Abstract
We study supersymmetry conditions for the heterotic pure superstring preserving \(N=1\) supersymmetry in four dimensions directly from the curved superspace defined by the Berkovits–Howe constraints.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Understanding string dynamics in curved backgrounds is still one of the most important topics of research in string theory. It is particularly crucial to study dualities and compactifications. Most of the knowledge in string compactifications comes from the Ramond–Neveu–Schwarz (RNS) formalism or the supergravity limit. In the case of heterotic string or Type II strings the RNS formalism allowed significant advances such as non-renormalization theorems [1] and exact results from topological strings (see, e.g., [2] for a review). For compactification backgrounds involving Ramond–Ramond (RR) fields most of the work done was restricted to the supergravity limit. The difficulty comes from the RR vertex operators associated with the linearized RR flux.
The pure spinor formalism [3] introduced by Berkovits has manifest supersymmetry in flat space-time and made possible to study RR backgrounds without the subtleties of the RR vertex operators of the RNS formalism.Footnote 1 In two previous papers [6, 7] we started the study of compactifications using the pure spinor formalism.Footnote 2 However, in those works we started with an ansatz for the covariant super derivative algebra without relating it the supergravity background defined by the Berkovits–Howe supergravity constraints [9]. The assumption was guided by requiring a nilpotent BRST charge in the supergravity limit. In this work we want to study supergravity backgrounds for the heterotic pure spinor string preserving Poincaré symmetry or supersymmetry in four dimensions directly from the curved superspace defined by the Berkovits–Howe constraints. The idea is to construct the Killing supervectors and derive the conditions imposed on the supergeometry such that their lowest components satisfy some general requirements expected for Poincaré or supersymmetry parameters. Knowledge of the \(\theta \) expansion of Killing supervectors is also useful since they define conserved currents on the worldsheet which can be used to have an explicit form for the supergravity vertex operators. Killing spinors and their algebra were already studied in, e.g. [10] but not directly from superspace point of view.
The superspace approach taken here is considerably more involved that the component approach historically used in the literature on superstring compactifications. However if we want to apply covariant formalisms for the superstring to this problem we must understand all steps in the description of curved superspaces for string compactifications. Although the case studied here is one of the oldest compactification models it will serve the base to apply the same ideas to more general compactifications, e.g. [11,12,13,14] and also for Type II strings. Curved superspace methods were also used in [15] to describe flux compactifications.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we give a brief review for the heterotic string in the pure spinor formalism in a general curved background and some of the main consequences of the Berkovits–Howe constraints. In the Sect. 3 we study general Killing supervectors in ten dimensional supergravity with the Berkovits–Howe constraints. In Sect. 4 we study the consequences of imposing four dimensional Poincaré symmetry and supersymmetry. The final section has a summary of the main steps of our work and future applications.
2 Heterotic supergravity and the Berkovits–Howe constraints
In this section we review the heterotic string in a curved background in the description of the pure spinor formalism. The world-sheet action is given by
where the superspace coordinates \(Z^M= (X^{{\underline{m}}}, \theta ^\mu )\) (with \({{\underline{m}}}=0, \ldots , 9, \mu =1, \ldots , 16\)) defines \(\Pi ^A = \partial Z^M E_M{}^A(Z) = (\Pi ^{{\underline{a}}} , \Pi ^\alpha )\), where \(E_M{}^A(Z)\) is the vielbein superfield. The world-sheet field \(d_\alpha \) is the generator for superspace translations, \(\lambda ^\alpha \) is the pure spinor variable and \(\omega _\alpha \) is its momentum conjugate variable. The world-sheet fields \(\rho _{{\mathcal {A}}}\) are the heterotic fermions. They are in the fundamental representation of the gauge group SO(32) or \(E_8\times E_8\). These fermions define the current \({{\overline{J}}}^I=\frac{1}{2} K^I_{{\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}}}\rho _{{\mathcal {A}}}\rho _{{\mathcal {B}}}\), where \(K_I\) are the generators of the gauge group Lie algebra in the fundamental representation. The covariant derivatives in (2.1) are defined by
where \(\Omega _{M\beta }{}^\alpha \) is the background Lorentz connection and \(A_{IM}\) is the gauge group connection. The background fields are \(B, W_I, U_I\) and the connections in (2.2). Finally, \(S_{FT}\) is the Fradkin–Tseytlin term and it is given by
where \( r^{(2)}\) is the world-sheet curvature and \(\Phi \) is the dilaton superfield. Note that this term breaks classical conformal invariance but it helps to restore it at the quantum level [16].
