format: text

text:
# The ARAUCARIA project: Deep near-infrared survey of nearby galaxies. I. The distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud from K-band photometry of red clump stars 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations obtained with the NTT telescope at the European Southern Observatory as part of project number 69.D-0352.

## 1 Introduction

We have recently started on an ambitious project to improve the calibrations of a number of stellar distance indicators which can be used to determine the distances to nearby galaxies, located at $``$ 10 Mpc. This project, named the ARAUCARIA project, is particularly focussing on the dependence of the various stellar distance indicators on galaxy environmental properties, like metallicity and age of the stellar populations. Among the objects whose usefulness for an accurate distance measurement we want to improve within the ARAUCARIA project are Cepheid variables, RR Lyrae stars, red clump stars, blue supergiants, and planetary nebulae. These stellar distance indicators span a large range in masses, typical ages, and evolutionary states, and in any galaxy at least some of these object classes can be found. In the Local Group and other nearby galaxy groups like Sculptor, there are a number of galaxies which contain stellar populations of all ages (old, intermediate, young) and in which all of our standard candles can be found together-these are our principal target galaxies for establishing the possible environmental dependences of our stellar standard candles more accurately than hitherto done. The aims of the project have been described in more detail in Gieren et al. (2001), and first results have recently been published in Pietrzyński et al. (2002).

As a part of the ARAUCARIA project, we are conducting a deep near-infrared (JK) imaging survey in several of our target galaxies, including the Magellanic Clouds, and the Carina and Fornax dwarf galaxies. An immediate aim is to use red clump stars, and the tip of the red giant branch technique to determine the distances to these galaxies. In this paper, we are presenting a distance determination to the Large Magellanic Cloud from the red clump star method, applied in the pure infrared domain (from a K, J-K color-magnitude diagram). The LMC is arguably the most important galaxy in the process of establishing an accurate extragalactic distance scale, and our current lack of ability to measure extragalactic distances is best reflected in the large range of distances measured for the LMC with different techniques (e.g. Gibson, 2000). Regarding the red clump stars as a distance indicator, the method was introduced in a fundamental paper of Paczyński & Stanek (1998), and the red clump star mean brightness was calibrated in the optical V and I bands in their paper. Important progress has recently been made by Alves (2000) who was the first to calibrate the absolute magnitudes of a large sample of Hipparcos-observed nearby red clump stars in the K-band. An outstanding and obvious advantage of the red clump star technique is the fact that accurate distances were measured by Hipparcos to nearly a thousand of these stars in the solar neighborhood, making the red clump star method the currently only technique having a zero point which is set from an accurate geometrical calibration (Paczyński & Stanek 1998). While previous efforts to calibrate the red clump star absolute magnitude in the optical I-band, and apply it to other galaxies were plagued by problems with extinction corrections, and with a small, but significant dependence of $`M_\mathrm{I}`$ on metallicity, which manifested themselves in considerable differences between red clump distances to the LMC using I-band magnitudes (e.g. Udalski et al. 1998; Udalski et al. 2000; Romaniello et al. 2000), the use of K-band magnitudes minimizes these problems, and in the case of the LMC virtually eliminates any dependence of the final K-band red clump distance result on the adopted reddening. In the very recent work of Grocholski & Sarajedini (2002) who studied population effects on the K-band magnitude of red clump stars from 2MASS photometry of open clusters it was suggested that $`M_K`$ may be less dependent on stellar age and metallicity than $`M_I`$. Therefore, it is of a profound importance to verify in detail possible population effects on the mean K-band red clump magnitude in order to be able to derive truly accurate distances with this method.

In the following, we describe what we believe is the as yet most accurate set of near-IR data for samples of red clump stars in 2 fields in the bar of the LMC, obtained with the New Technology Telescope on La Silla under superb seeing conditions, analyze these data together with optical photometry of the red clump stars in these fields taken from OGLE II databases, and derive the distance to the LMC. We thoroughly discuss the accuracy of our distance determination, including the effect of environmental corrections on our (and other) results. In forthcoming papers, we will extend this work to a number of galaxies in the Local Group, in an effort to tighten the constraints upon the appropriate corrections which have to be applied to the observed red clump star magnitudes to account for differences in the red clump star populations we are observing in these galaxies, and in the solar neighborhood.

## 2 Observations

All observations presented in this paper were collected with the ESO/NTT telescope at the La Silla observatory in Chile. The SOFI instrument in wide field mode with focal elongator in the grism wheel, was used. The resulting field of view was about 2.49 x 2.49 arcmin with a scale of 0.146 arcsec/pixel. This configuration guaranteed an excellent image quality (superior to the quality achievable in other SOFI modes) with a very stable PSF over the whole CCD, which was a substantial advantage in deriving accurate PSF photometry in the dense fields of the LMC bar.

Two fields (see Table 1) were observed through Ks and J filters, under photometric and 0.6 arcsec seeing conditions. In order to account for frequent sky level variations, especially in the K band, the observations were made with a jittering technique. In the Ks filter, we did 6 consecutive 10 s integrations in any given sky position before moving the telescope by about 20 arcsec to a different position. We used 20 different jittering positions in Ks which resulted in a total, net exposure time of about 20 min in the Ks filter. The J-band data were obtained in a similar fashion, but for each telescope jittering position we just obtained one 10 s integration, leading to a total integration time of about 3 min in this filter. In order to accurately transform our data to the standard system, we secured 9 observations of 7 different standard stars from the UKIRT system (Hawarden et al. 2000) at a variety of airmasses, and spanning a broad range in colors bracketting the red clump star colors, along with our LMC fields.

## 3 Reductions and Calibrations

Sky subtraction of the images was performed in a two-step process implying masking of stars with the xdimsum IRAF package. As a next step, the data were flatfielded and stacked into the final images. The PSF photometry was derived with the $`DAOPHOT`$ and $`ALLSTAR`$ programs. The PSF model was obtained in an iterative way which was described in detail in Pietrzyński, Gieren and Udalski (2002). In order to derive aperture corrections, about 50 relatively isolated stars were selected on each image. Then all stars located in the neighbourhood of those stars were iteratively subtracted, and aperture photometry on the selected stars was carried out. The median from the aperture corrections derived for all selected isolated stars was adopted as the final aperture correction for a given frame. The typical rms scatter of the aperture corrections derived in this way was about 0.008 mag.

Aperture photometry on the standard stars was performed by choosing an aperture of 14 pixels. From our instrumental magnitudes, the following transformations to the standard system were derived:

$$JK=0.930(jk)+0.620$$

$$K=k0.036(jk)2.704$$

where J-K and K stand for the standard color and magnitude in the UKIRT system, and j-k and k denote the instrumental aperture magnitudes scaled to 1 s exposure times.

As can be seen, the color coefficients in the transformation equations are close to 1 and 0, which means that our instrumental system matches the standard UKIRT system very well. The residuals did not exceed 0.02 mag and did not show any dependence on color or brightness (see Fig. 1). The total error of our transformations, in particular on the zero point of the K and J magnitudes, was estimated to be less than 0.03 mag.

In order to perform an external check on the accuracy of the zero point of our photometry we searched the 2MASS database ($`http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass`$) for stars with accurate measurements and common to our data. Alltogether 19 such stars were found. Before comparing the results we need to transform our data into the system used by 2MASS (Carpenter 2001). After doing this, we found the following differences between our photometry and the 2MASS data: $`0.01\pm 0.04`$ and $`0.00\pm 0.05`$ in K magnitude and J-K color, respectively. Another independent check on the zeropoint of our K-band photometry can be done comparing the mean brightness of the red clump stars derived in this paper (see next section) and Alves et al. (2002). Alves et al. (2002) give $`<K>_{\mathrm{KOORNNEEF}}=16.974`$ mag, while we obtain $`<K>_{\mathrm{UKIRT}}=16.895`$ mag. After converting both values to the $`(K_\mathrm{S})_(2MASS)`$ system (Carpenter 2001) and correcting for the geometry of the LMC as discussed by van der Marel et al. (2002) (our fields are about 0.025 mag closer than those observed by Alves et al.), we found that our photometry is by about 0.001 mag brighter than that presented by Alves et al. This excellent agreement of our present K-band photometry with Alves et al. reassures that systematic uncertainties on the photometric zero points are very small in both studies.

## 4 Results

In Fig. 2 we present the observed K vs J-K color-magnitude diagrams for our two LMC fields, calibrated to the UKIRT system. It can be appreciated that the faintest stars we were able to measure have K-band magnitudes of about 20.5. In both diagrams, the outstanding structural feature is the red clump, at a K magnitude of about 17. The S/N ratio for stars at the magnitude level of the red clump was calculated to be around 50. To our knowledge, these are the deepest infrared color-magnitude diagrams ever obtained in the LMC. Besides the red clump, many other features can be identified, including the main sequence and red giant branch. A detailed discussion of the different stellar populations appearing in these diagrams will be subject of another study.

In order to derive the mean observed K-band magnitudes of the red clump stars in both fields, all stars having J-K colors in the range from 0.35-0.80 mag and K-band magnitudes in the range from 16-18 were selected.

The histograms of K-band magnitudes were derived for each field by using bins of 0.05 mag. Then the following function (Paczynski & Stanek 1998):

$$n(K)=a+b(KK^{\mathrm{max}})+c(KK^{\mathrm{max}})^2+\frac{N_{RC}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(KK^{\mathrm{max}})^2}{2\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}^2}\right]$$
$`(1)`$
consisting of the Gaussian function component representing the distribution of red clump stars, superimposed on a second order polynomial function approximating the stellar background was fitted to the data. The total number of stars measured in our fields, and the number of stars in our fitting boxes, are indicated in Table 1.

In order to check on how our derived mean red clump star K-band magnitudes could potentially depend on the size of the box used for the selection of the stars for the contruction of the histograms, we changed this box by 0.1 mag in color and 0.3 mag in magnitude (larger changes would be clearly unreasonable from the inspection of the CMDs), and repeated the whole procedure. As a result of this exercise, we found no significant change in the derived mean magnitudes of the red clump stars, for neither field.

As a result of our fits, we derive for the mean red clump K-band magnitudes 16.893 $`\pm `$ 0.011 mag for field I, and 16.898 $`\pm `$ 0.010 mag for field II. The same procedure yields mean J-band magnitudes of 17.498 $`\pm `$ 0.012 and 17.512 $`\pm `$ 0.011 mag, respectively, for the two fields.

For both filters, the values for fields I and II are clearly in very good agreement. This is consistent with the fact that our fields are located very close to each other (the distance between them is smaller than 20 arcmin) and no differential depth effect due to the slight tilt of the LMC bar with respect to the line of sight should be expected, at such small angular differences. It is therefore justified to merge, for a given filter, the data of the 2 fields into one diagram in order to improve the statistical error on our results. We did this, and Fig. 4 shows the fits of function (1) to the combined data, in both filters. From these fits, we derive as our final, adopted values for the mean K- and J-band magnitudes of red clump stars in the LMC 16.895 $`\pm `$ 0.007 and 17.507 $`\pm `$ 0.009 mag, respectively.

In order to apply appropriate extinction corrections to these observed mean K- and J-band magnitudes, we adopted a value of E(B-V)=0.152 mag, corresponding to our observed fields, from the OGLE II map of extinction in the LMC (Udalski et al. 1999). These maps were determined using the mean brightness of the red clump stars as tracers of the fluctuations of the mean reddening. The zero point was adopted from three different previous studies of interstellar extinction based on OB stars (Udalski et al. 1998, Lee 1995), and colors of RR Lyrae stars (Walker 1993). As noted by Udalski et al. (1999), all zero points were consistent within a couple of thousands of magnitude. The absolute calibration of these maps was checked by comparing the observed I-band magnitudes of the red clump stars with the extinction-free magnitudes of red clump stars in clusters and field stars around them in the outer parts of the LMC (Udalski 1998), again showing very good agreement (to within 0.01 mag). Therefore we adopt, as an error on the reddenings derived from these maps, the value of 0.02 mag as given by Udalski. We note that from a different study (Harris, Zaritsky and Thompson 1997) there is an indication that the uncertainty on the reddening might be somewhat larger (about 0.035 mag), but such a slight difference would not have any significant effect on the budget of systematic errors affecting our current distance determination of the LMC.

Assuming the standard extinction curve ($`A_K=0.367E(BV)`$ and $`A_J=0.902E(BV)`$, Schlegel et al. 1998), we derive $`A_K`$ = 0.055 mag and $`A_J`$ = 0.137 mag, and therefore $`<K>_0`$= 16.839 and $`<J>_0`$= 17.370. To our knowledge, this is the first determination of the J-band mean magnitude of red clump stars in the LMC existing to date.

