text:
# Cauchy-Riemann Geometry and Contact Topology in Three Dimensions

## I Introduction

We study low-dimensional problems in topology and geometry via a study of contact and Cauchy-Riemann ($`CR`$) structures. Let us start with a closed (compact without boundary) oriented three-manifold $`M`$. A contact structure (or bundle) $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ is a completely non-integrable rank 2 subbundle of $`TM`$. It is well known that there are no local invariants for contact structures according to a classical theorem of Darboux. Also, two nearby contact structures on a closed manifold are isotopy-equivalent by Gray’s theorem (Gray, 1959; Hamilton, 1982). Therefore, a contact structure has no continuous moduli. In this sense, it is a kind of geometric structure even softer than a complex structure. The isotopy classes are distinguished by so-called tight or overtwisted contact structures (Eliashberg, 1992). The existence of contact structures on a closed oriented three-manifold is known from the work of Martinet (1971) and Lutz (1977). (See also Altschuler (1995) for an analytic proof using the so-called linear contact flow.)

Given a contact structure, we can consider a $`CR`$-structure, i.e., a “complex structure” defined on a contact bundle. Different from the usual complex structure, a $`CR`$-structure does have local invariants. Thus, analysis is needed. In Section II, we give a brief introduction to $`CR`$-geometry and an application in K$`\ddot{a}`$hler geometry. In Section III, we introduce a global $`CR`$-invariant $`\mu _\xi `$ and discuss its behavior on the moduli space of $`CR`$-structures. Also, we argue that the contractibility of our $`CR`$ moduli space for $`S^3`$ confirms the so-called Smale conjecture.

In Section IV, we discuss spherical $`CR`$-structures: the critical points of $`\mu _\xi `$. To distinguish among “$`CR`$ lens” spaces, we propose a possible $`CR`$-invariant defined for spherical $`CR`$-structures, which is a contact-analogue of Ray-Singer’s analytic torsion. In Section V, we give a heuristic argument for how our understanding of $`\mu _\xi `$ can be applied to the problem of counting the number of complex structures on a closed four-manifold. In Section VI, we propose the study of a certain kind of monopole equation for contact three-manifolds.

## II Basics in $`CR`$-Geometry

A $`CR`$-structure $`J`$ compatible with the contact structure $`\xi `$ is a complex structure on $`\xi `$, i.e., a bundle endomorphism $`J:\xi \xi `$, such that $`J^2=Identity`$. Natural examples come from boundaries of strictly pseudoconvex domains $`D`$ in $`C^2`$. Let $`J_{C^2}`$ denote the multiplication by $`i`$ in $`C^2`$. Let our three-manifold $`M=D`$, the boundary of $`D`$. The contact structure $`\xi `$ is considered to be the intersection of $`TM`$ and $`J_{C^2}TM`$, the tangent subspaces invariant under $`J_{C^2}`$. In addition, our $`CR`$-structure is taken to be a restriction of $`J_{C^2}`$ on $`\xi `$. This $`CR`$-structure is usually called the $`CR`$-structure induced from $`C^2`$.

In his famous theorem, Fefferman (1974) asserts that two strictly pseudoconvex domains with smooth boundaries in $`C^{n+1}`$ are biholomorphic to each other if and only if their boundaries are $`CR`$-equivalent. Therefore the $`CR`$-structure on the boundary reflects the complex structure of the inside domain. It is well known that we have the Riemann mapping theorem in $`C^1`$. However, this theorem is no longer true for higher dimensions. Indeed, we do have local invariants for our $`CR`$ manifold $`(M,\xi ,J)`$ (e.g., Cartan (1932) and Chern and Moser (1974)).

First, choose eigenvectors $`Z_1`$, $`Z_{\overline{1}}`$ of $`J`$ with eigenvalues $`i`$, $`i`$, respectively. Let $`\{\theta ^1,\theta ^{\overline{1}}\}`$ be a set of complex one-forms dual to $`\{Z_1,Z_{\overline{1}}\}`$. Then, choose a local one-form $`\theta `$ annihilating $`\xi `$ (called contact form) so that

$$d\theta =ih_{1\overline{1}}\theta ^1\theta ^{\overline{1}}+\theta \varphi $$

for some real one-form $`\varphi `$ and positive $`h_{1\overline{1}}`$. (We will use $`h_{1\overline{1}}`$ and $`h^{1\overline{1}}=\left(h_{1\overline{1}}\right)^1`$ to raise or lower indices.) Now, for a different choice of coframe $`(\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\theta }^1,\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{\overline{1}};\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ satisfying the above equation, we have the following transformation relation:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\theta }=u\theta \hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }^1=u_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\theta ^1+v^1\theta \hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{du}{u}+\varphi +2Re\left(iu^1v^1u_{\overline{1}1}\theta ^{\overline{1}}\right)+s\theta \hfill & & \end{array}$$
(1)
for positive $`u`$ and some real function $`s`$. Differentiating $`\theta ^1`$, $`\varphi `$ gives the first structural equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}d\theta ^1=\theta ^1\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\theta \varphi ^1\hfill & \\ d\varphi =2Re\left(i\theta _{\overline{1}}\varphi ^{\overline{1}}\right)+\theta \psi \hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
for the connection forms $`\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\varphi ^1,\psi `$. Differentiating the connection forms again and requiring certain trace conditions (e.g., Chern and Moser (1974)), we obtain the second set of structural equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}d\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}i\theta _1\varphi ^1+2i\varphi _1\theta ^1+\frac{1}{2}\psi \theta =0\hfill & & \\ d\varphi ^1\varphi \varphi ^1\varphi ^1\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\frac{1}{2}\psi \theta ^1=Q_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}\theta ^{\overline{1}}\theta \hfill & & \\ d\psi \varphi \psi 2i\varphi ^1\varphi _1=\left(R_1\theta ^1+R_{\overline{1}}\theta ^{\overline{1}}\right)\theta ,\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(3)
in which $`Q_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}`$ or $`Q_{11}`$ is called the Cartan (curvature) tensor, and $`R_1,R_{\overline{1}}`$ are determined by means of suitable covariant derivatives of $`Q_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}`$ (Cheng, 1987). The normalization condition: $`\varphi \varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\varphi _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}=0`$ and the above structural equations Eqs.(2) and (3) uniquely determine the connection forms $`\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\varphi ^1,\psi `$. Under the change of coframe Eq.(1), the Cartan tensor is transformed as follows:

$$Q_{11}=\stackrel{~}{Q}_{11}u\left(u_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)^2.$$

The fundamental theorem of 3-dimensional $`CR`$-geometry due to Cartan (1932a,1932b) asserts that $`Q_{11}=0`$ if and only if $`(M,\xi ,J)`$ is locally $`CR`$-equivalent to $`(S^3,\widehat{\xi },\widehat{J})`$, where $`(\widehat{\xi },\widehat{J})`$ denotes the standard $`CR`$-structure on the unit 3-sphere $`S^3`$, induced from $`C^2`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧}`$. We call a $`CR`$ manifold $`(M,\xi ,J)`$ or just $`J`$ spherical if it is locally $`CR`$-equivalent to $`(S^3,\widehat{\xi },\widehat{J})`$. Quantitatively, a $`CR`$-structure is spherical if $`Q_{11}=0`$ according to Cartan’s theorem.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝐧}\mathrm{𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧}\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}𝐊\ddot{𝐚}\mathrm{𝐡𝐥𝐞𝐫}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐲}`$