The action (2.1) is the most general expression that is invariant under background Lorentz and gauge transformations such that it is also classically conformal invariant. There is another symmetry that constrains the background fields to satisfy the equations of supergravity in ten dimensions and the equations of super Yang–Mills in a curved background [9]. This symmetry is generated by the pure spinor BRST charge
The nilpotency of Q and the holomorphicity of \( \lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha \), imply a set of constraints for the background superfields. These constraints are functions of the torsion, curvature, field-strength and \(H=dB\) components. Let us remind how they are defined. They are given after constructing the super one-forms \(E^A=dZ^M E_M{}^A, \Omega _\alpha {}^\beta =dZ^M \Omega _{M\alpha }{}^\beta , A_I=dZ^M A_{IM}\) and the super two-form \(B=\frac{1}{2} dZ^M dZ^N B_{NM}\). Note that the Lorentz connection has the form
where \(\Omega ^{(s)}\) is the connection for scalings and \(\Omega _{\underline{ab}}\) is the usual Lorentz connection in ten-dimensional superspace. In this way, one can define the connection \(\Omega _A{}^B\) with non-zero components \(\Omega _{\underline{a}}{}^{{\underline{b}}}\) and \(\Omega _\alpha {}^\beta \). The matrix \(\gamma ^{\underline{ab}}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{{\underline{a}}}\gamma ^{\underline{b}}-\gamma ^{{\underline{b}}}\gamma ^{{\underline{a}}})\), where \((\gamma ^{\underline{a}})_{\alpha \beta }\) and \((\gamma ^{{\underline{a}}})^{\alpha \beta }\) are the symmetric \(16\times 16\) \(\gamma \)-matrices in ten dimensions that satisfy the Dirac algebra
The map of a tensor with superspace curved indices to local target space indices is performed with the use of the vielbein and its inverse. For example,
where (A, M) assigns a sign \((+1)\) for bosonic directions and \((-1)\) for fermionic directions (for more details see [17]). The torsion, curvature and field-strength super two-forms are given by
where the product between forms is the wedge product and \(f^{JK}{}_I\) are the structure constants of the gauge group Lie algebra. The covariant derivative \(\nabla \) is
where \(M_{ab}\) are the Lorentz generators and S is the scaling generator.
Together with
the torsion, the curvature and the field-strength satisfy Bianchi identities. They are given by
where the (anti)-symmetrization is on (ABC) in the first three equations and it is on (ABCD) in the last equation.
The nilpotency of the pure spinor BRST charge and the holomorphicity of the BRST current, together with gauge fixing gauge symmetries of the action, imply that some of the torsion components are
some of the H components are
and for the field-strength components
Using the Bianchi identities of (2.11) and the torsion components in (2.12), one can prove that the constraints for the curvature are implied. Also, the Bianchi identity involving \({\nabla }_{(\alpha } T_{\beta \gamma )}{}^{{\underline{a}}}\) implies that
It is important to note that since \(\Omega ^{(s)}_\alpha \ne 0\) one has to be careful when acting with \(\nabla _\alpha \) on gamma matrices. For example,
Combining the Bianchi identities involving \({\nabla }_{[\alpha } T_{\underline{ab}]}{}^{{\underline{c}}}\) and \({\nabla }_{[\alpha } H_{\beta \underline{ab}]}\) one can show that
The Bianchi identity involving \({\nabla }_{[\alpha } H_{\underline{abc}]}\) together with the equation \((\gamma ^{{\underline{b}}})_{\alpha \beta } T_{\underline{ab}}{}^\beta =8{\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}}\Omega _\alpha \) (which is derived from the Bianchi identity involving \({\nabla }_{[{\underline{a}}} T_{\alpha \beta ]}{}^\beta \) [16]) implies that
Finally, the Bianchi involving \(R_{(\alpha \beta \gamma )}{}^\rho \) implies
So we have that
Note that \(\Omega ^{(s)}_\alpha =\frac{1}{4}{\nabla }_\alpha \Phi \) as it is required by ghost number anomaly cancellation [9] (also necessary for vanishing of the beta function at one-loop [16]). One can also use the Bianchi identities to find the following expressions for the curvatures
All the gauge covariant background fields depend on the \(\Phi \) superfield. This is not something new and it is also true with a different set of constraints [18]. It is interesting to note that for the Type IIB pure spinor string this is not true [19]. It can be shown that using the Berkovits–Howe constraints the Ramond–Ramond 5-form, as well as curvature generated from it, does not appear as a higher component of \(\Phi \) [20]. An explicit example of this is the \(AdS_5\times S^5\) background [3, 21] where all covariant derivatives of \(\Phi \) vanish.
