diagonal assumption, and exclude either anomalous background, or binning in PI space vs. PHA space. The deficit could be due to non-diagonal elements in the redistribution matrix being different than those in CALDB v2.9, or to an unknown time-dependency in the diagonal elements of the redistribution matrix.

### 3.4 Time Dependent Response Below 0.7 keV in ACIS-S3

When this work was largely complete, it was reported that there is a time-dependency in the response of the ACIS chips below 0.7 keV 666http://asc.harvard.edu/cal/Links/Acis/acis/Cal\_projects/index.html, which appears as a decrease in effective area, the magnitude of which has increased with time since launch. The magnitude, exact time dependency, and energy dependency are not fully known at present, and it is beyond the scope of the present work to provide a full time- and energy- dependent re-calibration effort. However, the discussed possible causes (deposition of contaminants on the CCDs or the optical blocking filter) suggest the effect would be monotonicaly increasing with time, perhaps at a constant rate.

We examined briefly the magnitude of this effect, to determine its possible effects on our conclusions. We used two observations of the spectrally soft super-nova remnant SNR E0102-72.3, taken 2000 May 28 (ObsID 141, $``$6 months prior to Obs. 1 of Aql X-1) and 2001 Dec 6 (ObsID 2844; $``$8 months after Obs. 4 of Aql X-1). These were taken with the same focal plane temperature ($`120F`$) but at different locations on the ACIS-S3 chip (141 was 2.2′ off-axis, while 2844 was only 1′ off axis). We extracted data within 39″ of the SNR center, and produced pulse-invarint (PI) spectra with resolution (10-15 eV) greater than the intrinsic energy resolution of ACIS-S3 between 0.3-1.1 keV (120-140 eV). We modelled the first observation with a model meant to be parametric (wabs * (c6vmekl + gauss)), which with a best fit of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=3.30 for 32 dof was not statistically acceptable; however the most deviant PI bins were not systematically offset from the model (that is, the scatter appeared random as a function of energy), and were at most 3$`\sigma `$ from the model. This is adequate for our purpose of investigating systematic response differences at the energy resolution of the detector.

We compared the second spectrum obtained 557 days later with the best-fit model of the first spectrum (see Fig. 8). As can be seen from the figure, the response appears to be diminished by $``$50% between 0.3-0.5 keV, with the magnitude of the discrepancy decreasing between 0.5-0.7 keV. Thus, from our comparison, we see an apparent change in the detector response, which may be modelled as an energy-dependent decrease in the effective area below 0.7 keV.

We investigate the effect of this on our conclusions regarding the broad-band spectrum, by using data only in the energy range 1-10 keV. First, as can be seen from Table 1, the 1.0-2.5 and 2.5-8 keV countrates vary between observations, and so cannot be explained as due to the $`<`$1 keV response. Joint spectral fits using all four observations still find that the variation cannot be explained as due to a change in $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ or power-law component normalization alone (both with values of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ with corresponding probabilities of $`<`$$`10^3`$). Since we are simply removing data from consideration, all those combinations of parameters which produced acceptable spectral fits using 0.3-10 keV still produce acceptable fits using 1-10 keV, but with larger error bars. Thus, the conclusion that the observation-to-observation variability is explained by a change in $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ remains. We expect the time-dependent calibration of the sub-1 keV range, when it is fully known, will change the resulting spectral parameters we have measured here, but not our qualitative conclusions.

Finally, as regards the apparent counts deficit, the change in effective area does affect the energy range of interest (0.45-0.6 keV). We performed the following check. First, using the E0102-72.3 observations, we included a multiplicative spline model in XSPEC to account for the change in calibration; this was done by first finding the best-fit parametric model to the May ’00 observation only, and using the same parameters held frozen for the Dec ’01 data, but including a spline model, with Estart=0.3 keV, Eend=0.7 keV, Yend=1.0, YPend=0.0, and the values of Ystart and YPstart permitted to vary. The best-fit spectrum was unacceptable ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=15.3, 52 dof), although the gross change in response was well accounted for, with best-fit values of Ystart=1.5 and YPstart=$`20`$. We then refit Obs. 1-4 with the spectral model which had been previously unacceptable due to the counts deficit ($`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ varies between observations, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ permitted to float, and a power-law spectral component for Obs. 3 and 4 only), but including the spline component for Obs 3 and 4. This models the change in response as essentially instantaneous between observations 2 and 3. The best-fit joint spectrum is statistically acceptable, and the deficit is no longer significant ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.23 / 49 dof; prob=0.13). The accuracy of this correction, however, depends in detail on the time-dependence of the change in response, and whether or not it can be modelled as a change in effective area as a function of energy. This requires much more detailed modelling of the response than we can do here. We conclude, however, that the deficit of counts can be due entirely to the change in detector response; this requires confirmation through detailed study and modelling on the time- and energy-dependence of the sub-0.7 keV detector response.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Following an outburst of Aql X$``$1 during November 2000, we took four Chandra/ACIS-S snapshots over a span of 5 months. With this series of spectra, we find the following.

1. All four spectra are acceptably fit with H photosphere models, with radii consistent with that of a NS, at the distance and reddening of Aql X-1. In two of the four spectra, an additional power-law component is required to acceptably fit the spectrum at high energies ($`>`$3 keV), as has been found previously for this and other qNSs.
2. The intensity decreased by 50% over the first three months following the outburst. It then increased by 35% over the next month and then remained constant for the last month spanned by our observations. The change in the spectrum between the observations cannot be explained exclusively as a change in the power-law component, nor in the value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$. A change in the photospheric effective temperature is required to account for the change.
3. No short timescale ($`<10^4`$ s) variability was found in the first three observations; the fourth had significant variability (32$`{}_{6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+8}`$% rms, 0.2-10 keV) on timescales $`10^3`$$`10^4`$ sec. As the power-law component contributes a smaller fraction ($``$12%) to the total counts, this magnitude in variability cannot be attributed to the power-law component.
4. A deficit of counts in the $`0.45`$$`0.6`$ keV band was noted during observation 4. This deficit was not present in the other three observations. Follow-up spectroscopy and detailed study of the change in the detector response is required to determine if the deficit is intrinsic to the source.
5. A best-fit spectral model, excluding the 0.45-0.6 keV bin in observation 4, gives a value of $`N_{\mathrm{H},22}`$=0.42$`{}_{0.03}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.02}`$ – consistent with the optical and radio implied value; the best fit $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$=15.9$`{}_{2.9}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.8}`$ km (neglecting the 20% uncertainty in the 5 kpc distance), consistent with the radius of a NS for most proposed NS EOS Lattimer & Prakash (2001).

