text:
# Double Scalar–Tensor Gravity Cosmologies

## 1 Introduction

Extended gravity theories have recently assumed a prominent role in theoretical physics investigations since any unification scheme, as supergravity or superstrings, in the weak energy limit, or viable early universe cosmological models, as extended inflation, seem to base on them.

Besides, any effective theory, where quantum fields are taken into account in a curved space–time, results in nonminimal couplings between geometry and matter (scalar) fields . Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that Einstein’s general relativity is experimentally tested with high degree of accuracy, from solar system tests to binary pulsar observational data, it has become a peremptory necessity to consider alternative theories of gravity. The issues is now: What kind of theory? The plethora of them is overwhelming from higher–order gravity theories, to Kaluza–Klein multidimensional theories, to induced–gravity theories, to gauge theories with torsion. Several of them seem to be consistent with some quantum gravity effect in the weak energy limit but, till now, no one can be universally considered the ”full” quantum gravity theory.

Despite of this shortcoming, most of them have remarkable physical implications from cosmology to particle physics. A particularly relevant role is played in inflationary cosmology where, from the early Starobinsky model  to the more recent hyperextended models, non–standard theories have been widely used. In fact, the goal of every inflationary model is to generate a brief period in which the scalar factor of the universe, $`a(t)`$, increases superluminally, i.e. $`a(t)>t`$. If $`a(t)`$ grows by $`e^{60}`$ or more during this period, the horizon, flatness and monopole problems can be resolved. In addition, inflation generates energy density fluctuations which may be seeds for large scale structure formation. This features can be obtained in several alternative theories of gravity.

However, designing a detailed microphysical model that accomplishes all of these goals has proven to be extremely difficult and several times the extended theories have to be adjusted to reach some partial goal.

As a general scheme, one needs a grand entrance into inflation which is a mechanism which drives the universe into a false vacuum phase.The large, positive vacuum density acts as an effective cosmological constant which triggers a period of a (quasi) de Sitter expansion. Then one needs a graceful exit: a mechanism capable of terminating the inflationary expansion, reheat the universe to a high temperature, and restore a Friedman expansion. This second issue can result highly problematic due to the fine–tuning of parameters which one needs to connect in the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (e.g. the so called ”big bubble problem” ).

Cosmological models deduced from nonminimally coupled theories of gravity (e.g. Brans–Dicke or induced gravity) have provided schemes capable of escaping such difficulties. Extended inflationary models could accomplish several goals which earlier models failed and, in particular, they cure some shortcomings of ”old” inflation. Extended inflationary models also start when the universe is trapped in a false vacuum state by a large energy barrier during a first–order phase transition . The failure of old inflation was that the universe could never escape the false vacuum state since the rate of tunneling through the barrier remains small compared to the inflationary expansion rate . Extended models, in the various versions, avoid the same failure by introducing mechanisms so that the tunneling rate exceeds the expansion rate and, hence, the transition to the true vacuum can be completed. For a comprehensive review, see .

The key ingredient on which extended inflation lies is the relation between the tunneling or bubble nucleation rate, $`\lambda `$, and the expansion rate (the Hubble parameter) $`H`$. The ratio is the dimensionless ”bubble nucleation rate” $`ϵ=\lambda /H^4`$. The false vacuum can be percolated by true vacuum bubbles only if $`ϵ`$ exceeds a critical value, $`ϵ_{crit}0.2`$. In old inflation, $`ϵ`$ is time–independent since $`\lambda `$ and $`H`$ (which depends on the false vacuum energy) do not vary during inflation .

Two situations are possible: i) $`ϵ<ϵ_{crit}`$, in which case the true vacuum bubbles never percolate and the universe inflates forever, or ii) $`ϵ>ϵ_{crit}`$, in which case the true vacuum percolates, but so quickly that there is insufficient inflation to solve cosmological problems. A way to bypass this shortcoming is to avoid bubble nucleation altogether. New inflation and chaotic inflation utilize this approach. For example, in new inflation, the energy barrier disappears altogether as the universe supercools and the universe evolves slowly but continuously from the false to true vacuum phase . However, the model has to be fine–tuned.