3 Killing supervectors
As discussed in the previous section all Lorentz covariant tensors can be computed from \(\Phi \). Under a general super reparametrization \(\xi ^M(Z)\) it transforms as
where we are defining \(\xi ^A=\xi ^M E_M{}^A\). However it is not enough to impose that the transformation above vanishes. Generically the covariant tensors are given by
therefore in order to have \(\delta T_{A_1\cdots A_n}=0\) we must also impose that \(\delta \nabla _A=0\). Another way to see it is that particular components of the vielbein cannot be obtained from \(\Phi \) so to impose that the full background is invariant under some particular super diffeomorphism the covariant derivatives (2.9), which depend on \(E_A{}^M\), should also be invariant.
The textbook way, see e.g. [22], to study super diffeomorphisms is to introduce a vector superfield containing \(\xi ^A\), a compensating Lorentz rotation \(\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}\) and scale transformation \(\sigma \)
Although the pure spinor sigma model has two independent local Lorentz symmetries, acting on vectors and spinors separately, a combination of the two is fixed in the process of solving the Berkovits–Howe constraints. The local scale symmetry is also used to fix the dimension zero torsions, however since we are not eliminating the scale connection from \(\nabla _\alpha \) we still have to include the scale transformation in K. As we will see this will effectively reduce the structure group of symmetry transformations from Lorentz times scale to only Lorentz, as expected.
A generic tensor superfield \({\mathcal {O}}^{A_1\cdots A_n}\) transforms under local reparametrizations and local Lorentz transformations as generated by K as
Since the covariant derivatives map tensors to tensors we have that the covariant derivatives themselves transform as
If we apply this idea to \(\nabla _{ \alpha }\) and use the Berkovits–Howe constraints we get
where \(R^{(s)}_{AB}\) is the scaling curvature and \(R_{AB}{}^{ {ab}}\) is the Lorentz curvature. The first term in (3.6) defines \(\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}\) in terms of \(\xi ^{ \alpha }\) it also implies that
Before studying the consequences of these conditions let us first analyze the second term of (3.6), which has the lowest mass dimension. From it we can write an expression for \(\xi ^{\alpha }\) in terms of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) as
We can also write the fundamental equation for \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) using the usual ten dimensional gamma matrix identity
it depends only on \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) and the background. Using the explicit form of \(T_{ {\alpha \underline{a}}}{}^{{\underline{b}}}\) and the fact that the \(\nabla _{ \alpha }\) derivative of \(\gamma _{\underline{b}{\beta \delta }}\) is not zero, simplifies this equation to just
A nice way to summarize this is that the isometries of a general supergravity background with the Berkovits–Howe constraints [9] are generated by a symmetric bi-spinor satisfying
Let us see what consequences are obtained by using the conditions (3.7) and the expression for (3.8) for \(\xi ^\alpha \). Acting with \({\nabla }_\alpha \) on (3.8) one obtains
Using the equation for \({\nabla }_\alpha \xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) from (3.6), the anticommutator for the for the first term and \(\Omega _\alpha =\frac{1}{4}{\nabla }_\alpha \Phi \) one obtains
Now we use the equation for \({\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}}\xi ^{{\underline{b}}}\) from (3.21) below, the Bianchi identity involving \(R_{\alpha \beta {\underline{b}}}{}^{{\underline{a}}}\) and note that all the terms with two factors of \(\Omega _\alpha \) vanish (because they form a factor of the form \((\Omega \gamma _{{\underline{a}}}\Omega )\)), we obtain
As we mentioned below Eq. (3.3) this condition on \(\sigma \) is effectively eliminating the scale connection from \(\nabla _\alpha \), reducing the structure group of the symmetry generators. Note that \(\Omega _{{\underline{a}}}\) already vanishes as a consequence of the Berkovits–Howe constraints.
The second condition in (3.7) does not provide information: in fact, using (3.8) one obtains
The first term becomes
after anticommuting the fermionic derivatives, using the equation for \({\nabla }_\alpha \xi _{{\underline{e}}}\) derived from (3.6) and the Bianchi identity involving \(R_{\alpha \beta \underline{e}f}\). For the second term, after using the equation for \({\nabla }_\beta \xi _{{\underline{e}}}\) from (3.6) one obtains that this term is equal to
For the third term, we use again the equation for \({\nabla }_\beta \xi _{{\underline{e}}}\) to get
For the fourth term we just contract the gamma matrices to obtain
Adding (3.16), (3.17), (3.18) and (3.19) we obtain that
Therefore the second equation in (3.7) is identically satisfied.