Let $`N`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional K$`\ddot{a}`$hler manifold. Suppose we have a holomorphic line bundle $`L`$ with the first Chern class being the K$`\ddot{a}`$hler class so that a suitable circle bundle $`ML`$ with the induced $`CR`$-structure is closely related to the K$`\ddot{a}`$hler geometry of $`N`$ (Webster, 1977). It turns out that we can identify (up to a constant) the Cartan tensor $`Q_{11}`$ of $`M`$ with $`R_{,11}`$, the covariant derivative of the scalar curvature $`R`$ of $`N`$ in the (1,0)-direction twice. When $`n2`$, we can identify the Chern tensor (Chern and Moser, 1974, 1983) in higher dimensional $`CR`$-geometry with the Bochner tensor of $`N`$. In 1977, Sid Webster applied $`CR`$-geometry to obtain the following result:

Let $`N`$ be a simply-connected closed K$`\ddot{a}`$hler manifold of dimension $`n`$. Suppose that $`N`$ admits a Hodge metric for which the Bochner tensor vanishes if $`n2`$ or for which $`R_{,11}`$ vanishes if $`n=1`$. Then, $`N`$ is holomorphically isometric to complex projective space $`CP^n`$ with a standard Fubini-Study metric. (Webster, 1977)

Next, relative to a special coframe $`\left(\theta ,\theta ^1,\theta ^{\overline{1}};\varphi =0\right)`$ satisfying $`d\theta =ih_{1\overline{1}}\theta ^1\theta ^{\overline{1}}`$, we can define the so-called pseudohermitian connection $`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, torsion $`A_{11}`$, and curvature $`𝒲`$, called the Tanaka-Webster curvature (Tanaka, 1975; Webster, 1977). These data are uniquely determined by the following equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}d\theta ^1=\theta ^1\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+A_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}\theta \theta ^{\overline{1}}\hfill & & \\ d\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=𝒲\theta ^1\theta ^{\overline{1}}\left(mod\theta \right)\hfill & & \\ \omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\omega _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}=h^{1\overline{1}}dh_{1\overline{1}}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

The torsion $`A_{11}`$ and the Tanaka-Webster curvature $`𝒲`$ are not “tensorial” under the change of contact form $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=u\theta `$ (Lee, 1986), but are “tensorial” under the change $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^1=u_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\theta ^1`$. The Cartan tensor can be expressed in terms of these data (Cheng and Lee, 1990):

$$Q_{11}=\frac{1}{6}𝒲_{,11}+\frac{i}{2}𝒲A_{11}A_{11,0}\frac{2i}{3}A_{11,\overline{1}1}.$$

Here, covariant derivatives are taken with respect to the pseudohermitian connection $`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, and “0” means the $`T`$\- direction. (The tangent vector field $`T`$ is uniquely determined by $`\theta \left(T\right)=1`$ and $`L_T\theta =0`$.) Before going on, another result should be noted:

The boundary of a circular domain in $`C^{n+1}`$ is $`CR`$-equivalent to the unit sphere $`S^{2n+1}C^{n+1}`$ with the standard induced $`CR`$-structure if and only if the Tanaka-Webster curvature $`𝒲constant`$ (with respect to a suitable choice of contact form)(Unpublished paper by J. Bland and P. M. Wang).

The proof of the above result in the original draft contains a gap which can be remedied by the following result:

Let $`N`$ be a closed complex manifold with two K$`\ddot{a}`$hler metrics $`g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Suppose the Bochner tensor of $`g`$ vanishes and the scalar curvature of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a constant. Then, the fact that the K$`\ddot{a}`$hler class of $`g`$ is cohomologous to the K$`\ddot{a}`$hler class of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ implies that $`(N,g)`$ and $`(N,\stackrel{~}{g})`$ are isometric to each other (Chen and Lue, 1981).

## III The $`\mu _\xi `$-Invariant and the Moduli Space

First, we will construct an energy functional on the space of $`CR`$-structures so that the critical points consist of spherical $`CR`$-structures. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ denote the $`su(2,1)`$-valued Cartan connection form defined by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{3}\left(\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\varphi \right)& \theta ^1& 2\theta \\ i\varphi _1& \frac{1}{3}\left(2\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\varphi \right)& 2i\theta _1\\ \frac{1}{4}\psi & \frac{1}{2}\varphi ^1& \frac{1}{3}\left(\varphi +\varphi _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}\right)\end{array}\right).$$

The curvature form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined as usual by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }`$. The transgression $`TC_2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$ of the second Chern form is given by

$`TC_2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}[tr(\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}tr(\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi })]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}tr\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$
$`\left(sincetr\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=0\right).`$
We can verify that the 3-form $`TC_2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$ is invariant under the change of contact form and invariant up to an exact form under the coframe change Eq.(1). In the late 1980’s, Burns and Epstein (1988)(also Cheng and Lee (1990)) discovered that the integral of $`TC_2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$, denoted as $`\mu _\xi `$, is a global $`CR`$-invariant (assuming trivial holomorphic tangent bundle as in Burns and Epstein (1988); extended to arbitrary $`M`$ by a relative version of the invariant in Cheng and Lee (1990)):

$`\mu _\xi \left(J\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}tr\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}\left[2Re\left(i\theta ^1\varphi ^{\overline{1}}\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta \psi \varphi 2i\theta \varphi ^1\varphi ^{\overline{1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\left(\theta \psi \right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _M}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}𝒲^2+2\left|A_{11}\right|^2\right)\theta d\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}d\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right]`$
$`\left(intermsofpseudohermitiangeometry\right).`$
It is remarkable that the above integral is independent of the choice of contact form, and that the integrand involves only the second and lower-order derivatives (relative to a coframe field) while the lowest order of local invariants is of order 4 as indicated by the Cartan tensor $`Q_{11}`$.

Next, we will discuss the moduli space of $`CR`$-structures. Let $`𝒥_\xi `$ denote the space of all $`CR`$-structures compatible with $`\xi `$. Let $`𝒞_\xi `$ denote the group of contact diffeomorphisms with respect to $`\xi `$. Clearly, $`𝒞_\xi `$ acts on $`𝒥_\xi `$ by pulling back. The invariant $`\mu _\xi `$ is actually defined on the moduli space $`𝒥_\xi /𝒞_\xi `$.

Given a $`CR`$-structure $`J`$ in $`𝒥_\xi `$, we call a “submanifold” $`S`$ passing through $`J`$ a local slice if it is transverse to the orbit of $`𝒞_\xi `$-action, so that any element in $`𝒥_\xi `$ near $`J`$ can be pulled back to an element of $`S`$ by means of a certain contact diffeomorphism. In the early 1990’s, Jack Lee and the author proved the following:

Local slices always exist for all cases (Cheng and Lee, 1995).

As a corollary, the standard spherical $`CR`$-structure $`\left[\widehat{J}\right]`$ in $`𝒥_{\widehat{\xi }}/𝒞_{\widehat{\xi }}`$ for $`S^3`$ is a strict local minimum for $`\mu _{\widehat{\xi }}`$ (Cheng and Lee, 1995).

Let $`Q_J=2Re\left[iQ_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}\theta ^1Z_{\overline{1}}\right]`$. It is a straightforward computation to obtain the first variation formula: $`\delta \mu _\xi \left(J\right)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}Q_J`$. Consider the downward gradient flow for $`\mu _\xi `$:

$$_tJ_{\left(t\right)}=Q_{J_{\left(t\right)}}.$$
(4)
Since $`\delta Q_J`$ is subelliptic modulo the action of our symmetry group $`𝒞_\xi `$, we can play a suitable “De-Turck trick” to break the symmetry and imitate the usual $`L^2`$-theory for elliptic operators to obtain the short time solution of Eq.(4)(Cheng and Lee, 1990). However, we can not prove the long term solution and convergence even for $`M=S^3`$. This is related to the so-called Smale conjecture as first pointed out by Eliashberg.

