text:
# CU-TP-1066 , HWS-200201 hep-th/0208030 A “Periodic Table” for Supersymmetric M-Theory Compactifications

## 1 Introduction

Manifolds with $`SU(N)`$ holonomy have been a source of significant interest for mathematicians and physicists alike. Indeed, the importance of $`K3`$ manifolds and Calabi-Yau threefolds in the arena of consistent superstring background geometries could hardly be overstated. Aside from their undisputed beauty, compactification on these spaces allows for important control of supersymmetry which, in turn, permits ready access to potentially testable phenomenological consequences of string theory itself. It is for such reasons that understanding the geometry of these objects, including the classification of associated gauge bundles , has been such a relevant and fruitful endeavor. It is nowadays accepted, however, that there exists a more fundamental eleven dimensional underpinning, code-named M-theory, which appropriately describes non-perturbative aspects of fundamental physics. In contrast to the situation in perturbative string theory, within the context of M-theory the most important geometric compactification spaces have special holonomy .

The connection between M-theory and four-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric models of particle physics is provided by eleven-dimensional supergravity on compact seven-manifolds with $`G_2`$ holonomy. Considerably less is known about these objects as compared to the case of Calabi-Yau manifolds. In light of the above discussion, however, it is important to develop a useful classification of the relevant supersymmetric M-theory models. The rudiments of a mathematical classification scheme for $`G_2`$ holonomy seven manifolds, each a resolution of an orbifold of a seven-torus, has been provided by Joyce . The purpose of this paper is to describe a complementary scheme, based on physics, of a class of seven-dimensional orbifold constructions which meet the criterion of $`N=1`$ supersymmetry preservation.

In previous papers  we described various technical aspects of the extraction of effective physics from M-theory. Generally, our techniques apply to global orbifold compactifications, and rely on significant constraints which follow from the requirement of chiral anomaly cancellation point-wise in eleven-dimensions, most notably on distinguished even-dimensional submanifolds. Recently , we have described how to obtain a pair of particular four-dimensional $`N=1`$ super Yang-Mills theories with chiral matter content from an M-theoretic intersecting brane-world scenario. In that paper we included a scan of multiplicities of supersymmetric M-theory orbifold models of a particular class. In this paper we derive this scan, explaining in more detail the physical and mathematical criteria involved in finding such models.

Presupposing an ultimate connection between M-theory and standard model four-dimensional physics, a seven dimensional compactification space must be Ricci-flat and admit singularities . For these reasons, the class of toroidal orbifolds $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for a finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, holds special interest. The necessary geometrical singularities are of finite quotient type, and hence readily permit mathematical analysis. Each is modelled on $`(M^1)^{7n}\times ^n/G`$ for some subgroup $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`M^1=S^1`$ or the unit interval $`I^1=S^1/_2`$. Moreover, as we shall see in this paper, under the right conditions one can explicitly describe a well-defined lift of the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the eleven-dimensional spinorial supercharge. This allows us to determine how much supersymmetry is preserved on the various fixed-point loci (“fixed-planes”) of spacetime $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }\times ^{3,1}`$.

The mathematical problem of identifying candidate compactification spaces with supersymmetric fixed-planes is quite elegant, and divides neatly into four parts. First of all, we must decide on a class of tori to orbifold. A torus $`T^7`$ is determined by a choice of a rank seven lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^7`$. Throughout this paper we will assume that the lattice has the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=A_1A_2^3`$, i.e., the direct sum of three copies of the usual hexagonal lattice in the complex plane with one copy of $``$. More generally, our analysis applies to compactification on tori $`T^n`$ modelled on lattices $`A_1^aA_2^b`$ with $`a+2b=n`$, $`1n7`$. These are by no means the only lattices from which we could construct our tori. In fact, a particularly interesting case, especially as regards the discussion in Section 5 of this paper, is that of the irreducible lattice $`A_7^7`$, whose automorphism group is one of the maximal finite subgroups of the group $`G_2`$. We choose to restrict attention to our particular class of decomposable lattices simply because it is both sufficiently general to subsume the orbifolds studied previously, and easy in this setting to describe the action on the eleven-dimensional supercharge in the Clifford algebra.

The second step in identifying the desired supersymmetric orbifolds is to choose a particular class of groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting on $`T^7`$. An action on the torus is an action on $`^7`$ that preserves the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We will consider only group actions which respect the decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into direct summands. Thus, an element $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts as $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi ı\stackrel{}{f})`$, where $`\stackrel{}{f}=(f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)`$, with $`f_{1,2,3}/6`$ and $`f_4/2`$. In this way we define a class of representations in which each element acts by rotations in two-dimensional subplanes plus the possibility of a parity reversal on one real coordinate. We call such actions “pseudo-planar representations”, and groups which admit such representations “pseudo-planar groups”. This eliminates, for the time being, orbifolds constructed from non-abelian orbifolding groups, an omission we hope to rectify in future work.

Having restricted ourselves to pseudo-planar groups, next we need to enumerate all possible actions. For organizational purposes we wish to index the candidate orbifolds of $`T^n`$ by their orbifolding groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For reasons of bounding complexity, in this paper we restrict attention to finite abelian groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of order $`12`$. The method we use, explained in detail in Section 2, consists of classifying the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-compatible representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`^7`$, using the decomposition into irreducible characters to determine equivalence classes of group actions. Properly taking into account the automorphisms of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ allows us to distinguish inequivalent group actions, and a matrix formalism makes quick work of computing the dimensions of the fixed-planes corresponding to each element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and provides for a concise accounting of various geometric data associated with each orbifold.

Finally, given this data, we must have a criterion for determining the exact amount of supersymmetry preserved on each fixed-plane. This fourth and final ingredient is provided by a systematic analysis of lifts of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to actions on eleven dimensional spinors. The necessary properties of Clifford algebra are reviewed in Section 3.1, and the criterion, our Supersymmetric Restriction Theorem, is summarized in Table 6. We apply this criterion to the full class of groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting compatibly on our lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this way, we identify and classify the relatively small number of orbifolds $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which maintain some supersymmetry at all points, constructions we refer to as supersymmetric orbifolds.

In the language of , the orbifolds considered here are all hard orbifolds, i.e., there are no fixed-point-free coordinate “shifts” in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ action, since we act directly through a representation on the space $`^7`$ over $`T^7=^7/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. By contrast, Joyce’s examples of orbifolds of $`T^7`$ admitting a resolution as a $`G_2`$ manifold  are all soft orbifolds. In Section 5 we use the first class of $`G_2`$ resolvable examples studied by Joyce  as a launching point for a discussion of the relationship between supersymmetric orbifolds of $`T^7`$ and the notion of a $`G_2`$-structure (a weaker, necessary condition for the orbifold to admit a $`G_2`$ holonomy resolution).

We have collected the results of our search, accounting for all pseudo-planar orbifold groups with low order, into a so-called “Periodic Table” of orbifolds, which we include in this introduction as Table 1.

In Table 1 we exhibit each supersymmetric orbifold $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with rows corresponding to distinct pseudo-planar groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, listed by increasing group order, and columns corresponding to the representation dimensions $`1n7`$. In each block of this table are listed the complete set of hard supersymmetric orbifolds corresponding to associated $`n`$-dimensional representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ compatible with our lattices. Each orbifold is indicated by a particular label, which codifies the group action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`T^n`$ in a manner explained in detail in Section 2. For a subset of the supersymmetric orbifolds, the corresponding orbifold label has an asterix appended. These models are those which split off a separate $`S^1/_2`$ factor. Such models are the only ones which have ten-dimensional fixed-planes. Owing to this distinction, there is a more direct connection between this class of supersymmetric orbifolds and perturbative heterotic string models than is the case for the orbifolds listed without stars.

There are two natural extensions of our work in this paper which we plan to investigate in the near future. First, we would like to remove the pseudo-planar and abelian restrictions on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ action, allowing instead any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{Aut}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. In particular this will allow many nonabelian group actions, which in turn will require a generalization of the supersymmetric restriction proof of Section 3.3. An important step towards such a formulation is described in Section 4. It would also be quite valuable to reformulate both the analysis herein and the anomaly cancellation compatibility checks in  using the theory of principal bundles on orbifolds. In this setting both the supersymmetric restriction criterion and anomaly cancellation mechanism should find expression in the language of characteristic classes of such bundles.

## 2 Hard Orbifolds, Supersymmetry, and Characters

Each distinct representation $`R`$, with real dimension $`n7`$, of any finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Aut}(T^n)`$, can be used to define an orbifold $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and a corresponding compactification scheme in M-theory. In this section we describe some useful tools for efficiently accounting for large numbers of such constructions, and explain how these feed naturally into an algorithm for selecting those which satisfy a particular criterion: that the eleven-dimensional supercharge $`Q`$ have nonvanishing components at all points in $`M^{11}`$. This is done in two steps. First we review some standard results pertaining to representations of finite groups. Then we explain some original technology which adapts these results to the special purpose of sifting through all possible representations and finding those which satisfy our criterion.

### 2.1 Representations of Finite Abelian Groups

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an abelian (commutative) group, and $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }GL_n()`$ an $`n`$-dimensional complex matrix representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e., $`\rho `$ is a homomophism of groups. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abelian, $`g_1g_2=g_2g_1`$ for all $`g_i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and each element $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ equals its own conjugacy class. A basic result in the theory of representations of finite groups states that for a group of order $`q`$, with $`s`$ conjugacy classes, there are, up to equivalence, $`s`$ distinct irreducible representations $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_s`$ over $``$. Moreover, if $`R_i`$ has dimension $`n_i`$, then

$`q:={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(n_i)^2.`$ (2.1)
\[16, Theorem 2.3\]. When applied to an abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, this shows that each $`n_i=1`$, i.e., that each of the irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is itself a character (one dimensional representation) of the group.

In fact, it is a simple matter to describe all the characters of a finite abelian group. Any finite abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written as a direct product of $`m`$ cyclic groups of orders $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_m`$ respectively, so that

$`q=|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=q_1q_2\mathrm{}q_m.`$ (2.2)
A typical element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be represented by the $`m`$-tuple $`\stackrel{}{a}:=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_m)`$ , where $`0a_i<q_i`$, with composition of elements given by componentwise addition followed by reduction of the $`i`$th component to its least nonnegative remainder modulo $`r_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Then corresponding to each $`m`$-tuple $`\stackrel{}{c}:=[c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_m]`$ , where $`0c_i<r_i`$, there exists a character

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{}{c}(\stackrel{}{a}):=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi ı{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_ic_i}{r_i}}\right)\right)`$ (2.3)
of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and all $`q`$ characters arise in this way \[16, Theorem 2.4\]. The identity element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to the trivial character.