The vanishing of \(\delta \nabla _{{\underline{a}}}\) should be implied by \(\delta \nabla _{ \alpha }=0\). Nevertheless, it is still useful to have its explicit form
One can use the equations in (3.6) to derive each term above. For example, consider first \(\{ \nabla _\alpha , \nabla _\beta \}\xi ^A\), which is equal to
and use the equations for \(\xi \) and \(\Lambda \) derived from \(\delta \nabla _A=0\) in (3.6) and (3.21). For \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\), (3.22) implies
The terms with \(\Lambda \) cancel after computing the commutator. The term with \(\xi ^{{\underline{b}}}\) is also zero because of the Bianchi identity involving \(R_{\alpha \beta {\underline{b}}}{}^{{\underline{a}}}\). The terms with \(\xi ^\gamma \) are equal to
where we have used the fact that \(T_{\beta {\underline{b}}}{}^{\underline{a}}=2(\gamma _{{\underline{b}}}{}^{{\underline{a}}}\Omega )_\beta \) and the Fierz identity \(\gamma ^{{\underline{b}}}_{(\gamma \alpha } (\gamma _{\underline{b}})_{\beta )\rho }=0\). The result of (3.24) has to cancel the term with \(\sigma \) in (3.23). Therefore,
which is a condition already found before (see (3.14)).
As we already mentioned before, the scalar superfield \(\Phi \) should also be invariant under the transformations generated by K. Since \(\xi ^{ \gamma } \Omega _{ \gamma } = -\sigma \) and \(\Omega _{ \alpha }=\frac{1}{4}{\nabla }_{ \alpha }\Phi \), invariance under K implies that
Finally, one can calculate the commutator of two different Killing transformations parametrized by \((\xi ^A_1,\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}_1,\sigma _1)\) and \((\xi ^A_2,\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}_2,\sigma _2)\)
Both K’s leave \(\nabla _A\) invariant, so the parameters \(\xi \) and \(\Lambda \) satisfy the equations the come from \([K , \nabla _A]=0\). The commutator \(K_3=[K_1,K_2]\) is then given by
Using the equations from (3.6) and (3.21) for the derivatives of \(\xi _1, \xi _2, \Lambda _1, \Lambda _2\) the expression above can be simplified to
So we finally obtain that
For the heterotic string it is also possible to include a gauge field background. The superfields present in the sigma model are \(({\textbf{A}}_B,{\textbf{W}}^{ \alpha }, {\textbf{U}}, {\textbf{U}}^{\underline{ab}})\). They are valued in the Lie algebra of \(E_8\times E_8\) or SO(32) and \({\textbf{A}}_B\) is the usual gauge superfield. The Berkovits–Howe constraints imply that they can be written in terms of \({\textbf{A}}_{ \alpha }\). One could include the gauge superfield in the covariant derivatives together with a compensating gauge transformation in K and include their contributions to (3.6) and (3.21). However, a gauge background is better described by its dimension \(\frac{3}{2}\) covariant field strength \({\textbf{W}}^{ \alpha }\) and its transformation under K is
where the \(\nabla _A\) above includes the gauge connection. In what follows we will focus purely on the geometry and will not include a gauge background.
3.1 Flat superspace
In flat space \(\nabla _A\Phi =0\), the solution to (3.10) looks like
where \(\epsilon ^{{\underline{a}}}\) is the translation parameter, \(\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}\) is the Lorentz rotation and \(\eta ^\alpha \) is the supersymmetry parameter. There are no higher order \(\theta \) terms in the expansion. One way to see this is to note that the first term in the second line of (3.6) in flat space implies that \(\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}\) is constant. It also implies that \(\nabla _\delta \nabla _\alpha \xi ^\beta =0\), which means \(\xi ^\beta \) is constant in x and that \(\nabla _{[\alpha _1}\cdots \nabla _{\alpha _n]}\xi ^\beta \big |_{\theta =0}=0\) for \(n\ge 2\) so \(\xi ^\beta \) is at most linear in \(\theta \). This is the complete set of isometries of flat ten dimensional superspace.
