text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Asymptotically locally conical (ALC) metrics of $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy  are expected to play an important role in $`M`$ theory compactification with minimal supersymmetry. The ALC metric has a circle bundle structure and the radius of the $`S^1`$ fiber stabilizes asymptotically. Hence ALC metrics with exceptional holonomy may be regarded as higher dimensional generalizations of ALF metrics in four dimensions, typical examples of which are the Taub-NUT metric and the Atiyah-Hitchin metric. In $`M`$ theory compactification the asymptotic circle of ALC metric is identified with $`M`$ theory circle whose radius is related to the string coupling of type IIA reduction. In general ALC metric has a modulus of asymptotic radius of the $`S^1`$ fiber other than the modulus of overall scaling of Ricci-flat metric. By deforming the radius of the asymptotic circle with the overall scale parameter being fixed, we can interpolate the strong coupling $`M`$ theory limit and the weak coupling region of perturbative IIA string theory. Namely when the radius goes to infinity, an asymptotic conical (AC) metric arises as a limit of ALC metric and it describes a purely gravitational background of $`M`$ theory. The limit of the other side is what is called the Gromov-Hausdorff limit and the limiting metric is a direct product of a Ricci-flat metric of lower dimensions and the Euclidean metric. Such a picture gives a beautiful $`M`$ theory unification  of the resolved conifold and the deformed conifold of IIA background that has been employed to uncover the strong coupling dynamics of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory in four dimensions . (See also  for an early attempt.) The AC metric in the strong coupling limit is a resolution of the cone metric over $`SU(2)^3/SU(2)`$ that possesses a triality symmetry . Each of three metrics permutated by the triality has a different Gromov-Haussdorff limit whose Calabi-Yau part is identified as either the deformed conifold or one of the two resolved conifold metrics. They are different resolutions of the cone metric over $`SU(2)^2/U(1)`$ related by flop operation.

In this article we will investigate the deformation of ALC metrics of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy with a view to $`M`$ theory compactification described above. It is known that the metric of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy is characterized by a closed four form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}e^ae^be^ce^d,$$
(1.1)
where $`\{e^a\}`$ is a vielbein (an orthonormal frame) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{abcd}`$ is related to the structure constants of octonions . We will take a convention that the canonical four form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is anti-self-dual. Then the formal dimensions of the moduli space of metric of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy is $`1+b_4^+`$, where $`b_4^+`$ is the Betti number of self-dual four form . Note that the overall scaling of Ricci-flat metric always gives one dimensional modulus. The appearance of $`b_4^+`$ is understood as follows; In eight dimensions the representation of the traceless part of metric tensor is $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_V`$ of $`SO(8)`$. When we have a metric of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy, there is a covariantly constant spinor in $`\mathrm{𝟖}_C`$ of $`SO(8)`$ and we have a global identification of the vector representation and the spinor representation $`\mathrm{𝟖}_V\mathrm{𝟖}_S`$. This implies a further identification of $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_V`$ with the representation $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_S`$ of the self-dual four form. On the other hand the representation $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_C`$ of the anti-self-dual four form is reducible and decomposed as $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $``$ 7 $``$ 27, because the conjugate spinor bundle is reducible ($`\mathrm{𝟖}_C=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟕}`$) on the manifold of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy. The seven dimensional invariant subspace in $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_C`$ is specified by the canonical anti-self-dual four form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by (1.1). When a self-dual four form in $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_S`$ is closed and hence harmonic, the corresponding infinitesimal deformation of the traceless part of metric in $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_V`$ does not break the Ricci-flatness. Therefore, we can define infinitesimal deformations of the traceless part of $`Spin(7)`$ metric from harmonic self-dual four forms. Precisely speaking this argument is valid for compact manifolds. In this paper we consider $`Spin(7)`$ metrics of cohomogeneity one and they are metrics on non-compact manifolds. Our claim of the correspondence of harmonic self-dual four forms and deformations of $`Spin(7)`$ metric remains formal. It is likely that we need some conditions on the asymptotic behavior of harmonic four forms, like $`L^2`$-normalizability. Quite recently a general theory of $`L^2`$-harmonic forms on (non-compact) gravitational instantons is developed in . It is an interesting problem to explore the relation of $`L^2`$-normalizable harmonic forms and deformations of non-compact Ricci-flat metrics from mathematically more general view points.

This paper is organized as follows; throughout the paper we consider ALC metrics of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy that are of cohomogeneity one with the principal orbit $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ or $`SU(3)/U(1)`$. In section two we describe invariant forms on the principal orbit $`G/K=Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ and $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ as the $`K`$-invariant subalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ of the differential algebra generated by the Maurer-Cartan forms of $`G`$. In the case of $`SU(3)/U(1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ depends on the choice of $`U(1)`$ subalgebra in the maximal torus determined by a pair of integers $`(k,\mathrm{})`$. For the special embedding with $`k=\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ becomes much larger and we find that as a differential algebra it coincides with that of $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ model supplemented by a single non-trivial cohomology class. Due to this relation the $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ model with the special embedding of $`U(1)`$ is mostly parallel with $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ model. In section three we define an infinitesimal deformation of the canonical $`Spin(7)`$ four form as a shift by the invariant self-dual four forms. We will work out the induced change in the orthonormal frame to make the deformed four form get back into the canonical form. The deformation is classified to two types. The first type deformation leads only rescalings of the vielbein and thus maintains the diagonal metric ansatz. On the other hand the second type implies the mixing of vielbein and the corresponding metric gets more involved. In section four we derive a system of first order differential equations for the self-dual four form defining a deformation to be closed111By (anti-)self-duality closed forms are automatically harmonic. in the case of background metric of cohomogeneity one. According to the two types of deformation we call the first order system $`u`$-system and $`v`$-system, respectively. We present explicit solutions to the first order system in section five. The $`L^2`$-normalizability of the solutions is examined. Due to the qualitative difference of asymptotic behavior the condition for $`L^2`$-normalizability in ALC metrics is weaker than the corresponding AC metrics. We find that ALC metrics allow $`L^2`$-normalizable self-dual four forms, but AC metrics do not in general. By looking at power series expansion we identify the solution that deforms the radius of asymptotic circle in ALC metric. We conclude that the $`L^2`$ normalizable self-dual harmonic four form controls the change in the radius of $`M`$-theory circle. It would be worth mentioning that the $`L^2`$ normalizable harmonic four forms of the opposite duality also play a role in the deformation of supersymmetric background of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy. As is shown in  an anti-self-dual harmonic four form in 27 of the irreducible decomposition of $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}_C`$ provides a flux for brane resolution and one can construct a supersymmetric $`M2`$ brane solution . In summary a self-dual harmonic form gives a purely gravitational deformation, while an anti-self-dual harmonic form introduces a four form flux.

There are three appendixes at the end of paper. Appendix A provides our convention of $`SU(3)`$ Maurer-Cartan equations. In Appendix B we summarize a formalism of Hitchin on stable forms and metrics of exceptional holonomy, which gave a background of our work. Finally we consider the deformation of the Atiyah-Hitchin metric in Appendix C, since it allows a description similar to our approach in this paper. But there is a crucial difference. The deformation of the Atiyah-Hitchin metric breaks the ansatz of cohomogeneity one, while the deformation of ALC metrics in this paper does not.

## 2 Algebra of Invariant Forms

The geometry of $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ structures is closely related to three and four forms on a manifold $`M`$. Recently Hitchin has shown that such a relation is described in terms of certain functionals on the space of three and four forms 222A brief summary of his formalism is given in Appendix B.. In the case of $`G_2`$ manifolds his method has turned out to be a powerful tool (see  for example). The space of differential forms on $`M`$ is usually infinite dimensional, but when the manifold $`M`$ admits an action of Lie group $`G`$ with the principal orbit $`G/K`$ of codimension $`n`$, one can make an ansatz of the three and four forms based on the algebra of invariant forms on $`G/K`$ and the problem can be reduced to a finite dimensional one by homogeneity. This approach is quite general and has been employed in  for constructing the most general $`G_2`$ metrics with the principal orbit $`S^3\times S^3`$. There are two homogeneous spaces $`S^7=Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ (the Hopf fibration of $`S^7`$) and $`M_{k,\mathrm{}}:=SU(3)/U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ (the Aloff-Wallach space) that are known to allow a weak $`G_2`$ structure . We can consider $`Spin(7)`$ metrics of cohomogeneity one where one of these homogeneous spaces is served as the principal orbit of codimension one. In general the algebra of invariant differential forms on a homogeneous space $`G/K`$ is identified as the $`K`$-invariant subalgebra of the exterior algebra (freely) generated by the Maurer-Cartan one forms of $`G`$. Let us consider the algebra of $`K`$-invariant forms in each case separately.

### 2.1 $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$

As a $`K=Sp(1)`$ module the cotangent space of $`S^7=Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ is decomposed as

$$T_e^{}S^7=P_1P_2P_3P_4,$$
(2.1)
where $`P_i(i=1,2,3)`$ is one dimensional and $`P_4`$ is four dimensional. Let $`\sigma _i(i=1,2,3)`$ be a basis of $`P_i`$. They are $`K`$-invariant and generate another $`Sp(1)`$ subgroup of $`Sp(2)`$ that is commuting with $`K=Sp(1)`$. We take a basis $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu (\mu =0,1,2,3)`$ of $`P_4`$ such that $`ds^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2`$ gives a standard (conformal) metric on the base $`S^4`$ of the $`S^3`$ Hopf fibration of $`S^7`$. The self-dual combination of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ gives $`K`$-invariant two forms;

$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,`$
$`\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_3\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,`$ (2.2)
$`\omega _3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_3+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2.`$
We note the relations

$`\omega _1\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2\omega _2=\omega _3\omega _3=2\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,`$
$`\omega _1\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2\omega _3=\omega _3\omega _1=0.`$ (2.3)
The algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ of $`K`$-invariant forms is generated by $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\omega _i`$ with the relation (2.3). The exterior derivative keeps the subalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ and on the generators we have