The obvious correspondence between the characters $`\stackrel{}{c}`$ and elements $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not canonical. Even though they are each composed of $`m`$-tuples of integers modulo $`q_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, the isomorphism between these is only well-defined up to an automorphism of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Any $`n`$ dimensional representation of an abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written as a direct sum of $`n`$ of its characters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{}{c}`$, i.e., by the data of an $`n`$-tuple $`\{\stackrel{}{c}^1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{c}^n\}`$ of $`m`$-tuples $`\stackrel{}{c}^j:=[c_1^j,\mathrm{},c_m^j]`$ , for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Two such representations are considered equivalent if these $`n`$-tuples agree as unordered lists.

### 2.2 Character Tables and $`C`$-Matrices

The set of hard orbifolds $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to the set of distinct $`n`$-dimensional representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consistent with the lattice that defines $`T^n`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a finite abelian group, then these, in turn, are equivalent to the possible ways to order sets with elements chosen freely from among the characters of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, allowing for repetition. It is, therefore, a straightforward exercise, in principle, to construct comprehensive lists of hard orbifolds $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is so because it is also straightforward to determine the characters for any finite abelian group, using the following simple algorithm. (As described above, we shall limit our discussion to the case of pseudo-planar groups.)

Each pseudo-planar group is given by the direct product of some number each of $`_2`$, $`_3`$ and $`_4`$ factors. For each of these three “elemental” groups, the list of characters are contained in the character tables exhibited in Table 2.

In these tables, the elements of the group are enumerated row-wise, while each column corresponds to a distinct character 111Our convention differs from that used in the mathematical literature, wherein character tables typically list group elements as columns and characters as rows. Our choice of convention is more suited to the particular application to physics described in this paper.. For the case of $`_2`$ the characters are real, i.e. each describes a group action on one real coordinate; in our case this corresponds to an action on an $`A_1`$ lattice; a plus sign in the table indicates a trivial action, while a minus sign indicates a sign change $`xx`$ on the associated coordinate. For the groups $`_3`$ and $`_4`$ the nontrivial characters are complex; i.e. each describes a group action on a pair of real coordinates; in our case this corresponds to an action on an $`A_2`$ lattice; a plus sign indicates a trivial action, other rational numbers indicate the fraction of a complete counter-clockwise rotation in the plane spanned by the relevant $`A_2`$ lattice. Such entries are defined modulo 1.

It is useful to assemble the entries of a given character table for a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into a “character matrix” $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The data in Table 2 can be written as

$`\sigma (_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1/2\end{array}\right)\sigma (_3)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/3& \text{-1/3}\\ 0& \text{-1/3}& 1/3\end{array}\right)\sigma (_4)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/4& 1/2& \text{-1/4}\\ 0& 1/2& 0& 1/2\\ 0& \text{-1/4}& 1/2& 1/4\end{array}\right).`$ (2.13)
We adopt the convention that trivial actions (plus signs in the character tables) are represented in the character matrix with zeros, and parity reversals (minus signs in the character tables) are represented with the fraction 1/2. The character matrix for a generic pseudo-planar group with $`m`$ elemental factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=G_1\times \mathrm{}\times G_m`$, is obtained by combining the character matrices $`\sigma (G_i)`$ as an outer sum. For instance, the character matrix $`\sigma (_2\times _3)`$ can be written as a a two-by-two array of three-by-three block matrices, wherein the upper left block is computed by adding the upper left entry in $`\sigma (_2)`$ to the entire matrix $`\sigma (_3)`$, the second block in the first row of blocks in $`\sigma (_2\times _3)`$ is given by adding the entry $`\sigma (_2)_{12}`$ to the entire matrix $`\sigma (_3)`$, and so forth. The matrix $`\sigma (_2\times _3)`$ formed in this way can be usefully re-expressed in terms of a character table, with the result shown in Table 3. In Table 3, all rational entries are defined modulo 1. Furthermore, a trivial action, denoted by a zero in the corresponding character matrix, is represented in the character table by a plus sign. Finally, on complex characters an entry 1/2, describing a 180 degree rotation, is represented in the table by a minus sign.

Upon reconstituting the character matrix $`\sigma (_2\times _3)`$ into Table 3 we have inserted a useful naming convention for the group elements and characters; we have named the order-two generating element $`\alpha `$ and the order-three generating element $`\beta `$. Similarly, we have named the trivial character $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the order two character $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the order-three characters $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and the order-six characters $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$.

By repeating the operation of combining character matrices as outer sums, in the manner described above, the character matrix and, equivalently, the character table for any pseudo-planar group can be generated readily from the three elemental character matrices $`\sigma (_2)`$, $`\sigma (_3)`$ and $`\sigma (_4)`$. For an illustration in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(_2)^3`$, see Table 7. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[0,0,0]}`$ is the trivial character, and the group elements down the left-hand-side are indexed in the usual binary ordering:

$$1:=(0,0,0),\gamma :=(0,0,1),\beta :=(0,1,0),\mathrm{},\alpha \beta \gamma :=(1,1,1).$$

In general, however, there is quite a lot of physically irrelevant redundancy in the full character table for a given orbifolding group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For instance, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _3`$, the characters which we have named $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ describe group actions on a complex coordinate $`z`$. However, if we describe these same characters in terms of their actions on the complex conjugate $`\overline{z}`$, these same characters would appear to act precisely as do $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ on the original coordinate $`z`$. Thus, complex characters are physically indistinguishable from their conjugates. Since conjugate pairs of characters can be can be mapped into each other by a merely semantical renaming of the coordinates, we can more efficiently describe the relevant representation theory of this group by considering a restricted set of essential nontrivial characters. For the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _3`$, these would be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. At the same time, elements with order greater than two have non-trivial inverses. These inverse elements have precisely the same locus of fixed-points in the physical space $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as do the original elements. So we can characterize the geometry of a given orbifold in terms of a representative set of essential non-trivial elements, thereby removing this second, physical, redundancy.

The number of nontrivial representative elements of any finite abelian group is equivalent to the number of essential nontrivial characters. This number provides a “physical rank” $`r`$ of the group. By including only the essential nontrivial elements and characters, we can replace the full character table with an “abbreviated character table”. For the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _3`$, we would thereby replace Table 3 with the abbreviated character table shown in Table 4.

Notice that we may choose at will the ordering of the elements (rows) and, independently, the ordering of the characters (columns) when we construct a character table; there is no a-priori canonical ordering. Notice, as well, that no information is sacrificed by replacing a full character table with an abbreviated character table.

By multiplying the abbreviated character table by the order of the group we define an integer-valued, square $`r\times r`$ matrix, which we denote $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. For the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _3`$, this is easily obtained from Table 4 by multiplying the entries by six, which is the order of $`_2\times _3`$. In this way we determine

$`C(_2\times _3)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3& 0& 3\\ 0& 2& 2\\ 3& 2& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (2.17)
Of course, owing to the freedom to independently rearrange the rows and the columns of the abbreviated character matrix, the corresponding matrix $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is defined only up to similar reorderings. However, such flexibility can always be used to render the $`C`$-matrix symmetrical. We deem this canonical. It is also possible, while keeping $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ symmetrical, to arrange the rows and columns so that the corresponding elements and characters have monotonically increasing order. This too, we deem canonical.

All the information described by Table 3 is also contained in the matrix $`C(_2\times _3)`$ shown in (2.17). It is interesting that quite a lot of information pertaining to properties of any finite abelian group, including the complete representation theory can be codified in a symmetric matrix $`CGL(r,)`$. As it turns out, the matrices $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are valuable tools in the search for supersymmetric orbifolds. The matrices $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for each of the pseudo-planar groups with group order $`12`$ are listed in Appendix A.

### 2.3 The Enumeration of Distinct Orbifolds

A representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is designated by choosing a set of real and complex characters, including the possibility of degeneracy, from the list of essential nontrivial characters. Generally, order-two characters are real, while characters with higher order are complex. Therefore, if we select $`a`$ order-two characters and $`b`$ higher-order characters, the corresponding representation will act on $`n=a+2b`$ real dimensions, $`2b`$ of which are complexified. Since the set of essential nontrivial characters correlates with the columns of the matrix $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we can unambiguously designate a representation by an ordered list of $`r`$ multiplicities, each indicating the number of real coordinates transforming according to a corresponding character. The ordering of the multiplicities corresponds to the ordering of the characters described by the rows of the $`C`$-matrix. Of course, the multiplicities corresponding to complex characters are necessarily even, while those corresponding to order-two characters may be even or odd.

As an example, in the case of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _3`$, the physical rank is 3, and the corresponding $`C`$-matrix is given by (2.17). In this case, each representation is given by a $`3`$-tuple, $`R=(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$, where $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ are the number of real coordinates transforming according to the characters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, respectively. In this case, $`a_1`$ since the character $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is real, and $`a_{2,3}2`$ since the characters $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are complex. To be quite specific, the representation of $`_2\times _3`$ described by the three-tuple $`R=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3\hspace{0.17em}2\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ is a representation which acts on $`3+2+2=7`$ real coordinates. In this case, however, four of the real coordinates are complexified as two complex coordinates. The first multiplicity (3) in the label (322) indicates that three real coordinates, say $`x_{1,2,3}`$ transform according to the character $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the second multiplicity (2) indicates that two real coordinates, combined into one complex coordinate, say $`z_1`$, transform according to the character $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the third multiplicity (2) indicates that one more complex coordinate, say $`z_2`$, transforms according to the character $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The corresponding group actions are shown in Table 5.

The particular orbifold $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which corresponds to a given representation $`R`$ generically includes a locus of special points which remain invariant under elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These generically constitute hyperplanes of various dimensionalities which intersect, forming an intricate network. One of our primary concerns is to decide what sorts of physics, in the form of localized states, are described by these planes and their intersections. In the next section we will describe in detail how one studies the issue of how many supercharges are retained on these. A primary consideration in this regard is, of course, to describe the number of dimensions which are spanned by the fixed-planes associated with each group element.

There is a simple formula which allows one to compute the set of dimensions corresponding to the $`r`$ representative nontrivial elements. This formula is most easily described in terms of another useful matrix, which we call $`M(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, obtained from $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by replacing all zero entries with ones, and all nonzero entries by zeros. By way of illustration, we focus again on the example $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _3`$. In this case, this prescription, applied to $`C(_2\times _3)`$, as given in (2.17), yields

$`M(_2\times _3)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (2.21)
For a given orbifold, described by the representation $`R`$ of a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the dimensionality of the fixed-planes of each representative element is described by another $`r`$-tuple, $`d(R)`$, given by

$`d(R)=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}n)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}+RM,`$ (2.22)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the row vector with ones in each entry and $`n=R\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}=_ia_i`$. As an example, for the particular orbifold described by $`R=(322)`$, we compute $`n=7`$ and

$`d(122)`$ $`=`$ $`(117)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3& 2& 2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.28)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}6& 7& 4\end{array}\right).`$ (2.30)
Thus, the respective fixed-planes associated with the elements $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha \beta `$ have dimensionality 6, 7 and 4. This result can be verified from the precise group actions in Table 5.