To compare our reddening-free mean K-band magnitude with the absolute K-band magnitude of the red clump stars from the Hipparcos sample (Alves 2000), we adopted the transformations between the Koorneef, 2MASS and UKIRT systems as derived by Carpenter (2001). It is worthwhile noting that there is practically no difference between K magnitudes in the UKIRT system to which our present data were transformed, and the 2MASS Ks band. (e.g. Carpenter (2001) gives the formula $`(K_s)_{2MASS}=K_{UKIRT}+0.004(JK)_{UKIRT}+0.002`$, which results in a difference of about 0.004 mag for red clump stars between their $`K_{UKIRT}`$ and $`K_s`$ 2MASS magnitudes.). The correction to bring the red clump star magnitudes from the Hipparcos sample to the UKIRT system is 0.044 mag (Carpenter 2001). Applying this correction, and assuming that there is no population effect on K-band red clump star magnitudes, we obtain a LMC true distance modulus of 18.487 +/- 0.008 (random) +/- 0.045 (systematic) mag. The systematic error on this result contains contributions from the uncertainty of the Hipparcos\- calibrated absolute magnitude of red clump stars (0.03 mag), our current photometric zero point (0.03 mag), the uncertainty of the transformations between the different infrared systems (0.01 mag) and the uncertainty of the assumed reddening (0.02 mag).

If we adopt the van der Marel et al. (2002) geometrical model of the LMC, the corresponding distance of the LMC barycenter is 18.501 $`\pm `$ 0.008 (random) $`\pm `$ 0.045 mag (systematic).

## 5 Discussion

Population effects on red clump star absolute magnitudes in different environments, including the solar neighborhood and the LMC, have been studied in some detail by Girardi et al. (1998), and by Girardi and Salaris (2001). In particular, under the assumption of a star formation history (SFH) and chemical evolution model for the solar neighborhood and the LMC the latter authors found from population synthesis models that the distance moduli derived from a comparison of the mean magnitude of the red clump stars in the LMC to the corresponding mean magnitude of the red clump stars in the Hipparcos sample should be corrected by -0.03, 0.2 and 0.3 mag in K, I and V, respectively, in order to compensate for the difference in metallicity and age between these two environments. A corresponding -0.03 mag correction has been applied by Alves et al. (2002) to their K-band data to allow for the population effect. Applying the same correction, our LMC barycenter distance result becomes 18.471 mag, in excellent agreement with their result.

Unfortunately, a discussion of the accuracy of such corrections was not presented in Girardi and Salaris (2001). An estimation of the uncertainties on these corrections should be based on population synthesis calculations performed for very different SFHs and chemical evolution models, and should also take into account current uncertainties on the input physics of the stellar models used, which is a task far beyond the scope of this paper. However, we can make a rough estimate of the uncertainties of populations corrections using the published simulations of Girardi et al (1998) and Girardi and Salaris (2001) for the I band. In spite of the fact that they performed their simulations for a very limited range of possible SFHs and chemical evolution models, their data show that changing these parameters one can obtain changes in the synthetic mean brightness of red clump stars of 0.115 mag (see Table 4 in Girardi and Salaris 2001). This is in agreement with the error estimate of about 0.1 mag for the model calculation results which was earlier given in Girardi et al. (1998; their section 5). So far no similar data for the K band are available, but it seems reasonable to assume that the current uncertainty on the population correction in the K band may be of a similar order of what is extracted from the work of Girardi and coworkers for the I band. It is therefore of great importance to reduce the current uncertainty on population corrections for red clump stars, particularly in near-infrared bands, in order to make these objects truly superb standard candles. We note, for example, that Udalski (1998, 2000) derived an I-band population correction for LMC red clump stars of only 0.04 mag, based on a thorough study of red clump stars in LMC clusters, which is quite different from the 0.2 mag correction derived from the models of Girardi and Salaris and suggesting that there is still room for significant improvement in the future from both the model, and the observational side. A reduction of these uncertainties is likely to reconcile the apparent discrepancies of the LMC distance modulus obtained in the past by different workers from data in different bands. We expect that our ongoing near-infrared work on red clump stars in other Local Group galaxies which span a range in environmental properties will lead, in the near future, to such an improved empirical calibration of the dependence of red clump star magnitudes on the stellar ages and metallicities.

We are grateful to Leo Girardi for very useful and enlightening discussions about his red clump star models. We are grateful to the European Southern Observatory for allocating observing time to this project with SOFI on the NTT telescope. It is a real pleasure to thank the NTT team for their expert support which helped to acquire data of the highest possible accuracy. WG gratefully acknowledges financial support for this project from the Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP No. 15010003. He also acknowledges support from the Centrum fuer Internationale Migration und Entwicklung in Frankfurt/Germany who donated the Sun Ultra 60 workstation on which our data reduction and analysis was carried out. Finally, we would like to thank an anonymous referee for particularly interesting comments which helped to improve this paper.


text:
# A construction of 𝐺₂ holonomy spaces with torus symmetry

## 1. Introduction and the main result.

The classification of the possible holonomy groups of Riemannian or Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds is an old mathematical problem. In  Berger presented a list of the possible restricted holonomy groups of N-dimensional Riemannian manifolds, but after the completion of this work it remained to prove the existence of metrics with exceptional holonomies $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ for the seven and eight dimensional cases respectively. This was achieved successfully by Bryant in . In general, if a given Riemannian metric with dimension $`N`$ admits at least one covariantly constant spinor satisfying $`D_i\eta =0`$ the holonomy group will be $`SU(\frac{n}{2})`$ , $`Sp(\frac{n}{4})`$, $`G_2`$ or $`Spin(7)`$, the last two cases corresponding to seven and eight dimensions. For $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds there is exactly one. The fact that this spinor exist is apparent from the decomposition $`8=17`$ of the spinor representation of the tangent space $`SO(7)`$. Equivalently, in such manifolds one can choose an orthogonal frame $`e^i`$ in which the three octonionic form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=e^1e^2e^7+e^1e^3e^6+e^1e^4e^5+e^2e^3e^5+e^4e^2e^6$$

$$+e^3e^4e^7+e^5e^6e^7$$

and its dual $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are closed .

After the Bryant work explicit compact and non-compact $`G_2`$ holonomy metrics were constructed in  and , and complete ones in  and . Recently, new examples have been found in , , , , ,  and . All of them have vanishing Ricci tensor, i.e, they are Ricci-flat, and this implies that they are vacuum solutions of the Einstein equation. This suggest that the construction of $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds is related with the construction of seven dimensional self-dual manifolds. The self-duality condition for the spin connection in seven dimensions

$$w_{ab}=\pm \frac{c_{abcd}}{2}w_{cd}$$

implies Ricci-flatness and $`G_2`$ restricted holonomy  (analogous considerations hold in eight dimensions for $`Spin(7)`$). Given an anzatz for a metric, this condition gives a system of equations to be satisfied in order to have a $`G_2`$ manifold. Although this equations are non-linear they have been solved in cases with suitable symmetries in which the system takes a more simple form .

The main feature that relates this subject to physics is the presence of one nonzero parallel spinor field $`\eta `$, which plays a central role in supersymmetry, string theory and M-theory. Compactification of the M-theory (or his low energy limit, the eleven dimensional supergravity) on $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds leads to an effective four dimensional theory with one supersymmetry, corresponding to such spinor field .

There are in the literature examples of ”weak $`G_2`$ holonomy” , which are again backgrounds of the M-theory that give rise to N=1 supersymmetry in $`D=4`$. In this case, there is an spinor field $`\eta `$ which is not covariantly constant but satisfies $`D_i\eta \lambda \gamma _i\eta `$. The Ricci flatness condition is replaced by $`R_{ij}\lambda g_{ij}`$. In the limit $`\lambda 0`$ one obtain $`G_2`$ as restricted holonomy group. Hitchin has shown that under certain conditions is possible to construct this kind of manifolds starting with an $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy one .

Compactification of the M-theory based on $`G_2`$ smooth manifolds cannot give rise to chiral matter. In the smooth case the harmonic Kaluza-Klein decomposition of the eleven-dimensional supergravity is the N=1 four dimensional supergravity coupled Abelian vector multiplets plus chiral multiplets. But the chiral matter fields can emerge only if the manifold develops a singularity, as pointed out by Witten and Acharya in  and . It turns out that to obtain a realistic model one should investigate the dynamics of the M-theory over orbifolds. A modern description of this dynamics over manifolds that are developing a conical singularities can be found in . Generalizations of the work of Acharya and Witten on singular $`G_2`$ spaces were investigated recently in , and over spaces with torus symmetry and only orbifold singularities in  and .

Certain $`G_2`$ metrics with two abelian isometries have called the attention recently , because an $`U(1)`$ isometry allows an type IIA superstring interpretation upon dimensional reduction to ten dimensions. In  Anguelova and Lazaroiu have extracted the IIA reduction of M-theory on certain toric backgrounds, and its type IIB duals. Such IIA solutions corresponds to systems of weakly and strongly coupled D6-branes, while the duals describes systems of localized and delocalized 5-branes. The $`G_2`$ spaces presented in those works have been found applying the Bryant-Salamon construction with a four dimensional quaternionic base manifold with torus symmetry ; the $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ isometry is extended to the total space.

The four dimensional toric quaternionic kahler spaces has been completely described by Calderbank and Pedersen  in terms of eigenfunctions of the hyperbolic laplacian with eigenvalue $`3/4`$, namely the solutions of the equation

$$F_{\rho \rho }+F_{\eta \eta }=\frac{3F}{4\rho ^2}.$$

The toric $`G_2`$ cones utilized in  were constructed with the so called $`m`$-pole eigenfunctions which gives rise to spaces that are complete (thus compact) and admits only orbifold singularities. As such, they seem to be the best candidates with $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ isometry for which the physical analysis of Acharya and Witten can be applied.

One of the purposes of this paper is to describe how to construct non trivial eigenfunctions of the hyperbolic laplacian (and, in consequence, examples of toric quaternionic spaces) starting with solutions of the monopole equation

$$V_{\eta \eta }+\rho ^1(\rho V_\rho )_\rho =0$$

described by Ward and Woodhouse in . In fact, in  it has been pointed out that the space of solutions of the Ward monopole equation and the Calderbank Pedersen one are related by a Backglund transformation, allowing to construct solutions one from another. The Ward monopole equation has been investigated in the context of (2+1) gravity and it is known that its solutions admits an integral representation in terms of an arbitrary function of one variable. For this reason it is possible to find non trivial eigenfunctions of the hyperbolic laplacian selecting a function in the integral representations of the monopoles and performing a Backglund mapping.

The Ward monopoles are also relevant for hyperkahler geometry . This is because it is possible to construct hyperkahler spaces with torus symmetry starting with a given monopole, in analoguous manner as in the Calderbank Pedersen picture. Moreover, in the hyperkahler limit the Bryant Salamon construction gives $`G_2`$ holonomy spaces which are globally the cartesian product of the hyperkahler one with $`R^3`$. For this reason one can construct such spaces starting with a monopole, without using a Backglund mapping. The reason for which in the hyperkahler limit it is obtained a trivial product with $`R^3`$ could be easy to visualize: being $`R^3`$ flat the seven dimensional self duality condition becames the four dimensional one for the base space.

The organization of this paper is as follows: in section 2 it is presented the group $`G_2`$ as the group of automorphisms of the octonions. In section 3 there are reviewed some basic features about self-dual seven dimensional manifolds. In section 4 it is shown that such manifolds have restricted holonomy group $`G_2`$. Section 5 contains a review of the Bryant Salamon construction of $`G_2`$ metrics with quaternionic kahler base spaces. In section 6 the Ward and Calderbank-Pedersen descriptions are reviewed and examples of quaternionic kahler and hyperkahler metrics are constructed. The $`m`$-pole solutions are also discussed in some detail. The vacuum configurations of the eleven dimensional supergravity related to this metrics are founded in section 7. Dimensional reduction of such configurations alone one of the isometries is performed to give rise to ten dimensional type IIA backgrounds.

To conclude, it should be mentioned that the study of explicit metrics with exceptional holonomy has also importance in the context of dualities of string theory and M-theory (-). The range of applications of this topic is very wide; some of them can be found in -.