The increase in temperature between observations 2 to 3, if significant, is interesting. While accretion can clearly affect the thermal spectrum (e.g., Zampieri et al. 1995), it is also possible that differential sedimentation of ions in the atmosphere can change the surface effective temperature by modifying the opacity at intermediate densities, $`10^5\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3\rho 10^8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, Brown et al. (2002). Further detailed calculations are required to determine the amplitude and timescale of this effect.

At present, there is no known mechanism associated with crustal heating that can produce the short-timescale ($`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$$`10^4`$ sec) variability we observe here. The minimum timescale for post-outburst intensity variability in quiescence from deep crustal heating is days to months (the thermal diffusion timescale from the depth of heat deposit), and should scale roughly as $`\delta t`$, where $`\delta t`$ is the time since a (short) outburst ends Ushomirsky & Rutledge (2001). For NSs with “normal” cores, the magnitude of variability is a few per cent; if more exotic neutrino cooling takes place in the core, however, the magnitude of variability in quiescence can be a factor of ten or more. In the absence of variability due to post-outburst crustal cooling, the only other timescale for variability is the timescale of core cooling, which is typically $`10^5`$$`10^6`$ yr. In contrast, intensity variability due to accretion onto the compact object can in principle take place on the dynamical timescale, seconds or shorter. However, while the observation is in qualitative agreement with accretion onto the compact object, it remains a major puzzle why the magnitude of luminosity should be quantitatively comparable to the luminosity predicted previously from deep crustal heating R01. The absence of a quantitative prediction for the magnitude of accretion onto the compact object in quiescence further complicates comparison between this observation and an accretion theory. For the present, we conclude that the intensity variability on $`<`$$`10^4`$ sec timescale can be explained by accretion onto the compact object, but the implied coincidence of the accretion luminosity being comparable to the predicted deep crustal heating luminosity, as found by R01, remains a challenge to theory.

### 4.1 Uncertainties in the Measurement of $`R`$, and Prospects for a Useful Constraint on the EOS

Throughout this paper, we use the word ”radius” to mean the measured value $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, the effective emission area size observed from an infinite distance. In practice, what we measure using spectral analysis is the angular size of the source $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$/$`D`$, where $`D`$ is the distance to the NS. We assume $`D=`$5kpc, a value which is at present uncertain by $`\pm `$20% (R01); we neglect this uncertainty throughout the present work, addressing only the statistical and spectral uncertainty, which can be greatly improved upon with higher signal-to-noise X-ray spectra. The distance to Aql X$``$1 can be accurately measured in the future using the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM; Unwin (1998)), which can achieve $`\pm `$2% accuracy at 5 kpc for an object with $`V<17m`$ (Aql X-1 obtains $`V=14.8`$ in outburst ; Liu et al. (2001)). Such precise measurement will effectively eliminate distance as an uncertainty in $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$. Indeed, using spectral analyses of qNSs in globular clusters Grindlay et al. (2001); Rutledge et al. (2001b); in’t Zand et al. (2001), the distances to which can be measured with $`\pm `$2% precision using Hipparcos dwarfs Carretta et al. (2000), is one approach being pursused to obtain accurate $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ measurements prior to the launch of SIM.

We have assumed throughout this work that $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ does not change. In the deep crustal heating scenario (BBR98), luminosity originates from the NS core, and the NS star has a $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}`$ which is isotropic at the photosphere, which we assume throughout this paper. This scenario, however, is not entirely consistent with the short-term (seconds-months) variability which is observed. If the photosphere were to have temperature anisotropies – for example, which may occur if the NS were powered exclusively by non-spherically symmetric accretion – this would change the physical meaning of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, which would then dependent on the details of the photospheric temperature distribution, as described for accreting NSs at much higher luminosities than are relevant here Psaltis et al. (2000).

The value of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is related to the physical radius $`R`$ by $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$=$`R/\sqrt{12GM/(Rc^2)}`$, where $`G`$ is the graviational constant, $`M`$ is the NS mass, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. It is the value $`R`$ which has recently been shown to place a useful constraint on the NS EOS Lattimer & Prakash (2001), if $`R`$ is measured to $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$10% accuracy. The value $`R`$ cannot be derived from $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the absence of a known NS mass $`M`$. If one assumes a range of values between 0.8-2.8$`M_{}`$, this introduces an additional systematic uncertainty of $``$50% in $`R`$, which is greater than that needed to usefully constrain the EOS in the prescription of Lattimer & Prakash (2001). Thus, precise measurements of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ will not usefully constrain the NS EOS in the absence of a measured NS mass or photospheric redshift; however, if a phenomenological relationship between $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the pressure at nuclear density for a range of EOSs can be found, as found for $`R`$ by Lattimer & Prakash (2001), it may be that $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ will usefully constrain the NS EOS. This possibility is presently under examination.

### 4.2 The Power Law Component

A power-law spectral component is required to fit the spectrum above 3 keV in 2 of the four observations, and it is consistent with being the same magnitude and slope in all four observations.

A high energy power-law tail has now been observed to dominate the X-ray spectrum above 2-3 keV in five qNSs: Aql X-1, Cen X$``$4 Asai et al. (1996b); Campana et al. (2000); Rutledge et al. (2000), KS 1731-260 Wijnands et al. (2001); Rutledge et al. (2002), NGC 6440 in’t Zand et al. (2001) and 4U 2129+47 Nowak (2002). In all cases, this component comprises $``$10-40% of the 0.5-10 keV luminosity. Importantly, in all those power-law components which have been detected, the slope appears to be either inverted or flat. A cutoff at higher photon energies (above 3 keV) is required for the luminosity not to diverge.

It has previously been suggested that the component may be due to accretion onto the NS magnetosphere Campana et al. (1998a); however, no detailed a priori model (including an energy budget, estimation of the accretion rate onto the compact object or magnetosphere) exists. If the power-law emission were powered by accretion onto the magnetosphere, however, it would be coincidental that five different sources (each having different $`B`$ fields, spin rates, and perhaps accretion rates onto the magnetosphere) would have comparable luminosity ratios of the power-law component to the thermal component, which originates from the NS surface. The same coincidence would apply to non-thermal emission from pulsar shocks as well Tavani (1991); Stella et al. (1994); Menou et al. (1999).

One possible suggestion is that both the thermal and power-law spectral components are powered by low-level accretion. Using the assumption of spherical flow onto an unmagnetized, nonrotating neutron star, and assuming that only Coulomb forces acted to decelerate the infalling protons, Zampieri et al. (1995) showed that no similarly hard spectral component was expected at accretion rates comparable to that required to power the quiescent thermal emission. Deufel et al. (2001) similarly found that, for accretion via an advective flow with virialized protons, the emergent spectrum is slightly harder than thermal, though the hardened component still decreases in $`\nu F_\nu `$. It is therefore unclear that the emergent spectrum of a low $`\dot{M}`$ NS would produce a hard tail such as observed here.