Now we have all the information we need to form comprehensive lists of all pseudo-planar orbifolds, including all the data pertaining to the group actions. First we choose a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then, we form lists of orbifolds $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for each value of $`1n7`$ by sequencing through the ordered partitions of $`n`$ into $`r`$ nonnegative integers, in the manner described above. For the case of $`T^7/(_2\times _3)`$ orbifolds, for example, we create the the sequence of 3-tuples $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ which describe ordered partitions of $`n=7`$ into sums of $`r=3`$ nonnegative integers, subject to the constraints that $`a_1`$ and $`a_{2,3}2`$. The complete list of such $`3`$-tuples is given in the usual ascending order in mod 7 arithmetic, as (106), (124), (142), (160), (304), (322), (340), (502), (520), (700). We describe these ordered sets of multiplicities as orbifold labels. In each case the corresponding group actions can be determined by dividing the $`C`$-matrix by the group order and then selecting rows from this divided $`C`$-matrix with the appropriate multiplicity indicated by the corresponding label. The group actions for the orbifold $`T^7/(_2\times _3)_{(322)}`$, described above, were obtained in precisely this way, and stand as an example of this methodology.

### 2.4 The Periodic Table

We use the algorithm described in the previous paragraph to systematically cycle through each orbifold label of each pseudo-planar group, obtaining all of the relevant group actions in each case. In each instance, each element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be represented, by arranging the coordinates judiciously, by a set of three fractional rotations $`(f_1,f_2,f_3)`$ describing counterclockwise rotations in respective planes spanned by three $`A_2`$ lattices, plus possibility of a parity reversal in one real coordinate, which we codify as the binary choice $`P\{0,1\}`$, describing the respective absence or presence of a parity reversal.

As it turns out, the values of $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)`$ for each element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to a given orbifold label provide all the data necessary to resolve the amount of supersymmetry on the corresponding orbifold plane. The precise corrrespondence is derived in the next section, where it is presented as a supersymmetric restriction theorem. This result says that an orbifold plane is supersymmetric if and only if there is at least one way to add or subtract the three corresponding fractions $`f_i`$ to obtain, in the case $`P=0`$, an even integer, or, in the case $`P=1`$, any integer (even or odd).

For our restricted class of lattices, a given element is compatible only if the three $`f_i`$ are each elements of the set $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2,\pm 1/3,\pm 1/4,\pm 1/6\}`$ mod 1. (There are, therefore $`7^3\times 2=686`$ possibilities for each element.) It is possible to have compatible elements which do not have compatible products. For example, in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_3\times _4`$, there are several models which pass the criteria of the supersymmetric restriction theorem, except that the representations in question involve order-twelve rotations in at least one plane. These would be acceptable as supersymmetric orbifolds of $`^n`$, but not of $`T^n`$, because there is no lattice in $``$ compatible with such a rotation. The number of global orbifolds $`T^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is therefore much smaller than the number of orbifold singularities which can be modelled locally as $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The search for supersymmetric orbifolds consists of four steps. First, for a given choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`n`$, we generate the complete list of compatible orbifold labels. Second, for each orbifold label, we use the matrix $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to determine the data $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)`$ for each of the $`r`$ repressentative elements. Third, we apply the supersymmetric restriction theorem to remove each orbifold which has any element whose data does not meet the restriction criterion. Fourth, we examine the list of orbifolds which satisfy these restrictions, and we remove cases which are redundant. We have created a number of Mathematica functions which fully automate this process, and have used this to generate Table 1 which appears in the introduction. In this way, we can easily generalize our periodic table to arbitrary group order.

Our periodic table includes all of the hard global M-theory orbifolds described previously by other authors as well as by ourselves. For instance the $`S^1/_2`$ model corresponds to the original M-theory model described in . The four $`T^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ models correspond to the four global orbifold limits of $`K3`$. The $`T^5/_2`$ model was discussed in . (It was the study of that simple model which first implicated wandering five-branes as a means of unifying ostensibly unique vacua into classes linked by phase transitions.) The four starred models $`T^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correspond to the four global orbifold limits of $`K3\times S^1/_2`$ and were studied in . The $`T^7/(_2)^3`$ model with label (2220001) was described in  and the $`T^7/(_2\times _2\times _3)`$ with label (0122022) was described in . Finally, resolutions of the softenings of the $`T^7/(_2)^3`$ model with label (1111111) were presented by Joyce in  as prototype $`G_2`$ manifolds, and studied by Acharya as candidate $`M`$-theory compactification spaces  (see also Section 5 below).

## 3 A Supersymmetric Restriction Theorem

In the bulk of $`M^{11}`$ (i.e., at all points not within the locus of orbifold fixed-planes) the eleven-dimensional supercharge is completely preserved. It is within the locus of fixed-planes, therefore, that the issue of supercharge preservation becomes important. Since the supercharge transforms nontrivially under elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, only those components of $`Q`$ which remain invariant are not projected to zero on those spacetime points inert under those same elements. The invariant components of $`Q`$ typically resolve as a $`d`$ dimensional spinor, where $`d`$ is the total dimension of the invariant locus associated with that element near a given point. Precisely how many irreducible $`SO(d1,1)`$-spinors are included in this set determines the amount of local sypersymmetry preserved on that fixed-plane. For the sorts of pseudo-planar orbifolds defined above, it is possible to delineate a concise criterion for selecting those which, in this way, retain supersymmetry. In this section, which is relatively technical, we derive this supersymmetric restriction theorem. We start by establishing notational conventions and stating the result, and then prove it by analyzing the question of how the spinorial supercharge is influenced by lifts of various elements of finite subgroups of $`SO(10,1)`$.

### 3.1 Notations

We use spacetime coordinates $`x^I\{x^0,x^i\}`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},3,5,\mathrm{}11`$, and Gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I`$, which satisfy the Clifford algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_J\}=2\eta _{IJ}`$, where $`\eta _{IJ}=\text{diag}(+\mathrm{}+)`$ is the flat metric. The Gamma matrices are chosen such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is anti-Hermitian, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are Hermitian, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. It is sometimes useful to define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Another useful identity is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}`$. The matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ}=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_J]`$ are the generators of $`\text{spin}(11)`$. We define a complex structure by writing the six real coordinates $`x_{5,\mathrm{},10}`$ in terms of three complex coordinates, according to $`z_{1,2,3}x_{5,7,9}+ix_{6,8,10}`$.

Consider an element which acts as simultaneous rotations in three complex planes, with coordinates $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, and $`z_3`$, and possibly a parity flip on one real coordinate $`x^{11}`$,

$`\alpha :(z_1,z_2,z_3;x^{11})(e^{i\theta _1}z_1,e^{i\theta _2}z_2,e^{i\theta _3}z_3;()^Px^{11}),`$ (3.1)
with $`\theta _i=2\pi f_i`$. The three rational numbers $`f_i`$ describe the fraction of a complete rotation imparted respectively on the three complex planes. The parameter $`P\{0,1\}`$ indicates whether or not the element includes a parity flip. The order of $`\alpha `$ is given by the least common positive integer multiple of the denominators of the reduced form of the three $`f_i`$’s and also $`(1/2)^P`$.

For a given choice of $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)`$, equation (3.1) describes a particular global $`SO(10,1)`$ transformation plus the possibility of a parity transformation. On spinors this induces $`\psi \mathrm{\Omega }\psi `$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{IJ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^P`$ (3.2)
and where $`\theta ^{IJ}`$ are the parameters of the $`SO(10,1)`$ transformation. From (3.1) we read off the non-vanishing parameters as $`\theta ^{5,6}=\theta ^{6,5}\theta _1`$, $`\theta ^{7,8}=\theta ^{8,7}\theta _2`$, and $`\theta ^{9,10}=\theta ^{10,9}\theta _3`$. Thus we can rewrite (3.2) as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\theta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5,6})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\theta _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{7,8})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\theta _3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{9,10})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})^P.`$ (3.3)
The supercharge $`Q`$ is an eleven-dimensional Majorana spinor, which transforms precisely as $`Q\mathrm{\Omega }Q`$. It is useful to append subscripts to spinors, and to spinorial operators, to indicate dimensionality. We thus write the eleven-dimensional supercharge $`Q`$ as $`Q_{(11)}`$ to indicate that this field takes its values in $`\text{spin}(11)`$. Similarly, we write the operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, defined in (3.3), as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ to indicate that this object operates on eleven-dimensional spinors.

If the fixed-point locus associated with an element (3.1) has dimensionality $`d`$, then, in the neighborhood of this locus, the structure group is broken from $`SO(10,1)`$ down to $`SO(d1,1)\times SO(11d)`$. Accordingly, we write the supercharge as a tensor product of an $`SO(d1,1)`$ fixed-plane spinor and an $`SO(11d)`$ “normal” spinor, as $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(d)}Q_{(11d)}`$. Similarly, the operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ decomposes as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(d)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11d)}`$. In order to resolve the amount of unbroken fixed-plane supersymmetry, we solve the equation $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, and then count the degrees of freedom which describe the most general solution.

The analysis described below is completely general, modulo irrelevant reordering of coordinates. Thus, in this section we consider the element $`(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},f|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ equivalent to $`(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},f,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, for instance.

### 3.2 Statement of the Theorem

The conclusions which we draw in each of the seven cases discussed in Section 3.3 below can be easily summarized as follows. The condition for supersymmetry on a fixed-plane associated with any element $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of the special sort characterized by (3.1), is

$`f_1\pm f_2\pm f_3\{\begin{array}{c}2;P=0\\ ;P=1\end{array}`$ (3.6)
for any one of the four possible choices of unspecified signs. If condition (3.6) is satisfied, then supersymmetry is generically reduced to the minimal amount possible in the dimensionality of the fixed-plane. Exceptions occur in cases where $`P=1`$, when one of the sums in (3.6) gives an even integer and another gives an odd integer. In such cases, the fixed-plane supersymmetry is twice the minimal amount. These results are reflected in Table 6.