$`d\sigma _i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _j\sigma _k+\omega _i,`$
$`d\omega _i`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _j\omega _k.`$ (2.4)
By these relations we see that the space of closed three forms in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ is three dimensional and the most general exact four form is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`x_1d(\sigma _1\omega _1)+x_2d(\sigma _2\omega _2)+x_3d(\sigma _3\omega _3)+2x_4d(\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)`$
$`+y_1d(\sigma _2\omega _3+\sigma _3\omega _2)+y_2d(\sigma _3\omega _1+\sigma _1\omega _3)+y_3d(\sigma _1\omega _2+\sigma _2\omega _1),`$
$`=`$ $`2(x_1+x_2+x_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3+2(x_4+x_1x_2x_3)\omega _1\sigma _2\sigma _3`$
$`+2(x_4x_1+x_2x_3)\omega _2\sigma _3\sigma _1+2(x_4x_1x_2+x_3)\omega _3\sigma _1\sigma _2`$
$`+4y_1(\omega _3\sigma _3\sigma _1+\omega _2\sigma _1\sigma _2)+4y_2(\omega _1\sigma _1\sigma _2+\omega _3\sigma _2\sigma _3)`$
$`+4y_3(\omega _2\sigma _2\sigma _3+\omega _1\sigma _3\sigma _1).`$
### 2.2 $`SU(3)/U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ (generic case $`k\mathrm{}`$)

The subgroup $`U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ of the homogeneous space $`M_{k,\mathrm{}}:=SU(3)/U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ is represented by $`\mathrm{diag}.(e^{ik\theta },e^{i\mathrm{}\theta },e^{im\theta })`$ with $`k+\mathrm{}+m=0`$. We use the following notation for $`SU(3)`$ left invariant one forms;

$`E^1`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1,E^2=\sigma _2,E^3=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,E^4=\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,`$
$`E^5`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _1,E^6=\tau _2,E^7=T_A,E^8=T_B,`$ (2.6)
where $`E^8`$ corresponds to the subgroup $`U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$. The Maurer-Cartan equations in our convention are summarized in Appendix A, where we note the relation;

$`\alpha _A`$ $`=`$ $`k,\beta _A=\mathrm{},\gamma _A=m,`$
$`\alpha _B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}m,\beta _B=mk,\gamma _B=k\mathrm{}.`$ (2.7)
As a $`U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ module the cotangent space of $`M_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ is decomposed as

$$T_e^{}M_{k,\mathrm{}}=P_0P_\mathrm{}mP_{mk}P_k\mathrm{},$$
(2.8)
where $`P_q`$ has the $`U(1)`$ weight $`q`$. A natural basis for the above decomposition is given by $`E^7,E^1\pm iE^2,E^3\pm iE^4,E^5\pm iE^6`$ with charges $`0,\pm (\mathrm{}m),\pm (mk),\pm (k\mathrm{})`$, respectively. The invariant differential forms of $`M_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ can be identified as the subalgebra of the $`U(1)`$ charge free part generated by

$`T_A`$ $`=`$ $`E^7,`$
$`\omega _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(E^{2k1}+iE^{2k})(E^{2k1}iE^{2k}),`$ (2.9)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1+i\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`(E^1+iE^2)(E^3+iE^4)(E^5+iE^6),`$
with the relations

$`(T_A)^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _i)^2=(\mathrm{\Omega }_j)^2=0,`$
$`\omega _i\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2=4\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3.`$ (2.10)
The exterior derivative keeps the subalgebra and on the generators we have

$`dT_A`$ $`=`$ $`2k\omega _1+2\mathrm{}\omega _2+2m\omega _3,d\omega _1=d\omega _2=d\omega _3=\mathrm{\Omega }_2,`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`4(\omega _1\omega _2+\omega _2\omega _3+\omega _3\omega _1),d\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0.`$ (2.11)
The space of closed three forms is one dimensional and the most general exact four form is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`x_1d(\omega _1T_A)+x_2d(\omega _2T_A)+x_3d(\omega _3T_A)+x_4d\mathrm{\Omega }_1,`$
$`=`$ $`(4x_4+2\mathrm{}x_1+2kx_2)\omega _1\omega _2+(4x_4+2mx_2+2\mathrm{}x_3)\omega _2\omega _3`$
$`+(4x_4+2mx_1+2kx_3)\omega _3\omega _1(x_1+x_2+x_3)T_A\mathrm{\Omega }_2.`$
### 2.3 $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$ (special case $`k=\mathrm{}`$)

When $`k=\mathrm{}`$, $`E^5`$ and $`E^6`$ become $`U(1)`$ singlets and $`E^1\pm iE^2`$ and $`E^3\pm iE^4`$ have $`U(1)`$ charge $`\pm 3`$ and $`3`$, respectively. The space of $`K`$-invariant forms gets much larger and is generated by $`E^5,E^6,E^7`$ and $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$. We have introduced a $`K`$-invariant two form

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=(E^1+iE^2)(E^3+iE^4),$$
(2.13)
which satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=2\omega _1\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=\omega _1\omega _1=\omega _2\omega _2=0`$. The exterior derivative on the generators is given by

$`dE^5`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^6E^7,dE^6=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^7E^5,dE^7=2\omega ^+4E^5E^6,`$
$`d\omega ^+`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^5+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^6\right),d\omega ^{}=0,`$ (2.14)
$`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega ^+E^6\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^7,d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=2\omega ^+E^5+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^7,`$
where $`\omega ^\pm :=\omega _1\pm \omega _2`$. In contrast with previous two cases there are non-trivial cohomology class $`[\omega ^{}]`$ with degree two and its dual with degree five. One can identify $`[\omega ^{}]`$ with the Kähler form of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ when the coset $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$ is viewed as the total space of a principal $`SO(3)`$ bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$. It is amusing to compare the differential algebra (2.14) with that of $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$. By the following mapping

$`E^5`$ $``$ $`\sigma _1,E^6\sigma _2,E^72\sigma _3,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1`$ $``$ $`\omega _1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\omega _2,\omega ^+\omega _3,`$ (2.15)
we find exactly the same differential algebra as (2.4). Hence at the level of the differential algebra of invariant forms, $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$ is obtained from $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ by augmenting the non-trivial cohomology class $`[\omega ^{}]`$. This observation has the following meaning; the complex projective space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ is both Kähler and quaternionic Kähler333In four dimensions the quaternionic Kähler manifold is nothing but the self-dual Einstein manifold.. On the other hand the four dimensional sphere $`S^4`$ is quaternionic Kähler but non-Kähler. The triplets $`\omega _i(i=1,2,3)`$ for $`S^4`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2,\omega ^+)`$ for $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ define a quaternionic Kähler structure of each manifold and as remarked above $`\omega ^{}`$ defines a Kähler structure of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$. Note that the Kähler two form $`\omega ^{}`$ has the opposite duality to the triplet of two forms for the quaternionic Kähler structue. This is explained from the holonomy $`U(2)=U(1)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$. Namely the Kähler two form is the curvature of the line bundle associated with $`U(1)_L`$, while it is the curvature of $`SO(3)_R=SU(2)_R/𝐙_2`$ bundle which gives the quaternionic Kähler two forms. (Since $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ is not spin, there is no lift of the $`SO(3)_R`$ bundle to $`SU(2)_R`$ bundle.)

We find the space of closed three forms is three dimensional. A basis is given by exact three forms $`d\omega ^+,d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ in (2.14). Hence, the most general exact four form has ten parameters. Taking the above correspondence to $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ model into account, let us expand an invariant three form $`\varphi `$ in the following form;

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`x_1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^5)x_2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^6)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_3(\omega ^+E^7)x_4(E^5E^6E^7),`$ (2.16)
$`+y_1(\omega ^+E^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^7)+y_2(\omega ^+E^6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^7)+y_3(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^5+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^6)`$
$`+z_1(\omega ^{}E^5)+z_2(\omega ^{}E^6)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_3(\omega ^{}E^7).`$
Then the corresponding exact four form is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`:=`$ $`d\varphi `$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`(x_1+x_2+x_3)\omega ^+\omega ^+(x_4+x_1x_2x_3)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^6E^7`$
$`+(x_4x_1+x_2x_3)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^7E^52(x_4x_1x_2+x_3)\omega ^+E^5E^6`$
$`+2y_1\left(\omega ^+E^7E^5+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^5E^6\right)+2y_2\left(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^5E^6\omega ^+E^6E^7\right)`$
$`+2y_3\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^6E^7\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^7E^5\right)`$
$`z_1(\omega ^{}E^6E^7)z_2(\omega ^{}E^7E^5)2z_3(\omega ^{}E^5E^6).`$
## 3 Deformation of Four Form and ALC metric

A metric with special holonomy is Ricci flat and an overall scaling of the metric always gives one dimensional trivial modulus of Ricci flat metrics. When a Ricci-flat metric of cohomogeneity one is obtained as a resolution of the cone metric over $`G/K`$, this scale parameter controls the resolution of conical singularity and it is related to the volume of the bolt singularity; $`S^4`$ for $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ case and $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^2`$ for $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ case. Hence we can fix the modulus of scaling by normalizing the size of the bolt singularity. Then non-trivial moduli come from deformations of the traceless part of metric. When the manifold is compact, infinitesimal deformations that keep Ricci-flatness are given by zero modes of the Lichnerowicz laplacian . A reduction of the holonomy to special holonomy allows us to identify these zero modes with zero-modes of exterior derivative on differential form (harmonic forms) of an appropriate degree. For example for $`G_2`$ holonomy the formal dimensions of $`G_2`$ metrics is given by the third Betti number $`b_3`$ and for $`Spin(7)`$ the dimensions is given by $`1+b_4^+`$ where $`b_4^+`$ is the Betti number of self-dual four forms444Our convention is that the canonical four form of $`Spin(7)`$ structure is a closed anti-self-dual four form. If it is self-dual, $`b_4^+`$ should be replaced by $`b_4^{}`$; the Betti number of anti-self-dual four forms.. For non-compact manifold the correspondence of infinitesimal deformations of Ricci flat metrics and the harmonic forms becomes subtle. We may impose some conditions on normalizablity and/or asymptotic behavior on differential forms. The condition we should impose is not necessarily unique and it would characterize the physical meaning of corresponding moduli. For example the moduli of metrics that come from $`L^2`$-normalizable closed forms will not change the asymptotic behavior and are expected to be dynamical, while those from $`L^2`$-non-normalizable forms are non-dynamical. They can change the asymptotic behavior of the metric and are regarded as a change of background metric. In the following based on the coset geometry of $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ and $`SU(3)/U(1)`$, we will see quite explicitly the correspondence between the harmonic self-dual four forms and infinitesimal deformations of $`Spin(7)`$ metric. In our models of $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ and $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ the fourth de Rham cohomology of the coset is trivial and we will take exact four forms on the coset to produce self-dual four forms on the total space. Thus the harmonic $`L^2`$ normalizable four forms $`G`$ in this paper is exact $`G=dC`$ in algebraic sense. However, it is non-trivial in the sense of $`L^2`$-cohomology, since the three form potential $`C`$ is not $`L^2`$ normalizable in general.