The Smale conjecture asserts that the diffeomorphism group of $`S^3`$ is homotopy-equivalent to the orthogonal group $`O\left(4\right)`$. Suppose we have the long term solution and convergence of Eq.(4) for $`M=S^3`$. Then, any starting $`J`$ must converge to $`\widehat{J}`$, the unique spherical $`CR`$-structure on $`S^3`$ (up to symmetry). Therefore, the (certain marked) $`CR`$ moduli space $`𝒥_{\widehat{\xi }}^{^{}}/𝒞_{\widehat{\xi }}^{^{}}`$ is contractible. But $`𝒥_{\widehat{\xi }}^{^{}}`$ is contractible, too. It follows that $`𝒞_{\widehat{\xi }}^{^{}}`$ is contractible. Then, with the aid of contact geometry, we can confirm the Smale conjecture.

To learn more analytic techniques which can be used to tackle Eq.(4), we have been working on some comparatively easier flows like the $`CR`$ Calabi flow and the $`CR`$ Yamabe flow. For the $`CR`$ Yamabe flow, S.-C. Chang and the author deformed a contact form in the direction of the Tanaka-Webster curvature:

$$_t\theta _{\left(t\right)}=𝒲\theta _{\left(t\right)}.$$
(5)
In their present work, Chang and Cheng obtain a Harnack estimate and (possibly) the long term solution for Eq.(5).

## IV The Moduli Space of Spherical $`CR`$-Structures

Let $`𝒮_\xi `$ denote the space of all spherical $`CR`$-structures compatible with $`\xi `$. Since the linearization of the Cartan tensor is subelliptic modulo the action of $`𝒞_\xi `$, the virtual dimension of $`𝒮_\xi /𝒞_\xi `$: the moduli space of spherical $`CR`$-structures is finite. Let $`M`$ be a circle bundle over a closed surface of genus $`g>1`$ with the Euler class $`e\left(M\right)<0`$. Let $`Pic(g,c_1)`$, the universal Picard variety, denote the space of all pairs $`(L,N)`$ in which $`L`$ is a holomorphic line bundle over a Riemann surface $`N`$ of genus $`g>1`$ with $`c_1\left(L\right)=e\left(M\right)`$ modulo an equivalence relation defined by diffeomorphisms. In 1996 and 1997, I-Hsun Tsai and the author studied the relation between $`𝒮_\xi /𝒞_\xi `$ and $`Pic(g,c_1)`$. We found the following:

For an above-mentioned circle bundle $`M`$, there is a diffeomorphism between $`𝒮_\xi /^{^{}}𝒞_\xi `$ and $`Pic(g,c_1)^{}`$. (The prime means a suitably modified version.) Moreover, $`Pic(g,c_1)^{}`$ is a complex manifold of dimension $`4g3`$ (Cheng and Tsai, 2000).

Our above result is similar to describing a Teichmuller space by means of conformal classes. It is known in Teichmuller theory that we can pick up a unique hyperbolic metric as a representative for each conformal class. A similar situation occurs for our spherical $`CR`$ manifolds. In fact, our theory for the universal Picard variety has counterparts in Teichmuller theory as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of two theories

| Teichmuller space | universal Picard variety |
| --- | --- |
| conformal classes | spherical $`CR`$ circle bundles |
| Riemannian hyperbolic metrics | pseudohermitian hyperbolic geometries |

$`\mathrm{𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥}\mathrm{𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥}\mathrm{𝐂𝐑}\mathrm{𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬}`$

$`\left(\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞}\mathrm{𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐢}:dim𝒮_\xi /𝒞_\xi =0\right)`$

Let $`Aut_{CR}\left(S^3\right)`$ denote the $`CR`$-automorphism group of $`(S^3,\widehat{\xi },\widehat{J})`$, which is known to be isomorphic to $`SU(2,1)/center`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote a fixed point free finite subgroup of $`Aut_{CR}\left(S^3\right)`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S^3`$ inherits both contact and (spherical) $`CR`$-structures from $`(S^3,\widehat{\xi },\widehat{J})`$. This induced spherical $`CR`$-structure on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S^3`$ is locally rigid; i.e. it has no nontrivial deformation. (The algebraic reason is that $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },su(2,1))=0`$, in which the group cohomology has coefficients in the holonomy representation: developing map composed with the adjoint representation) (Burns and Shnider, 1976). On the other hand, note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S^3`$ has positive constant Tanaka-Webster curvature and zero torsion. Now, generalizing using an analytical method, we obtain the following:

Let $`(M,J)`$ be a closed spherical $`CR`$ three-manifold. Suppose there is a contact form such that the torsion $`A_{11}=0`$ and $`𝒲>0`$, $`4𝒲(5𝒲^2+3\mathrm{\Delta }_b𝒲)3|_b𝒲|_\theta ^2>0`$. Then, $`J`$ is locally rigid (Cheng, 1999).

Next, we want to compare two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S^3`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\backslash S^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\backslash S^3`$ are diffeomorphic. How can we distinguish one spherical $`CR`$-structure from the other one? (They have the same $`\mu _\xi `$-value.) To deal with this problem, we borrow ideas from quantum physics. If we view $`\mu _\xi `$ as a Lagrangian (action, more accurately) in $`2+1`$ dimensions, spherical $`CR`$-structures are just classical fields. Therefore, “quantum fluctuations” should give us refined invariants. In practice, we compute the partition function heuristically:

$`𝒵_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{𝒥_\xi /𝒞_\xi }}𝒟\left[J\right]e^{ik\mu _\xi \left(\left[J\right]\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`k^{\frac{dim}{2}}\left(𝒵_{sc}+O\left(k^1\right)\right)\left(klarge\right),`$
in which $`𝒵_{sc}`$ is called the semi-classical approximation. Note that only classical fields make contributions to $`𝒵_{sc}`$. By imitating the finite dimensional case, we can compute the modulus of $`𝒵_{sc}`$ (Cheng, 1995):

$`\left|𝒵_{sc}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`lim_k\mathrm{}k^{\frac{dim}{2}}\left|𝒵_k\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{J:spherical}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{det\mathrm{}_J}{det^{}\delta Q_J}}\right|^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
in which $`\mathrm{}_J`$ is a fourth-order subelliptic self-adjoint operator related to the $`𝒞_\xi `$-action, and $`\delta Q_J`$, the second variation of $`\mu _\xi `$, is also a fourth-order subelliptic self-adjoint operator modulo the $`𝒞_\xi `$-action. We can regularize two determinants via zeta functions. ($`det^{}`$ means taking a regularized determinant under a certain gauge-fixing condition.)

$`\mathrm{𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞}`$: If $`J`$ is spherical,

$$Tor\left(J\right)\stackrel{def}{=}\left|\frac{det\mathrm{}_J}{det^{}\delta Q_J}\right|^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

is independent of any choice of contact form, i.e., a $`CR`$ invariant.

We expect to use $`Tor\left(J\right)`$ to distinguish among “contact lens” (or “$`CR`$ lens”) spaces $`\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S^3\right\}`$. Also, we note that $`Tor\left(J\right)`$ is a contact-analogue of Ray-Singer’s analytic torsion while no contact-analogue is known for the Reidemeister torsion.

## V Counting the Number of Complex Structures

This is another “quantum level” problem in our ongoing project. We will discuss the problem of counting the number of complex structures on a closed (compact without boundary) four-manifold. We hope to view this number as the partition function of a certain 3+1 quantum field theory (QFT in short).

Let us begin with a 0+1 theory, i.e., a particle moving in a closed manifold $`N`$. The Hamiltonian of such a theory with supersymmetry is the Laplace-Beltrami operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. All quantum ground states or vacua are cohomology classes of $`N`$, represented by harmonic forms (=zero eigenforms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). Now suppose $`f`$ is a Morse function on $`N`$. Consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{tf}`$ in which $`d`$ is replaced by $`e^{tf}de^{tf}`$. When $`t\mathrm{}`$, the harmonic forms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{tf}`$ are concentrated near the critical points of f. These are the classical ground states (Witten, 1982).