Note that this result applies to orbifolds $`^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as well as to orbifolds $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the former case, there is no restriction on the choices of the $`f_i`$’s other than that they should be rational. In the latter case, there are additional constraints which follow from the requirement that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Aut}(T^7)`$. For the cases described in Section 3.3, this requirement amounts to the restriction that $`f_{1,2,3}`$ must be chosen from the set $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2,\pm 1/3,\pm 1/4,\pm 1/6\}`$ mod 1.

### 3.3 Proof of the Theorem

The result is established by explicitly analyzing how the spinorial supercharge is influenced by lifts of various elements of finite subgroups of $`SO(10,1)`$.

Ten-dimensional fixed-planes:
The only transformation (3.1) which has ten-dimensional fixed-planes is an order-two element acting as $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(0,0,0|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$. In this case, the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}Q_{(11)}`$. We decompose $`Q_{(11)}`$ according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(10)R}Q_{(10)L}`$, where $`Q_{(10)R,L}=\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}Q_{(10)R,L}`$ are ten-dimensional Majorana-Weyl projections of $`Q_{(11)}`$. The fixed-plane condition, $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written

$`Q_{(10)R,L}=\pm Q_{(10)R,L}.`$ (3.7)
This equation is easy to solve. On the fixed-plane we have $`Q_{(11)}Q_{(10)R}`$. Thus, the bulk supersymmetry is halved on the fixed-planes.

Nine-dimensional fixed-planes:
Nine-dimensional fixed-planes correspond to elements $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(0,0,f|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, where $`f0`$ mod 1. In this case, the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}=\mathrm{exp}(\pi f\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}).`$ (3.8)
We write $`Q_{(11)}`$ as a tensor product of a nine-dimensional fixed-plane spinor with an $`SO(2)`$ “normal” spinor, according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(9)}Q_{(2)}`$. Similarly, we use the following representation for the Gamma matrices,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu \mathrm{𝟏};\mu =1,\mathrm{},8`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{8+i}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_9\sigma _i;i=1,2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_9\sigma _3,`$ (3.9)
where $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu ,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_9\}`$ are nine-dimensional Gamma matrices and $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices. In addition, we decompose the normal spinors according to $`Q_{(2)}=Q_{(2)R}+Q_{(2)L}`$ where $`Q_{(2)R,L}=\pm \sigma _3Q_{(2)R,L}`$. Using these conventions, and also the identity $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=i\sigma _3`$, we can write

$`Q_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{(9)}(Q_{(2)R}+Q_{(2)L})`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi f\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3).`$ (3.10)
The fixed-plane condition $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written as

$`Q_{(9)}Q_{(2)R,L}=e^{\pm i\pi f}Q_{(9)}Q_{(2)R,L}.`$ (3.11)
Because there are no nontrivial solutions to either of these equations, subject to the restriction that $`f0`$ mod 1, we conclude that, as we approach a fixed-nine-plane, $`Q_{(11)}0`$. Thus supersymmetry is broken completely on any nine-dimensional fixed-plane associated with an element (3.1).

Eight-dimensional fixed-planes:
Eight-dimensional fixed-planes correspond to elements $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},f|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$, where $`f0`$ mod 1. In this case, the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}=\mathrm{exp}(\pi f\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}.`$ (3.12)
We write $`Q_{(11)}`$ as a tensor product of an eight-dimensional fixed-plane spinor with an $`SO(3)`$ “normal” spinor, according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(8)}Q_{(3)}`$, and we represent the Gamma matrices precisely as in (3.9). In addition we decompose the $`SO(7,1)`$ spinors via $`Q_{(8)}=Q_{(8)R}+Q_{(8)L}`$ where $`Q_{(8)R,L}=\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_9Q_{(8)R,L}`$, and write the normal spinors as $`Q_{(3)}=Q_{(2)R}+Q_{(2)L}`$, where $`Q_{(2)R,L}=\pm \sigma _3Q_{(2)R,L}`$. We introduce a useful shorthand notation whereby $`LQ_{(2)L}`$ and $`RQ_{(2)R}`$. Using these conventions, and also the identity $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=i\sigma _3`$, we can write

$`Q_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`(Q_{(8)R}+Q_{(8)L})(R+L)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi f\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_9\sigma _3.`$ (3.13)
The fixed-plane condition $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written

$`Q_{(8)R,L}R`$ $`=`$ $`\pm e^{i\pi f}Q_{(8)R,L}R`$
$`Q_{(8)R,L}L`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi f}Q_{(8)R,L}L.`$ (3.14)
Because there are no nontrivial solutions to any of these four equations, subject to the restriction that $`f0`$ mod 1, we conclude that, as we approach an eight-dimensional fixed-plane, $`Q_{(11)}0`$. Thus, supersymmetry is broken completely on any eight-dimensional fixed-plane associated with an element (3.1).

Seven-dimensional fixed-planes:
Seven-dimensional fixed-planes correspond to elements $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},f,f^{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, where $`f0`$ mod 1 and $`f^{}0`$ mod 1. In this case, the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\pi f\mathrm{\Gamma }_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_8)\mathrm{exp}(\pi f^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}).`$ (3.15)
We write $`Q_{(11)}`$ as a tensor product of a seven-dimensional fixed-plane spinor with an $`SO(4)`$ “normal” spinor according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(7)}Q_{(4)}`$. Similarly, we use the following representation for the Gamma matrices,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu \mathrm{𝟏};\mu =1,\mathrm{},6`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{6+i}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\gamma _i;i=1,\mathrm{},4,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\gamma _5,`$ (3.16)
where $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu ,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\}`$ are the seven dimensional Gamma matrices and $`\gamma _i`$ are four dimensional gamma matrices. In addition, we decompose the normal $`SO(4)`$ spinors using the decomposition $`SO(4)SO(2)\times SO(2)`$, where $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ is a convenient maximal subgroup of $`SO(4)`$. Thus, we write the “normal” spinor as $`Q_{(4)}=Q_{(2)}Q_{(2)}`$, and the four dimensional gamma matrices as $`\gamma _{1,2}=\sigma _{1,2}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\gamma _{3,4}=\sigma _3\sigma _{1,2}`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ are Pauli matrices. Also, using the identities $`\gamma _5=\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3\gamma _4`$ and $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=i\sigma _3`$, we derive $`\gamma _5=\sigma _3\sigma _3`$. This allows us to rewrite (3.16) as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,\mathrm{},6}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,\mathrm{},6}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{7,8}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\sigma _{1,2}\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{9,10}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\sigma _3\sigma _{1,2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\sigma _3\sigma _3.`$ (3.17)
Note that the normal spinor can be decomposed as $`Q_{(4)}=Q_{(4)R}+Q_{(4)L}`$ where $`Q_{(4)R,L}=\pm \gamma _5Q_{(4)R,L}`$. In terms of $`SO(2)\times SO(2)SO(4)`$, however, these same objects can be written as

$`Q_{(4)R}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{(2)R}Q_{(2)L}+Q_{(2)L}Q_{(2)R}`$
$`Q_{(4)L}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{(2)R}Q_{(2)R}+Q_{(2)L}Q_{(2)L},`$ (3.18)
where $`Q_{(2)R,L}=\pm \sigma _3Q_{(2)R,L}`$. Using these results we can decompose the eleven-dimensional supercharge in two steps. First, we write $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(7)}(Q_{(4)R}+Q_{(4)L})`$ and then we rewrite the terms $`Q_{(4)R,L}`$ using (3.18). We now define $`LLQ_{(2)L}Q_{(2)L}`$, and similar expressions for $`LR`$, $`RL`$, and $`RR`$. Using these definitions, and also the conventions introduced above, we can write

$`Q_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{(7)}\left(LL+LR+RL+RR\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi f\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}+i\pi f^{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _3).`$ (3.19)
The fixed-plane condition $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written as

$`Q_{(7)}LL`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f+f^{})}Q_{(7)}LL`$
$`Q_{(7)}LR`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (ff^{})}Q_{(7)}LR`$
$`Q_{(7)}RL`$ $`=`$ $`e^{+i\pi (ff^{})}Q_{(7)}RL`$
$`Q_{(7)}RR`$ $`=`$ $`e^{+i\pi (f+f^{})}Q_{(7)}RR.`$ (3.20)
Therefore, as we approach a fixed-seven-plane, the bulk supercharge is projected according to

$`Q_{(11)}\{\begin{array}{c}Q_{(7)}(LL+RR);f+f^{}2\\ Q_{(7)}(LR+RL);ff^{}2\end{array},`$ (3.23)
and is projected to zero if neither of these conditions are met. Thus we retain some supersymmetry on a fixed-seven-plane if and only if one of the two sums $`f\pm f^{}`$ is an even integer. This is the case only if $`f=\pm f^{}`$ mod 1. In such cases, the bulk supersymmetry is halved on the fixed-plane in question.

Six-dimensional fixed-planes
Six-dimensional fixed-planes correspond to elements $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(0,f,f^{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$, where $`f0`$ mod 1 and $`f^{}0`$ mod 1. In this case the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\pi f\mathrm{\Gamma }_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_8)\mathrm{exp}(\pi f^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}.`$ (3.24)
We write $`Q_{(11)}`$ as a tensor product of a six-dimensional fixed-plane spinor with an $`SO(5)`$ “normal” spinor according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(6)}Q_{(5)}`$, and we represent the Gamma matrices precisely as in (3.17). In addition, we decompose the $`SO(5,1)`$ spinors via $`Q_{(6)}=Q_{(6)R}+Q_{(6)L}`$, where $`=Q_{(6)R,L}=\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7Q_{(6)R,L}`$, and write the normal $`SO(5)`$ spinors as $`Q_{(5)}=Q_{(4)R}Q_{(4)L}`$, where $`Q_{(4)R,L}`$ are given by (3.18). Now, using the notation introduced above, we can write

$`Q_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Q_{(6)R}+Q_{(6)L}\right)\left(LL+LR+RL+RR\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi f\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}+i\pi f^{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _3)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7\sigma _3\sigma _3.`$ (3.25)
The fixed-plane condition $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written as

$`Q_{(6)R,L}LL`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f+f^{})}Q_{(7)}LL`$
$`Q_{(6)R,L}LR`$ $`=`$ $`\pm e^{i\pi (ff^{})}Q_{(7)}LR`$
$`Q_{(6)R,L}RL`$ $`=`$ $`\pm e^{+i\pi (ff^{})}Q_{(7)}RL`$
$`Q_{(6)R,L}RR`$ $`=`$ $`e^{+i\pi (f+f^{})}Q_{(7)}RR.`$ (3.26)
Therefore, as we approach a fixed-six-plane, the bulk supercharge is projected according to

$`Q_{(11)}\{\begin{array}{c}Q_{(6)L}(LL+RR);f+f^{}2\hfill \\ Q_{(6)R}(LR+RL);ff^{}2\hfill \\ Q_{(6)R}(LL+RR);f+f^{}2+1\hfill \\ Q_{(6)L}(LR+RL);ff^{}2+1.\hfill \end{array},`$ (3.31)
and is projected to zero if none of these conditions is met. Thus, we retain some supersymmetry on a fixed-six-plane if and only if one of the two sums $`f\pm f^{}`$ is integer (even or odd). In generic cases of this sort, the bulk supersymmetry is quartered on the fixed-plane in question 222A special case is when $`(f,f^{})=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2)`$, in which case supersymmetry is merely halved. In that special case the difference $`ff^{}=0`$ is an even integer, while the sum $`f+f^{}=1`$ is an odd integer; therefore, on the fixed-plane, $`Q_{(11)}`$ retains nonvanishing components of both the first and also the third case in (3.31).. Note that in the cases where the supersymmetry is quartered the element $`\alpha `$ necessarily has even order $`N`$. In those cases there is necessarily an order-two element in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, namely $`\alpha ^{N/2}`$, for which $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(0,0,0|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$. The fixed-plane associated with $`\alpha ^{N/2}`$ is ten-dimensional, while the six-plane associated with $`\alpha `$ is a submanifold of this ten-plane.