### 3.1 $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$

Assume that the vielbeins are given by

$`e^1`$ $`=`$ $`a(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,e^3=a(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,e^5=a(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,e^7=a(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,`$
$`e^2`$ $`=`$ $`b_1(t)\sigma _1,e^4=b_2(t)\sigma _2,e^6=b_3(t)\sigma _3.`$ (3.1)
As the canonical ASD four form of $`Spin(7)`$ structure on $`𝐑\times Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$, we take

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\mathrm{ASD}}=dt\rho _0\rho _0,$$
(3.2)
where

$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{1357}+e^{1467}+e^{3456}+e^{2367}+e^{1256}+e^{2457}+e^{1234},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e^{12}+e^{34}+e^{56})^2\mathrm{Re}\left[(e^1+ie^2)(e^3+ie^4)(e^5+ie^6)\right]e^7,`$
$`=`$ $`a^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3a^2b_2b_3(\omega _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)a^2b_3b_1(\omega _2\sigma _3\sigma _1)`$
$`a^2b_1b_2(\omega _3\sigma _1\sigma _2),`$
and

$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{246}+e^{352}+e^{712}+e^{514}+e^{734}+e^{136}+e^{756},`$
$`=`$ $`(e^{12}+e^{34}+e^{56})e^7+\mathrm{Im}\left[(e^1+ie^2)(e^3+ie^4)(e^5+ie^6)\right],`$
$`=`$ $`b_1b_2b_3(\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)+a^2b_1(\omega _1\sigma _1)+a^2b_2(\omega _2\sigma _2)+a^2b_3(\omega _3\sigma _3).`$
The Hodge operator $``$ is defined by the coset metric $`\widehat{g}(t)=e^ae^a`$ and we have $`\alpha \alpha =e^{1234567}`$ if $`\alpha `$ is an exterior product of $`e^a`$. When the four form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\mathrm{ASD}}`$ is closed, the $`Spin(7)`$ structure is called torsion free and the corresponding metric $`g=dt^2+\widehat{g}(t)`$ has $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy. It is easy to see that the octonionic instanton equation for the spin connection implies $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\mathrm{ASD}}=0`$.

Now let us look at an infinitesimal shift of the canonical four form by a self-dual four form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\mathrm{ASD}}+ϵG^{\mathrm{SD}}`$
$`=`$ $`(dt\rho _0\rho _0)+ϵ(dt\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`=`$ $`dt\sigma \rho ,`$
where $`\sigma \rho _0+ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a three form and $`\rho \rho _0ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a four form. The seven dimensional duality $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ implies the eight dimensional self-duality of $`G^{\mathrm{SD}}=dt\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As before for the deformed four form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to define a torsion free $`Spin(7)`$ structure we must require that $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Let us take the invariant four form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that is closed in seven dimensional sense. Hence in the $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ model we take (see Eq.(2.1));

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`u_1a^4(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3)+u_2a^2b_2b_3(\omega _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)`$ (3.6)
$`+u_3a^2b_3b_1(\omega _2\sigma _3\sigma _1)+u_4a^2b_1b_2(\omega _3\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$
$`+v_1(\omega _2\sigma _2\sigma _3+\omega _1\sigma _3\sigma _1)+v_2(\omega _3\sigma _3\sigma _1+\omega _2\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$
$`+v_3(\omega _1\sigma _1\sigma _2+\omega _3\sigma _2\sigma _3)`$
In our ansatz of cohomogeneity one metric the coefficients $`u_i`$ and $`v_i`$ are functions of $`t`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=dt(d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt)`$ in eight dimensions. $`dG^{\mathrm{SD}}=0`$ means $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt=d\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This condition gives a first order system for the coefficients $`u_i`$ and $`v_i`$. We will describe it more explicitly in the next section.

When $`v_i=0`$ the diagonal metric ansatz is maintained. In fact assuming that new vielbeins are

$$\stackrel{~}{e}^i=\left(1+ϵU_i\right)e^i,U_1=U_3=U_5=U_7$$
(3.7)
we obtain in the leading order

$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}u_1,U_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u_2+u_3+u_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}u_1,`$
$`U_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u_2u_3+u_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}u_1,U_6={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u_2+u_3u_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}u_1.`$ (3.8)
together with a redefinition of “time” variable

$$d\stackrel{~}{t}=\left(1ϵ(4U_1+U_2+U_4+U_6)\right)dt.$$
(3.9)
We can see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is transformed into the canonical form in terms of these new vielbeins.

On the other hand non-vanishing $`v_i`$ causes a “mixing” of the original vielbein. For example one can consider the deformation by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{mix}`$ $`=`$ $`v_1\left(b_1(e^{7346}+e^{5146})+b_2(e^{7162}+e^{3562})\right)`$ (3.10)
$`+v_2\left(b_2(e^{7562}+e^{1362})+b_3(e^{7324}+e^{5124})\right)`$
$`+v_3\left(b_3(e^{7124}+e^{3524})+b_1(e^{7546}+e^{1346})\right),`$
where we have scaled the infinitesimal deformation parameters $`v_i`$. We have checked that the deformed four form can be transformed into the canonical form by allowing the “mixing” of the orthonormal frame. Namely we find a solution to the condition

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{ASD}+ϵ(\mathrm{\Phi }_{mix}+dt\mathrm{\Phi }_{mix})=dt\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0$$
(3.11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0`$ are given by (3.1) and (3.1) with $`e^i`$ being replaced by a new orthonormal frame $`\stackrel{~}{e}^i`$. The new orthonormal frame $`\stackrel{~}{e}^i`$ is assumed to be a linear combination of the original vielbein. Furthermore one is forced to change the frame of the radial direction $`e^0=dt`$ mixed with the frames $`e^i`$ of the principal orbit. Due to this mixing of the radial geodesic direction and the principal orbit, it is not clear if the deformed metric remains of cohomogeneity one. As we will see later in explicit examples there are no $`L^2`$-normalizable solution providing the deformations of this type (see the $`v`$-system in the next section) and we will leave this issue as an open problem.

### 3.2 $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$ (special case $`k=\mathrm{}`$)

In this case we take the following vielbeins given by

$`e^1`$ $`=`$ $`a(t)E^1,e^2=a(t)E^2,e^3=b(t)E^3,e^4=b(t)E^4,`$
$`e^5`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(t)E^5,e^6=c_2(t)E^6,e^7=f(t)E^7.`$ (3.12)
and the canonical ASD four form of $`Spin(7)`$ structure on $`𝐑\times SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\mathrm{ASD}}=dt\rho _0\rho _0,$$
(3.13)
where

$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{1234}+e^{1256}+e^{3456}e^{1367}+e^{2467}e^{1457}e^{2357},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e^{12}+e^{34}+e^{56})^2\mathrm{Im}\left[(e^1+ie^2)(e^3+ie^4)(e^5+ie^6)\right]e^7,`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^2b^2(\omega ^+\omega ^+)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2+b^2)c_1c_2(\omega ^+E^5E^6)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2b^2)c_1c_2(\omega ^{}E^5E^6)`$
$`+abc_2f(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^6E^7)+abc_1f(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^7E^5),`$
and

$`\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{567}+e^{347}+e^{127}+e^{315}+e^{524}+e^{461}+e^{362},`$
$`=`$ $`(e^{12}+e^{34}+e^{56})e^7\mathrm{Re}\left[(e^1+ie^2)(e^3+ie^4)(e^5+ie^6)\right],`$
$`=`$ $`c_1c_2f(E^5E^6E^7)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2+b^2)f(\omega _+E^7)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2b^2)f(\omega _{}E^7)`$
$`+abc_1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^5)+abc_2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^6).`$
An infinitesimal deformation of $`Spin(7)`$ four form is defined by considering the following most general ansatz of the invariant four form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$;

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`u_1(t)e^{1234}+u_2(t)e^{1256}+u_3(t)e^{3456}+u_4(t)(e^{1367}+e^{2467})+u_5(t)(e^{2357}e^{1457})`$
$`+`$ $`v_1(t)e^{1267}v_2(t)e^{1257}+v_3(t)e^{3467}v_4(t)e^{3457}+v_5(t)(e^{2457}e^{1357})`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}_1(t)(e^{2456}+e^{1356})+\mathrm{}_2(t)(e^{2356}+e^{1456})+\mathrm{}_3(t)(e^{2367}+e^{1467}).`$
We can check that if we impose the condition

$$\mathrm{}_1=\frac{f}{abc_1}(a^2v_1+b^2v_3),\mathrm{}_2=\frac{f}{abc_2}(a^2v_2+b^2v_4),\mathrm{}_3=\frac{c_1}{c_2}v_5,$$
(3.17)
then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is closed form on $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ and expressed as follows (see Eq.(2.17));

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_1a^2b^2(\omega ^+\omega ^+)u_4abc_2f(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^6E^7)+u_5abc_1f(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^7E^5)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u_2a^2+u_3b^2)c_1c_2(\omega ^+E^5E^6)+abc_1fv_5(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^7E^5\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^5E^6)`$
$`+`$ $`c_1f(v_2a^2+v_4b^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^+E^7E^5\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2E^5E^6\right)`$
$`+`$ $`c_2f(v_1a^2+v_3b^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega ^+E^6E^7+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1E^5E^6\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u_2a^2u_3b^2)c_1c_2\omega ^{}E^5E^6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(v_1a^2v_3b^2)c_2f\omega ^{}E^6E^7`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(v_2a^2v_4b^2)c_1f\omega ^{}E^7E^5.`$
We find the parameters $`u_i`$ give rise to a diagonal deformation of the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g+ϵh_{diag}/2`$ ($`ϵ1`$). By using the orthonormal basis $`g=dt^2+e^ae^a`$, the metric is written as

$$h_{diag}=h_0dt^2+\underset{a=1}{\overset{7}{}}h_ae^ae^a,$$
(3.19)
where

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`u_1+u_2+u_3+2(u_4+u_5),h_1=h_2=u_1u_2+u_3,`$
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`h_4=u_1+u_2u_3,h_5=u_1u_2u_3+2(u_4u_5),`$
$`h_6`$ $`=`$ $`u_1u_2u_32(u_4u_5),h_7=u_1+u_2+u_32(u_4+u_5).`$ (3.20)
We note that by the correspondence $`u_1u_1,u_2=u_3u_4,u_4u_2,u_5u_3`$ the result of $`Sp`$ model is reproduced up to an overall factor.