The harmonic form corresponding to a critical point $`P`$ has a small correction due to another critical point $`Q`$ via the trajectories of $`f`$ from $`P`$ to $`Q`$. This is quantum mechanical tunnelling, which describes the probability of the transition $`PQ`$. The boundary operator of Witten’s chain complex (See Witten (1982) or Atiyah (1988) for a clear explanation.) is interpreted in terms of such tunnelling. (The homology of Witten’s chain complex can be shown to identify with the homology of $`N`$.) Witten’s idea was later adopted by Floer (1989) and applied to the infinite-dimensional case of the manifold of connections.

Next, we will give a brief introduction to the Donaldson-Floer theory. It is a 3+1 QFT. A “field” when restricted to the three-space $`M`$ in this theory is a connection (or gauge field) of a certain, say, $`SU\left(2\right)`$ bundle over $`M`$. The Morse function as mentioned above is the Chern-Simons functional defined on the space of connections in this case. The critical points consist of flat connections which are the classical ground states. Through consideration of the associated Witten complex, we obtain the so-called Floer homology or cohomology group $`HF\left(M\right)`$. This is the space of quantum ground states or vacua for this theory. Now, suppose we decompose a closed 4-manifold $`X`$ along $`M`$ (say, a homology 3-sphere) as shown in Fig.1.

where $`X=X^+_MX^{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, respectively) denote the set of restrictions on $`M`$ of all instantons on $`X^+`$($`X^{}`$, respectively). Then, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ form cycles in $`HF\left(M\right)`$. The intersection number represents the algebraic number of instantons on $`X`$, (assuming it is finite) the Donaldson invariant, denoted as $`Z\left(X\right)`$. We can write

$$Z\left(X\right)=<vac\left(X^+\right)|vac\left(X^{}\right)>,$$

in which the vacuum $`vac\left(X^+\right)=\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\right]`$ and the vacuum $`vac\left(X^{}\right)=\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right]`$ are both elements of $`HF\left(M\right)`$. Also $`<|>`$ denotes the middle-dmension intersection number. In Witten (1988), Witten presented a Lagrangian for this theory so that $`Z\left(X\right)`$ identifies with its partition function.

Now, we can describe our $`3+1QFT`$. We put an auxiliary contact structure $`\xi `$ on our closed oriented three-manifold $`M`$. A “field” is a complex structure with the restriction on $`M`$ being a $`CR`$-structure compatible with $`\xi `$. Our Morse function is the $`\mu _\xi `$ which we introduce in $`\mathrm{\S }`$3. Spherical $`CR`$-structures which are critical points of $`\mu _\xi `$ are our classical ground states in this theory.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, respectively) denote the set of all $`CR`$-structures compatible with $`\xi `$ on $`M`$, which can be extended to a complex structure on $`X^+`$$`(X^{}`$, respectively). Now, what is the associated “Floer” homology group $`HF(M,\xi )`$, i.e., the space of quantum vacua, for this theory? Since the Hessian $`\delta ^2\mu _\xi `$ at a spherical $`J`$ is subelliptic modulo $`𝒞_\xi `$, the dimension of its negative eigenspace is finite. Therefore, the Morse index is well defined. (We do not need the relative Morse index as in the case of the Donaldson-Floer theory.) As usual, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$ form cycles $`\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm \right]`$ in $`HF(M,\xi )`$ by pushing along the gradient flow of $`\mu _\xi `$ and seeing which critical points they “hang” on (Atiyah, 1988). The vacuum $`vac\left(X^+\right)`$($`vac\left(X^{}\right)`$, respectively) is defined as the homology class $`\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\right]`$ ($`\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right]`$, respectively) in $`HF(M,\xi )`$. Moreover, we define the quantity $`Z_\xi \left(X\right)`$ as

$`Z_\xi \left(X\right)`$ $`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`<vac\left(X^+\right)|vac\left(X^{}\right)>`$
$`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`intersectionnumberof\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\right]and\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right].`$
The sum of $`Z_\xi \left(X\right)`$ over the isomorphism classes of tight contact structures, denoted as $`Z\left(X\right)`$, can be interpreted as the (algebraic) number of complex structures on $`X`$. We propose the following “physical” problem:

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$. Find a Lagrangian for the above theory so that its partition function identifies with $`Z\left(X\right)`$.

There are topological obstructions for $`M`$ to admit spherical $`CR`$-structures (Goldman, 1983). For instance, the three-torus $`T^3`$ does not admit any spherical $`CR`$-structure (compatible with any given contact structure $`\xi `$). Therefore, $`HF_{}(T^3,\xi )=0`$ for any $`\xi `$, and we can propose the following problem for “nonexistence”:

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}2}`$. Suppose $`X=X^+_{T^3}X^{}`$. Find conditions on $`X`$ and, perhaps, $`X^\pm `$ such that $`Z\left(X\right)=0`$.

We still need to investigate the relation between $`Z\left(X\right)=0`$ and the nonexistence of complex structures. Another situation occurs when $`M`$ is the standard contact 3-sphere $`(S^3,\widehat{\xi })`$. This admits only one compatible spherical $`CR`$-structure, namely, the standard one $`\widehat{J}`$, which is a strict local minimum for $`\mu _{\widehat{\xi }}`$ modulo symmetry as mentioned in Section III. It follows that $`HF_0(S^3,\widehat{\xi })=Z`$ and $`HF_k(S^3,\widehat{\xi })=0`$ for $`k0`$. Therefore, we can propose the following problem concerning “global rigidity”:

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}3}`$. Suppose $`X=X^+_{S^3}X^{}`$. Find conditions on $`X`$ and, perhaps, $`X^\pm `$ such that $`Z\left(X\right)=1`$.

Note that any tight contact structure on $`S^3`$ is isotopy-equivalent to $`\widehat{\xi }`$ according to Eliashberg (1992). Therefore, $`Z\left(X\right)`$ in Problem 3 is just $`Z_{\widehat{\xi }}\left(X\right)`$.

## VI Monopoles and Contact Structures

Recently, Kronheimer and Mrowka (1997) studied contact structures on 3-manifolds via the 4-dimensional Seiberg-Witten monopole theory. Here, we will outline another approach by Cheng and Chiu (1999).

Given a contact 3-manifold $`(M,\xi )`$ and a background pseudohermitian structure $`(J,\theta )`$, we can discuss a canonical $`spin^c`$-structure $`c_\xi `$ on $`\xi ^{}`$. With respect to $`c_\xi `$, we will consider the equations for our “monopole” $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ coupled to the “gauge field” $`A`$. Here, $`A`$, the $`spin^c`$-connection, is required to be compatible with the pseudohermitian connection on $`M`$. The Dirac operator $`D_\xi `$ relative to $`A`$ is identified with a certain boundary $`\overline{}`$-operator $`\sqrt{2}\left(\overline{}_b^a+\left(\overline{}_b^a\right)^{}\right)`$. In terms of the components $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, our equations read as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\left(\overline{}_b^a+\left(\overline{}_b^a\right)^{}\right)\left(\alpha +\beta \right)=0\\ \left(or\alpha _{,\overline{1}}^a=0,\beta _{\overline{1},1}^a=0\right)\\ da(e_1,e_2)𝒲=\left|\alpha \right|^2\left|\beta _{\overline{1}}\right|^2,\end{array}$$
(6)
where $`A=A_{can}+iaI`$ and $`𝒲`$ denotes the Tanaka-Webster curvature. Our first step in understanding Eq.(6) is as follows:

Suppose the torsion $`A_{11}=0`$. Also, suppose $`\xi `$ is symplectically semifillable, and that the Euler class $`e(\xi )`$ is not a torsion class. Then, Eq.(6) has nontrivial solutions (i.e., $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are not identically zero simultaneously)(Cheng and Chiu, 1999).