Five-dimensional fixed-planes
Five-dimensional fixed-planes correspond to elements $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(f_1,f_2,f_3|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, where $`f_{1,2,3}0`$ mod 1. In this case, the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}=\mathrm{exp}(\pi f_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\mathrm{\Gamma }_6)\mathrm{exp}(\pi f_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_8)\mathrm{exp}(\pi f_3\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10})`$ (3.32)
We write $`Q_{(11)}`$ as a tensor product of a five-dimensional fixed-plane spinor with a normal spinor according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(5)}Q_{(6)}`$. Similarly, we use the following representation for the Gamma matrices,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu \mathrm{𝟏};\mu =1,\mathrm{},4`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4+i}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i;i=1,\mathrm{},6,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7.`$ (3.33)
where $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _5\}`$ are five-dimensional gamma matrices and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i`$ are six-dimensional Gamma matrices. In addition, we decompose the normal $`SO(6)`$ spinors using the decomposition $`SO(6)SO(2)\times SO(2)\times SO(2)`$, where $`SO(2)\times SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ is a convenient maximal subgroup of $`SO(6)`$. Thus, we write the normal spinor as $`Q_{(6)}=Q_{(2)}Q_{(2)}Q_{(2)}`$, and the six-dimensional Gamma matrices as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,2}=\sigma _{1,2}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{3,4}=\sigma _3\sigma _{1,2}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{5,6}=\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _{1,2}`$, where $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$ are Pauli matrices. Now, using the relation $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7=i\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_6`$ we then derive $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7=\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _3`$. Using these expressions, it is possible to rewrite (3.33) as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,\mathrm{},4}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{1,\mathrm{},4}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5,6}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5\sigma _{1,2}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{7,8}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5\sigma _3\sigma _{1,2}\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{9,10}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _{1,2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _3.`$ (3.34)
We now define $`LLLQ_{(2)L}Q_{(2)L}Q_{(2)L}`$, and similar expressions for $`LLR`$, $`LRL`$, $`LRR`$, $`RRR`$, $`RRL`$, $`RLR`$ and $`RLL`$, where $`Q_{(2)R,L}=\pm \sigma _3Q_{(2)R,L}`$. In terms of these definitions and conventions, we can write

$`Q_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{(5)}(RRR+RLL+LRL+LLR`$
$`+LLL+LRR+RLR+RRL)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi f_1\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (3.35)
$`+i\pi f_2\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`+i\pi f_3\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _3).`$
The fixed-plane condition $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written as

$`Q_{(5)}LLL`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f_1+f_2+f_3)}LLLQ_{(5)}RRR=e^{+i\pi (f_1+f_2+f_3)}RRR`$
$`Q_{(5)}LLR`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f_1+f_2f_3)}LLRQ_{(5)}RRL=e^{+i\pi (f_1+f_2f_3)}RRL`$
$`Q_{(5)}LRL`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f_1f_2+f_3)}LRLQ_{(5)}RLR=e^{+i\pi (f_1f_2+f_3)}RLR`$
$`Q_{(5)}LRR`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f_1f_2f_3)}RLLQ_{(5)}RLL=e^{+i\pi (f_1f_2f_3)}LRR.`$
Therefore, as we approach a fixed-five-plane, the bulk supercharge is projected according to

$`Q_{(11)}\{\begin{array}{c}Q_{(5)}(RRR+LLL);f_1+f_2+f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(5)}(RLL+LRR);f_1f_2f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(5)}(LRL+RLR);f_1f_2+f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(5)}(LLR+RRL);f_1+f_2f_32\hfill \end{array},`$ (3.40)
and is projected to zero if none of these conditions are met. Thus, we retain some supersymmetry on a fixed-five-plane if and only if at least one of the four sums $`f_1\pm f_2\pm f_3`$ is an even integer. In generic cases of this sort, the bulk supersymmetry is quartered on the fixed-plane in question.

Four-dimensional fixed-planes
Four-dimensional fixed-planes correspond to elements $`(f_1,f_2,f_3|P)=(f_1,f_2,f_3|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$, where $`f_{1,2,3}0`$ mod 1. In this case the supercharge transforms as $`Q_{(11)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}=\mathrm{exp}(\pi f_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\mathrm{\Gamma }_6)\mathrm{exp}(\pi f_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_8)\mathrm{exp}(\pi f_3\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}.`$ (3.41)
We write $`Q_{(11)}`$ as a tensor product of a four-dimensional fixed-plane spinor with a normal spinor according to $`Q_{(11)}=Q_{(4)}Q_{(7)}`$, and we represent the Gamma matrices precisely as in (3.33). Furthermore, we decompose the four-dimensional spinors as $`Q_{(4)}=Q_{(4)R}+Q_{(4)L}`$ where $`Q_{(4)R,L}=\pm \gamma _5Q_{(4)R,L}`$. We also write the $`SO(7)`$ normal spinor as $`Q_{(7)}=Q_{(6)R}Q_{(6)L}`$. Finally, we can decompose the chiral six dimensional spinors $`Q_{(6)R,L}`$ into two dimensional chiral spinors as descried above. Using these conventions, we can write

$`Q_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`(Q_{(4)R}+Q_{(4)L})(RRR+RLL+LRL+LLR`$
$`+LLL+LRR+RLR+RRL)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi f_1\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (3.42)
$`+i\pi f_2\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`+i\pi f_3\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3)\gamma _5\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _3.`$
The fixed-plane condition $`Q_{(11)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(11)}Q_{(11)}`$ can now be written as

$`Q_{(4)R,L}LLL`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f_1+f_2+f_3)}LLLQ_{(4)R,L}RRR=\pm e^{+i\pi (f_1+f_2+f_3)}RRR`$
$`Q_{(4)R,L}LLR`$ $`=`$ $`\pm e^{i\pi (f_1+f_2f_3)}LLRQ_{(4)R,L}RRL=e^{+i\pi (f_1+f_2f_3)}RRL`$
$`Q_{(4)R,L}LRL`$ $`=`$ $`\pm e^{i\pi (f_1f_2+f_3)}LRLQ_{(4)R,L}RLR=e^{+i\pi (f_1f_2+f_3)}RLR`$
$`Q_{(4)R,L}LRR`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi (f_1f_2f_3)}RLLQ_{(4)R,L}RLL=\pm e^{+i\pi (f_1f_2f_3)}LRR`$
Therefore, as we approach a fixed-four-plane, the bulk supercharge is projected according to

$`Q_{(11)}\{\begin{array}{c}Q_{(4)L}LLL+Q_{(4)R}RRR;f_1+f_2+f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(4)R}LRL+Q_{(4)L}RLR;f_1f_2+f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(4)R}RRL+Q_{(4)L}LLR;f_1+f_2f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(4)L}RLL+Q_{(4)R}LRR;f_1f_2f_32\hfill \\ Q_{(4)R}LLL+Q_{(4)L}RRR;f_1+f_2+f_32+1\hfill \\ Q_{(4)L}LRL+Q_{(4)R}RLR;f_1f_2+f_32+1\hfill \\ Q_{(4)L}RRL+Q_{(4)R}LLR;f_1+f_2f_32+1\hfill \\ Q_{(4)R}RLL+Q_{(4)L}LRR;f_1f_2f_32+1\hfill \end{array},`$ (3.51)
and is projected to zero if none of these conditions are met. Thus, we retain some supersymmetry on a fixed-four-plane if and only if any one of the four sums $`f_1\pm f_2\pm f_3`$ is an integer (even or odd). In generic cases of this sort, supersymmetry is eighthed on the fixed-plane in question.

There are special cases, however. For instance, for each of the two cases where ( $`f_1`$ , $`f_2`$ , $`f_3`$ ) are given by ( $`1/2`$ , $`1/3`$ , $`1/6`$ ) and by ( $`1/2`$ , $`1/4`$ , $`1/4`$ ), one sum $`f_1f_2f_3=0`$ is an even integer, while another sum $`f_1+f_2+f_3=1`$ is an odd integer. Therefore, on the fixed-plane, $`Q_{(11)}`$ retains nonvanishing components of both the fourth and the also the fifth case in (3.51). Thus, supersymmetry is merely quartered to $`D=4,N=2`$, rather than eighthed to $`D=4,N=1`$, in these cases 333If the fixed-four-plane in question is a submanifold of the fixed-plane of another element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one needs to account for the action of this other element as well before drawing conclusions as to the amount of fixed-plane supersymmetry..

Note that the pairs of summands indicated in in (3.51) have correlations owing to the Majorana constraint on $`Q_{(11)}`$. As a result, the two apparent summands in each of these expressions actually describe the same degrees of freedom. In terms of the choices we have made, this gives rise to a Majorana spinor supercharge in four dimensions. The pairs which appear in (3.51) represent left- and right-handed chiral projections of this four-dimensional Majorana supercharge. As is well known, in four dimensions spinor fields which are Majorana may be equally well represented in terms of either chiral projection.

## 4 Generalization to Non-Abelian Orbifold Groups

One obvious extension of our criterion, still for orbifolds of tori of our class, is to consider all the automorphisms of the underlying lattices. In addition to the rotations and flips we have already considered, the only new type of “generating” automorphism to deal with is the permutations of the coordinates $`x^i`$. In fact, one can easily lift these permutation actions to spinors. Here are the details.

The lattices of our class are all of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=(A_1)^a(A_2)^b,$$
(4.1)
with $`a+2b=n`$, the dimension of the orbifold. Such a lattice has an automorphism group of order $`2^aa!b!12^b`$ , a product of four factors. Let’s check where these two pairs of factors come from.