## 2. The exceptional group $`G_2`$ and the octonions.

The group $`G_2SO(7)`$ is one of the exceptional simple Lie groups. It is compact, connected, simply-connected and of dimension $`14`$. It has been proved , that $`G_2`$ is the group of automorphisms of the octonions $`O`$, up to an isomorphism. The octonions (or Cayley numbers) constitutes the only non associative division algebra (the associative ones are only $`R`$, $`C`$ and $`H`$) and an arbitrary element $`xO`$ can be written as a linear combination of the form $`\stackrel{}{x}=x^0+x^ie_i`$, where the set $`e_i`$ constitute a basis of $`7`$ unit octonions with the following multiplication rule:

$$e_ie_j=c_{ijk}e_k;e_i.1=1.e_i=e_i$$
(2.1)
The $`x^i`$’s takes real values. The subspace $`P`$ of $`O`$ generated by the elements $`x=x^ie_i`$ is called the space of ”pure octonions”, and the total space can be decomposed as $`O=RP`$. The constants $`c_{ijk}`$ that define the multiplication (2.1) are totally antisymmetric and

$$c_{123}=c_{246}=c_{435}=c_{367}=c_{651}=c_{572}=c_{714}=1,$$
(2.2)
up to an index permutation. The constants corresponding to another set of indices are identically zero. From (2.1) and (2.2) it is seen that $`(e^3e^7)e^5e^3(e^7e^5)=e^1`$, which shows the non-associativity of the octonion algebra. For this reason the octonions cannot be represented as a matrices and do not satisfy the Jacobi identities. In other words, the algebra of $`O`$ is not a Lie algebra.

It is possible to represent the components of an arbitrary octonion as a $`7`$-dimensional vector $`\stackrel{}{X}=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$. We define the octonion numbers $`g\stackrel{}{x}`$ as those with components $`g.\stackrel{}{X}`$, where $`g`$ is an arbitrary $`7\times 7`$ matrix. The statement that the exceptional group $`G_2`$ is the group of automorphism of the octonions means if $`xP`$, $`gxP`$ if $`g`$ is any of the elements of $`G_2`$ in the fundamental irreducible representation; and that if $`x.y=z`$ for given x, y and z belonging to $`P`$, $`gx.gy=gz`$.

Over $`O`$ it is defined an internal product $`(,):O\times OR`$ given by

$$(e_i,e_j)=\delta _{ij},$$
(2.3)
from where it is obtained that

$$(x,y)=x^iy^i.$$
(2.4)
Taking into account all the facts mentioned above it is possible to construct a three-form over a seven dimensional space V, which is $`G_2`$ invariant. This form is fundamental in this work because its closure has implications about the holonomy group of V. The construction follows decomposing the octonion space as $`O=RP`$ , and defining over $`P`$ the bilinear $`B(x,y)`$ and the internal product $`<,>:P\times PR`$ by the identities

$$(x^0e_0+x,y^0e_0+y)=x^0y^0+<x,y>,$$
(2.5)
$$(x^0e_0+x)(y^0e_0+y)=(x^0y^0<x,y>)e_0+(x^0y+y^0x+B(x,y)).$$
(2.6)
Under an automorphism transformation $`B(x,y)`$ and $`<,>`$ satisfy

$$B(gx,gy)=gB(x,y),$$
(2.7)
$$B(x,y)=B(y,x),$$
(2.8)
$$<gx,gy>=<x,y>.$$
(2.9)
From (2.7) and (2.9), it is seen that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)=<B(x,y),z>=<B(gx,gy),gz>=\mathrm{\Phi }(gx,gy,gz).$$
(2.10)
In other words, the trilinear $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)=<B(x,y),z>`$ is $`G_2`$ invariant. From the rule (2.1) and the definition (2.6) it follows that components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(e_a,e_b,e_c)=<B(e_a,e_b),e_c>=c_{abc},$$

and that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)=c_{abc}x^ay^bz^c.$$

From the invariance of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ under the action of $`G_2`$ it follows that for a given real vector space V of dimension $`7`$, with $`e_1,..,e_7`$ a basis for V, the three form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{3!}c_{abc}e^ae^be^c$$
(2.11)
is $`G_2`$ invariant.

## 3. Self-dual manifolds in $`4`$ and $`7`$ dimensions.

The self-duality condition is a familiar concept in quantum field theory  and in general relativity. By definition the curvature tensor $`R_{ab}=dw_{ab}+w_{ac}w_{cb}`$ of a Riemannian metric is self-dual if

$$R_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{abmn}R_{mn},$$
(3.12)
or, in components

$$R_{abcd}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{abmn}R_{mncd}.$$

Non trivial solutions of this type has been found in the past . They are called ”gravitational instantons” if their are Euclidean and with finite energy. It has been shown that in four dimensions a torsion-free metric that satisfies (3.12) will be a vacuum solution of the Einstein equations without cosmological constant .

In seven dimensions (3.12) is generalized as

$$R_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}c_{abcd}R_{cd}.$$
(3.13)
where the totally antisymmetric $`c_{abcd}`$ are defined in terms of the octonion structure constants (2.2) through the relations:

$$c_{abcd}=\frac{1}{3!}ϵ^{abcdefg}c_{efg}.$$
(3.14)
This generalization has been related to the octonions because the solutions of (3.13) will be not only vacuum solutions of the Einstein equation without cosmological constant, but Ricci-flat, which is one of the main features of the $`G_2`$ manifolds. This follows directly from (3.13), the antisymmetry of (3.14) and the Bianchi identity $`R_{d[ebc]}=0`$ as

$$R_{ab}=R_{acbc}=\frac{1}{2}c_{acde}R_{debc}=\frac{1}{2}c_{acde}R_{d[ebc]}=0.$$
(3.15)
Indeed, it will be shown in the next section that seven dimensional self-dual manifolds have restricted holonomy $`G_2`$. For such case the Weyl tensor $`C_{abcd}`$ defined by

$$C_{abcd}=R_{abcd}+\frac{R}{(n1)(n2)}(g_{ac}g_{bd}g_{ad}g_{bc})\frac{1}{(n2)}(g_{ac}R_{bd}g_{ad}R_{bc}g_{bc}R_{ad}+g_{bd}R_{ac})$$
(3.16)
will be equal to the Riemann tensor. The first one is traceless, in consequence Ricci-flat manifolds have traceless curvature tensor.

Many authors presents the seven dimensional self-duality as a property of the spin connection, namely

$$\omega _{ab}=\frac{1}{2}c_{abcd}\omega _{cd},$$
(3.17)
or, equivalently,

$$c_{abc}\omega _{bc}=0.$$
(3.18)
In  a clear proof that the definition (3.17) implies (3.13) was given. It is based in the following identity for the octonion constants

$$c_{abcp}c_{defp}=3c_{ab[de}\delta _{e]b}2c_{def[a}\delta _{b]c}+6\delta _a^{[d}\delta _b^e\delta _c^{f]}2c_{def[a}\delta _{b]c}.$$
(3.19)
If (3.17) holds it is clear that $`d\omega _b^a`$ will be self-dual. The self-duality of $`\omega _c^a\omega _b^c`$ follows using that

$$\frac{1}{2}c_{abcd}\omega _e^c\omega _d^e=\frac{1}{4}c_{abcd}c_{edfg}\omega _e^c\omega _g^f$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}c_{abfe}\omega _c^f\omega _e^c+\frac{1}{4}c_{aefg}\omega _e^b\omega _g^f\frac{1}{4}c_{befg}\omega _e^a\omega _g^f+\omega _c^a\omega _b^c$$
(3.20)
$$=\frac{1}{2}c_{abcd}\omega _e^c\omega _d^e+2\omega _c^a\omega _b^c.$$

The identity (3.19) has been used here. From (3.20) is seen that

$$\frac{1}{2}c_{abcd}\omega _e^c\omega _d^e=\omega _c^a\omega _b^c$$

which implies the self-duality of R. The definition (3.17) implies (3.13), but the converse is not necessarily true.

## 4. The holonomy group of the metric obtained.

The purpose of this section is to show that seven dimensional self-dual manifolds has restricted holonomy $`G_2`$. Holonomy is the process of assigning to each closed curve of a manifold the linear transformation that measures the rotation resulting when a spinor or vector field is parallel transported around the given curve. The set of holonomy matrices constitutes a group, the holonomy group of the manifold. If it is considered only those curves which are contractible to a point it is the restricted holonomy. In simply connected manifolds both groups coincides.

From the Berger list  it follows that if a seven dimensional manifold admits only one covariantly constant spinor it will have $`G_2`$ restricted holonomy. It will be shown now that the seven dimensional self-dual manifolds admits exactly one. The covariant derivative of a spinor $`\eta `$ is

$$D_i\eta =(_i\frac{1}{4}\omega _{iab}\gamma ^{ab})\eta .$$
(4.21)
Choosing its components as

$$\eta _\alpha =\delta _{\alpha 8}$$
(4.22)
it is obtained

$$D_i\eta =\frac{1}{4}\omega _{iab}\gamma ^{ab}\eta .$$

One of the possible representations of the $`SO(7)`$ gamma matrices is the antisymmetric and imaginary given by

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^a=i(c_{a\alpha \beta }^{}+\delta _{a\alpha }\delta _{8\beta }+\delta _{a\beta }\delta _{8\alpha }),$$

where the constants $`c_{a\alpha \beta }^{}`$ are zero if $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ are equal to $`8`$, and the octonion constants in other case. In this representation $`(\gamma ^{ab}\eta )_\alpha =c_{abc}`$. Using (3.18) it follows that

$$D_i\eta =\frac{1}{4}\omega _{iab}\gamma ^{ab}\eta =\frac{1}{4}\omega _{iab}c_{abc}=0.$$

With this election for the gamma matrices, this is the only spinor that satisfies the last equation. But the result must be independent of the representation, which implies that the seven dimensional self-dual manifolds admits exactly one covariantly constant spinor and their holonomy is $`G_2`$.

The change of an arbitrary field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ under infinitesimal parallel transport is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=G_{ab}\delta A^{ab}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(4.23)
where $`\delta A^{ab}`$ is an infinitesimal area element spanned by the closed curve taking into consideration. $`G_{ab}=R_{abcd}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd}`$ generate the infinitesimal holonomy group, being $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd}`$ the generators of $`SO(m)`$ in the representation of the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The restricted holonomy can be larger than the infinitesimal one.

It has been mentioned in the introduction that for $`G_2`$ manifolds it is possible to construct a $`G_2`$ invariant closed and co-closed three form. For this reason it is needed to check that this holds for seven dimensional manifolds with self-dual spin connection. The most natural candidates to consider are the $`G_2`$ equivariant $`3`$-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (2.11) and its dual $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{3!}c_{abc}e^ae^be^c,\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{4!}c_{abcd}e^ae^be^ce^d.$$
(4.24)
Taking into account the identity

$$c_{abp}c_{pcde}=3c_{a[cd}\delta _{e]b}2c_{b[cd}\delta _{e]a}$$

it is obtained

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{3!2}c_{abc}e^ae^b\omega ^{cd}e^d=\frac{1}{3!}c_{abc}c_{cdef}e^ae^b\omega ^{ef}e^d$$

$$=\frac{1}{3!}c_{ade}e^ae^d\omega _{eb}e^b=2d\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

From here follows

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(4.25)
So, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a closed form. Similarly, using (3.19) follows that

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{4!6}c_{abcd}\omega _{ae}e^ee^be^ce^d=\frac{1}{4!12}c_{aefg}c_{abcd}\omega ^{fg}e^ee^be^ce^d$$

$$=\frac{1}{4!3}c_{fbcd}\omega ^{fe}e^ee^be^ce^d=2d\mathrm{\Phi },$$

which implies the closure of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

## 5. The Bryant-Salamon construction

A construction of $`G_2`$ manifolds starting with four dimensional quaternionic Kahler manifold as a base space has been given by Bryant and Salamon in  and reconsidered recently in . Those spaces are constructe as $`R^3`$ bundles over a quaternionic base. In the hyperkahler limit the bundle will be trivial, i.e, it will be the global product of the hyperkahler one with $`R^3`$.

Before describe this construction it is convenient to review certain propierties of quaternionic spaces. By definition  a quaternionic Kahler space is a Riemannian space of real dimension $`4N`$ endowed with a metric

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu $$

and a set of three complex structures $`J_\alpha ^{i\beta }`$ satisfying the quaternionic algebra

$$J_\alpha ^{i\beta }J_\beta ^{j\gamma }=\delta _{ij}\delta _\alpha ^\gamma +ϵ_{ijk}J_\alpha ^{k\gamma }.$$
(5.26)
The metric is quaternionic hermitian:

$$g(J^iX,J^iY)=g(X,Y),$$

from where follows that $`J_{\beta \alpha }^i=J_{\alpha \beta }^i`$. The holonomy group $`HSp(n)\times Sp(1)`$, and if the manifold has scalar curvature equal to zero it will be called hyperkahler. From the complex structures $`J^i`$ is possible to construct the hyperkahler triplet of $`2`$-forms given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^i=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^idx^\mu dx^\nu ;\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^i=g_{\mu \omega }(J^i)_\nu ^\omega .$$

and the three local $`1`$-forms

$$A^i=\omega ^{mn}J_{mn}^i$$
(5.27)
where $`\omega ^{mn}`$ represents the antiself-dual part of the spin connection. The hyperkahler form is covarianly closed with respect to the connection $`A^i`$ ; namely

$$_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^i=d\mathrm{\Omega }^i+ϵ_{ijk}A^j\mathrm{\Omega }^k=0.$$

Defining the $`SU(2)`$ curvature

$$F^i=dA^i+ϵ_{ijk}A^jA^k,$$

it follows that

$$F^i=\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }^i.$$
(5.28)
Here $`\kappa `$ denotes the scalar curvature. Any quaternionic metric is an Einstein space with curvature $`\kappa `$ and

$$R_{mn}=3\kappa g_{mn}.$$

It is important for the purposes of the present work to remark that in four dimensions a quaternionic-Kahler metric is an Einstein metric with self-dual Weyl tensor

$$W_{ab}=\frac{c_{abcd}}{2}W_{cd}.$$

In the hyperkahler case $`\kappa =0`$, so $`F^i`$ will be flat and the manifold will be Ricci-flat.