On the other hand, the Weitzenbock-type formula gives a nonexistence result for $`𝒲>0`$. Together with the above existence result, we can conclude the following:

Suppose the torsion $`A_{11}=0`$ and the Tanaka-Webster curvature $`𝒲>0`$. Then, either $`\xi `$ is not symplectically semifillable, or $`e(\xi )`$ is a torsion class (Cheng and Chiu, 1999).

We note that Rumin (1994) proved that $`M`$ must be a rational homology sphere under the conditions given above using a different method. Also, we do not know how to deal with the solution space of Eq.(6) in general although we hope that further study of Eq.(6) will produce invariants of contact structures.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭}`$

In preparing this article the author benefited from a number of conversations with I-Hsun Tsai and Chin-Lung Wang. Also, the author would like to thank Professors Chuu-Lian Terng and I-Hsun Tsai for inviting him to lecture at the NCTS conference. The main part of this article is based on the author’s notes for that talk. The research was partially supported by the National Science Council under grant NSC 88-2115-M-001-015 (R.O.C.).

References

Altschuler, S. J. (1995) A geometric heat flow for one-forms on three-dimensional manifolds. Illinois J. of Math., 39, 98-118.

Atiyah, M. F. (1988) New invariants of three and four dimensional manifolds. The Mathematical Heritage of Herman Weyl, Proc. Symp. Pure Math., 48, 285-299.

Burns, D. and C. Epstein (1988) A global invariant for three dimensional CR-manifolds. Invent. Math., 92, 333-348.

Burns, D. and C. Epstein (1990) Characteristic numbers of bounded domains. Acta Math., 164, 29-71.

Burns, D. and S. Shnider (1976) Spherical hypersurfaces in complex manifolds. Invent. Math., 33, 223-246.

Cartan, E. (1932a) Sur la g$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ometrie pseudo-conforme des hypersurfaces de l’espace de deux variables complexe I. Ann. Mat., 11, 17-90.

Cartan, E. (1932b) Sur la g$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ometrie pseudo-conforme des hypersurfaces de l’espace de deux variables complexe II. Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa, 1, 333-354.

Cheng, J. H. and H. L. Chiu (1999) Monopoles and contact 3-manifolds. Part of NSC Report for Project NSC 88-2115-M-001-015, National Science Council, R.O.C., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C..

Cheng, J. H. (1987) On the curvature of CR-structures and its covariant derivatives. Math. Z., 196, 203-209.

Cheng, J. H. (1999) Rigidity of automorphisms and spherical CR structures. Proc. A.M.S., (to appear).

Cheng, J. H. (1995) The geometry of Cauchy-Riemann manifolds in dimension three. Proceedings of the Second Asian Mathematics Conference, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.

Cheng, J. H. and J. M. Lee (1990) The Burns-Epstein invariant and deformation of CR structures. Duke Math. J., 60, 221-254.

Cheng, J. H. and J. M. Lee (1995) A local slice theorem for 3-dimensional CR structures. Amer. J. Math., 117, 1249-1298.

Chen, B. Y. and H. S. Lue (1981) Chern classes and Bochner-Kaehler metrics. Coll. Math., 44, 203-208.

Chern, S. S. and J. K. Moser (1974) Real hypersurfaces in complex manifolds. Acta Math., 133, 219-271.

Chern, S. S. and J. K. Moser (1983) Erratum: Real hypersurfaces in complex manifolds. Acta Math., 150, 297.

Cheng, J. H. and I-H. Tsai (2000) Deformation of spherical CR structures and the universal Picard variety. Commun. Anal. and Geom., (to appear)

Eliashberg, Y. (1992) Contact 3-manifolds twenty years since J. Martinet’s work. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 42, 165-192.

Fefferman, C. (1974) The Bergman kernel and biholomorphic mappings of pseudoconvex domains. Invent. Math., 26, 1-65.

Floer, A. (1989) An instanton invariant for 3-manifolds. Commun. in Math. Phys., 118, 215-240.

Goldman, W. (1983) Conformally flat manifolds with nilpotent holonomy and the uniformization problem for 3-manifolds. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 278, 573-583.

Gray, J. W. (1959) Some global properties of contact structures. Ann. Math., 69, 421-450.

Hamilton, R. S. (1982) The inverse function theorem of Nash and Moser. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 7, 65-222.

Kronheimer, P. B. and T. S. Mrowka (1997) Monopoles and contact structures. Invent. Math., 130, 209-255.

Lee, J. M. (1986) The Fefferman metric and pseudohermitian invariants. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 296, 411-429.

Lutz, R. (1977) Structures de contact sur les fibre’s principaux en cercles de dimension 3. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 3, 1-15.

Martinet, J. (1971) Formes de contact sur les vari$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ti$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$s de dimension 3. Lect. Notes in Math., 209, 142-163.

Rumin, M. (1994) Formes différentielles sur les variétés de contact. J. Diff. Geom., 39, 281-330.

Tanaka, N. (1975) A Differential Geometric Study on Strongly Pseudo-Convex Manifolds, Kinokuniya Co. Ltd., Tokyo

Webster, S. M. (1977) On the pseudo-conformal geometry of a K$`\ddot{a}`$hler manifold. Math. Z., 157, 265-270.

Webster, S. M. (1978) Pseudohermitian structures on a real hypersurface. J. Diff. Geom., 13, 25-41.

Witten, E. (1982) Supersymmetry and Morse theory. J. Diff. Geom., 17, 661-692.

Witten, E. (1988) Topological quantum field theory. Commun. in Math. Phys., 117, 353-386.


format: text

text:
# Consistent interactions in the Hamiltonian BRST formalism

## 1 Introduction

The analysis of consistent interactions that can be introduced among fields with gauge freedom without changing the number of gauge symmetries  has been transposed lately at the level of the deformation of the master equation  from the antifield-BRST formalism . This cohomological deformation technique has been applied, among others, to Chern-Simons models , Yang-Mills theories  and two-form gauge fields . In this light, the antifield-BRST method was proved to be an elegant tool for investigating the problem of consistent interactions.

Recently, a Hamiltonian analysis of anomalies has been given . Moreover, in a very interesting paper , there has been established the precise relation of the local BRST cohomologies in both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms (see Theorem 6 from this reference). The procedures developed within these papers strongly stimulate a Hamiltonian BRST approach to other interesting problems.

In this letter we analyze the problem of constructing consistent interactions among fields with gauge freedom in the framework of the Hamiltonian BRST formalism , . Our strategy includes two main steps: (i) initially, we show that the problem of introducing consistent interactions among fields with gauge freedom can be reformulated as a problem of deforming the BRST charge and the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian with respect to a given “free” theory, and consequently we deduce the general equations that govern these two types of deformations; (ii) next, on behalf of the relationship between the Hamiltonian and antifield BRST formalisms for constrained systems we prove that the general equations possess solution. In the sequel, we reformulate the general equations in a manner that accounts for locality, and subsequently illustrate our general procedure in the case of three-dimensional Chern-Simons models. Finally, we remark that our method combined with the results in  may simplify the computation of local Lagrangian BRST cohomologies in some cases of interest.