Extended inflation models employ an alternative approach asking for the time variation of $`ϵ`$. Initially, $`ϵ`$ is much less than $`ϵ_{crit}`$ to achieve sufficient inflation, but then it grows during inflation to a value $`ϵ>ϵ_{crit}`$ so that the phase transition can be completed. Being $`\lambda `$ fixed by the form of the self interacting potential, the only quantity on which one can act is $`H`$. Cosmological solution with a time–varying $`H`$ can be easily obtained by using modified theories of gravity like scalar–tensor theories. A simple extended inflationary model  can be contructed by using the Brans–Dicke theory . The gravitational action is

$$𝒜=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\varphi R\omega \left(\frac{\varphi ^\mu \varphi _\mu }{\varphi }\right)+_m\right],$$
(1.1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the Brans–Dicke scalar field, $`\omega `$ is a dimensionless parameter and $`_m`$ is the matter Lagrangian density including all the non–gravitational fields (from now on, we shall use natural units $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=8\pi G=1`$). The cosmological Friedman–Robertson–Walker (FRW) equations are

$$H^2=\frac{\rho _m}{3\varphi }\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{\omega }{6}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)^2H\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right),$$
(1.2)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\rho _m3p_m}{3+2\omega },$$
(1.3)
where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, $`\rho _m`$ and $`p_m`$ are, respectively, the energy and pressure densities of matter, and finally, $`k=0,\pm 1`$. For $`p_m=\rho _m`$ and $`k=0`$ we have

$$\varphi (t)=\left(1+\frac{\chi t}{\alpha }\right)^2,$$
(1.4)
$$a(t)=\left(1+\frac{\chi t}{\alpha }\right)^{\omega +1/2},$$
(1.5)
where $`\chi `$ is an integration constant connected to the energy of false vacuum, $`\alpha =(3+2\omega )(5+6\omega )/12`$.

Immediately we see that for $`\chi t<\alpha `$, $`\dot{\varphi }0`$, we have a de Sitter solution. If, for example, $`\omega >90`$, one obtains the 60 $`e`$–foldings necessary to solve cosmological problems of standard model. When $`\chi t>\alpha `$, $`a(t)`$ evolves as a power–law expansion and $`Ht^1`$. This feature allows the successful graceful exit since $`ϵ>ϵ_{crit}`$. Of course, the main ingredients are the variation of Newton constant and the coupling of the geometry to the scalar field. In other words, the model succeeds because the effective Newton constant $`G_{eff}=\varphi ^1`$ is decreasing, then $`H`$ is decreasing and $`ϵ`$ is increasing.

The main flaw of this model is related to the expected value of the parameter $`\omega `$. In order to restore Einstein’s general relativity, we should have $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ , then the value of $`\omega `$ in constrained by the classical tests of general relativity: light deflection and time–delay experiments require $`\omega >500`$  while the bounds on the anisotropy of the microwave background radiation give $`\omega 30`$ . In conclusion, $`\omega `$ must be a function of time in order to obtain viable models. A pure Brans–Dicke theory is not able to yield realistic models and we have to introduce, at least, a function $`\omega =\omega (\varphi )`$ in order to overcome the above difficulties. Several proposal have been done to improve the early extended inflationary model and, in some of them also $`\lambda `$ is assumed to vary . The strict condition which implies $`\lambda =`$constant is a feature connected to Brans–Dicke models as it is shown in .

In the so called hyperextended inflation , one can assume

$$\omega (\varphi )=\omega _0+\omega _m\varphi ^m,$$
(1.6)
to improve the Brans–Dicke model . If $`m=5`$, the microwave background bounds are satisfied . Alternatively, assuming the coupling

$$\varphi =F(\phi ),\omega (\varphi )=\frac{F(\phi )}{2(dF/d\phi )^2},$$
(1.7)
one can get successful implementations without fine–tuning the initial conditions. In particular, if $`F(\phi )`$ is a sixth order polynomial, the big bubble problem is avoided since the model is independent of the bubble–size distribution .

Other approaches give interesting results. For example, it is possible to include a first- or second-order potential $`V(\varphi )`$ for the Brans–Dicke field $`\varphi `$ as in induced gravity theories . In this case, the potential places constraints on the percolation time–scale in the graceful exit and, furthermore, it can give rise to multiple episodes of inflation which may reveal extremely useful for large scale structure formation (e.g. super-cluster, cluster and galaxies).

Another way to escape the $`\omega `$–parameter constraints is to consider a curvature–coupled inflation . Also in this case, extended inflation results enhanced since, in some sense, the roles of Brans–Dicke field and inflaton are mixed. This feature allows to satisfy the solar system constraints on $`\omega `$, to avoid the big–bubble problem, to construct models with double inflationary episodes.

A more sophisticated way to bypass the graceful exit problem can be obtained by coupling first–order phase transitions to curvature–squared inflation . The mechanism (getaway inflation) is based on a nonminimally coupled higher–order gravity theory where terms like $`\phi ^2R^2`$ appear in the usual gravity–inflaton action. Their role is to produce an inflationary phase of the background which has a classical end. At the same time, a stage of bubble production via semiclassical tunneling occurs allowing useful spectra for large scale structure formation.