We would like to know how the existence of (3.32) implies a flat ten dimensional superspace. First we have to define the basic properties of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) in an appropriate way if the superspace is curved. In this case there is no notion of a reparametrization invariant \(\theta \) expansion. The higher components of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) should be defined as an expansion using the Grassmann odd covariant derivatives. Using the \(\Theta \)-variable notation of Wess–Bagger [17] we can represent the \(\theta \) expansion of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) as
where \(\cdots \) are higher order \(\Theta \) terms. For flat superspace we could say \(\epsilon ^{{\underline{a}}}\), \(\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}}\) and \(\eta ^{ \alpha }\) were constants, but that is a frame dependent notion. For a general curved superspace we will impose that the components of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) satisfy
where \(\Lambda _{\underline{ab}}=-\Lambda _{\underline{ba}}\) and also that
is the same \(\Lambda \) defined by (3.34). Because of the nested \(\theta =0\) projections it is difficult to work with the conditions above. However, it is possible to simplify them in the case where the gravitino (and dilatino) vanishes. The bosonic covariant derivative is defined as
where \(\cdots \) are higher order \(\theta \) terms. Since \(\nabla _\mu \) is the only operator that has a \(\theta \) derivative, when \(\psi _{{\underline{a}}}{}^\mu =0\) we can write
this allows us to simplify the projections in the conditions for the components of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) and use them in (3.6) and (3.21). In summary, if we want to impose Poincaré invariance in the full ten dimensional superspace we require that the background is invariant under transformations generated by ten linearly independent vectors defined by \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}|_{\theta =0}\) satisfying \(\nabla _{{\underline{a}}}\xi ^{\underline{b}}|_{\theta =0}=-\Lambda _{{\underline{a}}}{}^{\underline{b}}|_{\theta =0}\), with the further conditions that \(\Lambda _{(\underline{ab})}=0\) and \(\nabla _{{\underline{c}}} \Lambda _{\underline{ab}}|_{\theta =0}=0\). It is clear that these conditions in (3.21) automatically imply the space is flat and without bosonic torsion.
4 Invariance conditions
Before we start let us summarize the results of the previous section. There are only two independent invariance conditions from which all others can be derived, they are
We already saw that the second equation can be written purely in terms of \(\xi ^{{\underline{a}}}\) and \(\Phi \), the same can be done with the first and it is simply
All other equations can be obtained from the ones above and the Bianchi identities. The last equations in both (3.6) and (3.21) can be obtained from
using that \(\Omega _\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\nabla _\alpha \Phi \), the scaling curvatures \(R^{(s)}_{AB}\) in (2.21) and the first lines of (3.6) and (3.21).
If we can find a set of superfields \((\xi ^A,\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}},\sigma )\) such that \(\delta \nabla _{ \alpha }=0\) the supergravity background will remain invariant. The idea is to find the superspace conditions for these equations to be satisfied for some specific set of parameters \((\xi ^A,\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}},\sigma )\) corresponding to translations in four dimensions and one global supersymmetry. From now on we will separate vector indices into four dimensional and six dimensional parts \( \underline{a}=(a,i)\). We will decompose the parameters as
Later, when imposing four dimensional supersymmetry we will also use complex indices \((I,{\bar{I}})\) for the internal space.
4.1 Four dimensional Poincaré symmetry
Let us first impose only four dimensional Poincaré invariance. Of course the conditions on the background are obvious, however it is still instructive to see how they appear from (4.1) and (4.2). It is not possible in this case to fix \(\xi ^A=(0,\xi ^a,0)\) as superfield conditions. This would constrain the full ten-dimensional superspace to be flat. A less restrictive way to do it is to impose
where \(\epsilon ^a\) is a four dimensional vector and \(l^{ab}\) a four dimensional Lorentz rotation. All higher components of the superfields \((\xi ^A,\Lambda ^{ {ab}})\) should depend only on \((\epsilon ^a,l^{ab})\) and the tensors of the geometry. Since we are dealing with a purely bosonic background we will use that
Staring from (4.1) we see that the first component of \(\Phi \) should independent of the four dimensional coordinates but it is unconstrained on the internal coordinates. From using (3.6), (4.6) and (4.7) we fix the next order in \(\theta \) expansion
To get the second term in the expansion we first use that
From the second term of (3.6) with \(A=\underline{a}\) we get