### 4.3 A Deficit of Counts in the 0.45-0.6 keV Bin in Observations 3 and 4

We found that, compared with a spectral model interpolation in the 0.45-0.6 keV energy range, there is a deficit of counts significant at the 99.96% level, during observations 3 and 4. Such a deficit is not present in observations 1 or 2. There are at least a few possible explanations for this.

It may simply be that the deficit is a statistical anomaly, which will not be confirmed with deeper spectroscopy. We may be able to address this possibility with our approved 30ksec AO-1 GO observation of Aql X$``$1 with XMM-Newton.

A simple decrease in the effective area in the 0.45-0.6 keV energy bin, by a factor of 0.75, is marginally excluded (2% probability) as the source of the counts deficit. The deficit may be due, however, to non-diagonal elements of the photon energy redistribution matrix which are different from those in the present calibration model. Moreover, a recently reported time-dependence in the ACIS response below 0.7 keV can expalain the entire deficit, when the time dependence of the change in response is modelled as having taken place between Feb and April 2001 (observations 2 and 4). Until this response is properly modelled, it cannot be neither fully implicated nor exonerated as being responsible for the counts deficit. Thus, an unaccounted-for discrepancy in the detector response remains a possible explanation.

Finally, it may be that the deficit of counts is due to the presence of metals. This would be consistent with the observational scenario expected to produce such features Brown et al. (1998), in which active accretion onto the NS surface replenishes the surface metallicity. The detected intensity variability (32$`{}_{6}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+8}`$% rms) argues for active accretion during this observation as well (such variability may also be present during observation 3); and the luminosity of Aql X$``$1 during these observations is consistent with this scenario as well.

We show in Fig. 7 the emergent spectra of a solar-metallicity atmosphere from a NS with the effective temperature of Aql X$``$1, rotating at 550 Hz Zhang et al. (1998), at three different viewing angles with respect to the rotation axis (the orbital plane of Aql X$``$1, is $`\alpha >36^{}`$). The absorption features due to metallic absorption lines are apparent in the pole-on ($`\alpha =0^{}`$) spectral model. The most prominent feature, smeared by NS rotation, is near 0.9 keV, which is a mixture of OVII absorption, plus other metal absorption lines. In a rough approximation: to redshift this feature to 0.45-0.6 keV requires a redshift $`1+z=g_r^1=1/\sqrt{12GM/(Rc^2)}`$=1.5-2.0, which, for a NS of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$=$`Rg_r^1`$=15.9 km, implies a coordinate radius $`R=810.5`$ km, and a mass $`M`$2.0$`M_{}`$. This is a mass/radius estimate of scale, which shows consistency with theoretical expectations, but is not a precise estimate due to the large uncertainty in the redshift factor, in addition to the systematic uncertainty in the correct identification and reality of the feature in question.

If future observations confirm the presence of this absorption line in Aql X$``$1 in quiescence, it can be exploited. By measuring the redshift of such lines ($`g_r^1`$) simultaneously with the emission area from the spectrum ($`R^2g_r^2)`$ the NS mass and radius can be determined, providing a strong constraint on the equation of state of dense matter Lattimer & Prakash (2001).

We acknowledge and thank an anonymous referee, whose useful comments improved the manuscript. We thank Ira Wasserman for discussions and Divas Sanwal for critically important discussions regarding the time-dependent soft energy response of ACIS. The authors are grateful to the Chandra Observatory team for producing this exquisite observatory. This research was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949 and by NASA through grant NAG 5-8658, NAG 5-10855 and the Chandra Guest Observer program through grant NAS GO0-1112B. L. B. is a Cottrell Scholar of the Research Corporation. E. F. B. acknowledges support from an Enrico Fermi Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Spontaneously broken supergravity is a plausible scenario for a unified theory of particle interactions below the Planck scale. Among all the possible models, no-scale supergravities  have received much attention in the literature because of the possibility of creating a hierarchy of scales much lower than the Planck or string scale.

Very recently, no-scale supergravities have emerged from certain superstring compactifications in presence of brane fluxes  \- . In these models, the scalar potential and a non trivial gauging appear as a consequence of the non trivial flux along 3-cycles of the internal space. If $`\widehat{H}_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }}`$ is a 3-form field strength (the “$`\widehat{\text{ }}`$” will always denote variables and indices in the higher dimensional space), then the integral over the 3-cycle is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu )=_{3\mathrm{cycle}}𝑑x^{\widehat{\mu }}𝑑x^{\widehat{\rho }}𝑑x^{\widehat{\sigma }}\widehat{H}_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }}0.$$

In the Scherk-Schwarz  mechanism, the dimensional reduction ($`D=5D=4`$) ansatz on the 1-form potentials is

$$\widehat{A}_{\widehat{\mu }}(x^\nu ,x^5)=e^{Mx^5}A_{\widehat{\mu }}(x_\nu ),\widehat{\mu },\widehat{\nu }=1,\mathrm{}5,\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{}4.$$
(1)
$`x^5`$ is compactified to a circle $`S^1`$, and $`M`$ is a generic element of the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔲𝔰𝔭(8)`$. The 2-form field strengths $`F_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have also a non trivial flux through the 1-cycle $`S^1`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{S^1}(e^{Mx_5}\widehat{F})_{\widehat{\mu }\nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑x^{\widehat{\mu }}=M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }A_\nu ^\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu a^\mathrm{\Lambda },a^\mathrm{\Lambda }=A_5^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(2)
The combination in the right hand side of (2) appears in the four dimensional Lagrangian when making the generalized dimensional reduction (1). Since it is a flux, it must be covariant under gauge transformations. One can explicitly check it. Under the infinitesimal transformations

$`\delta A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=_\mu \mathrm{\Xi }^\mathrm{\Lambda }+M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Xi }^0+a^\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Xi }^0`$
$`\delta a^\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }^\mathrm{\Sigma }+M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }a^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Xi }^0,`$
the flux transforms as $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Xi }^0M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

For $`M=0`$ the term proportional to $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (2) is zero. This implies that in the four dimensional Lagrangian there are no gauge couplings for $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the gauge group of the theory is trivial in the sense that none of the fields is charged. So an $`M0`$ in the dimensional reduction ansatz is the origin of the gauged gravity in four dimensions.

We note that the genuine gauge fields in $`D=4`$ are $`Z_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }B_\mu a^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`B_\mu `$, with $`B_\mu `$ the vector field coming from the metric (graviphoton). As shown in Ref. , they are gauge connections of a non-abelian Lie algebra, whose generators $`\{X_\mathrm{\Lambda },X_0\}`$ obey the commutation relations

$$[X_\mathrm{\Lambda },X_0]=M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }X_\mathrm{\Sigma }[X_\mathrm{\Lambda },X_\mathrm{\Sigma }]=0.$$

$`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the matrix elements of $`M`$ in (1). This is a subalgebra of the U-duality algebra 111We call U-duality the continuous symmetry of the low energy effective action that gives rise to the discrete U-duality symmetry in the full quantum theory., which for $`N=8`$ is $`𝔢_{7(7)}`$. The subalgebra has dimension 28, and it has a linear realization on the vector potentials222We will call such subalgebras electric subalgebras.. This is not a particular case of any of the gaugings studied in the literature on four dimensional supergravity .