## 4 First Order System for Harmonic Four Forms

In this section we will give the condition for the self-dual four form $`G^{SD}`$ to be closed and hence to be harmonic. When an eight-manifold $`(M,g)`$ is of cohomogeneity one, that is, $`M`$ admits an action of the Lie group $`G`$ with seven dimensional principal orbits $`G/K`$, the manifold is locally $`M𝐑\times G/K`$. Taking a unit vector field normal to the orbit, we can write the metric in the form

$$g=dt^2+\widehat{g}(t),$$
(4.1)
where $`\widehat{g}(t)`$ is a $`G`$-invariant metric on the orbit $`G/K`$. With this metric the condition for $`G^{SD}`$ is expressed by a system of first order differential equations for the coefficients of invariant form on $`G/K`$.

### 4.1 $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$

Our choice of the vielbeins (3.12) implies the following diagonal form of $`\widehat{g}(t)`$ for all $`t`$ ;

$`\widehat{g}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a(t)^2(E^1E^1+E^2E^2)+b(t)^2(E^3E^3+E^4E^4)`$ (4.2)
$`+c_1(t)^2E^5E^5+c_2(t)^2E^6E^6+f(t)^2E^7E^7.`$
Let us consider a self-dual 4-form on $`M`$ of the following form;

$$G^{SD}=\mathrm{\Phi }+e^0\mathrm{\Phi },(e^0:=dt),$$
(4.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is expanded by a basis for exact invariant four-forms on $`G/K`$ and an explicit form is given by (3.2). Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (4.3) is exact on $`G/K`$, the closeness condition $`dG^{SD}=0`$ is expressed by

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Phi }=d\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(4.4)
From the result in section 2.3 we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a $`K`$-invariant three form and $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be expanded by the basis for exact four forms given in section 2.3. Thus, (4.4) yields the following first order differential equations;

(A) $`u`$-system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b^2u_1)2a^2fu_32b^2fu_2+2abc_1u_4+2abc_2u_5=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`c_1c_2u_2)+4a^2fu_32c_1c_2fu_1+2abc_1u_4+2abc_2u_5=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(b^2`$ $`c_1c_2u_3)+4b^2fu_22c_1c_2fu_1+2abc_1u_4+2abc_2u_5=0,`$ (4.5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(ab`$ $`c_2fu_4+abc_1fu_5)+2f(a^2u_3+b^2u_2+c_1c_2u_1)=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(ab`$ $`c_2fu_4abc_1fu_5)+2(abc_1u_4abc_2u_5)=0.`$
(B) $`v`$-system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`c_2fv_1)+(a^2c_1+2b^2f^2/c_1)v_3+(2a^2f^2/c_1)v_1=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(b^2`$ $`c_2fv_3)+(b^2c_1+2a^2f^2/c_1)v_1+(2b^2f^2/c_1)v_3=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`c_1fv_2)+(a^2c_2+2b^2f^2/c_2)v_4+(2a^2f^2/c_2)v_2=0,`$ (4.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(b^2`$ $`c_1fv_4)+(b^2c_2+2a^2f^2/c_2)v_2+(2b^2f^2/c_2)v_4=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(ab`$ $`c_1fv_5)+{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{c_2}}(c_1^2+c_2^2)v_5=0.`$
We note that the first order system for $`u_i`$ decouples from that for $`v_i`$. Furthermore the $`v`$-system decomposes into three independent systems for $`(v_1,v_3),(v_2,v_4)`$ and $`v_5`$. The $`(v_2,v_4)`$ system is obtained from the $`(v_1,v_3)`$ system by the replacement $`c_2c_1`$.

### 4.2 $`SU(3)/U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ ($`k\mathrm{}`$)

The $`u`$-system in the generic case $`(k\mathrm{})`$ can be obtained similarly. The invariant metric $`\widehat{g}`$ on the coset is given by (4.2) with $`cc_1=c_2`$ and according to the result in section 2.2, we put $`u_4=u_5`$, $`v_i=\mathrm{}_j=0`$ in the expansion of $`G^{SD}`$ in terms of invariant forms. Then the $`u`$-system is reduced to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(a^2b^2u_1)`$ $`=`$ $`4abcu_4+2kfb^2u_2+2\mathrm{}fa^2u_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(a^2c^2u_2)`$ $`=`$ $`4abcu_4+2kfc^2u_1+2mfa^2u_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(b^2c^2u_3)`$ $`=`$ $`4abcu_4+2\mathrm{}fc^2u_1+2mfb^2u_2,`$ (4.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(abcfu_4)`$ $`=`$ $`f(a^2u_3+b^2u_2+c^2u_1).`$
This equation has been derived in , but the overall sign of the right-hand side is reversed here. The sign is determined by the duality of closed four forms. In  we were interested in the anti-self-dual closed four forms (in our present convention555Unfortunately the convention of , which is the same as , is opposite to the present paper and .) in order to construct supersymmetric brane solutions following . When the canonical $`Spin(7)`$ form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is taken to be anti-self-dual, it is self-dual harmonic four forms that is relevant to metric deformations. On the other hand anti-self-dual harmonic four forms are used to construct brane solutions that preserve supersymmetry. We also note that the equation for the reversed duality satisfied the linear relation $`u_1+u_2+u_3+4u_4=\mathrm{const}`$, while there is no such a relation in (4.7).

### 4.3 $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$

Using the correspondence (2.15) found in section two, we can derive the first order system for $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ model rather easily. Recall that the metric ansatz is

$$g=dt^2+a(t)^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2)+b_1(t)^2\sigma _1^2+b_2(t)^2\sigma _2^2+b_3(t)^2\sigma _3^2.$$
(4.8)
Let us begin with the $`u`$-system. By substituting $`a=ba,c_1b_1c_2b_2,2fb_3`$ and making the replacement $`u_1u_1,u_2=u_3u_4,u_4u_2,u_5u_3`$ we obtain

(A) $`u`$-system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^4`$ $`u_1)+2a^2(b_1u_2+b_2u_3+b_3u_4)=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b_2b_3u_2)+b_1b_2b_3u_1+2a^2(b_1u_2+b_2u_3+b_3u_4)=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b_3b_1u_3)+b_1b_2b_3u_1+2a^2(b_1u_2b_2u_3+b_3u_4)=0,`$ (4.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b_1b_2u_4)+b_1b_2b_3u_1+2a^2(b_1u_2+b_2u_3b_3u_4)=0.`$
The $`u`$-system for $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ model becomes more symmetric in the sense that it has a cyclic symmetry in $`(u_2,u_3,u_4)`$.

In the same way we can obtain the following $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$-system for $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$

(B) $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$-system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b_2b_3\stackrel{~}{v}_1){\displaystyle \frac{2a^2}{b_1}}(b_3^2+b_1^2)\stackrel{~}{v}_1=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b_3b_1\stackrel{~}{v}_2){\displaystyle \frac{2a^2}{b_2}}(b_1^2+b_2^2)\stackrel{~}{v}_2=0,`$ (4.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`(a^2`$ $`b_1b_2\stackrel{~}{v}_3){\displaystyle \frac{2a^2}{b_3}}(b_2^2+b_3^2)\stackrel{~}{v}_3=0,`$
where we have made the identification $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1v_1=v_3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}_2v_5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_3(b_2/b_3)v_2=(b_2/b_3)v_4`$. Note that the $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ system decouples completely into three independent ODE and again we find a cyclic symmetry in $`(\stackrel{~}{v}_1,\stackrel{~}{v}_2,\stackrel{~}{v}_3)`$.

## 5 Examples

To solve the $`u`$-system and the $`v`$-system obtained in the last section we need an expression of the background metric $`a(t),b(t),c_i(t)`$ and $`f(t)`$. Let us consider a few examples of explicit ALC metrics. We also discuss AC metrics briefly, since qualitative features are different.

1. ALC metric

The first example is a deformation of the ALC $`Spin(7)`$ metric $`𝐁_8`$ on the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$. In this example the existence of deformation was established globally in , as a family of complete metrics $`𝐁_8^\pm `$ is known explicitly. Our calculation shows that the infinitesimal variation of the metric is controlled by an $`L^2`$-normalizable harmonic self-dual four form $`G^{SD}`$. The second example is a deformation of the ALC $`Spin(7)`$ metric on the $`Spin^c`$ bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ . In this case a non-trivial deformation was suggested by numerical analyses  and the existence of an $`L^2`$-normalizable $`G^{SD}`$ gives a further evidence for the deformation.

Let us start with the $`𝐁_8`$ metric. The metric is given by (4.8) with

$$a^2=r^2\mathrm{}^2,b_1^2=b_2^2=(r3\mathrm{})(r+\mathrm{}),b_3^2=4\mathrm{}^2(r3\mathrm{})(r+\mathrm{})/(r\mathrm{})^2$$
(5.1)
and $`dt=(r\mathrm{})/\sqrt{(r3\mathrm{})(r+\mathrm{})}dr`$ . The radial coordinate $`r`$ runs from the singular orbit $`S^4`$ at $`r=3\mathrm{}`$ to infinity. From the $`u`$-system (4.9) with $`b_1=b_2`$, it is easy to find

$$u_2u_3=k_0\frac{(r3\mathrm{})^3}{(r+\mathrm{})^6}\mathrm{exp}(2r/\mathrm{}),$$
(5.2)
with a constant $`k_0`$. Since this solution has exponential growth at infinity, we will take $`k_0=0`$. A convenient way to obtain the remaining solutions is to introduce a new variable $`f=a^2b_1b_2(u_2+u_3)`$. Taking derivatives of the first-order equations (4.9), we obtain the following differential equation of Fuchsian type after rescaling the radial coordinate $`x=r/\mathrm{}`$ ;

$$\frac{d^3f}{dx^3}+p_1(x)\frac{d^2f}{dx^2}+p_2(x)\frac{df}{dx}+p_3(x)f=0,$$
(5.3)
where

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(3x^210x1)}{(x+1)(x1)(x3)}},`$
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6x^318x^2+58x110}{(x+1)^2(x1)(x3)^2}},`$
$`p_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8(3x^424x^3+46x^232x9)}{(x+1)^3(x1)(x3)^3}}.`$ (5.4)
This equation can be integrated and we find three linearly independent solutions

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64(x3)^3}{(x+1)^2(x1)^2}},f_2={\displaystyle \frac{3x5}{(x+1)^2(x1)^2(x3)}},`$
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(x3)^3(3x^4+24x^3+98x^2+288x+723)}{2(x+1)^2(x1)^2}}.`$ (5.5)
The second solution $`f_2`$ is singular at the point $`x=3`$ which corresponds to the singular orbit $`S^4`$ and hence the regular solution in the region $`x3`$ is a linear combination $`f(x)=k_1f_1(x)+k_3f_3(x)`$. The remaining functions $`u_1`$ and $`u_4`$ are given by taking derivatives of $`f(x)`$.