## 2 General equations of the Hamiltonian deformation approach

We begin with a system described by the canonical variables $`z^A`$, subject to the first-class constraints

$$G_{a_0}\left(z^A\right)0,a_0=1,\mathrm{},M_0,$$
(1)
which are assumed to be $`L`$-stage reducible

$$G_{a_0}Z_{a_1}^{a_0}=0,a_1=1,\mathrm{},M_1,$$
(2)
$$Z_{a_{k1}}^{a_{k2}}Z_{a_k}^{a_{k1}}0,a_k=1,\mathrm{},M_{k,}k=2,\mathrm{},L,$$
(3)
and suppose that there are no second-class constraints in the theory. The Grassmann parities of the canonical variables and first-class constraints are respectively denoted by $`\epsilon \left(z^A\right)=\epsilon _A`$ and $`\epsilon \left(G_{a_0}\right)=\epsilon _{a_0}`$. We denote the first-class Hamiltonian by $`H_0`$, such that the gauge algebra is expressed by

$$[G_{a_0},G_{b_0}]=G_{c_0}C_{a_0b_0}^{c_0},[H_0,G_{a_0}]=G_{b_0}V_{a_0}^{b_0}.$$
(4)
It is known that a constrained Hamiltonian system can be described by the action

$$S_0[z^A,u^{a_0}]=\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}𝑑t\left(a_A\left(z\right)\dot{z}^AH_0G_{a_0}u^{a_0}\right),$$
(5)
where the Grassmann parities of the Lagrange multipliers are given by $`\epsilon \left(u^{a_0}\right)=\epsilon _{a_0}`$. In (5), $`a_A\left(z\right)`$ is the one-form potential that gives the symplectic two-form $`\omega _{AB}=()^{\epsilon _A+1}\frac{^La_A}{z^B}()^{\epsilon _B\left(\epsilon _A+1\right)}\frac{^La_B}{z^A}`$, whose inverse, $`\omega ^{AB}`$, corresponds to the fundamental Dirac brackets $`[z^A,z^B]=\omega ^{AB}`$. Action (5) is invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\delta _ϵz^A=[z^A,G_{a_0}]ϵ^{a_0},\delta _ϵu^{a_0}=\dot{ϵ}^{a_0}V_{b_0}^{a_0}ϵ^{b_0}C_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}ϵ^{c_0}u^{b_0}Z_{a_1}^{a_0}ϵ^{a_1}.$$
(6)
In order to generate consistent interactions at the Hamiltonian level, we deform the action (5) by adding to it some interaction terms

$$S_0\stackrel{~}{S}_0=S_0+g\underset{0}{\overset{(1)}{S}}+g^2\underset{0}{\overset{(2)}{S}}+\mathrm{},$$
(7)
and modify the gauge transformations (6) (to be denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵz^A`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵu^{a_0}`$) in such a way that the deformed gauge transformations leave invariant the new action

$$\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_0}{\delta z^A}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵz^A+\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_0}{\delta u^{a_0}}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵu^{a_0}=0.$$
(8)
Consequently, the deformation of the action (5) and of the gauge transformations (6) produces a deformation of the first-class constraints, first-class Hamiltonian and structure functions like

$$G_{a_0}\gamma _{a_0}=G_{a_0}+g\underset{a_0}{\overset{(1)}{\gamma }}+g^2\underset{a_0}{\overset{(2)}{\gamma }}+\mathrm{},$$
(9)
$$H_0H=H_0+g\stackrel{(1)}{H}+g^2\stackrel{(2)}{H}+\mathrm{},$$
(10)
$$V_{b_0}^{a_0}\stackrel{~}{V}_{b_0}^{a_0}=V_{b_0}^{a_0}+g\underset{b_0}{\overset{a_0}{\stackrel{(1)}{V}}}+g^2\underset{b_0}{\overset{a_0}{\stackrel{(2)}{V}}}+\mathrm{},$$
(11)
$$C_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}\stackrel{~}{C}_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}=C_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}+g\underset{b_0c_0}{\overset{a_0}{\stackrel{(1)}{C}}}+g^2\underset{b_0c_0}{\overset{a_0}{\stackrel{(2)}{C}}}+\mathrm{},$$
(12)
such that the deformed gauge algebra becomes

$$[\gamma _{a_0},\gamma _{b_0}]=\gamma _{c_0}\stackrel{~}{C}_{a_0b_0}^{c_0},[H,\gamma _{a_0}]=\gamma _{b_0}\stackrel{~}{V}_{a_0}^{b_0}.$$
(13)
In the meantime, we deform the reducibility relations, but we do not explicitly write down these relations.

As the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian contain all the information on the gauge structure of a given gauge theory, we can reformulate the problem of introducing consistent interactions within the Hamiltonian BRST context in terms of these two essential compounds. Indeed, if the interaction can be consistently constructed, then the BRST charge of the undeformed theory, $`\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, can be deformed such as to be the BRST charge of the deformed theory, i.e.,

$$\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+g\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+g^2\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\mathrm{},$$
(14)
$$[\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(15)
At the same time, the deformation of the BRST charge induces the deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the undeformed theory, $`\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}}`$,

$$\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}}H_B=\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}}+g\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}}+g^2\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{H}}+\mathrm{},$$
(16)
in such a way that $`H_B`$ is the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the interacting theory, i.e.

$$[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(17)
The equations (15) and (17) split accordingly the deformation parameter as

$$[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0,[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0,$$
(18)
$$2[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0,[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+[\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0,$$
(19)
$$2[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0,[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+[\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+[\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0,$$
(20)
$$\mathrm{}$$

Equations (1820) stand for the general equations of our deformation procedure. The equations (18) are checked by hypothesis. Then, it appears the natural question whether the next equations possess or not solution. This will be investigated in the next section.

## 3 Solution to the general equations

In order to prove that the equations (1920), etc. possess solution, we use the link between the antifield and Hamiltonian BRST formalisms for constrained Hamiltonian systems . First-class constrained Hamiltonian systems can be approached from the point of view of the BRST formalism in two different manners. One is based on the antibracket-antifield formulation , while the other relies on the standard Hamiltonian BRST treatment , . The starting point of the antibracket-antifield formalism is represented by the invariance of the action (5) under the gauge transformations (6). In agreement with the general prescriptions of the antibracket-antifield procedure, we introduce the ghosts $`(\eta ^{a_{k1}},u^{a_k})`$, with $`k=1,\mathrm{},L`$ and

$$\epsilon \left(\eta ^{a_k}\right)=\epsilon _{a_k}+k+1mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},gh\left(\eta ^{a_k}\right)=k+1,k=0,\mathrm{}L,$$
(21)
$$\epsilon \left(u^{a_k}\right)=\epsilon _{a_k}+kmod\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},gh\left(u^{a_k}\right)=k,k=1,\mathrm{}L,$$
(22)
where $`gh`$ denotes the ghost number. The antifields associated with the fields $`(z^A,u^{a_0},\eta ^{a_{k1}},u^{a_k})`$ are denoted by $`(z_A^{},u_{a_0}^{},\eta _{a_{k1}}^{},u_{a_k}^{})`$ and display the properties $`\epsilon \left(antifield\right)=\epsilon \left(field\right)+1`$, $`gh\left(antifield\right)=gh\left(field\right)1`$. Up to terms that are quadratic in the antifields, the solution to the master equation reads as