A crucial point for the definition of an electric subgroup of the U-duality group G is the fact that G can be embedded in the symplectic group $`\mathrm{Sp}(2n,)`$, where $`n`$ is the number of electric potentials in the theory. As we will see, G admits different symplectic embeddings, which generically are related by a conjugation with a symplectic transformation. The electric subgroup is not invariant under this conjugation, then giving rise to the possibility of non isomorphic maximal electric subgroups. The standard formulation of supergravity  (where the R-symmetry of the theory is manifest) implies the choice of one particular symplectic embedding. The non standard gaugings considered here correspond to other choices of the symplectic embedding which give partial supersymmetry breaking with vanishing cosmological constant. The symmetry that was electric in the standard formulation is not fully electric in the other choices. For example, in the $`N=8`$ Scherk–Schwarz supergravity, SO(8) mixes electric with magnetic field strengths, and so it does SO(6,$`n`$) in the case of $`N=4`$ Scherk–Schwarz supergravity. Another consequence of the change of a symplectic basis for the duality group is that the R-symmetry is no longer manifest. In the above examples, only $`\mathrm{USp}(8)\mathrm{SU}(8)`$ and $`\mathrm{USp}(4)\mathrm{SU}(4)`$ are manifest symmetries.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give some mathematical preliminaries on electric subgroups of the U-duality group G. In Section 3 we discuss two different choices of maximal electric subgroup in $`N=8`$ supergravity, one giving rise to the standard gaugings and the other realizing the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism from a purely four dimensional point of view. In Section 4 we consider 3 different choices of electric subalgebras in $`N=4`$ supergravity, corresponding to different physical theories and in Section 5 we do a similar analysis for $`N=2`$ supergravity.

## 2 Symplectic embeddings and electric subalgebras

We consider $`D=4`$ supergravity in absence of fluxes. Let G be the U-duality group of the theory and $`n`$ the number of vectors in the theory, $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{}n`$. The field strengths $`F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and their duals $`G_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }=/F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ together carry a linear representation of G. When G is considered as embedded in $`\mathrm{Sp}(2n,)`$, the representation carried by $`\{F^\mathrm{\Lambda },G_\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ is promoted to a representation of the full symplectic group .

An arbitrary matrix of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔭(2n,)`$ can be written in terms of blocks of size $`n\times n`$

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& a^T\end{array}\right),b=b^T,c=c^T,$$
(3)
and $`a`$ an arbitrary matrix of $`𝔤𝔩(n,)`$. The Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔭(2n,)`$ admits then the decomposition

$$𝔰𝔭(2n,)=\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0+\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}+\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^1,$$

with

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& a^T\end{array}\right)\right\},\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ c& 0\end{array}\right)\right\},\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^1=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right\}.$$

So $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0𝔤𝔩(n,)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}`$ carries the representation of $`𝔤𝔩(n,)`$ $`\mathrm{sym}(𝐧^{}𝐧^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^1`$ the representation $`\mathrm{sym}(𝐧𝐧)`$. $`𝐧^{}`$ denotes the contragradient representation of $`𝐧`$. The subalgebra $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z𝔤𝔩(n,)`$ (the subindex $`z`$ is to distinguish it from other subalgebras $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)`$ that we will consider in the following), whose generator is the element $`\frac{1}{2}11`$, acts with charge $`+1`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}`$ and with charge $`1`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^1`$ (so the upper indices indicate this charge). In fact, $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$ defines a grading of $`𝔰𝔭(2n,)`$ and consequently $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{\pm 1}`$ are abelian subalgebras. The matrices of the subalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0+\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}`$ have lower block-triangular form ($`b=0`$). The vector space carrying the fundamental representation of the symplectic algebra inherits also a grading and it decomposes as $`V=V^+V^{}`$. Notice that $`V^+`$ carries a representation of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0+\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}`$.

We consider now the U-duality group G with Lie algebra $`𝔤𝔰𝔭(2n)`$. Any subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ which is a subalgebra of the lower triangular matrices $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0+\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}`$ will transform the field strengths (in $`V^+`$) without involving their magnetic duals. Then, the vector potentials themselves carry a linear representation of this subalgebra which will be called an electric subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ (and generically denoted by $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}`$). The corresponding group, $`\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{el}}`$, is an electric subgroup of G. The gauge group $`\mathrm{G}_{mathrmgauge}`$ is a subgroup of the $`\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{el}}`$ such that its action on the vector potentials is the adjoint action. As we will see, there is not a unique maximal electric subgroup of G, and this gives rise to many different gaugings of the supergravity theory.

In the next sections, we will discuss the examples of $`N=8,4,2`$ supergravity from this new point of view.

## 3 $`N=8`$ supergravity

The U-duality group of $`N=8`$ supergravity is $`\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{E}_{7,7}`$ , which can be embedded in several ways in $`\mathrm{Sp}(56,)`$ (there are 28 vector fields). The electric subalgebras will always be subalgebras of $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0+\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^{+1}`$, being in this case $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^0𝔰𝔩(28,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$.

Consider the following decomposition of $`𝔢_{7,7}`$

$$𝔢_{7,7}=𝔰𝔩(8,)+\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}.$$
(4)
$`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$ is a maximal subalgebra of $`𝔢_{7,7}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}`$ is an irreducible representation of $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$, the four-fold antisymmetric.

The representation $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}`$ of $`𝔢_{7,7}`$ decomposes under the subgroup $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$ as

$$\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}^{},$$

where $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}^{}`$ are two-fold antisymmetric representations of $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$.

The embedding $`𝔢_{7,7}𝔰𝔭(56,)`$ is constructed as follows. We have that $`𝔰𝔩(8,)𝔰𝔩(28,)`$ by means of the two-fold antisymmetric representation (the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}`$) of $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$. With a two-fold antisymmetric tensor we can construct a four-fold antisymmetric tensor by taking the symmetrized tensor product. In this way the generators in the 70 of (4) are realized in the two-fold symmetric representation of $`𝔰𝔩(28,)`$, $`\mathrm{sym}(\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖})`$, forming the $`b`$ matrix of (3), $`b_{\{[AB][CD]\}}`$. Since in $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$ there is an invariant, totally antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{A_1\mathrm{}A_8}`$, we have another symmetric matrix

$$c^{\{[A_1A_2][A_3A_4]\}}=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ^{A_1\mathrm{}A_8}b_{\{[A_5A_6][A_7A_8]\}}.$$

This is the standard embedding of $`𝔢_{7,7}`$ in $`𝔰𝔭(56,)`$. $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$ is a maximal electric subalgebra. The gauging of different electric subalgebras of $`𝔰𝔩(8,)`$ and of its contractions gives rise to all the theories described in . In this choice, SO(8) is the maximal compact electric subgroup.