The first pair, $`2^aa!`$ , keeps track of the sign flips on each of $`a`$ possible $`x^i`$ (the $`2^a`$), and permutations of the same $`a`$ $`x^i`$’s (the $`a!`$). We have already described a way to lift the flips to spinors, via $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, so we only need to lift the permutations. The second pair, $`b!12^b`$, keeps track of the permutations of the $`b`$ different copies of $`A_2`$, i.e., of corresponding ordered pairs $`(x^i,x^{i+1})`$ (giving the $`b!`$), and automorphisms internal to each of the $`b`$ $`A_2`$’s (giving the $`12^b`$, as the automorphism group of the $`A_2`$ lattice is the dihedral group $`D_6`$ of order $`12`$). Consider a single $`A_2`$ lattice in the “$`(x,y)`$-plane”. The dihedral automorphism group $`D_6`$ consists entirely of the identity, rotations by $`r^k:=2\pi k/6`$, $`k=1,2,3,4,5`$, and flips ($`s,sr,sr^2,sr^3,sr^4,sr^5`$) across lines through opposite vertices or opposite edge centers of the period hexagon (we can assume that $`s`$ is the flip across the $`x`$-axis sending $`yy`$). In particular, $`D_6`$ is generated by a rotation $`r`$ and a flip $`s`$, for each of which we have already described a lift to spinors. What remains is again to describe the effect of the permutation automorphisms on spinors.

Since every permutation of the $`x^i`$ can be expressed as a product of simple transpositions $`x^ix^j`$, $`ij`$, it suffices to write out the lift of such a transposition. Imagine the $`(x^i,x^j)`$-plane. Rotation counterclockwise by $`\pi /2`$ radians sends $`x^ix^j`$ and $`x^jx^i`$. This is represented in the Clifford algebra by

$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij})=\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4)+\mathrm{sin}(\pi /4)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\right).`$ (4.2)
Now compose this with the flip sending $`x^ix^i`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, yielding

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_j).`$ (4.3)
We can build any permutation we like out of a product of these, and in particular all of the remaining automorphisms come from mixing these with the rotations and flips as above. By adding such permutations, we can obtain a complete supersymmetric restriction criterion for all orbifolds modelled on lattices of type (4.1). In particular, this allows one to check the supersymmetry constraints for a large class of nonabelian orbifold groups. The generalized supersymmetric restriction theorem, including the extension to non-abelian orbifold groups, will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

## 5 Soft Orbifolds and $`G_2`$-structures

Consider the supersymmetric orbifold of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(_2)^3`$ labelled $`(1111111)`$ in Table 1. The corresponding representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`^7`$ is given by the direct sum of the seven nontrivial characters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[i,j,k]}`$, each with multiplicity one. The character table for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ is given in Table 7, and, by following the prescription given in Section 2.3, we see that the action of these generators on the coordinate $`7`$-tuple $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ is given by

$`\alpha `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7)`$ (5.1)
$`\beta `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7)`$ (5.2)
$`\gamma `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7).`$ (5.3)
Note that this $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action preserves the $`G_2`$-invariant differential $`3`$-form $`\phi _0`$ on $`^7`$,

$$\phi _0:=dx_{123}+dx_{145}+dx_{167}+dx_{246}dx_{257}dx_{347}dx_{356},$$

where $`dx_{ijk}:=dx_idx_jdx_k`$. Such an action defines a $`G_2`$-structure on the orbifold $`T^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Our supersymmetric hard orbifold $`(1111111)`$ is one of a family of orbifolds considered by Joyce444In fact, in the notation of \[15, Equations (23)-(25)\], ours corresponds to $`b_1=b_2=c_1=c_3=c_5=0`$. We will refer to notation and examples from his book  instead.. It was his goal to construct compact manifolds with holonomy group $`G_2`$. To this end he developed in  a machinery which, starting with a sufficiently simple orbifold admitting a $`G_2`$-structure, establishes the existence of such a metric on a “resolution” of the orbifold. Joyce’s method depends on the existence of certain R-data (“R” for Resolution) which, for a given orbifold with $`G_2`$-structure, may yield a large number of topologically distinct $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds as resolutions.

In \[7, Sections 12.2, 3, & 5\] three paricular softenings are considered. The actions of the generators of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ take the form

$`\alpha `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7)`$ (5.4)
$`\beta `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,bx_6,x_7)`$ (5.5)
$`\gamma `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,cx_5,x_6,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_7),`$ (5.6)
with $`b,c\{0,\frac{1}{2}\}`$. In fact, Joyce considers the three cases

$$(b,c)=(0,\frac{1}{2}),(\frac{1}{2},0),\text{and}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),$$

and shows that each of these admits a set of R-data defining a $`G_2`$ holonomy resolution. In each case the generators $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ act with fixed-points as before, but some other elements, like

$`\beta \gamma `$ $`:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,cx_5,b+x_6,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+x_7),`$ (5.7)
act freely. Thus softening an orbifold has the effect of simplifying the singularities. The singularities of the orbifold $`(1111111)`$ are too complicated to visibly admit a compatible set of R-data, hence his interest in various softenings with simpler singularities. Furthermore, at least for these simplest examples, the set of fixed-plane dimensions associated to a hard orbifold contains as subsets those of all of its softenings. For this reason, one expects that much of the supersymmetric restriction analysis of Section 3 can be usefully adapted to the case of soft orbifolds.

It is clear that having a $`G_2`$-structure on a hard orbifold implies such a structure on all of its softenings. This raises the intriguing question of the relationship between our supersymmetry condition and such $`G_2`$-structures: Do all supersymmetric hard orbifolds (and hence all of their softenings) carry a $`G_2`$-structure? What about the converse: Do all orbifolds with a $`G_2`$-structure arise via softening from supersymmetric hard orbifolds? What about the more subtle issue of resolvability as a $`G_2`$-manifold (i.e., existence of compatible R-data)? These are all questions to be addressed in future work.

## 6 Conclusions

We have described a systematic method for classifying supersymmetric orbifold compactifications of M-theory, specifically hard orbifolds defined by pseudo-planar representations of abelian groups of order $`12`$. Although we stopped our “periodic table” (Table 1) at order $`12`$, the methods developed here apply to groups of arbitrary order, and the algorithmics are such that such an extension (using Mathematica) is computationally feasible.

It is physically relevant that we demand orbifold actions be compatible with particular lattices. By doing this we are able to keep control over two separate problems. On the one hand we are studying aspects of supersymmetric singularities. At the same time, however, we are learning something about which sets of such singularities, and their neighborhoods, can be assembled together to create a global supersymmetric compactification space. Elucidating the relationship between our own supersymmetric configurations of singularities and those of intersecting branes as studied by other groups  seems an important direction for further investigation.

Furthermore, we touch upon the interesting mathematical problem of classifying $`G_2`$ manifolds. The vast majority of known compact $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds arise by Joyce’s resolution of singularities from orbifolds of $`T^7`$. Physically one expects that seven dimensional supersymmetric compactification spaces of the sort we are studying should admit such $`G_2`$ resolutions. In order to compare in general Joyce’s “resolution data” to the constraints arising from our global supersymmetric restriction, it seems necessary to formulate the restriction for the soft orbifolds of the introduction, as all of Joyce’s examples are of this sort.

## Appendix A The $`C`$-Matrices for Selected Groups

By applying the simple algorithm described in section 2.2, we are able to derive the $`C`$-matrix for any pseudo-planar group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=G_1\times \mathrm{}\times G_n`$, where $`G_i\{_2,_3,_4\}`$ for $`1in`$. In Tables 7 and 8 we exhibit these for all cases for which $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|12`$.

$`C(_2)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`C(_3)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`C(_4)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2\\ & \\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (A.3)
$`C(_2\times _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 2& 2\\ 2& 0& 2\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (A.7)
$`C(_2\times _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3& 0& 3\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}\\ 0& 2& 2\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}\\ 3& 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (A.11)
$`C(_2\times _4)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 4& 4\\ 0& 4& 4& 0& 4\\ 0& 4& 4& 4& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & \\ 4& 0& 4& 2& 2\\ 4& 4& 0& 2& 2\end{array}\right)`$ (A.17)
$`C(_2\times _2\times _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}4& 0& 4& 0& 4& 0& 4\\ 0& 4& 4& 0& 0& 4& 4\\ 4& 4& 0& 0& 4& 4& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 4& 4& 4& 4\\ 4& 0& 4& 4& 0& 4& 0\\ 0& 4& 4& 4& 4& 0& 0\\ 4& 4& 0& 4& 0& 0& 4\end{array}\right)`$ (A.25)
Table 7: The $`C`$-matrices for pseudoplanar abelian groups of order $`8`$.

$`C(_3\times _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 3& 3& 3\\ 3& 0& 3& 3\\ 3& 3& 3& 0\\ 3& 3& 0& 3\end{array}\right)`$ (A.30)
$`C(_2\times _2\times _3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& 6& 6& 0& 0& 6& 6\\ 6& 0& 6& 0& 6& 0& 6\\ 6& 6& 0& 0& 6& 6& 0\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 4& 4& 4& 4\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & & \\ 0& 6& 6& 4& 4& 2& 2\\ 6& 0& 6& 4& 2& 4& 2\\ 6& 6& 0& 4& 2& 2& 4\end{array}\right)`$ (A.38)
$`C(_3\times _4)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 6& 0& 6& 6\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ 0& 4& 0& 4& 4& 4\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ 6& 0& 3& 6& 3& 3\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ 0& 4& 6& 4& 2& 2\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ 6& 4& 3& 2& 5& 1\\ 6& 4& 3& 2& 1& 5\end{array}\right)`$ (A.45)
Table 8: The $`C`$-matrices for pseudoplanar abelian groups of orders $`9`$ and $`12`$.