In the region near the singular orbit the local deformation of the $`𝐁_8`$ metric is characterized by two parameters, which we shall label as $`m`$ and $`q`$ . The lower order terms near the singular orbit are

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$
$`b_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`b_2(t)=t\left(1q(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (5.6)
$`b_3(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(1+(2q1)(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right).`$
The $`𝐁_8`$ metric corresponds to $`m=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}`$ and $`q=0`$. As we have seen in Section 3, the $`u`$-system gives rise to a diagonal deformation and the solutions $`f(x)`$ and (5.2) with $`k_0=0`$ induces the following transformation,

$$q=0\stackrel{~}{q}=5(k_128k_3)/32,m=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{m}=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\left(1+3(k_135k_3)/16\right).$$
(5.7)
The four-form $`G^{SD}`$ is not $`L^2`$-normalizable, unless we do not impose the condition $`k_3=0`$ in the solution $`f(x)`$. When $`k_3=0`$ the solution explicitly becomes

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16k_1(5x^39x^2+15x3)}{(x+1)^4(x1)^3}},u_2=u_3={\displaystyle \frac{32k_1(x3)}{(x+1)^4(x1)^2}},`$
$`u_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k_1(x3)(5x^22x+1)}{(x+1)^4(x1)^3}},`$ (5.8)
which gives an $`L^2`$-normalizable $`G^{SD}`$. The $`L^2`$-normalizable solution leads to a correlation in transformations of the two parameters $`m`$ and $`q`$. However, we note that the transformation of $`m`$ can be absorbed in an overall scaling of the metric (a trivial deformation). Hence we conclude that the deformation of $`𝐁_8`$ that changes the asymptotic radius of the $`S^1`$ fiber is essentially controlled by the $`L^2`$-normalizable $`G^{SD}`$. We should mention that this $`L^2`$-normalizable solution was obtained in , where it has been noticed the ALC metric $`𝐁_8`$ admits a unique $`L^2`$-normalizable harmonic four form of each duality. In  the solution with the opposite duality was used to construct supersymmetric brane solutions in $`M`$-theory.

The $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$-system (4.3) can be solved easily and we have regular solutions but growing exponentially at infinity. Thus there are no $`L^2`$-normalizable solutions to the $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$-system that might give deformations to off-diagonal metrics. Though the lack of concrete examples of such metrics is a stumbling block in taking further analyses, the fact that the diagonal deformation arises from the $`L^2`$-normalizable solution suggests the corresponding global deformation does not exist.

We now turn to the second example, which is given by (4.2) with

$`a^2`$ $`=`$ $`(rm)(r+m/2),b^2=(r+m)(rm/2),c_1^2=c_2^2=r^2,`$
$`f^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9m^2(r+m)(rm)}{16(r+m/2)(rm/2)}},`$ (5.9)
and $`dt=\sqrt{r^2m^2/4}/\sqrt{r^2m^2}dr`$. The radial coordinate $`r`$ runs from the singular orbit $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ at $`r=m`$ to infinity. The ALC metric (5.9) is obtained with the subgroup $`U(1)_{1,1}`$ and therefore within the generic case $`(k\mathrm{})`$ of $`SU(3)/U(1)_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ models. Remarkably the model with this choice of $`U(1)`$ subgroup has recently been employed to explore conifold like geometric transitions in $`Spin(7)`$ geometry . The deformation admits only the $`u`$-system (4.7) with $`k=\mathrm{}=1`$. Using a variable $`f=b^2c^2u_3a^2c^2u_2`$ and rescaling the radial coordinate $`x=r/m`$, we obtain the following differential equation of Fuchsian type ;

$$\frac{d^4f}{dx^4}+p_1(x)\frac{d^3f}{dx^3}+p_2(x)\frac{d^2f}{dx^2}+p_3(x)\frac{df}{dx}+p_4(x)f=0,$$
(5.10)
where

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{256x^8120x^6118x^4+53x^2+7}{x(x^21)(x^21/4)(32x^412x^27)}},`$
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64x^8+296x^6246x^461x^214}{x^2(x^21)(x^21/4)(32x^412x^27)}},`$
$`p_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(320x^8+64x^6+222x^48x^27)}{x^3(x^21)(x^21/4)(x^412x^27)}},`$
$`p_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{156(8x^2+1)}{(x^21)(x^21/4)(32x^412x^27)}}.`$ (5.11)
The general solution is given by

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2+x+1}{(x+1)(x^21/4)}},f_2={\displaystyle \frac{x^2(10x7)}{10(x+1)(x^21/4)}},`$
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(x1)^2(4x^4+12x^3+31x^29x3)}{4(x+1)(x^21/4)}},f_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(x^21)(x^21/4)}},`$ (5.12)
and so the regular solution in the region $`x1`$ is a linear combination $`f(x)=k_1f_1(x)+k_2f_2(x)+k_3f_3(x)`$. The $`L^2`$-normalizability of $`G^{SD}`$ requires the condition for the coefficients, namely $`k_2=10k_1`$ and $`k_3=0`$. Finally we find

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1(x1)(16x^2+9x1)}{3x(x+1)^2(x^2+1/2)^2(x1/2)^2}},u_2={\displaystyle \frac{k_1(x1)(14x^2+6x+1)}{6x^3(x+1)(x+1/2)^2(x1/2)}},`$
$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1(46x^414x^3+3x^2+2x1)}{6x^3(x+1)^2(x+1/2)(x1/2)^2}},u_4={\displaystyle \frac{k_1(x1)(3x+1)}{6x^3(x+1)^2(x+1/2)(x1/2)}}.`$ (5.13)
The behavior of the metric on the $`Spin^c`$ bundle near the singular orbit $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ is given by

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q+1)(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$
$`b(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(4n)(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (5.14)
$`c(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(5+n)(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$
$`f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t\left(1+q(t/m)^2+\mathrm{}\right),`$
where $`q,m`$ are free parameters and the integer $`n`$ represents an odd class in $`H^2(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2),𝐙)`$ that defines a $`Spin^c`$ structure of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$. The metric (5.9) corresponds to $`q=26/27`$ with $`n=1`$ and the solution (5.13) induces the transformation

$$q=26/27\stackrel{~}{q}=(26+40k_1)/27,m\stackrel{~}{m}=m(1k_1).$$
(5.15)
2. AC metric

Here for completeness we present a summary of the results for AC metrics with special holonomy. The qualitative feature of the deformation is different, since we cannot find $`L^2`$-normalizable solutions. There are three explicitly known AC metrics based on the coset space $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$ with the metric ansatz (4.2) ;

(a) $`Sp(2)`$ metric on $`T^{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$

$`a^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r^2m^2),b^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r^2+m^2),c_1^2=c_2^2=r^2,`$
$`f^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}\left(1(m/r)^4\right)\text{with}t={\displaystyle _m^r}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{\sqrt{1(m/r)^4}}}.`$ (5.16)
(b) $`SU(4)`$ metric on the line bundle over $`SU(3)/T^2`$

$`a^2`$ $`=`$ $`b^2={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2}},c_1^2=c_2^2=r^2,`$
$`f^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}\left(1(m/r)^8\right)\text{with}t={\displaystyle _m^r}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{\sqrt{1(m/r)^8}}}.`$ (5.17)
(c) $`Spin(7)`$ metric on $`T^{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)/𝐙_2`$

$`a^2`$ $`=`$ $`b^2={\displaystyle \frac{9r^2}{10}},c_1^2=c_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{9r^2}{25}}\left(1(m/r)^{10/3}\right),`$
$`f^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9r^2}{100}}\left(1(m/r)^{10/3}\right)\text{with}t={\displaystyle _m^r}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{\sqrt{1(m/r)^{10/3}}}}.`$ (5.18)
As before one can explicitly calculate the closed self-dual four forms $`G^{SD}`$ for these metrics and show that just as for the ALC metric there exists a regular $`G^{SD}`$ which describes deformations at least locally. However, the $`L^2`$-normalizability is lost for all examples, which suggests that the deformations are non-dynamical. From the power series expansion we see that the corresponding deformation would change the asymptotic behavior of the metric from AC type to ALC type. This analysis seems consistent with what we have found for the $`L^2`$-normalizability. We should remark that it is possible to have an $`L^2`$-normalizable solution in the anti-self-dual side. In fact this is the case for the Calabi metric on $`T^{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(2)`$ .

In the following we list the regular solutions to the $`u`$ and $`v`$-systems ;

(a-1) $`u`$-system of $`Sp(2)`$ metric

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1(x1)(3x^2+9x+8)}{(x+1)^2}},`$
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1(x1)(3x^3+15x^2+x+1)}{2x^2(x+1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5k_2}{2x^2}},`$
$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1(x1)^3(3x^2+6x+1)}{2x^2(x+1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5k_2(x+1)}{2x^2}},`$
$`u_4`$ $`=`$ $`u_5=u_1/2\text{with}x=(r/m)^2.`$ (5.19)
(a-2) $`v`$-system of $`Sp(2)`$ metric

$$v_1=v_3=\frac{k_3}{x},v_2=v_4=\frac{k_4}{x},v_5=0.$$
(5.20)
(b-1) $`u`$-system of $`SU(4)`$ metric

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_3w(x)}{3}},`$
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_3w(x)}{6}},`$
$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_3w(x)}{6}},`$
$`u_4`$ $`=`$ $`u_5={\displaystyle \frac{k_3\sqrt{x^41}}{8}}F[1/4,3/2,2;1x^4]`$ (5.21)
and

$$w=x^2F[1/4,3/2,2;1x^4]+\frac{3x^2(x^41)}{16}F[5/4,5/2,3;1x^4].$$
(5.22)
Here $`x=(r/m)^2`$ and $`F[\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;x]`$ denotes the hypergeometric function.

(b-2) $`v`$-system of $`SU(4)`$ metric

There are no regular solutions.