We will now consider a different embedding, which is the one relevant for the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism. Consider the decomposition

$$𝔢_{7,7}=𝔢_{6,6}+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟐}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_{+\mathrm{𝟐}}^{},$$

where $`𝔢_{6,6}+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ is a maximal reductive subalgebra333Reductive means that it is the direct sum of a semisimple algebra plus abelian factors.. Notice that it is not a maximal subalgebra. In five dimensions the U-duality group is $`\mathrm{E}_{6,6}`$ and it is totally electric. If we want to see the four dimensional theory as the dimensional reduction of a five dimensional one, this is the natural decomposition to consider, and the $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ rescales the modulus of the compactification radius of the 5th dimension. The normalization of the generator of $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ has been chosen in such way that the fundamental representation decomposes as

$$\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_{+\mathrm{𝟏}}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{+\mathrm{𝟑}}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟑}.$$

(Note that the ratio one to three of the $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ charges is what one obtains for the relative charges of the 27 five-dimensional vectors versus the graviphoton in the standard Kaluza–Klein reduction).

We have that $`𝔢_{6,6}+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k𝔤𝔩(28,)`$, by decomposing the fundamental representation

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_{+\mathrm{𝟏}}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{+\mathrm{𝟑}}$$

but $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_\mathrm{k}`$ does not correspond to the trace generator $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$ in $`𝔤𝔩(28,)`$, since all the vectors in the representation $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}`$ have the same charge under $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_𝐳+\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐳`$. Indeed there is another subalgebra $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_r`$ in $`𝔤𝔩(28,)`$ which commutes with $`𝔢_{6,6}`$. This comes from the sequence of embeddings

$$𝔢_{6,6}𝔰𝔩(27,)𝔤𝔩(27,)=𝔰𝔩(27,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_r𝔰𝔩(28,)$$

corresponding to the fact that only 27 of the 28 vectors are transformed by $`𝔢_{6,6}`$. The charges of the 28 vectors are $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_𝐫+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}𝐫}`$. Then $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ turns out to be a combination of $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$ and $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_r`$.

In this setting the symplectic embedding of $`𝔢_{7,7}`$ in $`𝔰𝔭(56,)`$ is different from the standard one previously considered. It was explicitly worked out in . Here $`𝔤^0=𝔢_{6,6}+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ is the block diagonal part and

$$𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}=𝔢_{6,6}+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_{+\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}$$

is lower block-triangular. Then, it is an electric subalgebra.

Note that in order to have a physical theory the unbroken gauge group in the $`𝔤^0`$ part must belong to the maximal compact subgroup of $`𝔤^0`$.

The Scherk–Schwarz  mechanism corresponds to the gauging of an electric subgroup (a “flat group”) with algebra $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}=𝔲(1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_{+\mathrm{𝟐}}^{}`$ (semidirect sum), where $`𝔲(1)`$ is a generic element of the Cartan subalgebra of the maximal compact subgroup $`𝔲𝔰𝔭(8)`$ of $`𝔢_{6,6}`$ . The gauging of this electric group breaks spontaneously the supersymmetry. Partial breaking is allowed, and the unbroken supersymmetry algebra has a central charge. Central charges are $`𝔲(1)`$ symmetries which belong to the CSA of G, so if they belong to $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}`$ they must belong to the maximal compact subalgebra of $`𝔤^0𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}`$. In our case we have one central charge which is identified with the $`𝔲(1)`$ factor in the semidirect sum $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}`$.

In fact, the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism allows partial breakings $`N=8N^{}=6,4,2,0`$, and the spin 3/2 multiplets are 1/2 BPS, which means that only one central charge is present. The number of unbroken translational symmetries in the phases $`N^{}=6,4,2,0`$ is, respectively, 15,7,3,3.

## 4 $`N=4`$ supergravity.

As we are going to see, a richer structure emerges in the $`N=4`$ theory because in this case we can have both non abelian and abelian flat groups, depending on the particular model we consider.

Let us consider the $`N=4`$ theory with $`n_v+1`$ vector multiplets. The U-duality group is $`\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{SO}(6,n_v+1)\times \mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, embedded (in different ways) in $`\mathrm{Sp}(2(6+n_v+1),)`$, so any electric subalgebra must have block diagonal part a subalgebra $`𝔤^0𝔰𝔩(6+n_v+1,)\times 𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$.

The standard embedding corresponds to take

$$𝔰𝔬(6,n_v+1)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_q𝔤𝔩(6+n_v+1,).$$

Here $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_q`$ is the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ and it is identified with $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$. The only off-diagonal elements are the other two generators of $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$, say $`X^\pm `$. The electric subalgebra is then the lower triangular subalgebra $`(𝔰𝔬(6,n_v+1)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_q)\mathrm{}\{X^+\}`$. This embedding appears when doing the compactification of the heterotic string on $`T^6`$. (See for example the review of Ref. ).

We analyze now another symplectic embedding. We take $`n_v=5`$ (the embedding is possible only for $`n_v5`$). Then we have the following decomposition

$$𝔰𝔬(6,6)=𝔰𝔩(6,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_s+\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}^{},$$

where $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ is the two-fold antisymmetric representation. Since $`𝔰𝔩(n)+𝔰𝔩(m)𝔰𝔩(nm)`$, we have that

$$𝔰𝔩(6,)+𝔰𝔩(2,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_s𝔤𝔩(12,).$$

The representation $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ is symmetric (the singlet of $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ is the two-fold antisymmetric), so we have that $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\stackrel{~}{𝔤}^+𝔰𝔭(24,)`$. This defines the symplectic embedding. The $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_s`$ is identified with $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$ of the symplectic algebra.

The representation $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}`$ of $`𝔰𝔬(6,6)`$ decomposes, with respect to $`𝔰𝔩(6,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$, as

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathrm{𝟔}_{+\mathrm{𝟏}}+\mathrm{𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟏},$$

thus containing six electric and six magnetic fields, and the bifundamental of $`𝔰𝔬(6,6)+𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ decomposes as

$$(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})=(\mathrm{𝟔}_{+\mathrm{𝟏}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{\mathrm{electric}}+(\mathrm{𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{\mathrm{magnetic}}.$$

In particular, we see that $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ is totally electric.

The twelve vectors gauge an abelian 12-dimensional subgroup of the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$ translations.

This model was investigated in Ref. , but from our point of view it comes from the general analysis of gauging flat groups. In this case the flat group is completely abelian, since no central charge is gauged. The theory has four independent mass parameters, the four masses of the gravitinos. This allows a partial supersymmetry breaking without cosmological constant from $`N=4N^{}=3,2,1,0`$, where the massive gravitinos belong to long (non BPS) massive representations in all the cases, as it is implied by the fact that the central charge is not gauged and the fields are not charged under it.