Before projecting to \(\theta =0\) we must find the consequences of Poincaré symmetry conditions \(\nabla _a\xi ^b|_{\theta =0}=-l_a{}^b\), \(\nabla _a\Lambda ^{bc}|_{\theta =0}=0\) from (3.21). The first term in (3.21) gives no information at leading order in \(\theta \). Choosing the indices in the second term to be (a, b) we find that \(T_{abc}|_{\theta =0}=0\). From the choice (a, i) and using that \((\nabla _a\xi ^i)|_{\theta =0}=0\) we have that \(T_{cai}|_{\theta =0}=0\). On the other hand, this will imply that \((\nabla _i\xi ^b)|_{\theta =0}=0\), as expected. Finally, from the choice (i, j) we have that \(T_{cij}|_{\theta =0}=0\). From the third term in (3.21) we get a vanishing four dimensional curvature \(R_{ab}{}^{cd}|_{\theta =0}=0\) and also that \(R_{ab}{}^{cj}|_{\theta =0}=R_{ab}{}^{ij}|_{\theta =0}=0\). Using Bianchi identities we have that \(\nabla _i\Lambda ^{cd}|_{\theta =0}\) and \(R_{di}{}^{bc}|_{\theta =0}=0\). Using all this information we get the third term in the covariant theta expansion of \(\xi ^a\) and \(\xi ^i\)
The next steps would be to calculate \([\nabla _\alpha ,\nabla _\beta ]\Lambda ^{ab}\) and \(\nabla _{[\alpha }\nabla _\beta \nabla _{\delta ]}\xi ^\sigma \). For the latter we first calculate \([\nabla _\beta ,\nabla _\alpha ]\xi ^\sigma \) using the same method as above and then applying another covariant derivative and anti symmetrizing in all indices. This will give terms depending on the curvature. Additional constraints on the background from imposing Poincaré symmetry in four dimensions will come from (4.1). At lowest order in \(\theta \) we only have that
so the first component of \(\Phi \), the dilaton, is constant in the four dimensional variables. For the next order we have to compute
Using the conditions on the symmetry parameters and evaluating at \(\theta =0\) this expression becomes
Using (4.8), (4.9) and (4.10) we simplify to
Commuting the derivatives in the last term we obtain
plugging this into (4.16), it becomes
Now we use the relation
to finally obtain
The first term cancels the third term. The second term is vanishes because \(\gamma ^{ab}\) commutes with \(\gamma ^{ijk}\). Finally we obtain the equation
which is the expected condition at mass dimension one from (4.1). The calculation at fourth order in \(\theta \)’s is significantly more involved and will not be presented here
4.2 Global four dimensional \(N=1\) supersymmetry
We now turn to the conditions imposed by four dimensional global supersymmetry and the calculation of the corresponding Killing supervector. First we want to explain the notation we will use. In the breaking of SO(1, 9) to \(SO(1,3)\times SO(6)\) the sixteen component spinors will factorize into \(SL(2,{{\mathbb {C}}})\times SU(4)\) spinors
The global supersymmetry parameters are the spinors of \(SL(2,{\mathbb {C}})\). All the spinors considered in this section will be assumed to be a Grassman odd \(SL(2,{{\mathbb {C}}})\) spinor times a Grassmann even SU(4) spinor
Will also assume that \(\chi \) is normalizable such that \(\chi {\bar{\chi }}=1\). Furthermore, when considering a different spinor \(\eta '\) we will assume that only the \(SL(2,{{\mathbb {C}}})\) to be different
This will, for example, imply that
When we assumed that \(\chi \) is normalizable it was already implicit that \(\chi \) is a nowhere vanishing spinor of the internal manifold which means the internal manifold has SU(3) structure. Locally we can choose a tangent space basis such that an \({\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {u}}(3)\) subalgebra of so(1, 9) annihilates \(\eta \). To make that explicitly we will choose complex tangent space indices for the internal manifold \((I,{\bar{I}})\). The antisymmetric product of two gamma matrices can be decomposed as
The spinor \({\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {u}}(3)\) generators are \(\gamma ^{I{\bar{J}}}\) and any spinor of the type (4.23) will satisfy
It is clear that we can decompose the real spinor \({\tilde{\eta }}\) as
We will choose the normalization of \(\gamma _{{\textbf{1}}}\) such that
Finally, the complex pair of spinors \((\eta ,{\bar{\eta }})\) also satisfy
With all these set up the Killing supervector and local Lorentz transformation corresponding to \(N=1\) supersymmetry transformations will satisfy
Again we can go through the equations imposed by (3.6) and (3.21) finding the higher components of \((\xi ^A,\Lambda ^{ {ab}})\) and the conditions imposed in the geometry. In this case the only consequences from the \(\theta =0\) projection coming from (3.21) are
It is well known (see, e.g., [23, 24]) that this means it is always possible to choose a connection with SU(3) holonomy. However it does not yet imply Ricci flatness since the torsion is not constrained. Furthermore, it is possible to have curvature terms like \(R_{ab}{}^{I{\bar{J}}}|_{\theta =0}\) with \(\delta _{I\bar{J}}R_{ab}{}^{I{\bar{J}}}|_{\theta =0}=0\). The next order in the \(\theta \) expansion is given by (3.6)
With this information we can compute the first non-trivial supersymmetry condition from (4.1), which is the supersymmetry transformation for the dilatino
Using (4.19) we get