The Bryant Salamon result is that the following

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\kappa |u|^2+c}}(du^i+ϵ^{ijk}A^ju^k)^2+\sqrt{2\kappa |u|^2+c}ds_4^2.$$
(5.29)
is a $`G_2`$ holonomy metric. An straightforward proof can be found in the reference , there is shown that (5.29) has a self dual spin connection and in consecuence the restricted holonomy will be $`G_2`$. The metric $`ds_4^2`$ corresponds to the quaternionic base space; the total one is topologically an $`R^3`$ bundle with coordinates $`u_i`$, and $`c`$ is an integration constant.

In the hyperkahler limit $`\kappa =0`$ it is possible to gauge away the connection $`A^i`$; the resulting manifold is the trivial product of $`R^3`$ by the hyperkahler manifold, which is non-compact and with holonomy $`G_2`$. Non-compact backgrounds are of interest in M-theory as well . But it should be noted that a manifold that is globally the cartesian product of $`R^3`$ with any four dimensional manifold with self-dual spin connection will be a $`G_2`$ holonomy space. The reason is the following: the spin connection obviously will be independent on the coordinates of $`R^3`$ and the condition (3.17) will reduce to the ordinary self-duality condition in four dimensions ; it follows that if the four dimensional base space is self-dual the restricted holonomy will be $`G_2`$.

Expressing the $`R^3`$ part of (5.29) in polar coordinates it is obtained the following expression

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{(1\frac{4c}{r^4})}+\frac{r^2}{4\kappa }(1\frac{4c}{r^4})g_{ab}(dx^a+\xi _i^aA^i)(dx^b+\xi _j^bA^j)+\frac{r^2}{2}ds_4^2,$$

where $`g_{ab}`$ and $`\xi `$ are the metric and the killing vectors of $`S^2`$ respectively. In this coordinate system is more clear that the metric is asymptotically a cone; in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ it is seen that

$$ds^2dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }$$

where the part related with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is independent of $`r`$. In other words, for large $`r`$ (5.29) is a cone over a six dimensional space constructed as an $`S^2`$ bundle over a quaternionic kahler space with the metric $`ds_4^2`$. This six dimensional manifold has ”weak” holonomy $`SU(3)`$ ; such manifolds are of great interest in compactification of the type IIA supergravity.

## 6. Toric quaternionic geometry in four dimensions.

### 6.1 The Ward and the Calderbank-Pedersen descriptions

In the last subsection it has been described how to construct $`G_2`$ holonomy spaces starting with hyperkahler and quaternionic kahler ones. The aim of this work is to investigate the case in which there are two commuting isometries. The hyperkahler case was discussed in  and is related with the monopole solution appearing in the context of the $`(2+1)`$ Einstein gravity .

The main result needed here is that the four dimensional euclidean metric

$$ds^2=V_\eta (d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)+V_\eta ^1(d\psi +\rho V_\rho d\varphi )^2$$
(6.30)
will be hyperkahler if and only if the function $`V`$ is an Axisymmetric Harmonic Function (AHF), i.e, if it satisfies the monopole equation

$$V_{\eta \eta }+\rho ^1(\rho V_\rho )_\rho =0.$$
(6.31)
The metric (6.30) has an $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ isometry because the two killing spinors $`\frac{}{\varphi }`$ and $`\frac{}{\psi }`$ commutes.

Many properties of the AHF are well know. It has been shown  that any solution V of the equation

$$V_{\eta \eta }\rho ^1(\rho V_\rho )_\rho =0$$

can be expressed in integral form as

$$V(\eta ,\rho )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }G(\rho sen(\theta )+\eta )𝑑\theta .$$
(6.32)
Here $`G(x)`$ denotes an arbitrary function of one variable. For a given solution $`V(\eta ,\rho )`$ the function $`V(i\eta ,\rho )`$ will be a solution of (6.31), and $`W(\eta ,\rho )=V(i\eta ,\rho )+V(i\eta ,\rho )`$ will be a real AHF. This integral representation will be used in the following sections.

In a recent work Calderbank and Pedersen have given a complete description of the four dimensional non-Ricci flat Einstein metrics with self-dual Weyl tensor and two commuting isometries, in terms of certain eigenfunctions of the hyperbolic laplacian in two dimensions . This case is of interest as well, because such metrics will be quaternionic-kahler.

Their statement is that for any Einstein-metric with self-dual Weyl tensor and nonzero scalar curvature possessing two linearly independent commuting Killing fields there exists a coordinate system in which the metric g has locally the form

$$g=\frac{F^24\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)}{4F^2}\frac{d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2}{\rho ^2}$$

$$+\frac{[(F2\alpha F_\rho )\alpha 2\rho F_\eta \beta ]^2+[2\rho F_\eta \alpha +(F+2\rho F_\rho )\beta ]^2}{F^2[F^24\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)]},$$
(6.33)
where $`\alpha =\sqrt{\rho }d\varphi `$ and $`\beta =(d\psi +\eta d\varphi )/\sqrt{\rho }`$ and $`F(\rho ,\eta )`$ is a solution of the equation

$$F_{\rho \rho }+F_{\eta \eta }=\frac{3F}{4\rho ^2}.$$
(6.34)
on some open subset of the half-space $`\rho >0`$. On the open set defined by $`F^2>4\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)`$ g has positive scalar curvature, whereas $`F^2<4\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)`$ -g is self-dual with negative scalar curvature.

It follows that quaternionic metrics with torus symmetry has positive signature. The three $`1`$-forms (5.27) have a remarkable simple expression in terms of F,

$$A^1=\frac{1}{F}[\rho F_\eta \frac{d\rho }{\rho }+(\frac{1}{2}F+\rho F_\rho )\frac{d\eta }{\rho }],A^2=\frac{\alpha }{F},A^3=\frac{\beta }{F}.$$
(6.35)
and the relation (5.28) holds with $`\kappa =1`$.

Both statements presented here can be interpreted as methods to construct quaternionic kahler and hyperkahler geometries starting with solutions of two linear equations of second order, namely (6.31) and (6.34). As we will see, this equations are related by a Backglund transformation, which implies any solution of one of them allow us to construct a solution of the other one. This fact can be exploited to find examples of quaternionic metrics.

### 6.2 The Backglund transformation.

To prove that (6.31) and (6.34) are Backglund transformed it is needed to introduce the Joyce system of equations

$$(S_0)_\rho +(S_1)_\eta =S_0/\rho ,(S_0)_\eta (S_1)_\rho =0$$
(6.36)
where $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ are unknown functions. Selecting $`S_0=H_\rho `$ and $`S_1=H_\eta `$ the second equation will be trivial and the first became $`H_{\rho \rho }+H_{\eta \eta }=H_\rho /\rho `$ ($`H`$ is usually called a Tod coordinate). Now, taking $`H=\rho ^{1/2}F`$ it follows that F satisfies (6.34). Conversely, selecting $`S_0=\rho V_\eta `$ and $`S_1=\rho V_\rho `$ the first equation is trivial and the second one is $`V_{\eta \eta }+\rho ^1(\rho V_\rho )_\rho =0`$, in other words V is an AHF.

It is seen that a solution $`V`$ of (6.31) allows construct a solution F of (6.34) integrating the system

$$H_\rho =\rho V_\eta ;H_\eta =\rho V_\rho $$
(6.37)
and defining $`F=H/\rho ^{1/2}`$. Conversely, a solution F of (6.34) allows to construct a solution V of (6.31) defining $`H=\rho ^{1/2}F`$ and integrating (6.37). By construction the equation for F is the integrability condition for V and viceversa; the relation between them is an example of a Backglund mapping. This gives a method to construct quaternionic-kahler metrics starting with an hyperkahler example and viceversa, in both cases there is a torus symmetry. The representation (6.32) together with (6.37) can be exploited to find non trivial examples of quaternionic kahler spaces, with only selecting an arbitrary function of one variable. This is the purpose of the next subsection.

### 6.3 Examples of quaternionic spaces with torus symmetry.

The following are quaternionic metrics constructed starting with an arbitrary function G(x).

A. The trivial four dimensional toric metric

$$ds^2=d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2+d\psi ^2$$

corresponds to the monopole

$$V=\eta $$

(This AHF holds using $`G(x)=xLog(x)`$ in the integral expression (6.32)). The equations (6.37) are in this case

$$H_\rho =\rho ;H_\eta =0,$$

and the eigenfunction F is given by

$$F=\frac{\rho ^{3/2}}{2}.$$

The insertion of the last eigenfunction in (6.33) gives the following metric:

$$g=\frac{2d\rho ^2+2d\eta ^2}{\rho ^2}\frac{\rho ^2(1+3\rho )+\eta ^2(9+7\rho )}{2\rho ^5}d\varphi ^2\frac{8}{\rho ^4}d\psi ^2\frac{16\eta }{\rho ^4}d\varphi d\psi .$$
(6.38)
The inequality $`F^2<4\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)`$ holds for $`\rho >0`$. Invoking the alderbank-Pedersen theorem, we see that for $`\rho >0`$ the quaternionic kahler metric is -g. In this case $`\kappa =1`$ and the three 1-forms $`A^i`$ are

$$A^1=\frac{2d\eta }{\rho };A^2=\frac{2d\varphi }{\rho };A^3=\frac{2\eta }{\rho ^2}d\varphi +\frac{2}{\rho ^2}d\psi .$$

The metric constructed in this example is defined for all the positive values of $`\rho `$.

B. With the function $`G(x)=Log(x)x^3`$ it is found the monopole

$$V=3\eta \rho ^22\eta ^3$$

and the hyperkahler metric

$$ds^2=(3\rho ^26\eta ^2)(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)+\frac{1}{3\rho ^26\eta ^2}(d\psi +6\eta \rho ^2d\varphi )^2.$$

The Backglund transformed F results

$$F=\frac{3}{4}\rho ^{3/2}(4\eta ^2\rho ^2)$$

and the corresponding metric is

$$g=g_{\rho \rho }(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2)+g_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2+g_{\psi \psi }d\psi ^2+2g_{\varphi \psi }d\varphi d\psi ,$$
(6.39)
where the components of the metric tensor are

$$g_{\rho \rho }=\frac{4(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}{(\rho ^34\eta ^2\rho )^2}$$

$$g_{\varphi \varphi }=\frac{8\eta ^4\rho ^2(19+5\rho )+16\eta ^6(9+7\rho )+\rho ^6(1+35\rho )+3\eta ^2\rho ^4(35+61\rho )}{9\rho ^5(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}$$

$$g_{\psi \psi }=\frac{64(4\eta ^4+\rho ^4)}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}$$

$$g_{\psi \varphi }=\frac{32(8\eta ^5\rho ^2\eta ^3+3\eta \rho ^4)}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}.$$

As in the example A, $`F^2<4\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)`$ for $`\rho >0`$, -g is a quaternionic kahler metric and $`\kappa =1`$. The three forms $`A^i`$ are given by

$$A^1=\frac{8\eta }{\rho ^24\eta ^2}d\rho +\frac{4(\rho ^22\eta ^2)}{\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\eta $$

$$A^2=\frac{4}{3\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\varphi ;A^3=\frac{4\eta }{3\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\varphi +\frac{4}{3\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\psi .$$

The metric (6.39) is singular at $`\rho 0`$ and at the lines $`2|\rho |=|\eta |`$.

C. The powers $`G(x)=x^n`$ and $`G(x)=Log(x)x^{2n+1}`$ can be integrated out giving polynomial solutions of higher degree. For instance $`G(x)=Log(x)x^5`$ gives

$$V=3\eta \rho ^22\eta ^3;F=\frac{1}{\eta }(8\eta ^4+40\eta ^2\rho ^2+15\rho ^4).$$

The even powers $`G(x)=x^{2n}Log(x)`$ can be integrated too, but the expressions of the metrics are more complicated by the appearance of logarithm terms. For example, with $`G(x)=Log(x)x^2`$ it is obtained

$$V=6\eta ^2\rho ^26\eta ^2\sqrt{1+\frac{\rho ^2}{\eta ^2}}+2(\rho ^22\eta ^2)Log(\frac{2}{\eta +\sqrt{\eta ^2+\rho ^2}})$$

$$F=\frac{4}{3}\eta ^34\eta \rho ^2\frac{4}{3}\eta ^2(\eta ^2+\rho ^2)+\frac{8}{3}\rho ^2(\eta ^2+\rho ^2)+4\eta \rho ^2Log(\frac{2}{\eta +\sqrt{\eta ^2+\rho ^2)}}).$$

The expression for the quaternionic metric and the hyperkahler one corresponding to such solutions is very large and difficult to simplify.