From the analysis of the consistent truncation of $`N=4N^{}=3`$ supergravity, it is known that $`N=4`$ supergravity coupled to 6 matter vector multiplets can indeed be consistently reduced to an $`N=3`$ theory coupled to 3 matter multiplets . Correspondingly we have, for the scalar manifolds of such models,

$$\mathrm{SU}(3,3)/(\mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{U}(1))\mathrm{SO}(6,6)/(\mathrm{SO}(6)\times \mathrm{SO}(6)).$$

In fact, the Higgs effect in this theory needs the gauging of a group of dimension 12, spontaneously broken to a group of dimension 6. The scalar manifolds of the broken phases are

$`\mathrm{SU}(3,3)/(\mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{U}(1)),`$ $`\mathrm{for}N^{}=3`$
$`(\mathrm{SU}(1,1)/\mathrm{U}(1))\times \mathrm{SU}(2,2)/(\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)),`$ $`\mathrm{for}N^{}=2`$
$`(\mathrm{SU}(1,1)/\mathrm{U}(1))^3,`$ $`\mathrm{for}N^{}=1.`$
A detailed analysis of this model has been given in .

These models are also analyzed in Ref.  from another point of view. There, Type IIB supergravity is compactified on the $`T_6/_2`$ orientifold with brane fluxes turned on and the same pattern of spontaneous symmetry breaking is found.

There is still a third symplectic embedding. An $`N=4`$ theory coupled to $`n_v+1`$ vector multiplets can be obtained by dimensional reduction of $`N=4`$ supergravity in $`D=5`$ with $`n_v`$ vector multiplets. This theory is described by a $`\sigma `$-model $`\mathrm{SO}(1,1)\times \mathrm{SO}(5,n_v)/\left(\mathrm{SO}(5)\times \mathrm{SO}(n_v)\right)`$ .

In $`D=5`$, the U-duality group (totally electric) is $`\mathrm{SO}(5,n_v)\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_{d_5}`$. By dimensional reduction from $`D=5`$ to $`D=4`$ we know that a symplectic embedding must exist where the four dimensional electric group contains $`\mathrm{SO}(5,n_v)\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_{d_5}\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_k`$, where, as in the $`N=8`$ case, $`\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_k`$ rescales the radius of the fifth dimension. We will write explicitly this embedding later.

The $`5+n_v`$ vectors $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ belonging to the fundamental representation of $`\mathrm{SO}(5,n_v)`$ in $`D=5`$ and the singlet $`C_\mu `$ have charges $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively under $`\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_{d_5}`$. When the dimensional reduction from $`D=5`$ to $`D=4`$ is performed we obtain the extra vector $`B_\mu `$ coming from the fifth vielbein. It is neutral under $`\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_{d_5}`$ but has charge $`3`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{SO}(1,1)_k`$, while all the other $`6+n_v`$ five-dimensional vectors have charge $`1`$. Summarizing, the electric and magnetic field strengths have the following charges $`(k,d_5)`$ (in a given normalization)

$`(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)_{\mathrm{electric}}^{+1,1}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{electric}}^{+1,+2}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{electric}}^{+3,0},`$
$`(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)_{\mathrm{magnetic}}^{1,+1}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{magnetic}}^{1,2}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{magnetic}}^{3,0}.`$ (5)
From a purely four dimensional perspective, the full duality group is $`\mathrm{SO}(6,n_v+1)\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. We have the following decomposition

$`𝔰𝔬(6,n_v+1)=𝔰𝔬(5,n_v)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_s+(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)^++(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)^{}`$
$`𝔰𝔩(2,)=𝔰𝔬(1,1)_q+\mathrm{span}\{X^+,X^{}\}`$ (6)
where the $`(5+n_v)^+`$ Peccei-Quinn symmetries appear explicitly. The representation of the full duality group is the bifundamental, a doublet of $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ tensor product with the fundamental of $`𝔰𝔬(6,n_v+1)`$. We denote by $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_q𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ the CSA of $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$. Then the field strengths (electric and magnetic) have the following charges $`(s,q)`$

$`(\mathrm{𝟐},(\mathrm{𝟔}+𝐧_𝐯+\mathrm{𝟏}))`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)^{0,+1/2}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{1,+1/2}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{+1,+1/2}+`$ (7)
$`(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)^{0,1/2}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{1,1/2}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{+1,1/2}.`$
In the standard formulation, $`𝔰𝔬(6,n_v+1)`$ is fully electric, but in the symplectic embedding that we are considering this is not the case.

We consider now the subspace

$$(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)^{0,+1/2}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{+1,1/2}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{+1,+1/2}$$

in (7). We want to identify it with the electric subspace in (5). Indeed, let us denote $`(X_k,X_{d_5})`$ and $`(X_s,X_q)`$ the generators of the respective algebras $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)`$. From the charges written above we have that this identification is possible if we assume the relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_k=X_s+X_q,`$ $`X_{d_5}=X_s2X_q`$
$`X_s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(X_k+X_{d_5}),`$ $`X_q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_kX_{d_5}).`$
So we see that under this identification the generators $`(X_k,X_{d_5})`$ are linear combinations of $`(X_s,X_q)`$.

We now give the precise embedding of the U-duality algebra $`𝔰𝔬(6,n_v+1)\times 𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ in $`𝔰𝔭(2(7+n_v),)`$. We consider first the diagonal subalgebra, $`𝔤𝔩(7+n_v),)`$. We have

$`𝔤𝔩(7+n_v)`$ $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z𝔰𝔩(7+n_v)`$ (8)
$`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z𝔰𝔬(1,1)_r𝔰𝔬(1,1)_t𝔰𝔩(5,n_v)`$
$`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z𝔰𝔬(1,1)_r𝔰𝔬(1,1)_t𝔰𝔬(5,n_v).`$
Since $`A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda },C_\mu ,B_\mu `$ have to be electric potentials, we assume they have all the same charge under $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$. From (8) we can compute their charges $`(r,t,z)`$ under $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_r+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_t+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_z`$ :

$$(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)_{(\frac{r}{6+n_v},\frac{t}{5+n_v},z)},\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\frac{r}{6+n_v},t,z)};\mathrm{𝟏}_{(r,0,z)}.$$
(9)
It is then straightforward to show that there exist linear combinations of these three charges which reproduce the charges of $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_{d_5}𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k𝔰𝔬(6,6)+𝔰𝔩(2,)`$. We have proved that

$$𝔰𝔬(5,n_v)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_s+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_q𝔤𝔩(7+n_v).$$

The generators in $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)^+`$ are embedded in the symplectic group as (see (3))

$$a(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0_\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mathrm{\Lambda }& 0^\mathrm{\Lambda }& t^\mathrm{\Lambda }\\ 0_\mathrm{\Sigma }& 0& 0\\ 0_\mathrm{\Sigma }& 0& 0\end{array}\right),c(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}& t_\mathrm{\Lambda }& 0_\mathrm{\Lambda }\\ t_\mathrm{\Sigma }& 0& 0\\ 0_\mathrm{\Sigma }& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }=1,\mathrm{}5+n_v.$$

Note that the difference with the $`N=8`$ case is that the matrix $`c`$ here is symmetric off-diagonal while for the $`𝔢_{7(7)}`$ case it was symmetric diagonal. The generators $`X^\pm `$ have also an appropriate embedding in $`𝔰𝔭(2(7+n_v),)`$, which depends on the linear combination of $`X_r,X_t,X_z`$ (generators of the corresponding $`\mathrm{SO}(1,1)`$ groups) which gives $`X_q`$.