Acknowledgements
C.F.D. would like to thank P. Candelas, N. Hitchin, and X. de la Ossa of the Mathematics Institute, Oxford for interesting and encouraging discussions. M.F. is grateful to Mária and Emil Martinka, for hospitality, encouragement and halušky at the Slovak Institute for Basic Research, Podvazie Slovakia, where some of this manuscript was prepared.


format: text

text:
# Measurement of the inclusive semileptonic branching fraction of B mesons and |𝑉_{𝑐𝑏}|

## I  Introduction

The inclusive semileptonic branching fraction of B decay has long been an interesting puzzle in heavy flavor physics. Bigi et al.  first pointed out that theoretical calculations including QCD corrections disagreed with experimental results. While most measurements have consistently been smaller than 11% , theoretical expectations have been higher than 12%. Some theoretical analyses have been better able to accommodate a low semileptonic branching fraction by including final state mass effects in the next-to-leading order QCD corrections . This does not necessarily solve the puzzle, however, because the semileptonic branching fraction is correlated with the rate for $`(bc\overline{c}s)`$, which depends on both the quark-mass ratio ($`m_c/m_b`$) and the renormalization scale ($`\mu /m_b`$), where $`\mu `$ is used to renormalize the coupling constant ($`\alpha _s(\mu )`$) and Wilson coefficients ($`c_\pm (\mu )`$) appearing in the non-leptonic decay rate. Current measurements of the charm multiplicity in $`B`$ decay ($`n_c`$) cannot easily accommodate the semileptonic branching fraction measured at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance, although measurements at higher energies  are somewhat more compatible. Further studies at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) are needed to achieve a better understanding of $`B`$ decay and theoretical models. In addition, the semileptonic branching fraction may be combined with the decay lifetime to obtain the partial width, which is used to extract the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $`|V_{cb}|`$  and to probe theoretical models of B decay.

For this measurement, it is essential to distinguish between primary decay leptons from $`BX\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ and secondary decay leptons produced mainly through charm decay ($`B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Y\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$). We have used a dilepton method introduced by ARGUS  to minimize model dependence in this measurement. This approach requires a high momentum lepton, an electron or a muon, to identify a $`B\overline{B}`$ event and to tag the flavor of one of them. We then study the spectra of additional leptons in the event, extended to low momenta, selected so that they come mainly from decays of the other $`B`$, and separated by charge relative to the tagging lepton to distinguish primaries and secondaries effectively. This spectrum study is performed using electrons only, as their experimental identification extends to much lower momenta than that of muons. The numbers of electrons in our sample are determined by fitting the distributions of the ratio of cluster energy to track momentum ($`E/p`$) in each kinematic bin. The branching fraction is then obtained by normalizing to the total number of tag leptons, rather than the luminosity or the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ events.

In this paper, we report on the branching fraction of inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay $`(BXe^+\nu )`$ and the CKM matrix element $`|V_{cb}|`$. Charge conjugation is implicitly included. The data sample used in this analysis was collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector  at the KEKB asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ (3.5 on 8 GeV) collider . This analysis is based on an integrated luminosity of 5.1 fb-1 at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, and 0.6 fb-1 continuum data at a center-of-mass energy of 60 MeV below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. A GEANT  based Monte Carlo simulation was used to model the detector response.

## II  The Belle detector

The Belle detector is configured around a 1.5 T superconducting solenoid and iron structure surrounding the KEKB interaction region. It covers 92% of the total solid angle in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center-of-mass (CM) system. Charged-particle tracking is provided by three layers of double-sided silicon vertex detectors (SVD) and a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC). Eighteen of the wire layers provide a small stereo angle to measure the coordinates of the particle trajectories in the direction of the beam ($`z`$). The transverse momentum resolution for charged tracks is $`(\sigma _{p_t}/p_t)^2=(0.0019p_t)^2+(0.0030)^2`$, where $`p_t`$ is in GeV/$`c`$.

Charged hadron identification is provided by $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC, an aerogel Čerenkov counter (ACC), and a time-of-flight scintillation counter (TOF). The $`dE/dx`$ measurements have a resolution for lepton tracks of 6% and are useful for separating electrons from hadrons over nearly the full momentum range. The ACC and the TOF are used to reject charged $`K`$ and proton tracks.

The electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL) contains 8736 CsI(Tl) crystals located behind the hadron identification detectors, inside the solenoid. Its thickness is 16.2 radiation lengths over the entire tracking acceptance. The photon energy resolution is $`(\sigma _E/E)^2=(0.013)^2+(0.0007/E)^2+(0.008/E^{1/4})^2`$, where $`E`$ is in GeV.

The $`\mu /K_L`$ detector (KLM) located outside the coil consists of 15 sensitive layers and 14 iron layers in the octagonal barrel region. The iron plates and associated materials provide a total of 4.7 nuclear interaction lengths at normal incidence.

## III  Dilepton Selection

Hadronic events were selected based on charged track information from the CDC and cluster information from the ECL after transformation to the CM system. We required at least three charged tracks, an energy sum in the calorimeter between 10% and 80% of $`\sqrt{s}`$, a total energy sum of greater than 20% of $`\sqrt{s}`$, and a total momentum balanced in the $`z`$ direction within 2.1 GeV/$`c`$. This removed the majority of two-photon, radiative Bhabha, and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events where both $`\tau `$’s decay to leptons. Remaining radiative Bhabha events were removed by requiring at least two large angle clusters in the ECL and that the average cluster energy be below 1 GeV. In order to remove higher multiplicity $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events, we calculated the invariant mass of the particles found in each hemisphere perpendicular to the event thrust axis and removed the event if it fell below the $`\tau `$ mass. Beam-gas and beam-wall backgrounds were removed by reconstructing the primary vertex of the event and requiring it to be consistent with the known location of the interaction point(IP). To suppress continuum, we required that the ratio $`R_2`$ of second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments  be less than 0.6.

Events containing a high-momentum “tagging lepton” to tag the B flavor and a “spectrum electron” for the spectrum study were selected from the hadronic event sample. To select tagging electrons, we used $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC, the response of the ACC, matching between the ECL cluster and associated CDC track, the shower shape of the ECL cluster, and $`E/p`$, the ratio of the ECL energy to the momentum of the associated CDC track. Each set of measurements was translated into an electron probability. These probabilities were then combined into a single likelihood discriminant, $`L_e`$. For the selection of tagging muons, we defined an equivalent likelihood discriminant $`L_\mu `$ from information on the location and penetration depth of the associated track in the KLM. In addition to the requirements $`L_e>0.8`$ and $`L_\mu >0.95`$, the tagging lepton tracks were required to satisfy 1.4 GeV/$`c<p<`$2.2 GeV/$`c`$, $`45^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<125^{}`$, $`|dr_{IP}|<`$ 0.2 cm, and $`|dz_{IP}|<`$ 10 cm, where $`p`$ is the CM momentum, $`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ is the polar angle of the track in the laboratory frame, and $`dz_{IP}`$ and $`dr_{IP}`$ are the distances of closest approach to the IP in the direction of the beam and in the plane perpendicular to it, respectively. For tagging electrons that satisfy the above selection criteria, the detection efficiency, determined by embedding single simulated tracks in multi-hadron data, is 92%, and the misidentification probability for hadrons, determined from $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, is less than 0.4%. For tagging muons, the efficiency and misidentification probability, determined in a similar way, are 86% and 1.2%, respectively.

To select electron candidates for the spectrum measurement, we required that tracks satisfy $`p_{\mathrm{lab}}>0.5`$ GeV/$`c`$, $`46^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<125^{}`$ , $`|dr_{IP}|<0.3`$ cm and $`|dz_{IP}|<4.0`$ cm ($`p_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ is the momentum in the laboratory frame). We used $`dE/dx`$, TOF, and ACC information to reject tracks that are strongly identified as being other than electrons by a likelihood criterion of $`L_{none}<0.95`$. The efficiency of this cut for retaining electrons was 98.6%. We did not use ECL cluster information because that was used at a later stage to extract electron yields by fitting the $`E/p`$ distribution.

Further requirements were made to reduce backgrounds from several known sources. Events were rejected if any track satisfying the lepton identification requirement of $`L_e>0.8`$ or $`L_\mu >0.95`$ could be paired with any other oppositely charged track to obtain an invariant mass within 50 MeV/$`c^2`$ of the $`J/\psi `$ mass. To remove electrons originating from $`\gamma `$ conversions, we rejected all pairs of oppositely-charged tracks where at least one track satisfied $`L_e>0.8`$ and the $`e^+e^{}`$ invariant mass was less than 0.10 GeV/$`c^2`$. To remove electrons from $`\pi ^0`$ Dalitz decays, oppositely charged track pairs with $`e^+e^{}`$ invariant mass less than 0.10 GeV/$`c^2`$ were combined with photon candidates and rejected if the $`e^+e^{}\gamma `$ invariant mass of any combination was consistent with the $`\pi ^0`$ mass.

To reduce dileptons in continuum events, which tend to be back-to-back, and “ghost” tracks (one track mis-reconstructed as two nearly collinear tracks), we required $`0.8<\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e<0.998`$ for both opposite-sign and same-sign dileptons, where $`\theta _\mathrm{}e`$ is the opening angle between the tagging lepton and the spectrum electron in the CM frame.

To reject same-$`B`$ backgrounds, where both leptons originate from just one $`B`$ meson, we look at angular, kinematic, and charge correlations. The spectrum electron and the tagging lepton, if correctly selected, have opposite charges unless one of the parent $`B`$ mesons has mixed. If a secondary electron is selected as the spectrum electron, the charge combination is opposite to the above case. If a secondary electron from the same $`B`$ as the tagging lepton is selected as the spectrum electron, it has a charge opposite to that of the tagging lepton. Opposite-sign dileptons were required to satisfy either $`p_e+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e>1.2`$ ($`p_e`$ in GeV/$`c`$) or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e>0.3`$. This criterion reduced the fraction of the same-$`B`$ background in the spectrum electron candidates to 2% while retaining 61% of the signal.

## IV  Signal yield and Background subtraction

To extract the number of dilepton events from the lepton-tagged events, a maximum likelihood fit was performed on the $`E/p`$ distributions of the spectrum electron candidates in each momentum ($`p`$) and polar angle ($`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$) bin as shown in Fig. 1, where the momentum range is divided into 46 bins of width 0.05 GeV/$`c`$ (0.5–2.8 GeV/$`c`$), the polar angle region is divided into 4 bins (46–60, 60–78, 78–97 and 97–125), and same- and opposite-sign dileptons are treated separately. The signal probability density function (PDF) was obtained using $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ from photon conversions and from the two-photon process. The background PDF was taken from the sample of tracks rejected by the electron identification requirements for the spectrum study. By determining both signal and background PDF’s in the same bins of momentum and angle as the dilepton sample, we removed any systematic effects due to differences in momentum and angular distribution between the samples used to obtain the PDF’s and our dilepton sample.

The raw momentum spectra in the CM frame for both opposite-sign and same-sign electrons with the above selections applied are shown in Fig. 2. The total yields were $`19722\pm 147`$ opposite-sign (OS) and $`11224\pm 117`$ same-sign (SS) dileptons in the data taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, and $`791\pm 105`$ OS and $`448\pm 87`$ SS below resonance (after scaling). The raw yields are shown in Table I. The continuum contribution was subtracted by scaling the dilepton yields in the off-resonance data. The scaling factor is the ratio of the on- and off-resonance integrated luminosity, after correcting for the energy dependence of the continuum cross section.