D. The function $`G(x)=e^x`$ gives

$$V=e^{\pm i\eta }I_0(\rho )+c.c$$

where $`I_n(\rho )`$ denotes the modified Bessell function of the first kind, which are solutions of the equation

$$\rho ^2H^{\prime \prime }(\rho )+\rho H^{}(\rho )(\rho ^2+n^2)H(\rho )=0.$$

The hyperkahler space that corresponds to this monopole is:

$$ds^2=\rho I_1(\rho )(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)cos(\eta )$$

$$+\frac{1}{\rho I_1(\rho )cos(\eta )}\{d\psi +\rho [I_1(\rho )+\frac{\rho }{2}(I_0(\rho )+I_2(\rho ))]sin(\eta )d\varphi \}^2.$$
(6.40)
The Backglund transformed eigenfunction F is given by

$$F=\sqrt{\rho }I_1(\rho )e^{\pm i\eta }+c.c.$$

and from this solutions it follows the quaternionic metric

$$ds_{qk}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho ,\eta )}{4\rho I_1(\rho )^2}(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2)+\frac{[2\rho ^{3/2}I_1(\rho )\beta cos(\eta )\rho ^{3/2}(I_0(\rho )+I_2(\rho ))\alpha sin(\eta )]^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ,\eta )}$$

$$+\frac{[2\rho ^{3/2}I_1(\rho )\alpha cos(\eta )+\sqrt{\rho }(\rho I_0(\rho )+2I_1(\rho )+\rho I_2(\rho ))\beta sin(\eta )]^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ,\eta )},$$
(6.41)
where it has been defined

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho ,\eta )=\rho I_0(\rho )^2+2I_1(\rho )I_2(\rho )+\rho I_2(\rho )^2+4\rho I_1(\rho )^2ctg(\eta )^2+2I_0(\rho )(I_1(\rho )+\rho I_2(\rho ))$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ,\eta )=\rho ^2I_1(\rho )^2sin(\eta )^2[4\rho ^2I_1(\rho )^2cos(\eta )^2I_1(\rho )^2sin(\eta )^2+(\rho I_0(\rho )+I_1(\rho )+\rho I_2(\rho ))^2sin(\eta )^2].$$

It will be quaternionic for the regions of the plane $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ in which $`F^2<4\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)`$. In those regions $`k=1`$. The three one forms $`A^i`$ are

$$A^1=\frac{1}{2}[1+tg(\eta )+\frac{\rho }{I_1(\rho )}tg(\eta )(I_0(\rho )+I_2(\rho ))]\frac{d\eta }{\rho }tg(\eta )d\rho $$

$$A^2=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\rho }I_1(\rho )cos(\eta )};A^3=\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{\rho }I_1(\rho )cos(\eta )}.$$

The radial component of the metric (6.41) shows that some of the singularities are the zeros of $`I_1(\rho )`$.

### 6.4 The m-pole solutions

In the previous subsection it have been constructed quaternionic-kahler metrics starting with an arbitrary AHF and solving the Backglund equations. By completeness it will be discussed here the spaces corresponding to the $`m`$-pole solutions investigated in  and . It has been analyzed by Anguelova and Lazaroiu the dynamics of the M-theory on toric $`G_2`$ cones constructed with $`m`$-pole spaces as base manifolds in  and . Such examples leads to toric Einstein self-dual spaces of positive scalar curvature which are complete (thus compact) and admiting only orbifold singularities. As such, they seem to be the best candidates with $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ isometry for which the physical analysis given in  can be applied. In the first reference of  it has been described the moduli space corresponding to the $`3`$-pole solutions and has been shown that they encode some well known examples appearing in the physics, like the Bianchi type spaces. It will be shown that the hyperkahler metrics corresponding to the $`3`$-pole solution are those discussed in  which gives rise to the $`3`$-dimensional Eguchi-Hanson like Einstein-Weyl metrics after the quotient by one of the isometries. The following exposition follows closely those given in the references .

The basic eigenfunctions F of (6.34) which we need to consider are

$$F(\rho ,\eta ,y)=\frac{\sqrt{(\rho )^2+(\eta y)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho }}$$
(6.42)
where the parameter $`y`$ takes arbitrary real values. Using the Backglund transformation it is found the basic monopole

$$V(\eta ,\rho ,y)=Log[\eta y+\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta y)^2}].$$
(6.43)
Being the equations for F and V linear, for any set of real numbers $`w_i`$ the functions

$$F=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}w_iF(\rho ,\eta ,y_j).$$
(6.44)
$$V=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}w_iV(\rho ,\eta ,y_j)$$
(6.45)
will be solutions too. For this reason the $`2`$-pole functions given by

$$F_1=\frac{1+\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}}{\sqrt{\rho }};F_2=\frac{\sqrt{(\rho )^2+(\eta +1)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho }}\frac{\sqrt{(\rho )^2+(\eta 1)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho }},$$

are eigenfunctions of the hyperbolic laplacian. The first one gives rise to the spherical metric, while the second one gives rise to the hyperbolic metric

$$ds^2=(1r_1^2r_2^2)^2(dr_1^2+dr_2^2+r_1^2d\theta _1^2+r_2^2d\theta _2^2).$$

The relation between the coordinates $`(r_1,r_2)`$ and $`(\rho ,\eta )`$ can be extracted from the relation

$$(r_1+ir_2)^2=\frac{\eta 1+i\rho }{\eta +1+i\rho }.$$

The hyperkahler metrics corresponding to both cases are

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}}(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}(d\psi +\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}}d\varphi )^2,$$
(6.46)
and

$$ds^2=\frac{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta 1)^2}\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta +1)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta +1)^2}\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta 1)^2}}(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)$$

$$+\frac{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta +1)^2}\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta 1)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta 1)^2}\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta +1)^2}}[d\psi +(\frac{\eta +1}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta +1)^2}}\frac{\eta 1}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta 1)^2}})d\varphi ]^2.$$
(6.47)
The general ”$`3`$-pole” solutions are

$$F=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho }}+\frac{b+c/m}{2}\frac{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta +m)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho }}+\frac{bc/m}{2}\frac{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(\eta m)^2}}{\sqrt{\rho }}.$$

By definition $`m^2=\pm 1`$, which means that $`m`$ can be imaginary or real. The corresponding solutions are denominated type I and type II respectively. It is convenient to introduce the Eguchi-Hanson like coordinate system defined by

$$\rho =\sqrt{R^2\pm 1}cos(\theta ),\eta =Rsin(\theta ),$$

where $`\theta `$ takes values in the interval $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$. In this coordinates

$$\sqrt{\rho }F=1+bR+csin(\theta ),$$
(6.48)
$$\rho ^1[\frac{1}{4}F^2\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2)]=\frac{b(Rb)+c(sin(\theta )+c)}{R^2\pm sin^2(\theta )}.$$
(6.49)
and the family of self-dual metrics corresponding to the $`3`$-pole are expressed as

$$ds^2=\frac{b^2c^2+(bRcS)}{(1+bR+cS)^2}(\frac{dR^2}{R^21}+\frac{dS^2}{1S^2})$$

$$\frac{1}{(1+bR+cS)^2(b^2c^2+(bRcS))(R^2S^2)}$$

$$((R^21)(1S^2)((bRcS)d\phi +(cRbS)d\psi )^2$$

$$+((b(R^21)S+c(1S^2)R)d\phi +(c(R^21)S+b(1S^2)R+(R^2S^2)d\psi )^2)$$
(6.50)
It has been denoted $`S=sin(\theta )`$ here. The expression (6.50) includes some well known metrics. Let us focus in the type I case. The formulas (6.48) and (6.49) allows to determine the domain of definition of the metric (6.33). When b is nonzero for a given value of $`\theta `$, $`F=0`$ if $`R=(1+csin(\theta ))/b`$ and $`(\frac{1}{4}F^2\rho ^2(F_\rho ^2+F_\eta ^2))=0`$ if $`R=(b^2+c^2+csin(\theta ))/b`$. The case $`c=0`$ correspond to a bi-axial Bianchi IX metric . The domains of definition are $`(\mathrm{},R_{\mathrm{}}),(R_{\mathrm{}},R_\pm )`$, and $`(R_\pm ,\mathrm{})`$. In the first two cases the curvature is negative, and in the last one positive, and in the two last cases there is an unremovable singularity at $`R=R_\pm `$. In the case $`b=0`$ for $`c>1`$ and $`c<1`$ the metric will be of Bianchi VIII type . The case $`c=1`$ corresponds to the Bergmann metric on $`CH^2`$.

For the type II case, the range of R is $`(1,\mathrm{})`$ but the moduli space is more complex that in the type I case. For the lines $`b=\pm c`$ it is obtained the hyperbolic metric if $`b<0`$ and the spherical metric if $`b>0`$. If $`(b,c)=(1,0)`$ it is obtained the Fubbini-Study metric on $`CP^2`$ whereas the points $`(0,1),(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ yield again the Bergmann metric on $`CH^2`$. Along the lines joining $`(1,0)`$ with others we have bi-axial Bianchi metric IX, while along the lines between $`(0,1),(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ the metric is Bianchi VIII. A more complete description is given in .

The triplet of one forms corresponding to this family of metrics is

$$A^1=A_+^1+A_{}^1,$$

$$A^2=\frac{\sqrt{(R^2\pm 1)(1S^2)}}{(1+bR+cS)}d\varphi A^3=\frac{d\psi +\eta d\varphi }{(1+bR+cS)},$$

where it has been defined

$$A_\pm ^1=A_{1\pm }^1+A_{2\pm }^1+A_{3\pm }^1,$$

with

$$A_{1\pm }^1=\frac{(b\pm c/m)(SR\pm m)}{(1+bR+cS)\sqrt{(1S^2)(R^2\pm 1)+(SR\pm m)^2}}$$

$$(\frac{S\sqrt{R^2\pm 1}}{2\sqrt{1S^2}}dS+\frac{R\sqrt{1S^2}}{\sqrt{R^2\pm 1}}dR)$$

and

$$A_{2\pm }^1=\frac{(b\pm c/m)\sqrt{(1S^2)(R^2\pm 1)+(SR\pm m)^2}}{2(1+bR+cS)\sqrt{R^2\pm 1}}(R\frac{dS}{\sqrt{1S^2}}+SdR)$$

and

$$A_{3\pm }^1=[\frac{(b\pm c/m)(R^2\pm 1)^{1/2}(1S^2)^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{(1S^2)(R^2\pm 1)+(SR\pm m)^2}}\frac{(b\pm c/m)\sqrt{(1S^2)(R^2\pm 1)+(SR\pm m)^2}}{4(1S^2)^{1/2}(R^2\pm 1)^{1/2}}]$$

$$\frac{\sqrt{(1S^2)(R^2\pm 1)}}{(1+bR+cS)\sqrt{R^2\pm 1}}(R\frac{dS}{\sqrt{1S^2}}+SdR)$$

(The sign $`\pm `$ in $`(R^2\pm 1)`$ depends only on the metric in consideration, it is $`+`$ for type I and $``$ for type II.)

The Backglund transformed function V reads

$$V=Log(\rho )+\frac{(b+c/m)}{2}Log[\frac{\eta m+\sqrt{(\eta m)^2+\rho ^2}}{\rho }]$$

$$+\frac{(bc/m)}{2}Log[\frac{\eta +m+\sqrt{(\eta +m)^2+\rho ^2}}{\rho }].$$

For the type I case this is the potential for an axially symmetric circle of charge, while the type II case corresponds to two point sources on the axis of symmetry. The hyperkahler metrics obtained are encoded in the following expression

$$ds^2=\frac{bR+c\sqrt{1S^2}}{R^2\pm (1S^2)}(d\rho ^2+d\eta ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)$$

$$+\frac{R^2\pm (1S^2)}{bR+c\sqrt{1S^2}}[d\psi +\frac{R^2\pm (1S^2)b(R^2\pm 1)\sqrt{1S^2}+cRS^2}{R^2\pm (1S^2)}d\varphi ]^2.$$
(6.51)
This manifolds have been investigated recently in  and it has been shown that the quotient of (6.51) with $`\frac{}{\varphi }`$ gives the Eguchi-Hanson type Einstein-Weyl metrics in D=3.