From the symplectic embedding it follows that the transformations of the electric vectors under the Peccei-Quinn translational symmetries are:

$$\delta A_\mu ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=t^\mathrm{\Lambda }B_\mu ;\delta C_\mu =\delta B_\mu =0$$
(10)
while their magnetic counterparts have field strengths transforming as follows:

$`\delta F_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu \nu }^{(m)}`$ $`=`$ $`t_\mathrm{\Lambda }C_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\delta C_{\mu \nu }^{(m)}`$ $`=`$ $`t_\mathrm{\Lambda }F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`\delta B_{\mu \nu }^{(m)}`$ $`=`$ $`t^\mathrm{\Lambda }F_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu \nu }^{(m)}`$ (11)
where $`t_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\eta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}t^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Note that the charges of $`t^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with respect to $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$ and $`𝔰𝔬(1,1)_{d_5}`$ are $`2`$ and $`1`$ respectively so that the equations (10) and (4) respect the charge assignements.

In this symplectic embedding we can gauge flat groups with algebra $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}=𝔲(1)\mathrm{}𝔤^+`$, where $`𝔤^+`$ is an abelian subalgebra contained in $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+𝐧_𝐯)_+`$. The commutation rules are of the form

$$[X_0,X_\mathrm{\Lambda }]=f_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{\Sigma }X_\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }=1,\mathrm{}5+n_v.$$

$`X_0`$ is a generic element of the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔲𝔰𝔭(4)+𝔰𝔬(n_v)`$, the maximal compact subalgebra of $`𝔰𝔬(5,n_v)`$. If $`n_v`$ is even, this element depends on $`2+n_v/2`$ parameters.

Let us assume that $`X_0`$ is in the CSA of $`𝔲𝔰𝔭(4)`$, so it depends only on two parameters,

$$X_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1ϵ& 0\\ 0& m_2ϵ\end{array}\right),ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The model obtained by gauging this algebra reproduces the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism applied to $`N=4`$ supergravity. The analysis of the explicit symmetry breaking pattern follows the lines of the $`N=8`$ supergravity treated in Ref. . The results are as follows: $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the masses acquired by the gravitinos and the gauginos. The non zero eigenvalues of the Cartan element in the two-fold antisymmetric representation of $`𝔲𝔰𝔭(4)`$ are $`\pm (m_1\pm m_2)`$, and this gives the masses of the vectors in the gravity multiplet. At most four vectors can become massive and four translational symmetries can be broken.

If $`m_1,m_20`$, then all supersymmetries are broken. If $`m_2=0`$, we have a spontaneous breaking $`N=4N^{}=2`$. The massive gravitinos are short, 1/2 BPS multiplets with central charge given by $`X_0`$. All the vector multiplets remain massless and all hypermultiplets acquire a mass $`m_1`$. The moduli space of this theory is

$$(\mathrm{SU}(1,1)/\mathrm{U}(1))\times (\mathrm{SO}(2,n_v+1)/(\mathrm{SO}(2)\times \mathrm{SO}(n_v+1))).$$

## 5 $`N=2`$ supergravity.

We would like to discuss now the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism in $`N=2`$ supergravity coupled to matter.

Let us first discuss $`N=2`$ supergravity in $`D=5`$, with $`n_v`$ vector multiplets and no hypermultiplets. The scalars of the vector multiplets are coordinates of a real manifold of dimension $`n_v`$.

The global symmetry of this theory is $`\mathrm{USp}(2)\times \mathrm{K}`$, where $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ is the R-symmetry of the $`D=5`$ theory and $`\mathrm{K}`$ is the isometry group of the scalar manifold.

In absence of such isometries ($`\mathrm{K}=11`$) then $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ is the only global symmetry which can be used to perform the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism. The Cartan generator $`X_0`$ of $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ is gauged by the graviphoton.

In the theory dimensionally reduced to $`D=4`$ the manifold parametrized by the scalars of the vector multiplets is a complex special manifold $`_v`$ of complex dimension $`n_v+1`$. We denote by $`t^A,A=1,\mathrm{}n_v+1`$ its complex coordinates. The Kähler potential of $`_v`$ is defined as

$$𝒦=\mathrm{log}\left(d_{ABC}\mathrm{}(t^A)\mathrm{}(t^B)\mathrm{}(t^C)\right).$$

The scalar manifold has $`n_v+1`$ translational isometries, however, since the scalars are inert under $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$, these isometries are not gauged.

Let $`mϵ`$ be a generic element of the CSA of $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ with

$$ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Under the Scherk–Schwarz generalized dimensional reduction all gravitinos and gauginos, which are $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ doublets, acquire a mass $`e^{𝒦/2}m`$. All vectors and scalars are massless, so that no gauge symmetry is broken and the scalar potential vanishes identically.

The Scherk–Schwarz model, in absence of hypermultiplets and with a special manifold without isometries, corresponds then to $`N=2`$ supergravity with a Fayet–Iliopoulos term and gives the model discussed in .

Let us now consider the case in which the special manifold $`_v`$ has a non trivial isometry group $`\mathrm{K}`$. Then one could consider a model where the $`X_0`$ generator has a non zero component in the Cartan subalgebra of the maximally compact subgroup of $`\mathrm{K}`$. In this case the gauge algebra would become non-abelian and some of the vector fields would acquire a mass.