$`\stackrel{(0)}{S}={\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}}dt(a_A\left(z\right)\dot{z}^A+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}u_{a_k}^{}\dot{\eta }^{a_k}H_0G_{a_0}u^{a_0}+z_A^{}[z^A,G_{a_0}]\eta ^{a_0}`$
$`u_{a_0}^{}V_{b_0}^{a_0}\eta ^{b_0}+()^{\epsilon _{b_0}+1}u_{a_0}^{}C_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}\eta ^{c_0}u^{b_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{\epsilon _{b_0}}\eta _{a_0}^{}C_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}\eta ^{c_0}\eta ^{b_0}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L1}{}}}\eta _{a_k}^{}Z_{a_{k+1}}^{a_k}\eta ^{a_{k+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}u_{a_{k1}}^{}Z_{a_k}^{a_{k1}}u^{a_k}+\mathrm{}).`$ (23)
The Hamiltonian point of view is based on extending the phase-space through introducing the canonical pairs ghost-antighost $`(\eta ^{a_k},𝒫_{a_k})`$, with $`[\eta ^{a_k},𝒫_{a_k}]=\delta _{b_k}^{a_k}`$ and $`\epsilon \left(𝒫_{a_k}\right)=\epsilon _{a_k}+k+1`$, $`gh\left(𝒫_{a_k}\right)=k+1`$. The BRST charge starts like

$$\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=G_{a_0}\eta ^{a_0}+\frac{1}{2}()^{\epsilon _{b_0}}𝒫_{a_0}C_{b_0c_0}^{a_0}\eta ^{c_0}\eta ^{b_0}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{L1}{}}𝒫_{a_k}Z_{a_{k+1}}^{a_k}\eta ^{a_{k+1}}+\mathrm{},$$
(24)
such that $`[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0`$. The BRST-invariant extension of $`H_0`$

$$\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}}=H_0+𝒫_{a_0}V_{b_0}^{a_0}\eta ^{b_0}+\mathrm{},$$
(25)
satisfies the equation $`[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0`$. By employing the identifications

$$u_{a_k}^{}=𝒫_{a_k},k=0,\mathrm{},L,$$
(26)
and extending the Dirac bracket such that $`[\eta ^{a_k},u_{a_k}^{}]=\delta _{b_k}^{a_k}`$, we get that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{(0)}{S},\stackrel{(0)}{S})={\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}}dt({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_A^{}[z^A,[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\eta _{a_k}^{}[\eta ^{a_k},[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}[[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}],u_{a_k}^{}]u^{a_k}).`$ (27)
The deformations (14) and (16) induce a deformation of the solution to the master equation

$$\stackrel{(0)}{S}S=\stackrel{(0)}{S}+g\stackrel{(1)}{S}+g^2\stackrel{(2)}{S}+\mathrm{},$$
(28)
such that the equation (3) for the deformed theory becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S,S)={\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}}dt({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\mathrm{\Omega }[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_A^{}[z^A,[\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\eta _{a_k}^{}[\eta ^{a_k},[\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}[[\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }],u_{a_k}^{}]u^{a_k}).`$ (29)
The equation (3) splits accordingly the deformation parameter as (3) and

$`(\stackrel{(0)}{S},\stackrel{(1)}{S})={\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}}dt({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}][\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+z_A^{}[z^A,[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\eta _{a_k}^{}[\eta ^{a_k},[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}[[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}],u_{a_k}^{}]u^{a_k}),`$ (30)
$`(\stackrel{(0)}{S},\stackrel{(2)}{S})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{(1)}{S},\stackrel{(1)}{S})={\displaystyle \underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}}dt({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}},\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}][\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]`$
$`[\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{H}},\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+z_A^{}[z^A,[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\eta _{a_k}^{}[\eta ^{a_k},[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{L}{}}}[[\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}],u_{a_k}^{}]u^{a_k}),`$ (31)
$$\mathrm{}$$

The last equations emphasize that the existence of $`\stackrel{(1)}{S}`$ guarantees the existence of $`\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}}`$, the existence of $`\stackrel{(2)}{S}`$ guarantees the existence of $`\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{H}}`$, and so on. Moreover, the equations (1920), etc. are equivalent to the equations $`(\stackrel{(0)}{S},\stackrel{(1)}{S})=0`$, $`(\stackrel{(0)}{S},\stackrel{(2)}{S})+\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{(1)}{S},\stackrel{(1)}{S})=0`$, etc. modulo imposing some appropriate boundary conditions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . On the other hand, the last equations possess solution. The existence of such solutions was proved in  on behalf of the triviality of the antibracket in the cohomology. Thus, the existence of the solutions in the antibracket proves the existence of the solutions to (1920), etc. In conclusion, we can construct consistent interactions by means of the equations (1920), etc.

In practical applications, as commonly required, the deformation should be local, i.e., $`\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\stackrel{(2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}}`$, $`\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{H}}`$, etc. should be local functionals. Let $`F_1=d^{D1}xf_1`$ and $`F_2=d^{D1}xf_2`$ be two local functionals. Then, $`[F_1,F_2]`$ is local, namely, there exists a local $`[f_1,f_2]`$ (but defined up to a $`\left(D1\right)`$-dimensional divergence), such that $`[F_1,F_2]=d^{D1}x[f_1,f_2]`$. Thus, the equations (1920), etc. can be written as

$$2\stackrel{(0)}{s}\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }=^k\underset{k}{\overset{(1)}{j}},\stackrel{(0)}{s}\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{h}}+[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{h}},\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }]=^k\underset{k}{\overset{(1)}{m}},$$
(32)
$$2\stackrel{(0)}{s}\stackrel{(2)}{\omega }+[\stackrel{(1)}{\omega },\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }]=^k\underset{k}{\overset{(2)}{j}},\stackrel{(0)}{s}\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{h}}+[\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{h}},\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }]+[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{h}},\stackrel{(2)}{\omega }]=^k\underset{k}{\overset{(2)}{m}},$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{}$$

in terms of the integrands $`\underset{B}{\overset{(k)}{h}}`$ and $`\stackrel{(k)}{\omega }`$. In the above, $`\stackrel{(0)}{s}`$ stands for the undeformed BRST symmetry. The formalism developed so far does not guarantee locality. For instance, even if $`[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]`$ is $`\stackrel{(0)}{s}`$-exact, it is not granted that it is the BRST variation of a local functional. Such locality problems appear also in the Lagrangian deformation procedure . However, in the case of most important applications , , the Lagrangian BRST deformation procedure leads to local interactions. Thus, we expect that the Hamiltonian BRST deformation treatment also outputs local vertices in practical applications.

## 4 Example

Let us exemplify the prior procedure in the case of abelian Chern-Simons model in three dimensions. We start with the Lagrangian action

$$S_0\left[A_\mu ^a\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^3x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }k_{ab}A_\mu ^aF_{\nu \rho }^b,$$
(34)
where $`k_{ab}`$ is a non-degenerate symmetric and constant matrix, while $`F_{\nu \rho }^b=_\nu A_\rho ^b_\rho A_\nu ^b_{[\nu }A_{\rho ]}^b`$. Performing the canonical analysis and eliminating the second-class constraints (the independent variables are $`A_0^a`$, $`\pi _a^0`$ and $`A_k^a`$), we infer the first-class constraints $`G_{1a}\pi _a^00`$, $`G_{2a}\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ab}F_{ik}^b0`$ and the first-class Hamiltonian $`H_0=2d^2xA_0^aG_{2a}`$. The non-vanishing fundamental Dirac brackets read as $`[A_0^a,\pi _b^0]=\delta _b^a`$, $`[A_k^a,A_j^b]=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{0kj}k^{ab}`$, hence the BRST charge takes the simple form

$$\stackrel{(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=d^2x(\pi _a^0\eta _1^a\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ab}F_{ik}^b\eta _2^a),$$
(35)
where $`k^{ab}`$ is the inverse of $`k_{ab}`$, and $`(\eta _1^a,\eta _2^a)`$ stand for the fermionic ghost number one ghosts. Thus, the BRST operator $`\stackrel{(0)}{s}`$ splits as $`\stackrel{(0)}{s}=\delta +\gamma `$, where $`\delta `$ is the Koszul-Tate differential and $`\gamma `$ represents the longitudinal exterior derivative along the gauge orbits. Then, we have

$$\delta A_0^a=0,\delta \pi _a^0=0,\delta A_k^a=0,\delta \eta _1^a=\delta \eta _2^a=0,$$
(36)
$$\delta 𝒫_{1a}=\pi _a^0,\delta 𝒫_{2a}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ab}F_{ik}^b,$$
(37)
$$\gamma A_0^a=\eta _1^a,\gamma \pi _a^0=0,\gamma A_k^a=\frac{1}{2}_k\eta _2^a,\gamma \eta _1^a=\gamma \eta _2^a=0,$$
(38)
$$\gamma 𝒫_{1a}=\gamma 𝒫_{2a}=0.$$
(39)
Now, we solve the former equation from (32). In view of this, we develop $`\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }`$ accordingly the antighost number

$$\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }=\underset{0}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\mathrm{}+\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }},antigh\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}\right)=\mathrm{\Delta },gh\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}\right)=1,$$
(40)
where the last term in (40) can be assumed to be annihilated by $`\gamma `$. As $`pgh\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }+1`$, we can represent $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}`$ under the form