(c-1) $`u`$-system of $`Spin(7)`$ metric

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6k_1z(z^{7/5}1)}{z1}},`$
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`u_3=k_1w(z)+k_2z^{4/5}(z1),`$
$`u_4`$ $`=`$ $`k_1w(z){\displaystyle \frac{(k_2+k_3)}{2}}z^{4/5}(z1),`$
$`u_5`$ $`=`$ $`k_1w(z){\displaystyle \frac{(k_2k_3)}{2}}z^{4/5}(z1)`$ (5.23)
and

$$w=6+z^{7/5}\frac{4z^{7/5}11}{z1}\frac{5(z^{7/5}1)}{(z1)^2}\text{with}z=(m/r)^{10/3}.$$
(5.24)
(c-2) $`v`$-system of $`Spin(7)`$ metric

$$v_i=K_iz^{4/5}(z1),(i=15)$$
(5.25)
where $`K_i`$ are constants satisfying $`K_1=K_3`$ and $`K_2=K_4`$.

Finally let us comment on the AC special holonomy metrics based on the coset space $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$. Using the correspondence between $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ and $`SU(3)/U(1)_{1,1}`$ models, we can see the deformations of the AC metrics. In fact the solution (5.21) gives the deformation of $`SU(4)`$ metric on the line bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(3)`$ , and the solution (5.23) the deformation of $`Spin(7)`$ metric on the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$ .

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank T. Eguchi, R. Goto and M. Naka for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 14570073.

## Appendix A

Convention of $`SU(3)`$ Maurer-Cartan forms

We use the following $`SU(3)`$ Maurer-Cartan equation that is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ symmetric;

$`d\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\tau _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\tau _2+\kappa _AT_A\sigma _2+\kappa _BT_B\sigma _2,`$
$`d\sigma _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\tau _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\tau _1\kappa _AT_A\sigma _1\kappa _BT_B\sigma _1,`$
$`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _1\sigma _1\tau _2\sigma _2+\mu _AT_A\mathrm{\Sigma }_2+\mu _BT_B\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,`$
$`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _1\sigma _2\tau _2\sigma _1\mu _AT_A\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mu _BT_B\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,`$ (A.1)
$`d\tau _1`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\sigma _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2+\nu _AT_A\tau _2+\nu _BT_B\tau _2,`$
$`d\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\sigma _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\nu _AT_A\tau _1\nu _BT_B\tau _1,`$
$`dT_A`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _A\sigma _1\sigma _2+2\beta _A\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2+2\gamma _A\tau _1\tau _2,`$
$`dT_B`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _B\sigma _1\sigma _2+2\beta _B\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2+2\gamma _B\tau _1\tau _2.`$
This form of the Maurer-Cartan equation is symmetric under the (cyclic) permutation of $`(\sigma _i,\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,\tau _i)`$. From the Jacobi identity we see that the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\kappa ,\mu ,\nu `$, which describe the ”coupling” of the Cartan generators $`\{T_A,T_B\}`$ satisfy

$`\alpha _A+\beta _A+\gamma _A=0,\alpha _B+\beta _B+\gamma _B=0,`$
$`\kappa _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\beta _B\gamma _B),\kappa _B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\beta _A\gamma _A),\mu _A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\alpha _B\gamma _B),`$ (A.2)
$`\mu _B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\alpha _A\gamma _A),\nu _A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\alpha _B\beta _B),\nu _B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\alpha _A\beta _A)`$
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\beta _A\alpha _B\alpha _A\beta _B`$ leaving four free parameters $`(\alpha _{A,B},\beta _{A,B})`$. We may further put the ”orthogonality” conditions;

$`\alpha _A\alpha _B+\beta _A\beta _B+\gamma _A\gamma _B`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\kappa _A\kappa _B+\mu _A\mu _B+\nu _A\nu _B`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A.3)
which reduces one parameter.

## Appendix B

Hitchin formulation of $`Spin(7)`$ manifolds

Recently Hitchin has shown that any hypersurface in a foliation of eight-manifold with $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy carries a cosymplectic $`G_2`$-structure . Here we describe the outline restricting to $`Spin(7)`$ manifolds of cohomogeneity one.

Let $`M=G/K`$ be a seven dimensional homogeneous space with $`G`$-invariant metric $`\widehat{g}`$. Explicitly, using a basis of invariant 1-forms $`E^i`$, we write

$$\widehat{g}=g_{ij}E^iE^j.$$
(B.1)
A $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$ is specified by fixing a three-form $`\phi `$ which takes the form

$$\phi =\frac{1}{3!}\phi _{ijk}e^ie^je^k.$$
(B.2)
Here, $`e^i(i=17)`$ denote the vielbeins of $`\widehat{g}`$, which are identified with the generators of octonions obeying the relation

$$e^ie^j=\phi _{ijk}e^k\delta _{ij}.$$
(B.3)
Furthermore (B.2) defines a cosymplectic $`G_2`$-structure on $`M`$ in case $`d\phi =0`$. Both weak $`G_2`$ and $`G_2`$ holonomy structures satisfy this condition and so are special examples of cosymplectic $`G_2`$-structures. A classification of compact homogeneous manifolds with weak $`G_2`$ holonomy is given in  and the spaces $`Sp(2)/Sp(1)`$ and $`SU(3)/U(1)_k\mathrm{}`$ we discuss in this paper are in the members of this list.

Suppose $`\rho _t=\phi (t)`$ is a closed four-form in the space of $`G`$-invariant cosymplectic $`G_2`$-structures on $`M`$ for each $`tI`$(open interval). If

$$\dot{\rho }_t+d\rho _t=0,$$
(B.4)
then the four-form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=dt\rho _t\rho _t$$
(B.5)
gives a cohomogeneity-one metric with $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy on the eight-manifols $`N=I\times M`$. In fact, we have

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }=dtd\rho _tdt\dot{\rho }_t=0.$$
(B.6)
The invariant metric $`\widehat{g}(t)`$ on $`M`$ evolves via the equation (B.4) and induces the following $`Spin(7)`$ metric

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+\widehat{g}(t)`$ (B.7)
$`=`$ $`dt^2+g_{ij}(t)E^iE^j.`$
Note that (B.4) can be interpreted as the gradient flow equation of the total volume

$$\sqrt{\text{det}g_{ij}(t)}E^1E^2\mathrm{}E^7,$$
(B.8)
when it is regarded as the functional of the closed form $`\rho _t`$ .

Conversely, if a $`Spin(7)`$ manifold is foliated by homogeneous space $`G/K`$, we can write the $`Spin(7)`$ 4-form in the form $`dt\rho _t\rho _t`$ with (B.4) and $`G/K`$ carries an invariant cosymplectic $`G_2`$-structure $`\rho _t`$ for each $`t`$.

## Appendix C

Deformation of four dimensional hyperkähler manifolds

A Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is called hyperkähler when it satisfies the following conditions : (a) $`M`$ admits three complex structures $`J^a`$ $`(a=1,2,3)`$ obeying the quaternionic relations $`J^aJ^b=\delta _{ab}ϵ_{abc}J^c`$ ; (b) the metric $`g`$ is preserved by $`J^a`$ ; (c) the two forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a(X,Y)=g(J^aX,Y)`$ for all vector fields $`X,Y`$ are three Kähler forms; $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^a=0`$. If the manifold is four dimensional, the above condition is equivalent to the (anti-)self-duality of the curvature two form.

In this appendix we discuss deformations of four dimensional hyperkähler manifold by a similar approach to $`Spin(7)`$ manifold in this paper. Let us first recall a formulation of the self-dual equations by Ashtekar. In this approach hyperkähler metrics are given by solutions to the differential equations for volume-preserving vector fields. The following proposition summarizes the result of  relevant to our calculation.

Proposition Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a four dimensional manifold with a volume form $`\omega `$ and let $`(V_0,V_1,V_2,V_3)`$ be volume-preserving vector fields forming an oriented basis for $`TM`$ at each point. Suppose in addition that the vector fields satisfy the equations

$$[V_0,V_1]+[V_2,V_3]=0,[V_0,V_2]+[V_3,V_1]=0,[V_0,V_3]+[V_1,V_2]=0.$$
(C.1)
Then the following metric $`g`$ is hyperkähler

$$g=e^\mu e^\mu ,e^\mu =\sqrt{\varphi }V^\mu ,$$
(C.2)
where $`V^\mu `$ is the dual one form of $`V_\mu `$ and $`\varphi `$ is a function defined by $`\omega =\varphi V^0V^1V^2V^3`$, and the hyperkähler forms are given by the self-dual two forms ;

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^1=e^0e^1+e^2e^3,\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^2=e^0e^2+e^3e^1,\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^3=e^0e^3+e^1e^2.$$
(C.3)
We note that the duality of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^i`$ is fixed by the orientation of the basis $`V_\mu `$ and the condition (C.1).

Remarks 1. By using the orthonormal basis $`e^\mu `$ the spin connection $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the equations

$$\omega _{01}+\omega _{23}=0,\omega _{02}+\omega _{31}=0,\omega _{03}+\omega _{12}=0,$$
(C.4)
and hence the corresponding curvature two form is automatically anti-self-dual. The curvature two form has the reversed duality to the hyperkähler two forms.

2. The volume form of the metric is $`\omega _g=\varphi ^2V^0V^1V^2V^3`$, which is different from the original volume form $`\omega `$ one might expect.

Conversely, it is known that the volume-preserving vector fields satisfying (C.1) can be locally constructed for any four dimensional hyperkähler manifold .