As an example consider the model based on the special manifold

$$\frac{\mathrm{SU}(3,3)}{\mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}.$$

In the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism the five dimensional ancestor of this model is based on the coset $`\mathrm{SL}(3,)/\mathrm{SU}(3)`$. Then, in analogy with the $`N=8`$ case, we have the decomposition

$$𝔰𝔲(3,3)=𝔰𝔩(3,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k+\mathrm{𝟗}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2}+\mathrm{𝟗}^2.$$

The electric subalgebra in $`𝔰𝔲(3,3)`$ is  $`𝔤_{\mathrm{el}}=𝔤^0+𝔤^+`$ where

$`g^0`$ $`=`$ $`𝔰𝔩(3,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$
$`g^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟗}^{}=(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}^{}})\text{ of }𝔰𝔩(3,).`$
The vector field strengths and their magnetic duals are in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ (three-fold antisymmetric) of $`𝔰𝔲(3,3)`$ . This representation decomposes as follows under $`𝔰𝔩(3,)+𝔰𝔬(1,1)_k`$

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathrm{𝟗}^{+1}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{+3}+\mathrm{𝟗}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\mathrm{𝟏}^3$$

The gauge algebra is therefore $`X_0\mathrm{}𝔤^+`$ where $`X_0`$ is a Cartan element of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)\mathrm{SL}(3,)`$, under which $`g^+`$ is in the $`(\mathrm{𝟖}+\mathrm{𝟏})`$ representation.

The 10 dimensional Lie algebra

$$[X_\mathrm{\Lambda },X_0]=M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }X_\mathrm{\Sigma };[X_\mathrm{\Lambda },X_\mathrm{\Sigma }]=0$$

has structure constants $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ given by a diagonal matrix with entries

$$\{\pm (a_1a_2),\pm (2a_1+a_2),\pm (a_1+2a_2),0,0,0\}.$$
(12)
In this case the central charge does not break the supersymmetry, but the nine vector multiplets will organize in three massive 1/2-BPS multiplets with masses proportional to $`|a_1a_2|`$, $`|2a_1+a_2|`$, $`|a_1+2a_2|`$, and three massless ones, the fourth massless vector being the graviphoton.

In the broken phase, the moduli space of this theory is

$$\left(\frac{SU(1,1)}{U(1)}\right)^3.$$
(13)
The mass matrix is

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }=e^{𝒦/2}M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

where $`𝒦`$ is the Kähler potential of the manifold (13). There are six broken symmetries, corresponding to the difference ($`93=6`$) in the number of translational symmetries between the unbroken and broken phase. Since the masses of the gravitinos vanish, the scalar potential is positive definite and it vanishes at the minimum.

This model can be easily generalized by taking $`X_0`$ to be a linear combination of a Cartan element of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ with the one of $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ (with eigenvalue $`m`$). In this case the gravitinos get a mass $`m`$ (so that the supersymmetry is completely broken), vectors and scalars still have masses given by the eigenvalues (12) of $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, while the gauginos have masses shifted by $`m`$ with respect to the bosons.

Let us briefly discuss the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism when also hypermultiplets are present. In this case, since the hyperscalars transform under $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$, to perform the gauging of $`X_0`$ in the CSA of $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ it is required that the quaternionic manifold $`_Q`$ parametrized by them has at least an $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ isometry. This would be for instance the case for all the quaternionic symmetric spaces  but would not be true for more general manifolds as for instance the general quaternionic spaces obtained through c-map .

If the quaternionic manifold $`_Q`$ has some larger isometry $`\mathrm{K}^{}`$, we may use $`\mathrm{K}^{}`$ for the Scherk–Schwarz mechanism.

In the case where only $`\mathrm{USp}(2)`$ is used as a global symmetry, then the hyperscalars would acquire a mass set by $`m`$, while the hyperinos would remain massless. Then, a scalar potential would appear.

The Scherk–Schwarz mechanism allows models either with the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry left unbroken, or completely broken to $`N=0`$.

To obtain partial breaking $`N=2N=1`$ we need hypermultiplets to be present and to gauge at least two translational isometries of the quaternionic manifold. The minimal model  has one vector multiplet whose complex scalar parametrizes the special manifold

$$_v=\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1)}{\mathrm{U}(1)}$$
(14)
with Kähler potential $`𝒦=\mathrm{log}(z+\overline{z})`$, and one hypermultiplet whose scalars parametrize the quaternionic manifold

$$_Q=\frac{\mathrm{USp}(2,2)}{\mathrm{USp}(2)\times \mathrm{USp}(2)}.$$
(15)
This contains three axions with charges $`(g_1,g_2)`$ with respect to the two gauge fields $`(B_\mu ,Z_\mu )`$.

Since $`_Q`$ has three translational isometries, the unbroken $`N=1`$ theory has still one translational isometry coming from the quaternionic manifold. The moduli space of the $`N=1`$ theory is

$$_v\times \left(\frac{\mathrm{SU}(1,1)}{\mathrm{U}(1)}\right)_Q.$$

$`(\mathrm{SU}(1,1)/\mathrm{U}(1))_Q`$ is a sub-manifold of $`_Q`$ and the spectrum contains a massive gravitino multiplet and two massless chiral multiplets. Since no compact generators are gauged, the gauge algebra is purely abelian and this model is similar to the $`N=4`$ one with abelian gauging of the translational isometries considered in Section 4 . As in that model, the two gravitinos acquire masses

$$m_{1,2}=|g_1\pm g_2|e^{\stackrel{~}{𝒦}/2}$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ is the Kähler potential of

$$\left(\frac{SU(1,1)}{U(1)}\right)_v\times \left(\frac{SU(1,1)}{U(1)}\right)_Q.$$

An $`N=1`$ theory is found for $`|g_1|=|g_2|`$.

This model has vanishing potential since the only scalars which become massive are the two Goldstone bosons of the $`^2`$ gauged isometry, which are eaten by the vectors that become massive.

Note that the number of massive vectors is given by $`42=2`$, that is the difference in number between the translational isometries of the $`N=2`$ scalar manifolds and the corresponding ones in the $`N=1`$ moduli space. This agrees with the general analysis of . A possible generalization of this model to many hyper and vector multiplets has been given in .

## 6 Summary

In this paper we have explored new gaugings of extended supergravity in which different maximal subgroups of the duality group have a diagonal embedding in the electric-magnetic symplectic duality rotations.

The gauging of “flat groups” allows to obtain a class of models which are the extension of no-scale supergravity to higher N-theories. These models encompass the Scherk–Schwarz generalized dimensional reduction and supergravity or M-theory compactifications in presence of brane-fluxes.

Among these models, of particular interest for phenomenological studies are the $`N=2N=1`$ models, which can be obtained, for example, in IIB orientifolds with three-form fluxes turned on.

Finally, another possibility of obtaining an $`N=2N=1`$ breaking is to compactify a five dimensional theory on a $`S_1/_2`$ orientifold à la Scherk–Schwarz, by introducing a $`_2`$ parity which truncates the second gravitino  \- . This is the mechanism used in the supergravity version of the Randall-Sundrum scenario and will be discussed elsewhere.

## Acknowledgements

S. F. would like to thank the Dipartimento di Fisica, Politecnico di Torino for its kind hospitality during the completion of this work. Work supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Program under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Space-Time, in which L. A., R. D. and M. A. Ll. are associated to Torino University. The work of S. F. has also been supported by the D.O.E. grant DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C.