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=\mu _{a_1\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}\eta _2^{a_1}\mathrm{}\eta _2^{a_{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}.$$
(41)
With this choice, it results that the $`\gamma `$-invariant coefficient $`\mu _{a_1\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}`$ belongs to $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)`$, i.e., is solution to the equation

$$\delta \mu _{a_1\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}+_kb_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}^k=0,$$
(42)
for some $`b_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}}^k`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{d}=dx^i_i`$. Using the result from  adapted to the Hamiltonian context, it follows that $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)`$ vanish for $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$ , hence $`\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }=\underset{0}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}`$, with $`\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=\frac{1}{2}\mu _{ab}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b`$, where $`\mu _{ab}`$ from $`H_1\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)`$. A general representative of $`H_1\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)`$ is of the type $`\mu _{ab}=C_{ab}^c𝒫_{2c}`$, where $`C_{ab}^c`$ are some constants, antisymmetric in the lower indices, $`C_{ab}^c=C_{ba}^c`$. The necessity for $`C_{ab}^c`$ to be constant results from the equation that must be satisfied by $`\mu _{ab}`$, namely, $`\delta \mu _{ab}=_k\left(C_{ab}^c\epsilon ^{0kj}k_{cd}A_j^d\right)`$. In this way, we obtained that $`\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=\frac{1}{2}C_{ab}^c𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b`$. The former equation from (32) at antighost number zero reads as $`\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\gamma \underset{0}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=_km^k`$, which further yields $`\underset{0}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=C_{ad}^ck_{cb}\epsilon ^{0kj}A_k^aA_j^d\eta _2^b`$. In this manner, we inferred $`\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }=C_{ab}^c(\frac{1}{2}𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b+k_{cd}\epsilon ^{0kj}A_k^aA_j^b\eta _2^d)`$. Simple computation leads to

$`[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]={\displaystyle }d^2x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_{[nc}^mC_{ab]}^c𝒫_{2m}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^n`$
$`\epsilon ^{0ij}k_{ad}C_{[bc}^dC_{ne]}^c\eta _2^a\eta _2^bA_i^nA_j^e).`$ (43)
The last relation shows that $`[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]`$ cannot be written like a $`\stackrel{(0)}{s}`$-exact modulo $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ local functional. For this reason it is necessary to have $`[\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0`$. This condition takes place if and only if $`C_{[nc}^mC_{ab]}^c=0`$, so if and only if the constants verify the Jacobi identity. This further implies $`\stackrel{(k)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$$`k2`$. The deformed BRST charge takes the final form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle }d^2x(\pi _a^0\eta _1^a\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ca}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{ik}^cgC_{bd}^cA_i^bA_k^d)\eta _2^a+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gC_{ab}^c𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b),`$ (44)
so it is clearly a local functional.

Now, we derive the deformed BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. The BRST-invariant Hamiltonian for the free theory is given by $`\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{H}}=H_0+2d^2x\eta _1^a𝒫_{2a}`$. Consequently, we find

$$[\underset{B}{\overset{(0)}{h}},\stackrel{(1)}{\omega }]=2C_{ab}^ck_{cd}\epsilon ^{0ij}A_j^b\left(\eta _1^dA_i^a+\eta _2^d_iA_0^a\right)2C_{ab}^c𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^a\eta _1^b.$$
(45)
Then, the solution of the latter equation in (32) reads as

$$\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{h}}=2C_{ab}^c(k_{cd}\epsilon ^{0ij}A_0^dA_i^aA_j^b+A_0^b𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^a).$$
(46)
Straightforward computation leads to $`[\underset{B}{\overset{(1)}{H}},\stackrel{(1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=0`$, hence the latter equation from (33) is satisfied with $`\underset{B}{\overset{(2)}{h}}=0`$. Therefore, the higher-order deformation equations for the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian are verified with $`\underset{B}{\overset{(3)}{H}}=\underset{B}{\overset{(4)}{H}}=\mathrm{}=0`$. Thus, the complete deformed BRST invariant Hamiltonian reads as

$$H_B=2d^2x\left(A_0^a\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ca}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{ik}^cgC_{bd}^cA_i^bA_k^d\right)+\left(\eta _1^agC_{cb}^aA_0^b\eta _2^c\right)𝒫_{2a}\right),$$
(47)
and is a local functional, too. With the help of (4) and (47) we identify the new gauge theory. From the antighost-independent terms in (4) we observe that the deformation of the BRST charge implies the deformed first-class constraints

$$\gamma _{2a}\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ca}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{ik}^cgC_{bd}^cA_i^bA_k^d\right)0,$$
(48)
the remaining constraints being undeformed. The term $`\frac{1}{2}gC_{ab}^c𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b`$ shows that the new constraint functions form a Lie algebra, i.e.,

$$[\gamma _{2a},\gamma _{2b}]=C_{ab}^c\gamma _{2c}.$$
(49)
On the other hand, the antighost-independent piece in (47)

$$H=2d^2xA_0^a\epsilon ^{0ik}k_{ca}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{ik}^cgC_{bd}^cA_i^bA_k^d\right),$$
(50)
is precisely the first-class Hamiltonian of the deformed theory. The components linear in the antighosts from (47) indicate that the Dirac brackets among the new first-class Hamiltonian and the new constraint functions are modified as $`[H,\gamma _{2a}]=C_{ab}^cA_0^b\gamma _{2c}`$. Thus, the resulting first-class theory is nothing but the nonabelian version of the Chern-Simons model in three dimensions, described by the local Lagrangian action

$$\overline{S}_0\left[A_\mu ^a\right]=d^3x\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu ^a\left(\frac{1}{2}k_{ab}F_{\nu \rho }^b\frac{2}{3}gC_{abc}A_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c\right),$$
(51)
where $`C_{abc}=C_{[bc}^dk_{a]d}`$. As the first-class constraints generate gauge transformations, from the deformations (48) and (49) we can conclude that the added interactions involved with (50) modify both the gauge transformations and their gauge algebra.

## 5 Conclusion

To conclude with, in this letter we have presented a Hamiltonian BRST approach to the construction of consistent interactions among fields with gauge freedom. Our procedure reformulates the problem of constructing Hamiltonian consistent interactions as a deformation problem of the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of a given “free” theory. We have derived the general equations from the Hamiltonian BRST deformation method, and proved that they possess solution. Next, we have written down the local version of these equations and discussed on the locality of their solutions. Finally, the general theory was exemplified in the case of the Chern-Simons model in three dimensions. We think that our approach together with the general results in  might be successfully applied to computing local BRST cohomologies for those theories whose Lagrangian version is more intricate than the Hamiltonian one.

## Acknowledgment

This work has been supported by a Romanian National Council for Academic Scientific Research (CNCSIS) grant.