The continuum limit of the expressions (6.44) and (6.45) are

$$F(\rho ,\eta )=w(y)F(\rho ,\eta ,y)𝑑y.$$
(6.52)
$$V(\rho ,\eta )=w(y)V(\rho ,\eta ,y)𝑑y.$$
(6.53)
where $`w(y)`$ is a distribution with compact support in $`R`$. A choice of $`w(y)`$ for which at least one of the integrals (6.52) and (6.53) converges gives rise to an smooth solution. For instance for $`w(y)=y/(y^2+1)^2`$ it is obtained the following non-trivial monopole

$$V(\rho ,\eta )=\frac{cos(\frac{1}{2}Arg(12i\eta \eta ^2\rho ^2))Log(\frac{|1i\eta \sqrt{(1i\eta )^2+\rho ^2}|}{|1+i\eta \sqrt{(1i\eta )^2+\rho ^2}|})}{\sqrt{|(1i\eta )^2+\rho ^2}|}$$

$$+\frac{sin(\frac{1}{2}Arg(12i\eta \eta ^2\rho ^2))Arg(\frac{1i\eta \sqrt{(1i\eta )^2+\rho ^2}}{1+i\eta \sqrt{(1i\eta )^2+\rho ^2}})}{\sqrt{|(1i\eta )^2+\rho ^2}|},$$

and from (6.30) follows an hyperkahler metric. But (6.52) is divergent for this distribution.

To conclude this subsection it should be mentioned that higher $`m`$-pole solutions have been considered in  and , and that quaternionic spaces with torus symmetry have been investigated recently in  using the harmonic space formalism.

## 7. $`G_2`$ holonomy metrics with torus symmetry and supergravity backgrounds.

In this subsection will be constructed the $`G_2`$ holonomy metrics corresponding to the examples A and B. After extend them to a vacuum configuration of the eleven dimensional supergravity it will be obtained type IIA backgrounds by reduction along one of the isometries.

In  it has been found the explicit form of (5.29) when the base space (and, in consequence, the total one) has torus symmetry. The expression is

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{h(r)}+\frac{r^2}{2}[U_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2+U_{\varphi \psi }d\varphi d\psi +U_{\psi \psi }d\psi ^2+Q_\varphi d\varphi +Q_\psi d\psi +g_{\rho \rho }(d\eta ^2+d\rho ^2)+H].$$
(7.54)
where it has been defined

$$h(r)=14c/r^4$$

$$U_{11}=g_{\varphi \varphi }+h(r)\frac{u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2}{2\rho F^2},$$

$$U_{22}=g_{\psi \psi }+h(r)\frac{u_1^2+u_2^2}{2\rho F^2},$$

$$U_{12}=U_{21}=g_{\varphi \psi }+h(r)\frac{(u_1^2+u_2^2)\eta +u_2u_3\rho }{2\rho F^2},$$

$$Q_\varphi =h(r)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho }F}[u_1(\eta du_2+\rho du_3)(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )du_1u_1(u_3\eta u_2\rho )A^1],$$

$$Q_\psi =h(r)[\frac{u_1du_2u_2du_1u_1u_3A^1}{\sqrt{\rho }F}],$$

$$H=h(r)[|d\stackrel{}{u}|^2+(u_1^2+u_2^2)(A^1)^22A^1(u_3du_2u_2du_3)].$$

The second rank tensor $`g_{ab}`$ is the metric of the base manifold. The product metric of (7.54) with $`M^4`$

$$ds_{11}^2=ds_M^2+\frac{dr^2}{h(r)}+\frac{r^2}{2}[U_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2+U_{\varphi \psi }d\varphi d\psi +U_{\psi \psi }d\psi ^2+Q_\varphi d\varphi +Q_\psi d\psi +g_{\rho \rho }(d\eta ^2+d\rho ^2)+H].$$
(7.55)
is a vacuum configuration of the eleven dimensional supergravity . With the help of the quantities

$$\alpha _1=\frac{U_{22}Q_\varphi U_{12}Q_\psi }{detU},\alpha _2=\frac{U_{11}Q_\psi U_{12}Q_\varphi }{detU},$$

$$h=H+U_{11}\alpha _1^2+2U_{12}\alpha _1\alpha _2+U_{22}\alpha _2^2,$$

$$\varphi _1=\varphi ,\varphi _2=\psi ,$$

the metric (7.55) is expressed in more simple manner as

$$ds_{11}^2=ds_{M^4}^2+\frac{dr^2}{h(r)}+\frac{r^2}{2}[U_{ij}(d\varphi _i+\alpha _i)(d\varphi _j+\alpha _j)+h].$$

The last expression takes the usual form of the Kaluza-Klein anzatz

$$ds_{11}^2=e^{\frac{2}{3}\phi _D}G_{\mu \nu }dx^\nu dx^\mu +e^{\frac{4}{3}\phi _D}(d\varphi +dx^\mu C_\mu (x))^2.$$
(7.56)
with the dilaton field and the RR 1-form defined by

$$\phi _D=\frac{3}{4}Log(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2}),$$

$$C=\frac{U_{12}d\psi +Q_\varphi }{U_{11}}.$$

The reduction of (7.56) along $`\varphi _1`$ gives the following IIA metric:

$$ds_A^2=(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2})^{1/2}\{ds_{M^4}^2+\frac{dr^2}{h(r)}+\frac{r^2}{2U_{11}}[detUd\psi ^2+2(U_{11}Q_\psi U_{12}Q_\varphi )d\psi Q_\varphi ^2+U_{11}H]\}.$$
(7.57)
The components of (7.57) are

$$g_{\psi \phi }=(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2})^{1/2}\frac{r^2}{4U_{11}F\sqrt{\rho }}h(r)[U_{11}sin^2(\theta )U_{12}(\frac{\rho }{2}sin(2\theta )sin(\phi )+\eta sin^2(\theta ))]$$

$$g_{\psi \theta }=(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2})^{1/2}\frac{r^2}{4U_{11}F}h(r)U_{12}\sqrt{\rho }cos(\phi )$$

$$g_{\theta \theta }=(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2})^{1/2}[\frac{r^2h(r)}{4}\frac{r^2h^2(r)}{8U_{11}\rho F^2}\rho ^2cos^2(\phi )]$$

$$g_{\phi \phi }=(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2})^{1/2}[\frac{r^2h(r)}{4}sin^2(\theta )\frac{r^2h^2(r)}{8U_{11}\rho F^2}sin^2(\theta )(\eta sin(\theta )+\rho cos(\theta )sin(\phi ))^2]$$

$$g_{\phi \theta }=(\frac{r^2U_{11}}{2})^{1/2}\frac{r^2h^2(r)}{4U_{11}F^2}sin(\theta )cos(\phi )(\eta sin(\theta )+\rho cos(\theta )sin(\phi )),$$

where it have been introduced the spherical coordinates $`\theta `$, $`\phi `$ through the relations

$$u_1=sin(\theta )cos(\phi ),u_2=sin(\theta )sin(\phi ),u_3=cos(\theta ).$$

The range of this coordinates is $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$ and $`\phi [0,2\pi ]`$; the other components of the metric are identically zero.

The base metric (6.38) have a singularity at $`\rho 0`$. For this case it is obtained

$$U_{11}=\frac{\rho ^2(1+3\rho )+\eta ^2(9+7\rho )}{2\rho ^5}+2h(r)[\frac{u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2}{\rho ^4}]\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^5},$$

$$U_{22}=\frac{8}{\rho ^4}+2h(r)(\frac{u_1^2+u_2^2}{\rho ^4})\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^4},$$

$$U_{12}=U_{21}=\frac{8\eta }{\rho ^4}+h(r)[\frac{(u_1^2+u_2^2)\eta +u_2u_3\rho }{\rho ^4}]\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^4},$$

$$Q_\varphi =h(r)\frac{2}{\rho ^2}[u_1(\eta du_2+\rho du_3)(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )du_1$$

$$u_1(u_3\eta u_2\rho )\frac{2d\eta }{\rho }]\frac{f(x^i,dx^i)}{\rho ^3},$$

$$Q_\psi =h(r)\frac{1}{\rho ^2}(u_1du_2u_2du_1u_1u_3\frac{2d\eta }{\rho })\frac{f(x^i,dx^i)}{\rho ^3},$$

$$H=h(r)[|d\stackrel{}{u}|^2+4(u_1^2+u_2^2)\frac{d\eta ^2}{\rho ^2}4\frac{d\eta }{\rho }(u_3du_2u_2du_3)]\frac{f(x^i,dx^i)}{\rho ^2}.$$

where $`x^i`$ denotes all the coordinates except $`\rho `$ and the behaviour for short distances was evaluated. The dilaton field is given explicitly as

$$\phi _A=\frac{3}{4}Log\{\frac{r^2}{2}[\frac{\rho ^2(1+3\rho )+\eta ^2(9+7\rho )}{2\rho ^5}]+r^2h(r)[\frac{u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2}{\rho ^4}]\}Log(\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^5}).$$

The expression for the RR one form is

$$C=\frac{2\rho \{8\eta +h(r)[(u_1^2+u_2^2)\eta +u_2u_3\rho ]\}d\psi }{\rho ^2(1+3\rho )+\eta ^2(9+7\rho )+4\rho h(r)[u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2]}$$

$$+\frac{4\rho ^2h(r)[\rho u_1(\eta du_2+\rho du_3)\rho (u_2\eta +u_3\rho )du_12u_1(u_3\eta u_2\rho )d\eta ]}{\rho ^2(1+3\rho )+\eta ^2(9+7\rho )+4\rho h(r)[u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2]}f(x^i)\rho .$$

The components of (7.57) diverges in this case for short $`\rho `$,

$$g_{\psi \phi }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^5},g_{\psi \theta }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^4},g_{\theta \theta }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^2}$$

$$g_{\phi \phi }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^2},g_{\phi \theta }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho }.$$

The quaternionic space (6.39) is singular too in the limit $`\rho 0`$. Using it as a base space gives

$$U_{11}=\frac{8\eta ^4\rho ^2(19+5\rho )+16\eta ^6(9+7\rho )+\rho ^6(1+35\rho )+3\eta ^2\rho ^4(35+61\rho )}{9\rho ^5(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}$$

$$+8h(r)[\frac{u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2}]\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^5},$$

$$U_{22}=\frac{64(4\eta ^4+\rho ^4)}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}+8h(r)[\frac{u_1^2+u_2^2}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2}]\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^4},$$

$$U_{12}=U_{21}=\frac{32(8\eta ^54\eta ^3\rho ^2+3\eta \rho ^4)}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}+8h(r)[\frac{(u_1^2+u_2^2)\eta +u_2u_3\rho }{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2}]\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^4},$$

$$Q_\varphi =4h(r)\frac{1}{3\rho ^2(4\eta ^2\rho ^2)}\{u_1(\eta du_2+\rho du_3)(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )du_1$$

$$u_1(u_3\eta u_2\rho )[\frac{8\eta }{\rho ^24\eta ^2}d\rho +\frac{4(\rho ^22\eta ^2)}{\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\eta ]\}\frac{f(x^i,dx^i)}{\rho ^3},$$

$$Q_\psi =h(r)\frac{4}{3\rho ^2(4\eta ^2\rho ^2)}\{u_1du_2u_2du_1u_1u_3[\frac{8\eta }{\rho ^24\eta ^2}d\rho +\frac{4(\rho ^22\eta ^2)}{\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\eta ]\}\frac{f(x^i,dx^i)}{\rho ^3},$$

$$H=h(r)\{|d\stackrel{}{u}|^2+(u_1^2+u_2^2)[\frac{8\eta }{\rho ^24\eta ^2}d\rho +\frac{4(\rho ^22\eta ^2)}{\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\eta ]^22[\frac{8\eta }{\rho ^24\eta ^2}d\rho $$

$$+\frac{4(\rho ^22\eta ^2)}{\rho (\rho ^24\eta ^2)}d\eta ](u_3du_2u_2du_3)\}\frac{f(x^i,dx^i)}{\rho }.$$

The dilaton field is expressed through the relation

$$e^{\frac{4}{3}\phi _D}=\frac{r^2}{2}\{\frac{8\eta ^4\rho ^2(19+5\rho )+16\eta ^6(9+7\rho )+\rho ^6(1+35\rho )+3\eta ^2\rho ^4(35+61\rho )}{9\rho ^5(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2(8\eta ^4+6\eta ^2\rho ^2+3\rho ^4)}$$

$$+8h(r)[\frac{u_1^2(\rho ^2+\eta ^2)+(u_2\eta +u_3\rho )^2}{9\rho ^4(\rho ^24\eta ^2)^2}]\},$$

from where follows that

$$\phi _DLog[\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^5}],\rho 0.$$

The behaviour of the RR one-form at short distances results

$$Cf(x^i,dx^i)\rho .$$

and the components of the IIA metric diverges as

$$g_{\psi \phi }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^5},g_{\psi \theta }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^4},g_{\theta \theta }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^2}$$

$$g_{\phi \phi }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho ^2},g_{\phi \theta }\frac{f(x^i)}{\rho }.$$

A detailed analysis of the singularities of the backgrounds corresponding to the $`m`$-pole solutions and their physical interpretation was given in  and , the interested reader may consult those references.