These uncorrected spectra contain several backgrounds that are accounted for and subtracted. Leptons from $`J/\psi `$ decay and electrons from $`\gamma `$ conversion and $`\pi ^0`$ Dalitz decays can survive when one of the pair has escaped detection. These backgrounds are determined by Monte Carlo simulation, and the uncertainties were evaluated from the error on each rate. Contributions from previously unaccounted sources of secondary leptons from $`B`$ decay were modeled via Monte Carlo, assuming current values of branching fractions: $`BX\tau ^+\nu ,\tau ^+e^+Y`$ ($`(BX\tau ^+\nu )=(2.6\pm 0.4)\%`$ ), $`BD_sX,D_se^{}Y`$ ($`(BD_sX)(D_se^{}Y)=(0.8\pm 0.3)\%`$), $`B\mathrm{\Lambda }_cX,\mathrm{\Lambda }_ce^+Y`$ ($`(B\mathrm{\Lambda }_cX)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_ce^+Y)=(0.29\pm 0.12)\%`$), $`BDX_{\overline{c}},DYe^+\nu `$ via $`\overline{b}\overline{c}c\overline{s}`$ ($`(BDX_{\overline{c}})`$ = (7.9 $`\pm `$ 2.2)% ). False tag leptons arise mainly from secondary leptons and fake muons, whose contamination was estimated to be $`(2.2\pm 0.4)\%`$ and $`(1.5\pm 0.8)\%`$, respectively. All backgrounds in the dilepton events were scaled by normalizing to the number of lepton-tagged events. The background yields and their errors are summarized in Table I. The spectra of the total $`B\overline{B}`$ backgrounds are included in Fig. 2.

## V  Measurement of Branching fraction

The opposite- and same-sign electron spectra after background corrections can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_+}{dp}}=ϵ_{k1}(p)\eta (p)N_{\mathrm{tag}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d(BXe^+\nu )}{dp}}(1\chi )+{\displaystyle \frac{d(B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Ye^{}\overline{\nu })}{dp}}\chi \right],`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\pm \pm }}{dp}}=ϵ_{k2}(p)\eta (p)N_{\mathrm{tag}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d(BXe^+\nu )}{dp}}\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{d(B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Ye^{}\overline{\nu })}{dp}}(1\chi )\right],`$ (2)
where $`N_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ is the number of tag leptons, $`\eta (p)`$ is the electron identification efficiency as a function of the momentum, which also includes the momentum smearing effect from bremsstrahlung, and $`ϵ_k(p)`$ is the efficiency of our kinematic selection, determined from a Monte Carlo simulation. $`\chi `$ is an effective mixing parameter for all $`B`$ mesons coming from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay, $`\chi \chi _0f_{00}`$, where $`\chi _0`$ is the fraction of neutral $`B`$ events decaying as mixed ($`B^0B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0\overline{B}^0`$) and $`f_{00}`$ ($`f_+`$) is the branching fraction for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay into $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$($`B^+B^{}`$). We used $`\chi =0.0853\pm 0.0055`$, calculated using $`\chi _0=0.174\pm 0.009`$, $`f_+/f_{00}=1.04\pm 0.08`$ , and $`f_++f_{00}=1.0`$. The two spectra, $`d(BXe^+\nu )/dp`$ and $`d(B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Ye^{}\overline{\nu })/dp`$, can be obtained from the measured $`dN_+/dp`$ and $`dN_{\pm \pm }/dp`$ spectra by solving equations (1) and (2) simultaneously.

The number of tags was determined by counting leptons above 1.4 GeV/$`c`$, subtracting backgrounds, and correcting for the relative efficiency for selecting dilepton events compared to single-lepton events \[(94.8$`\pm `$0.5)%\]. As a consequence, we found the number of tags to be $`N_{\mathrm{tag}}=528975\pm 1412(\mathrm{stat})`$. The difference in the relative efficiency between opposite-sign and same-sign dilepton events was also corrected for in each electron spectrum.

By solving the equations, we obtained the momentum spectra for both the primary and secondary electrons, as shown in Fig. 3. The primary electron spectrum was integrated from 0.6 to 2.8 GeV/$`c`$ to extract the partial branching fraction for semileptonic $`B`$ decay,

$$(BXe^+\nu |p>0.6\mathrm{GeV}/c)=(10.24\pm 0.11(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.46(\mathrm{syst}))\%.$$
(3)
The relative size of the undetected region of the electron spectrum was studied using the ACCMM  and ISGW2  models and a semi-empirical shape  for $`bc`$ decay, with options to include semileptonic decay with baryons , and charmless semileptonic $`B`$ decays. As part of our evaluation, we fitted the measured primary spectrum to the prediction of each model. Results of the fitting are shown in Table II. For all models, the fits were improved when the proportion of decays $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ was allowed to float to higher values than were nominally set in the model. We obtained the best $`\chi ^2`$ fit using a semi-empirical shape, with $`(BX_ue\nu )`$ fixed to 0.167%, and the following quantities allowed to vary (fitted values with statistical error are shown): $`(BD^{()}e\nu )=7.31\pm 0.28`$%, $`(BD^{}e\nu )=2.51\pm 1.00`$%, $`(BD^{()}\pi e\nu )=0.78\pm 0.96`$% and $`(B\mathrm{baryons}e\nu )=0.03\pm 0.31`$%. We extrapolated the branching fraction below 0.6 GeV/c using the electron momentum spectrum of this “best-fit” model. We found that the extrapolated area was $`(6.1\pm 0.7)\%`$ of the total decay width, where the error was taken from the largest difference between the best-fit model and the other models (excepting ACCMM, which gave a poor fit). We obtained:

$$(BXe^+\nu )=(10.90\pm 0.12(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.49(\mathrm{syst}))\%.$$
(4)
This result is consistent with other measurements .

To determine the CKM matrix element $`|V_{cb}|`$ we first subtracted the contribution from charmless decay ($`(BX_u\mathrm{}\nu )`$=(0.167$`\pm `$0.055)%) and assumed $`(BXe^+\nu )=(BX\mathrm{}\nu )`$. Using a formula based on the heavy quark expansion , with $`\mu _\pi ^2=(0.5\pm 0.2)\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`m_b=4.58\pm 0.05\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and the world-average value for $`B`$ lifetime, $`\tau _B`$ = 1.607$`\pm `$0.021 ps (average of $`B^0`$ and $`B^+`$, our evaluation is

$$|V_{cb}|=0.0408\pm 0.0010(\mathrm{exp})\pm 0.0025(\mathrm{th}),$$
(5)
where the first error includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and the second error arises from theoretical uncertainties.

The branching fraction for secondary decay, $`(B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Ye^{}\overline{\nu })`$, was extracted by fitting the secondary electron spectrum to the ACCMM and ISGW2 model predictions. We found

$`(B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Ye^{}\overline{\nu })=(7.06\pm 0.14(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.48(\mathrm{syst}))\%(ACCMM)`$ (6)
$`=(7.84\pm 0.13(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.48(\mathrm{syst}))\%(ISGW2)`$ (7)
The obtained branching fraction of the secondary charm semileptonic decay is consistent with results from other experiments .

## VI  Systematic errors

The systematic uncertainties on $`(BXe^+\nu )`$ and $`(B\overline{D}X,\overline{D}Ye^{}\overline{\nu })`$ are summarized in Table III. The main contributions are the uncertainties in the tracking and identification efficiencies for the electrons used in the spectrum study. The tracking efficiency was estimated by embedding electron tracks into hadronic event data and repeating the tracking procedures to evaluate the efficiency of the embedded electron. The embedded electrons were obtained from single electron Monte Carlo as well as from electrons in two-photon data. The tracking efficiency was also estimated by embedding into simulated $`B\overline{B}`$ events, and the absolute difference in values from the two methods was taken as the uncertainty.

The electron identification included two steps: hadron-muon rejection and $`E/p`$ fitting. The inefficiency in the first step (1.4%) was found from a study using photon conversion electrons embedded into hadronic events in data. The systematic uncertainty of 0.8% on this effect was estimated by taking the difference between results obtained from embedding in data and MC. Uncertainties in $`E/p`$ fitting can come from impurities in the data samples used to obtain the signal and background shapes as well as differences in the event environment between those data samples and dileptons. The signal shapes were obtained from photon conversion electrons in the hadronic sample and two photon data, while the background shapes were obtained from tracks failing the hadron-muon rejection. Impurities in these samples were estimated via Monte Carlo, and systematic uncertainties of 0.9% and 0.8% were assigned for fitting of electron and hadron shapes, respectively. The uncertainty due to differences in event environment was also estimated using MC and found to be 1.3%. The quadratic sum of the contributions gives a net uncertainty on electron identification of 2.0%.

The uncertainty in the kinematic selection efficiency was estimated by changing the event selection criteria for signal events. Instead of requiring either $`p_e+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e>1.2`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e>0.3`$, we required either $`p_e+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e>1.0`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}e>0`$. We also varied the polar angle region for tag leptons and considered the ranges; $`45^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<65^{}`$, $`65^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<90^{}`$ and $`90^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<125^{}`$. The maximum deviation of the results was assigned to a systematic error.

The systematic uncertainty in the continuum subtraction was attributed to the uncertainty on the normalization between on-resonance and off-resonance. The uncertainty was estimated from the error on the integrated luminosity. This effect is larger for the lepton tag events than the dilepton events since the fraction of continuum background for tag events is much higher than for dilepton events.

There were two contributions to the uncertainty on the background subtraction in the dilepton events. The first is the uncertainties on the branching fractions of the various sources, which are given in Section IV. The second is the uncertainty on the scale factor used to normalize background yields obtained from Monte Carlo simulation. The dominant contributor to this effect is the uncertainty in the number of tag leptons, which was used to determine scaling factors.

The main sources for the uncertainty on the relative efficiency are the invariant mass cuts to reject electrons from $`J/\psi `$ and gamma conversions. This uncertainty was estimated by taking the difference of the final yields with and without the cuts.

## VII  Conclusion

In conclusion, we have measured the branching fraction for inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay using a high-momentum lepton tag. The result is

$$(BXe^+\nu )=(10.90\pm 0.12\pm 0.49)\%,$$
(8)
where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. This result agrees with other measurements. From this result and the world average $`B`$ meson lifetime , we have extracted the CKM parameter $`|V_{cb}|`$ as follows:

$$|V_{cb}|=0.0408\pm 0.0010(\mathrm{exp})\pm 0.0025(\mathrm{th}).$$
(9)
###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation and the Center for High Energy Physics sponsored by the KOSEF and the Yonsei University Faculty Research Support program; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.