The different sign from what is usually obtained from the supersymmetry transformation for the dilatino comes from (2.17). At the next order we have to compute \(\nabla _{[\beta }\nabla _{\gamma }\nabla _{\delta ]}\left( \xi ^\alpha {\nabla }_\alpha \right. \left. \Phi + \xi ^{{\underline{a}}} {\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}} \right. \left. \Phi \right) |_{\theta =0}.\) This a long and tedious computation. To simplify it we will restrict to the cases where \(\nabla _{\underline{a}}\Phi |_{\theta =0}\) vanishes. First, acting with \({\nabla }\)’s we get
here we used (4.7). Note that the terms with an expression like \({\nabla }_\beta {\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}}\Phi \) go away because \({\nabla }_\beta {\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}}\Phi =[{\nabla }_\beta ,{\nabla }_{\underline{a}}]\Phi +{\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}}{\nabla }_\beta \Phi \) vanishes at \(\theta =0\). Use something similar with the terms with \({\nabla }_\beta {\nabla }_\gamma {\nabla }_{{\underline{a}}} \Phi \),
and (4.39) becomes,
The first term in the right hand side of (4.41) is
The last line in (4.41) is
Using (4.19) we obtain
Using this, the second line in (4.41) is equal to
Here we have used the identity \([\gamma _{\underline{ab}},\gamma _{\underline{cde}}]=2 \left( \eta _{\underline{a}[\underline{c}} \gamma _{\underline{de}]\underline{b}}\right. \left. - \eta _{\underline{b}[\underline{c}} \gamma _{\underline{de}]\underline{a}} \right) \). Using all this we obtain
where \(\{\alpha \beta \gamma \}\) means cyclic permutation. The Eq. (4.46) can be simplified to
So far the conditions found only imply there exists a global Grassmann odd symmetry generated by (4.31). In order to have \(N=1\) supersymmetry we must impose that at zero order in \(\theta \) the commutator of two Killing vectors with different parameters in (4.31) generate only a four dimensional translation. From (3.29) we find
The second equation implies that the dilaton is constant in the four dimensional variables. The first can be written as
This equation can be combined with one obtained from (4.38) with a spinor \({\tilde{\eta }}_1\) multiplying it by \({\tilde{\eta }}_2^\delta (\gamma ^{\underline{de}})_\delta {}^\beta \) and then subtracting it from the same equation but with the order of spinors reversed we get
Computing the (anti-)commutators, the above expression together with (4.50) implies that
It would also be possible to require an AdS super algebra from (4.50) by requiring it to be proportional to a four dimensional Lorentz rotation, however it is not possible to have four dimensional AdS solutions without including a gaugino condensate [14, 25]. Furthermore, without considering a warp factor in the four dimensional metric, all H flux has to vanish. In this particular case, for spinors satisfying (4.30) the equation (4.47) will imply that
Finally, these conditions together with (4.31) and Bianchi identities imply the four dimensional space is flat and the internal space is Ricci flat and Kähler.
5 Summary and prospects
In this work we analysed in detail the conditions on the curved superspace geometry imposed by Poincaré and super-Poincaré invariance. Although this is a very old subject in string theory a full superspace examination of this problem has not been performed before. We used the superspace defined by the pure spinor heterotic string which, in addition to the usual local Lorentz symmetry, has a local scale symmetry that acts only on spinors. The fundamental equations for our analysis are
where \((\xi ^A,\Lambda ^{\underline{ab}},\sigma )\) are local parameters in a diffeomorphism generated by and \(\Phi \) is a superfield whose first component is the dilaton. The possible geometries are fixed by superspace boundary conditions on the Killing supervectors and Lorentz and scale parameters. For example, if we want to find what type of super geometries admit rigid supersymmetry we start with
with the further requirement that the commutators of two transformations of the above type close to a translation, using
This procedure will constraint the components of the covariant \(\theta \)-expansion of the superfield \(\Phi \) and therefore restrict possible H-flux and curvatures. The usual Kähler and Ricci flatness conditions for compactifications without flux is obtained in this way.
Knowing the covariant \(\theta \)-expansion is useful to perform a background field expansion in the sigma model and study quantum corrections arising from consistency of the pure spinor sigma model, corrections for the physical spectrum or calculating amplitudes in the desired background. However, the main motivations for this work is the extend the ideas to study Ramond–Ramond flux backgrounds in Type II strings. Since the RNS formalism has very limited use in these types of backgrounds, the pure spinor formalism is more adequate to compute \(\alpha '\) corrections of, for example, target space equations of motion or superpotential for moduli fields.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has associated data in a data repository. [Authors’ comment: This is a theoretical study and no experimental data has been listed.]