I thanks to A. Isaev for introduce me in the subject, to M.Tsulaia and A.Pashnev for much valuable discussions and to E.Ivanov for point me out certain features about quaternionic manifolds. Finally, I would like to thanks L.Masperi, B.Dimitrov and D.Mladenov for constructive critics and encouragement.


text:
# Numerical results from large 𝑁 reduced QCD2

## 1 Introduction

This follows the talk given by H. Neuberger  and summarizes the numerical results obtained in QCD2 at large N using the quenched reduced model and overlap fermions .

The reduced model has a single site, and there are $`d`$ SU(N) matrices $`U_\mu ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},d`$. The gauge action is given by

$$S_g=\beta \underset{\mu >\nu }{}TrC_{\mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }^{};C_{\mu \nu }=[U_\mu ,U_\nu ],$$
(1)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{2g^2}`$ and $`g^2`$ is the continuum gauge coupling. We will keep $`b^2=\frac{\beta }{N}`$ fixed as $`N`$ goes to infinity, and this amounts to setting $`g^2N=\frac{1}{2b^2}`$.

The reduced model on the lattice has a $`[U(1)]^d`$ symmetry. The Eguchi-Kawai argument for reduction holds only if the $`[U(1)]^d`$ symmetry remains unbroken . This is not the case as $`b^2\mathrm{}`$ . This problem is resolved by defining the quenched reduced model  where the eigenvalues of $`U_\mu `$,

$$U_\mu =V_\mu D_\mu V_\mu ^{};D_\mu =\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\theta _\mu ^1},e^{i\theta _\mu ^2},\mathrm{}e^{i\theta _\mu ^N}),$$
(2)
are fixed, and $`V_\mu `$s are the only dynamical degrees of freedom. The $`\theta _\mu ^i`$ are randomly distributed in the interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$, and a quenched average over these variables is taken. However in QCD2, it is sufficient to pick $`\theta _\mu ^i`$ to be the $`N`$ roots of unity, and there is no need to perform a quenched average . Minima of the action occur when all the $`U_\mu `$s are simultaneously diagonal. Certain $`V_\mu `$s relate one minimum with another minimum. Numerical simulations should sample all minima properly.

Fermionic loops are suppressed by $`1/N`$ in the large N limit, and only the gauge degrees of freedom determine the dynamics. One can compute the fermionic propagator in momentum space by force feeding momenta . This amounts to using $`e^{ip_\mu }U_\mu `$ for the fermion parallel transporter in the $`\mu `$ direction which carries a momentum $`p_\mu `$. We will use the propagator for massive overlap Dirac operator given by

$$g(p)=\frac{1}{2m}\frac{1\gamma _{d+1}ϵ(H_w)}{(1+\mu )+(1\mu )\gamma _{d+1}ϵ(H_w)}.$$
(3)
The quark mass is $`m_q=2m\mu `$ where $`m`$ is the magnitude of the negative Wilson mass that appears inside $`H_w`$, the hermitian Wilson-Dirac operator.

## 2 Correlation functions

Meson correlation functions are known analytically in QCD2 , and we can check the results obtained from the quenched reduced model on the lattice. Correlators can be expressed as an infinite sum over stable mesons, which reproduce free field behavior at large momenta. Therefore we have confinement and asymptotic freedom in QCD2. For $`m_q=0`$, there is a massless meson in the spectrum, which is interpreted as a Goldstone boson. Chiral symmetry breaking occurs if we take $`m_q0`$ after we take $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Gauge fields are generated using (1) and the quenching condition in (2). The eigenvalues of $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ are set to the $`N`$ roots of unity, and gauge field configurations are generated at a fixed $`b^2`$ for different values of $`N`$. Fermionic momenta also are fixed at $`N`$ roots of unity. The “bare” scalar and pseudoscalar propagators are computed using

$`S_0(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p_1,p_2}{}}`$ (5)
$`Tr[g(p_1+P_1,p_2+P_2)g(p_1,p_2)`$
$`+`$ $`g(p_1P_1,p_2+P_2)g(p_1,p_2)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`g(p_1+P_2,p_2+P_1)g(p_1,p_2)`$
$`+`$ $`g(p_1+P_2,p_2P_1)g(p_1,p_2)]`$
$`P_0(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p_1,p_2}{}}`$ (9)
$`Tr[g(p_1+P_1,p_2+P_2)g^{}(p_1,p_2)`$
$`+`$ $`g(p_1P_1,p_2+P_2)g^{}(p_1,p_2)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`g(p_1+P_2,p_2+P_1)g^{}(p_1,p_2)`$
$`+`$ $`g(p_1+P_2,p_2P_1)g^{}(p_1,p_2)]`$
This results in a correlation function for mesons that is a function of one variable, namely, $`P^2=4(\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{P_1}{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{P_2}{2})`$. The scale is set by $`e^2=\frac{1}{2\pi b^2}`$, and we will use $`\gamma =\frac{m_q^2}{e^2}`$ as a dimensionless measure of the quark mass. We will also use a dimensionless momentum $`Q^2=\frac{P^2}{e^2}`$. The bare correlators have to be regularized. This is done by a subtraction at zero momentum for massive quarks and a subtraction at non-zero momentum for massless quarks. We will refer to the renormalized quantities on the lattice by $`S_L(Q^2,\gamma )`$ and $`P_L(Q^2,\gamma )`$. In the dimensionless notation, we have to compare these results on the lattice with the regularized results in the continuum

$$P_R(Q^2,\gamma )=\underset{n0\mathrm{even}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{r_n^2}{Q^2+\mu _n^2}\frac{r_n^2}{\mu _n^2}\right]$$
(12)
$$S_R(Q^2,\gamma )=\underset{n1\mathrm{odd}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{r_n^2}{Q^2+\mu _n^2}\frac{r_n^2}{\mu _n^2}\right].$$
(13)
The dimensionless meson masses $`\mu _n`$ are obtained by solving the ’t Hooft Hamiltonian , and $`\mu _n^2\pi ^2n`$ in the asymptotic limit. The residues, $`r_n^2`$, are given by

$$r_n^2=\frac{\gamma }{\pi }\left[_0^1𝑑x\frac{\varphi _n(x)}{x}\right]^2$$
(14)
where $`\varphi _n(x)`$ are the eigenvectors of the ’t Hooft Hamiltonian.

Figure 1 shows the results for $`P_L(Q^2,1)`$ for various values of $`b^2`$ and the comparison to the continuum result. One can also compute the correlation function for massless quarks at finite $`N`$. In this case, one will not see the effect of chiral symmetry breaking. The propagators for the scalar and the pseudoscalar are the same and should match with the average of the two in the continuum. Figure 2 shows the results for massless quarks along with the continuum result. One can also compute current-current correlators and obtain $`\mathrm{\Pi }(Q^2)`$. We present the results for current-current correlators at $`\gamma =1`$ along with the continuum result in figure 3.

## 3 Conclusions

The numerical results obtained in QCD2 using the quenched reduced model and overlap fermions are promising. The next step is to perform the same computation for QCD4, and this project is under way.


text:
# “Spin-Disentangled” Exact Diagonalization of Repulsive Hubbard Systems: Superconducting Pair Propagation

## Abstract

By a novel exact diagonalization technique we show that bound pairs propagate between repulsive Hubbard clusters in a superconducting fashion. The size of the matrices that must be handled depends on the number of fermion configurations per spin, which is of the order of the square root of the overall size of the Hilbert space. We use CuO4 units connected by weak O-O links to model interplanar coupling and c-axis superconductivity in Cuprates. The numerical evidence on Cu2O8 and Cu3O12 prompts a new analytic scheme describing the propagation of bound pairs and also the superconducting flux quantization in a 3-d geometry.

Evidence for pairing in the repulsive Hubbard and related models has been reported by several authors. Analytic approaches , even at strong coupling, generalized conserving approximation theories like FLEX, as well as Quantum Monte Carlo Studies on supercells lead to this conclusion. However, we want more evidence about the real nature of the pairing interactions. Su and coworkers have reported that in narrow bands one- and two-dimensional Hubbard models no kind of superconducting long-range order holds at any non-zero temperature. Here we wish to explore the possibility that the Hubbard model can show superconductivity in the ground state when interplanar coupling is allowed. Since one cannot master the problem with an infinite stack of infinite planes, some economy is needed. However in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors the coherent length is $``$ a few lattice constants, and Cu-O planes can be approximately represented by clusters that are large enough to host a bound pair. The interplanar hopping does not dissolve pairs and superconducting flux quantization is their clear signature. The magnetic properties of attractive Hubbard models have been studied by Canright and Girvin; here we propose a gedankenexperiment very much in the spirit of Little and Parks, in the repulsive case.

The repulsive Hubbard Hamiltonian of fully symmetric clusters $`𝒞`$ has two-body singlet eigenstates without double occupation called $`W=0`$ pairs. The presence of such solutions at the highest occupied level of the non-interacting (Hubbard $`U0`$) system is necessary to allow $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(N)<0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(N)=E_𝒞^{(0)}(N)+E_𝒞^{(0)}(N2)2E_𝒞^{(0)}(N1)`$, and $`E_𝒞^{(0)}(N)`$ is the interacting ground state energy of the cluster $`𝒞`$ with $`N`$ fermions. By means of a non-perturbative canonical transformation, it can also be shown that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(N)<0`$ is due to an attractive pairing effective interaction and at weak coupling $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(N)|`$ is just the binding energy of the pair.

$`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ is the smallest cluster which fully preserves the point-symmetry of the Copper-Oxide planes of high-$`T_c`$ materials. We have already described $`W=0`$ pairing in great detail as a function of the one-body and interaction parameters on all sites; the study was extended to larger clusters too. $`W=0`$ bound pairs in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ cluster are found to exist in the physical region of the parameter space. However, since it is the symmetry that produces the pairing force we use the simplest working model to study bound pair propagation. Here, in order to simplify the analytical formulas, we neglect the O-O hopping term and also any distinction between Cu and O sites (except geometry, of course). The only nonvanishing hopping matrix elements are those between an Oxygen site and the central Copper site; they are all equal to $`t`$. For the sake of simplicity, we parametrize the Hubbard model in such a way that actually everything depends only on the ratio $`U/t`$; the important thing is that in this way we still have access to the part of the parameter space where pairing occours. Thus, we consider the Hubbard Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}=t\underset{i\sigma }{}(d_\sigma ^{}p_{i\sigma }+p_{i\sigma }^{}d_\sigma )+U(\underset{i}{}\widehat{n}_i^{(p)}\widehat{n}_i^{(p)}+\widehat{n}_{}^{(d)}\widehat{n}_{}^{(d)})$$
(1)
where $`p_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and $`p_{i\sigma }`$ are the creation and annihilation operators onto the Oxygen $`i=1,..,4`$ with spin $`\sigma =,`$, $`d_\sigma ^{}`$ and $`d_\sigma `$ are the creation and annihilation operators onto the Copper site, while $`\widehat{n}_{i\sigma }^{(p)}=p_{i\sigma }^{}p_{i\sigma }`$ and $`\widehat{n}_\sigma ^{(d)}=d_\sigma ^{}d_\sigma `$ are the corresponding number operators. $`H_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}`$ is invariant under the permutation Group $`S[4]`$, which has the irreducible representations (irreps) $`𝒜_1`$ (total-symmetric), $`_2`$ (total-antisymmetric), $``$ (self-dual), $`𝒯_1`$ and its dual $`𝒯_2`$, of dimensions 1, 1, 2, 3 and 3, respectively. The ground state of $`\mathrm{CuO}_4[2]`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ with 2 fermions) belongs to $`{}_{}{}^{1}𝒜_{1}^{}`$ and that of $`\mathrm{CuO}_4[4]`$ is in $`{}_{}{}^{1}`$; both are singlets, as the notation implies. The ground state of $`\mathrm{CuO}_4[3]`$ is a $`{}_{}{}^{2}𝒯_{1}^{}`$ doublet. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)<0`$ for this model when $`0<U34.77t`$, as shown in Fig.(1).