We now proceed to deformations of the hyperkähler manifold $`(M,g)`$, and use the orthonormal basis $`e^\mu `$ defined in the proposition. Let $`F_{ASD}`$ be an anti-self-dual closed two form (an ASD $`U(1)`$ instanton) on $`M`$ ;

$$F_{ASD}=F_1(e^0e^1e^2e^3)+F_2(e^0e^2e^3e^1)+F_3(e^0e^3e^1e^2).$$
(C.5)
Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^a`$ $`(a=1,2,3)`$ denote the hyperkähler forms given by (C.3). We define deformed two forms by adding $`F_{ASD}`$ with a small parameter $`ϵ`$ ;

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^a=\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^a+ϵF_{ASD}.$$
(C.6)
Note that the shift is common to all the directions $`(a=1,2,3)`$. When we introduce a new basis

$$\stackrel{~}{e}^\mu =e^\mu +\frac{ϵ}{2}U^{\mu \nu }e^\nu ,(U^{\mu \nu }=U^{\nu \mu })$$
(C.7)
defined by

$`U^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`F_2F_3,U^{02}=F_1+F_3,U^{03}=F_1F_2,`$
$`U^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1F_2F_3,U^{22}=F_1+F_2F_3,U^{33}=F_1F_2+F_3,`$
$`U^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1+F_2,U^{13}=F_1+F_3,U^{23}=F_2+F_3`$ (C.8)
with

$$U^{00}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U^{ii}=F_1+F_2+F_3,$$
(C.9)
it is easy to confirm that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^a`$ takes the same form as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{SD}^a`$ by means of the new basis $`\stackrel{~}{e}^\mu `$. Thus the deformed metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{e}^\mu \stackrel{~}{e}^\mu `$ is hyperkähler. Note that $`F_{ASD}`$ can be constructed from a volume-preserving vector field $`W=W_\mu V_\mu `$ satisfying the equation

$$[V_\mu ,[V_\mu ,W]]=0.$$
(C.10)
In fact the components of $`F_{ASD}`$ are given by

$`F_1=V_1(W_0)V_0(W_1)+V_2(W_3)V_3(W_2),`$
$`F_2=V_2(W_0)V_0(W_2)+V_3(W_1)V_1(W_3),`$
$`F_3=V_3(W_0)V_0(W_3)+V_1(W_2)V_2(W_1).`$ (C.11)
As an example let us consider the Atiyah-Hitchin metric . In  it was shown that there exists a one-parameter family of deformations of the metric by taking a hyperkähler quotient of a moduli space of $`SU(3)`$ monopoles. By applying our method to this problem, the deformed metric can be made more explicit, although the expression is restricted to a small deformation from the Atiyah-Hitchin metric.

In the proposition, we take $`M=𝐑\times SO(3)`$ and introduce the left-invariant one forms $`\sigma ^i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ on $`SO(3)`$ given by $`A^1dA=\sigma ^iE_i`$$`ASO(3)`$. Here, $`E_i`$ is the basis of $`so(3)`$ algebra ,

$$E_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),E_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),E_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(C.12)
Using Euler angles $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, we write

$$A=e^{\alpha E_1}e^{\beta E_2}e^{\gamma E_1}$$
(C.13)
and then

$`\sigma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`d\gamma +\mathrm{cos}\beta d\alpha ,`$
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma d\alpha \mathrm{sin}\gamma d\beta ,`$
$`\sigma ^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma d\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\gamma d\beta .`$ (C.14)
Let us consider vector fields on $`M`$

$$V_0=\frac{}{t},V_i=A_{ij}\omega _j(t)\sigma _j,$$
(C.15)
where $`A_{ij}`$ represent the components of the matrix (C.13) and $`\sigma _j`$ is the dual vector field of $`\sigma ^j`$. The functions $`\omega _j(t)`$ are to be determined. The vector fields $`V_\mu `$ preserve a volume form $`\omega =dt\sigma ^1\sigma ^2\sigma ^3`$. So applying the proposition to $`V_\mu `$, one can obtain an SO(3)-invariant hyperkähler metric of Bianchi IX type ;

$$g=\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3dt^2+\frac{\omega _2\omega _3}{\omega _1}\sigma ^1\sigma ^1+\frac{\omega _1\omega _3}{\omega _2}\sigma ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{\omega _1\omega _2}{\omega _3}\sigma ^3\sigma ^3.$$
(C.16)
and the condition (C.1) implies that $`\omega _i`$ must satisfy the equation

$$\dot{\omega _1}=\omega _2\omega _3\omega _1(\omega _2+\omega _3)$$
(C.17)
and its cyclic permutations. The flow equation (C.17) can be solved in terms of elliptic functions, which gives the Atiyah-Hitchin metric. An $`SO(3)`$-invariant closed anti-self-dual two form $`F_{ASD}`$ on the Atiyah-Hitchin manifold (sometimes called the Sen form) was analysed by , and it takes the form

$$F_{ASD}=f(t)(\omega _2\omega _3dt\sigma ^1\omega _1\sigma ^2\sigma ^3),$$
(C.18)
where

$$f(t)=\mathrm{exp}_0^t(\omega _2+\omega _32\omega _2\omega _3/\omega _1)𝑑t.$$
(C.19)
The function $`f`$ has an exponential decline at $`t\mathrm{}`$ showing the $`L^2`$-normalizability of $`F_{ASD}`$. If we rewrite (C.18) using the orthonormal basis $`e^\mu =\sqrt{\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3}V^\mu `$ defined by the proposition, then the components $`F_a`$ $`(a=1,2,3)`$ of (C.5) depend on Euler angles through the functions $`A_{ij}`$. In fact

$$F_1=f(t)A_{11},F_2=f(t)A_{21},F_3=f(t)A_{31}.$$
(C.20)
This breaks the $`SO(3)`$ symmetry of the Atiyah-Hitchin metric when the metric is deformed by $`F_{ASD}`$. Combining (C.20) with (C.7), we have an expression for the deformed metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g+ϵh`$ ;

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`(A_{11}+A_{21}+A_{31})f\left(\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _2\omega _3}{\omega _1}}\sigma ^1\sigma ^1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1\omega _3}{\omega _2}}\sigma ^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1\omega _2}{\omega _3}}\sigma ^3\sigma ^3\right)`$ (C.21)
$`+`$ $`(A_{12}+A_{22}+A_{32})f\left(\omega _1\omega _2(dt\sigma ^3+\sigma ^3dt)+\omega _3(\sigma ^1\sigma ^2+\sigma ^2\sigma ^1)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`(A_{13}+A_{23}+A_{33})f\left(\omega _1\omega _3(dt\sigma ^2+\sigma ^2dt)+\omega _2(\sigma ^1\sigma ^3+\sigma ^3\sigma ^1)\right).`$
Let $`K_i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ be vector fields on $`SO(3)`$ generated by the left transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(tE_i)`$. Then the functions $`A_{1j}+A_{2j}+A_{3j}`$ vanish under the action $`K=K_1+K_2+K_3`$. Thus the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ has an isometry $`SO(2)`$ generated by $`K`$ as has been claimed in .


format: text

text:
# Searching for the Higgs Bosons of Minimal Supersymmetry with Muon Pairs and Bottom Quarks

## I Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM), the masses of gauge bosons and fermions are generated by one scalar field doublet. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, a neutral CP-even Higgs boson ($`h_{SM}^0`$) remains as a physical particle.

A supersymmetry (SUSY) between fermions and bosons provides a natural explanation of the Higgs mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) from radiative corrections in the framework of a grand unified theory and preserves the elementary nature of Higgs bosons. The Higgs sector of a supersymmetric theory must contain at least two $`SU(2)`$ doublets  for anomaly cancellation. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) , the Higgs sector has two doublets $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ that couple to the $`t_3=1/2`$ and $`t_3=+1/2`$ fermions, respectively. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, there remain five physical Higgs bosons: a pair of singly charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$, two neutral CP-even scalars $`H^0`$ (heavier) and $`h^0`$ (lighter), and a neutral CP-odd pseudoscalar $`A^0`$. The Higgs potential is constrained by supersymmetry such that all tree-level Higgs boson masses and couplings are determined by just two independent parameters, commonly chosen to be the mass of the CP-odd pseudoscalar ($`m_A`$) and the ratio of vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of the neutral Higgs fields ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$).

In the Model II of two Higgs doublet models  and in the MSSM, the couplings and production cross sections of $`\varphi ^0b\overline{b},\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$ are enhanced by factors of $`1/\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ decay mode  is a promising discovery channel for the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It has also been suggested that neutral Higgs bosons might be observable via their $`b\overline{b}`$ decays  in a large region of the ($`m_A,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) plane, provided that sufficient $`b`$-tagging capability can be achieved. However, simulations for the ATLAS detector concluded that detection of the $`b\overline{b}`$ channel would be difficult .

The LHC discovery potential of the muon pair channel for neutral Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model was demonstrated by Kao and Stepanov , and was later confirmed by the ATLAS collaboration . In the minimal supergravity unified model , the significance of $`pp\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ is greatly improved at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$  because $`m_A`$ and $`m_H`$ become small from the evolution of renormalization group equations with large $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ couplings. On the other hand, it is very challenging to search for muon pairs from Higgs decays in the Standard Model .

Although the $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ channel has a small branching fraction, this is compensated by an improved mass resolution for the muon pairs. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the muon pair discovery mode might be the only channel at the LHC that allows precise reconstruction of the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ masses.

In this article, we present the prospects for discovering the MSSM neutral Higgs bosons ($`\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$) produced with bottom quarks via Higgs decays into muon pairs ($`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$) at the LHC. We calculate the Higgs signal and complete SM background of $`b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ with realistic cuts and compare the discovery potential with that of the inclusive final state of $`pp\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$. The production cross sections and branching fractions of Higgs bosons are discussed in Section II. The dominant physics backgrounds from production of $`b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$, and $`b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ are presented in Section III. The observability of the dimuon signal is discussed in Section IV for conservative assumptions about the detector mass resolution. Conclusions are drawn in Section V.

## II The production cross sections and branching fractions

We calculate the cross section at the LHC for $`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0+X`$ ($`\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$) from two subprocesses $`ggb\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$  and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ with the parton distribution functions of CTEQ5L . It turns out that the contribution from quark-antiquark annihilation ($`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$) is negligible.

In the MSSM, gluon fusion ($`gg\varphi ^0`$) is the major source of neutral Higgs bosons for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ less than about 4. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger than 7, neutral Higgs bosons in the MSSM are dominantly produced from ($`ggb\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$) . Since the Yukawa couplings of $`\varphi ^0b\overline{b}`$ are enhanced by $`1/\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, the production rate of neutral Higgs bosons is usually enhanced at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For $`m_A`$ larger than about 150 GeV, the couplings of the lighter scalar $`h^0`$ to gauge bosons and fermions become similar to those of the SM Higgs boson. In this case, gluon fusion is the major source of the $`h^0`$ even if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large.

In general, the QCD radiative corrections to the subprocess $`gg\varphi ^0`$ are substantial . However, the next to the leading order (NLO) cross section of $`pp\varphi ^0b\overline{b}+X`$ via $`gg\varphi ^0b\overline{b}`$ with QCD radiative corrections has been found to be only slightly reduced from the leading order (LO) contribution evaluated with the bottom-quark pole mass $`M_b`$ . It is a good approximation to evaluate the NLO cross section of $`pp\varphi ^0b\overline{b}+X`$ with the leading order (LO) contribution multiplied by a K factor*** The K factor is defined as $`K=\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}`$, where $`\sigma _{LO}`$ is evaluated with LO parton distribution functions and 1-loop evolution of the strong coupling ($`\alpha _s`$) and $`\sigma _{NLO}`$ is evaluated with NLO parton distribution functions and 2-loop evolution of $`\alpha _s`$. This is consistent with the notation of Refs.  and . of 0.8  and using the pole mass $`M_b=4.7`$ GeV.