References
L.J. Dixon, V. Kaplunovsky, J. Louis, Moduli dependence of string loop corrections to gauge coupling constants. Nucl. Phys. B 355, 649–688 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91)90490-O
M. Alim, Lectures on mirror symmetry and topological string theory. arXiv:1207.0496 [hep-th]
N. Berkovits, Super Poincare covariant quantization of the superstring. JHEP 04, 018 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/04/018. arXiv:hep-th/0001035
C. de Lacroix, H. Erbin, S.P. Kashyap, A. Sen, M. Verma, Closed superstring field theory and its applications. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32(28n29), 1730021 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X17300216. arXiv:1703.06410 [hep-th]
M. Cho, S. Collier, X. Yin, Strings in Ramond–Ramond backgrounds from the Neveu–Schwarz–Ramond formalism. JHEP 12, 123 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2020)123. arXiv:1811.00032 [hep-th]
O. Chandia, W.D. Linch III., B.C. Vallilo, Compactification of the heterotic pure spinor superstring I. JHEP 10, 060 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/060. arXiv:0907.2247 [hep-th]
O. Chandia, W.D. Linch, B. Carlini Vallilo, Compactification of the heterotic pure spinor superstring II. JHEP 10, 098 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2011)098. arXiv:1108.3555 [hep-th]
N. Berkovits, L.A. Ypanaqué, Topological amplitude computations using the pure spinor formalism. JHEP 12, 103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2019)103. arXiv:1910.10511 [hep-th]
N. Berkovits, P.S. Howe, Ten-dimensional supergravity constraints from the pure spinor formalism for the superstring. Nucl. Phys. B 635, 75–105 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00352-8. arXiv:hep-th/0112160
J.M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, E. Hackett-Jones, G. Moutsopoulos, The Killing superalgebra of ten-dimensional supergravity backgrounds. Class. Quantum Gravity 24, 3291–3308 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/13/010. arXiv:hep-th/0703192
K. Becker, K. Dasgupta, Heterotic strings with torsion. JHEP 11, 006 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/11/006. arXiv:hep-th/0209077
K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, P.S. Green, Compactifications of heterotic theory on nonKahler complex manifolds. 1. JHEP 04, 007 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/04/007. arXiv:hep-th/0301161
K. Becker, M. Becker, P.S. Green, K. Dasgupta, E. Sharpe, Compactifications of heterotic strings on nonKahler complex manifolds. 2. Nucl. Phys. B 678, 19–100 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.11.029. arXiv:hep-th/0310058
A.R. Frey, M. Lippert, AdS strings with torsion: non-complex heterotic compactifications. Phys. Rev. D 72, 126001 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.126001. arXiv:hep-th/0507202
P.A. Grassi, M. Marescotti, Flux vacua and supermanifolds. JHEP 01, 068 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/068. arXiv:hep-th/0607243
O. Chandia, B.C. Vallilo, Conformal invariance of the pure spinor superstring in a curved background. JHEP 04, 041 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/04/041. arXiv:hep-th/0401226
J. Wess, J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and Supergravity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992)
B.E.W. Nilsson, Simple ten-dimensional supergravity in superspace. Nucl. Phys. B 188, 176–192 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(81)90111-5
P.S. Howe, P.C. West, The complete N=2, D=10 supergravity. Nucl. Phys. B 238, 181–220 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(84)90472-3
O. Chandía, Unpublished
O. Chandia, B.C. Vallilo, A superfield realization of the integrated vertex operator in an \(AdS_5\times S^5\) background. JHEP 10, 178 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2017)178. arXiv:1709.05517 [hep-th]
I.L. Buchbinder, S.M. Kuzenko, Ideas and Methods of Supersymmetry and Supergravity: Or a Walk Through Superspace (Taylor & Francis, Milton Park, 1998)
M. Grana, Flux compactifications in string theory: a comprehensive review. Phys. Rep. 423, 91–158 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.008. arXiv:hep-th/0509003
P. Koerber, Lectures on generalized complex geometry for physicists. Fortschr. Phys. 59, 169–242 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201000083. arXiv:1006.1536 [hep-th]
G. Lopes Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, D. Lust, Heterotic string theory on nonKahler manifolds with H flux and gaugino condensate. Fortschr. Phys. 52, 483–488 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.200310134. arXiv:hep-th/0310021
Acknowledgements
Oc and Bcv would like to thank William D. Linch III for discussions and comments on the draft and Fondecyt grants 1200342 and 1201550 for partial financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3. SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.
About this article
Cite this article
Chandia, O., Vallilo, B.C. Superspaces for heterotic pure spinor string compactifications. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 991 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10947-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10947-0