Thus, we introduce a graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with CuO4 units as nodes. The total Hamiltonian is

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}}=H_0+H_\tau .$$
(2)
with

$$H_0=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\left[t\underset{i\sigma }{}(d_{\alpha \sigma }^{}p_{\alpha ,i\sigma }+p_{\alpha ,i\sigma }^{}d_{\alpha \sigma })+U(\underset{i}{}\widehat{n}_{\alpha ,i}^{(p)}\widehat{n}_{\alpha ,i}^{(p)}+\widehat{n}_\alpha ^{(d)}\widehat{n}_\alpha ^{(d)})\right],$$
(3)
where $`p_{\alpha ,i\sigma }^{}`$ is the creation operator onto the Oxygen $`i=1,..,4`$ of the $`\alpha `$-th cell and so on. Hence, the point symmetry Group of $`H_0`$ is $`S[4]^{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}`$, with $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ the number of nodes. There are many different ways to model an inter-planar hopping. Nevertheless, to preserve the symmetry that produces the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)<0`$ property, $`H_\tau `$ must be invariant under the $`S[4]`$ diagonal subgroup of $`S[4]^{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}`$. In the following we shall consider a hopping term allowing to a particle in the $`i`$-th Oxygen site of the $`\alpha `$-th unit to move towards the $`i`$-th Oxygen site of the $`\beta `$-th unit with hopping integral $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }`$:

$$H_\tau =\underset{\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\underset{i\sigma }{}[\tau _{\alpha \beta }p_{\alpha ,i\sigma }^{}p_{\beta ,i\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.c.].$$
(4)
For $`N=2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ and $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }0`$, the unique ground state consists of 2 fermions in each CuO4 unit. This paper is devoted to the inter-planar hopping produced by small $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)|`$ with a total number of particles $`N=2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|+2p`$; $`p`$ represents the number of added pairs. When $`U/t`$ is such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)<0`$, each pair prefers to lie on a single $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ and for $`N=2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|+2p`$ the unperturbed ground state is $`2^p`$$`\times `$$`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{p}\right)`$ times degenerate (since $`{}_{}{}^{1}`$ has dimension 2).

By this sort of models one can study the interaction of several fermion pairs in the same system. The simplest topologically non-trivial graph is the ring, with a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{1,2,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\}`$ and

$$\tau _{\alpha \beta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\tau \hfill & \mathrm{i}f\beta =\alpha +1,\hfill \\ \tau ^{}\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\beta =\alpha 1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{o}therwise.\hfill \end{array}\tau =|\tau |e^{\frac{2\pi i}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}.$$
(5)
where $`\varphi `$ is the magnetic flux concatenated by the ring and $`\varphi _0=\frac{hc}{e}`$. In the absence of magnetic field, $`\tau `$ will be taken to be real.

Note that for $`p`$=0 the concentration (number of holes per atom) is $`2/5=0.4`$; this is somewhat more than half-filling ($`1/30.33`$) but still reasonable. We are using CuO4 as the unit just for the sake of simplicity, but the $`W=0`$ mechanism produces bound pairs at different fillings for larger clusters and the full plane too. By replacing CuO4 by larger units one can model other ranges of the hole concentration.

We exactly diagonalize the $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=3`$ ring Hamiltonian; to this end we introduce the Spin-Disentangled technique. We let $`M_{}+M_{}=N`$ where $`M_\sigma `$ is the number of particles of spin $`\sigma `$; $`\{|\varphi _{\alpha \sigma }\}`$ is a real orthonormal basis, that is, each vector is a homogeneous polynomial in the $`p^{}`$ and $`d^{}`$ of degree $`M_\sigma `$ acting on the vacuum. We write the ground state wave function in the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}L_{\alpha \beta }|\varphi _\alpha |\varphi _\beta $$
(6)
which shows how the $``$ and $``$ configurations are entangled. The electrons of one spin are treated as the “bath” for those of the opposite spin: this form also enters the proof of a famous theorem by Lieb. In Eq.(6) $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a $`m_{}\times m_{}`$ rectangular matrix with $`m_\sigma `$=$`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{5|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{M_\sigma }\right)`$. We let $`K_\sigma `$ denote the kinetic energy $`m_\sigma \times m_\sigma `$ square matrix of $`H_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in the basis $`\{|\varphi _{\alpha \sigma }\}`$, and $`N_s^{(\sigma )}`$ the spin-$`\sigma `$ occupation number matrix at site $`s`$ in the same basis ($`N_s^{(\sigma )}`$ is a symmetric matrix since the $`|\varphi _{\alpha \sigma }`$’s are real). Then, $`L`$ is acted upon by the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ according to the rule

$$H_{\mathrm{tot}}[L]=[K_{}L+LK_{}]+U\underset{s}{}N_s^{()}LN_s^{()}.$$
(7)
In particular for $`M_{}=M_{}`$ ($`S_z=0`$ sector) it holds $`K_{}=K_{}`$ and $`N_s^{()}=N_s^{()}`$. Thus, the action of $`H`$ is obtained in a spin-disentangled way. In the $`S_z=0`$ sector for $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$=3 the size of the problem is 1863225 and the storage of the Hamiltonian matrix requires much space; by this device, we can work with matrices whose dimensions is the square root of those of the Hilbert space: $`1365\times 1365`$ matrices solve the $`1863225\times 1863225`$ problem, and are not even required to be sparse. We believe that this approach will be generally useful for the many-fermion problem. Since we are mainly interested in getting the low-lying part of the spectrum as fast as possible we opted for the Lanczos method, taking advantage from our knowledge of the $`S[4]`$ irrep of the $`\tau =0`$ ground state; the scalar product is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{T}r(L_1^{}L_2)`$. In this way, the Hamiltonian matrix takes the tri-diagonal form; however a numerical instability sets in well before convergence is achieved if one uses chains longer than a few tens of sites. Therefore we use repeated two-site chains alternated with moderate-size ones.

The two-$`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ ring (14,400 configurations in the $`S_z=0`$ sector) is readily solved by a Mathematica code on the personal computer; however, this cluster is not adequate for studying the quantization (superconducting or otherwise) of a magnetic flux by the bound pair. The reason is that the two units are each at the left and at the right of each other; any vector potential perpendicular to the $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$’s can always be gauged away. However, we have verified that the ground state energy with 6 holes is $`E_{\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{O}_8}^{(0)}(6)=E_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}^{(0)}(4)+E_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}^{(0)}(2)`$ for $`\tau =0`$ and it receives a negative correction $`\tau ^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)|`$ for small $`\tau `$, which is consistent with the presence of a bound pair.

The three-$`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ ring behaves similarly, but can also concatenate a flux. In Figure (2.$`a`$) and (2.$`b`$) we show the lowest eigenvalues versus $`\varphi `$ for $`U=0`$ and $`U=5t`$, respectively; $`k`$ denotes the interplanar quasi-momentum quantum label. At $`\tau =0`$ the ground state energy is $`E_{\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{12}}^{(0)}(8)=E_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}^{(0)}(4)+2E_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}^{(0)}(2)`$ and the low energy sector derives mainly from the tensor product of the ground states of three independent $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$’s with 4, 2 and 2 holes (which is the foundamental multiplet) and 3, 3 and 2 holes (which is the lowest lying excited multiplet separated by a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)`$). For $`U=0`$, see Fig.(2.$`a`$), there is no pairing in $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ and indeed the ground state energy is linear in the field at small fields (normal Zeeman effect). The lowest state is $`k=2`$ throughout. Interestingly, Cu3O12 concatenated with half a flux quantum would be diamagnetic, but the absence of a second minimum shows that it would be Larmor diamagnetism. By contrast, at $`U`$=5 $`t`$, when pairing in $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ is about optimum, see Fig.(1), the $`k=2`$ state is lowest in the central sector, $`k=0`$ is the ground state at $`\varphi 0`$ while $`k=1`$ is lowest as $`\varphi \varphi _0`$, see Fig.(2.$`b`$); this produces level crossings and the superconducting flux quantization; there is a central minimum when the system swallows a half quantum of flux while, as we verified, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{12}}<0`$. Remarkably, one also observes superconducting quantization of a magnetic flux orthogonal to the plane. With increasing $`U/t`$, the binding energy of the pair starts decreasing and eventually vanishes for $`U34.77t`$; we have found that at this point the flux quantization returns normal and the system behaves like a paramagnet. Even at optimal $`U`$, the side barriers are depressed by increasing $`\tau `$; at $`\tau 0.1t`$ only small remnants remain; for still larger interplanar hoppings the superconductivity is removed and a pattern similar to Fig.(2.$`a`$) prevails. For larger $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, a smaller supercurrent would be necessary to screen the half flux quantum and the critical $`\tau `$ which kills the superconductivity should be expected to grow larger.

In order to better analyze the results physically and extend them qualitatively to arbitrary graphs, we obtained an effective Hamiltonian by the cell-perturbation method with $`H_0`$, Eq.(3), the “cell-Hamiltonian” and $`H_\tau `$, Eq.(4), the “inter-cell perturbation” and by taking into account only the low-energy singlet sector. We note that the cell-perturbation method was already used in Ref. to support the original Anderson’s conjecture on the “low-energy equivalence” between the $`dp`$ model (proposed by Emery) and the single-band Hubbard model. Despite the analogies with Ref. (like the same cell-Hamiltonian and weak O-O links between different cells) our inter-cell perturbation is different and, more important, it is the low-energy sector which differs (one needs to consider $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ units with 2, 3 and 4 holes to get bound pairs, in contrast with 0, 1 and 2 holes of Ref.).

For a general graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|+2p`$ holes, we treat $`H_\tau `$ by a simplified second-order degenerate perturbation theory, since $`H_\tau `$ is a one-body operator. Each degenerate unperturbed ground state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0^𝒮`$ may be labelled by a set $`𝒮\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of units occupied by four holes; $`|𝒮|=p`$. The secular problem yields the eigenvalue equation

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)}\underset{q}{}\underset{𝒮^{}}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^𝒮|H_\tau |\mathrm{\Phi }_q\mathrm{\Phi }_q|H_\tau |\mathrm{\Phi }_0^𝒮^{}a_𝒮^{}=\epsilon a_𝒮$$
(8)
where the sum has been truncated to the low-energy excited eigenstates involving $`\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ units with $`2n4`$ holes, all taken in their ground states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(n)}(\alpha ),\alpha =1\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$. The amplitude $`a_𝒮a(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$ is totally symmetric with respect to permutations of the distinct indices $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p`$. Letting $`𝒞(\alpha )=\{\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }:\tau _{\alpha \beta }0\}`$, after some algebra Eq.(8) may be written in the form:

$$\epsilon a(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\beta 𝒞(\alpha _j)}{}[𝒯_{\beta ,\alpha _j}^{^{\mathrm{Bose}}}a(\alpha _1,..,\alpha _{j1},\beta ,\alpha _{j+1},..,\alpha _p)|𝒯_{\beta ,\alpha _j}^{^{\mathrm{Bose}}}|\underset{ij}{}(1\delta _{\beta \alpha _i})a(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)].$$
(9)
This is a Schrödinger equation for $`p`$ hard-core bosons hopping with an effective hopping integral $`𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }^{^{\mathrm{Bose}}}(\tau _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{e}ff})^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CuO}_4}(4)`$, with

$$\tau _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{e}ff}=\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(2)}(\alpha )|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(4)}(\beta )|H_\tau |\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(3)}(\alpha )|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(3)}(\beta ).$$
(10)
In Fig.(3.$`a`$) we show the trend of $`(|\tau _{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{e}ff}|/|\tau _{\alpha \beta }|)^2`$ versus $`U/t`$; we note that the ratio decreases monotonically. In Eq.(9), the first term in the r.h.s. describes hole pair propagation, e.g. from unit $`\alpha _j`$ to an unoccupied unit $`\beta `$; in the second sum, the system gets back to the initial state after virtually exploring unit $`\beta `$; the term $`_{ij}(1\delta _{\beta \alpha _i})`$ takes into account that if $`\beta `$ is one of the occupied units, the particle cannot move toward it. Due to the minus sign, the term in $`|𝒯_{\beta ,\alpha _j}^{^{\mathrm{Bose}}}|`$ represents pair-pair repulsion.

In Fig.(3.$`b`$) the superconducting flux-quantization for the $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=3`$ ring is reported as reproduced by solving Eq.(9); it agrees well both qualitatively and quantitatively with the numerical results of Fig.(2.$`b`$), thus confirming the above approximation. More data and a fuller account of the low-energy theory will be presented elsewhere.

In conclusion, we used a set of CuO4 units connected by weak O-O links to model interplanar coupling and c-axis superconductivity in Cuprates. The results show that the system with two holes in each unit is a background such that inserting $`2p`$ holes one gets $`p`$ pairs, bound by the repulsive interaction. The bound pairs propagation is well described by Eq.(9). We found analytically the superconducting flux quantization in the ring-shaped systems and confirmed this finding numerically for the 3-unit ring (1,863,225 configurations). To this end, we introduced a novel exact-diagonalization technique, which reduces the size of the matrices that must be handled to the square root of the overall size of the Hilbert space. Actually, real systems contain also vertical links via the orbitals of the apical oxygens. We expect that the inclusion of these hoppings does not change qualitatively the results since they do not contribute to the propagation of the bound pair in the lowest-order approximation.

Acknowledgement

We thank Dr. Claudio Verdozzi for useful comments.