The results of Ref.  are applied to compute the NLO rates for $`pp\varphi ^0`$. We take a K factor of 1.5 for the contribution from $`ggH^0,h^0`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <6`$ and a K factor of 1.3 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 6`$. The contribution from $`ggA^0`$ is calculated with the LO contribution multiplied by a K factor of 1.7 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <6`$ and a K factor of 1.3 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 6`$.

The cross section for $`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ is evaluated with the Higgs production cross section $`\sigma (ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0+X)`$ multiplied by the branching fraction of the Higgs decay into muon pairs $`B(\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu })`$. With QCD radiative corrections to $`\varphi ^0b\overline{b}`$ , the branching fraction of $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ is about $`m_\mu ^2/3m_b^2(m_\varphi )`$ when the $`b\overline{b}`$ mode dominates Higgs decays, where 3 is a color factor of the quarks and $`m_b(m_\varphi )`$ is the running mass at the scale $`m_\varphi `$. This results in the branching fraction for $`A^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ of approximately $`3\times 10^4`$ for $`m_A=100`$ GeV.

## III The Physics Background

The dominant physics backgrounds to the final state of $`b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ come from $`ggb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ as well as $`ggb\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ followed by the decays of $`W^\pm \mu ^\pm \nu _\mu `$. The Feynman diagrams for $`ggb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ are shown in Fig. 1. We have also considered backgrounds from $`ppgb\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, $`ppg\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, $`ppgq\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, $`ppg\overline{q}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, and $`ppjj\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, where $`q=u,d,s,c`$ and $`j=g,q`$ or $`\overline{q}`$.

Our acceptance cuts and efficiencies of $`b`$-tagging and mistagging are the same as those of the ATLAS collaboration . In each event, two isolated muons are required to have $`p_T(\mu )>20`$ GeV and $`|\eta (\mu )|<2.5`$. For an integrated luminosity ($`L`$) of 30 fb-1, we require $`p_T(b,j)>15`$ GeV and $`|\eta (b,j)|<2.5`$. The $`b`$-tagging efficiency ($`ϵ_b`$) is taken to be $`60\%`$, the probability that a $`c`$-jet is mistagged as a $`b`$-jet ($`ϵ_c`$) is $`10\%`$ and the probability that any other jet is mistagged as a $`b`$-jet ($`ϵ_j`$) is taken to be $`1\%`$. For $`m_\varphi <100`$ GeV, we change the requirement to $`p_T(\mu )>`$ 10 GeV for muons in both the Higgs signal and the background.

For a higher integrated luminosity of 300 fb-1, we require the same acceptance cuts as those for $`L=`$ 30 fb-1 except $`p_T(b,j)>30`$ GeV and $`ϵ_b=50\%`$. In addition, we require that the missing transverse energy ($`E\text{/}_T`$) in each event should be less than 20 GeV for $`L=30`$ fb-1 and less than 40 GeV for $`L=300`$ fb-1 to reduce the background from $`ppb\overline{b}W^+W^{}+X`$ which receives its major contribution from both real and virtual top quarks $`ppt^{}\overline{t}^{}+X`$.

We have employed the programs MADGRAPH  and HELAS  to evaluate the background cross sections of $`ppb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X,jj\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ and $`bbW^+W^{}+X`$. In Figure 2, we present distributions for the transverse momenta ($`p_T`$) of muons and bottom quarks for $`ppb\overline{b}A^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ and for the SM background of $`ppb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ via $`ggb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$. It is clear that the muon $`p_T`$ cut is effective in removing most of the SM background, while most muons from the Higgs decays pass the $`p_T`$ cut. Most $`b`$ quarks in both the signal and the background do not have large $`p_T`$, therefore, only approximately 10$`\%`$ of the $`b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ events survive the requirement of $`p_T(b,j)>15`$ GeV for $`m_\varphi =100`$ GeV.

We have also studied the inclusive discovery channel of $`pp\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$. The dominant physics background to the inclusive final state of $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ comes from the Drell-Yan process $`q\overline{q}Z,\gamma \mu \overline{\mu }`$ . We make the same cuts discussed above and veto events with any jet passing the cuts on $`p_T`$ and $`\eta `$ to effectively reduce additional backgrounds from $`ppt\overline{t}bbW^+W^{}+X`$ and $`ppjj\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ where $`j=g,u,d,s,c`$ or $`b`$.

## IV The Discovery Potential at the LHC

We show the invariant mass distribution of muon pairs in Fig. 3 for $`ppb\overline{b}A^0+Xb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and 50, the SM processes of $`ppb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, and contributions from $`ppb\overline{b}W^+W^{}+X`$ with cuts and tagging efficiencies for $`L=`$ 30 fb-1. Also shown are the muon pair invariant mass distributions for the inclusive final state of $`ppA^0\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ and its dominant background from the Drell-Yan process $`ppZ,\gamma \mu \overline{\mu }+X`$. There are several interesting aspects to note from this figure: (a) including two $`b`$ quarks in the final state greatly improves the signal to background ratio with realistic efficiencies of b tagging and jet mistagging at the ATLAS and the CMS detectors, (b) the SM subprocess of $`ggb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ make the major contribution to the physics background for $`M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}100`$ GeV, but $`ggb\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ become the dominant background for higher muon pair invariant mass.

To study the discovery potential of $`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0+Xb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ at the LHC, we calculate the background from the SM processes of $`ppb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ in the mass window of $`m_\varphi \pm \mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}1.64[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi /2.36)^2+\sigma _m^2]^{1/2}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is the total width of the Higgs boson, and $`\sigma _m`$ is the muon mass resolution. We take $`\sigma _m`$ to be $`2\%`$ of the Higgs boson mass . The CMS mass resolution will be better than $`2\%`$ of $`m_\varphi `$ for $`m_\varphi `$ 500 GeV . Therefore, the observability for the muon pair discovery channel at the CMS detector will be better than what is shown in this article.

To study the observability of the inclusive muon discovery mode, we consider the background from the Drell-Yan process, $`q\overline{q}Z,\gamma \mu \overline{\mu }`$, which is the dominant background . We require (i) $`p_T(\mu )>20`$ GeV and (ii) $`|\eta (\mu )|<2.5`$ for both the signal and background.

We define the signal to be observable if the $`N\sigma `$ lower limit on the signal plus background is larger than the corresponding upper limit on the background , namely,

$`L(\sigma _s+\sigma _b)N\sqrt{L(\sigma _s+\sigma _b)}>L\sigma _b+N\sqrt{L\sigma _b}`$ (1)
which corresponds to

$`\sigma _s>{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{L}}\left[1+2\sqrt{L\sigma _b}/N\right]`$ (2)
Here $`L`$ is the integrated luminosity, $`\sigma _s`$ is the cross section of the Higgs signal, and $`\sigma _b`$ is the background cross section within a bin of width $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}`$ centered at $`m_\varphi `$. In this convention, $`N=2.5`$ corresponds to a 5$`\sigma `$ signal. We take the integrated luminosity $`L`$ to be 30 fb-1 and 300 fb-1 .

For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$, $`m_A`$ and $`m_H`$ are almost degenerate when $`m_A`$ 125 GeV, while $`m_A`$ and $`m_h`$ are very close to each other for $`m_A`$ 125 GeV in the MSSM . Therefore, when computing the discovery reach, we add the cross sections of the $`A^0`$ and the $`h^0`$ for $`m_A<125`$ GeV and those of the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ for $`m_A125`$ GeV.

The 5$`\sigma `$ discovery contours for the MSSM Higgs bosons at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 14 TeV for an integrated luminosity of $`L=30\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ are shown in Fig. 4. We have chosen $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\mu =1`$ TeV. The discovery region is the part of the parameter space above the $`5\sigma `$ contour.

We have presented results for $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1`$ TeV. If $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is smaller, the discovery region of $`A^0,H^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ will be slightly reduced for $`m_A250`$ GeV, because the the Higgs bosons can decay into SUSY particles  and the branching fraction of $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ is suppressed. For $`m_A125`$ GeV, the discovery region of $`H^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ is slightly enlarged for a smaller $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, but the observable region of $`h^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ is slightly reduced because the lighter top squarks make the $`H^0`$ and the $`h^0`$ lighter; also the $`H^0b\overline{b}`$ coupling is enhanced while the $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ coupling is reduced .

## V Conclusions

The muon pair decay mode is a promising channel for the discovery of the neutral Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model at the LHC. The $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ should be observable in a large region of parameter space with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$. The $`h^0`$ should be observable in a region with $`m_A125`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5`$.

In particular, Fig. 4 shows that the associated final state of $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ could discover the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 30 fb-1 if $`m_A300`$ GeV. At a higher luminosity of 300 fb-1, the discovery region in $`m_A`$ is not expanded much; the harder $`p_T`$ cut on $`b`$ quarks reduces the Higgs production cross section, and the higher missing transverse energy slightly increases the background from $`b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$.

The inclusive final state of $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ could also allow the discovery of the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 30 fb-1 if $`m_A450`$ GeV. At a higher luminosity of 300 fb-1, the statistical significance of the Higgs signal is improved by a factor of $`\sqrt{10}`$ and the discovery region in $`m_A`$ is significantly extended to $`m_A650`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$.

The discovery of both $`\varphi ^0\tau \overline{\tau }`$ and $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ will allow us to understand the Higgs Yukawa couplings with the leptons. The discovery of the associated final state of $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ will provide information about the Yukawa couplings of $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ and an opportunity to measure $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Although the discovery region of the $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ mode is smaller than the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ channel, the $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ channel allows a precise reconstruction of the Higgs boson masses. Furthermore, if $`m_Hm_A`$ is smaller than the tau mass resolution, it would be difficult to separate them in the tau pair discovery mode. The muon discovery channel at the LHC might be employed to distinguish the $`H^0`$ and the $`A^0`$ in multi-Higgs-doublet models for $`m_Hm_A`$ slightly larger than the muon mass resolution ($`\sigma _m`$) of the CMS and the ATLAS detectors.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Howie Haber, Michael Spira and Scott Willenbrock for beneficial discussions. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grants No. DE-AC02-76CH00016, No. DE-FG03-98ER41066, and No. DE-FG03-93ER40757.