A final remark concerns the role which the Brans–Dicke scalar could have for dark matter in extended inflation. Its oscillations in the various models could account for the discrepancy between the dynamical estimate of the density of matter in the universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.2`$, and the prediction of inflation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$  which seems to be confirmed by the BOOMERANG experiment .

All these arguments and several more make extremely interesting to search for cosmological solutions useful for extended inflation. A first investigation in this sense is in  where general scalar–tensor theories of gravitation were studied in order to ”model” useful extended inflationary behaviours. Intermediate inflationary universes with expansion scale factor of the form

$$a(t)=a_0\mathrm{exp}t^p,0<p<1,$$
(1.8)
were found. These models allow to succeed in realizing phase transition and graceful exit.

More recently, Modak and Kamilya  derived exact cosmological solutions by the so called Noether Symmetry Approach  in scalar–tensor gravity theories discussing the role of the coupling function $`\omega (\phi )`$ connected to the Noether symmetry. They improved the approach in , where symmetries and solutions were found for theories with a scalar field nonminimally coupled to gravity, by introducing a second scalar field (the inflaton) as in extended inflationary models. Exponentially expanding solutions, in asymptotic region, were found and this feature does not allow to solve the graceful exit problem also if general relativity was asymptotically recovered.

In this paper we want to discuss, by Noether Symmetry Approach, a further generalization taking into account two nonminimally coupled scalar fields and their self interaction potentials. In this way, the roles of the Brans–Dicke field and the inflaton are mixed and both fields are taken on the same ground. This fact could be coherent with the stochastic approach for the fundamental laws of nature since the role of the fields is not attributed a priori .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we discuss the double scalar–tensor action, derive the equations of motion, the point-like FRW Lagrangian and the cosmological equations. Sect. 3 is devoted to the Noether Symmetry Approach which has to be improved for the double field case since the configuration space results enlarged. The summary of found symmetries is given considering also the subcases where one and not two nonminimal couplings are present. The cosmological solutions are given in Sect. 4 while the graceful exit problem is discussed in Sect. 5. Conclusions are drawn in Sect.6.

## 2 Double Scalar-Tensor Action and Equations of Motion

The most general action in four dimensions, where gravity is nonminimally coupled to two scalar fields noninteracting between them, is

$$𝒜=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[F(\phi )R+G(\psi )R+\frac{1}{2}\phi _\mu \phi ^\mu V(\phi )+\frac{1}{2}\psi _\mu \psi ^\mu W(\psi )\right],$$
(2.1)
where we have not specified the four functions $`F(\phi )`$, $`V(\phi )`$, $`G(\psi )`$, and $`W(\psi )`$. This action generalizes those used till now to construct extended inflationary models111We point out that the more general action is
$$𝒜=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[F(\phi ,\psi )RV(\phi ,\psi )+A(\phi ,\psi )(\phi )^2+B(\phi ,\psi )(\psi )^2\right],$$
but for the purpose of the paper, we will confine ourselves to the action (2.1). The Brans–Dicke action (1.1) can be immediately recovered by using the transformations (1.7). In our units, the standard Newton coupling is recovered in the limit $`F(\phi )+G(\psi )1/2`$. The field equations can be derived by varying with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$

$$[F(\phi )+G(\psi )]\left(R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R\right)=T_{\mu \nu }^{(\phi )}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(\psi )}.$$
(2.2)
In the right hand side of (2.2) there is the effective stress–energy tensor containing the nonminimal coupling contributions, the kinetic terms and the potentials of the scalar fields $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$, that is

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\phi )}=\frac{1}{2}\phi _{;\mu }\phi _{;\nu }+\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }\phi _{;\alpha }\phi ^{;\alpha }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }V(\phi )g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}F(\phi )+F(\phi )_{;\mu \nu }$$
(2.3)
and analogously,

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\psi )}=\frac{1}{2}\psi _{;\mu }\psi _{;\nu }+\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }\psi _{;\alpha }\psi ^{;\alpha }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }W(\psi )g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}G(\psi )+G(\psi )_{;\mu \nu }.$$
(2.4)
$`\mathrm{}`$ is the d’Alambertian operator. The variation with respect to $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ gives the Klein–Gordon equations

$$\mathrm{}\phi R\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)+\frac{dV}{d\phi }=0,$$
(2.5)
and

$$\mathrm{}\psi R\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)+\frac{dW}{d\psi }=0.$$
(2.6)
Their sum is equivalent to the contracted Bianchi identities . Let us now take into account a FRW metric of the form

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]$$
(2.7)
and substitute it into the action (2.1). Integrating by parts and eliminating the boundary terms, we get the point-like Lagrangian

$$=6\frac{dF}{d\phi }a^2\dot{a}\dot{\phi }+6Fa\dot{a}^26kFa+\frac{a^3\dot{\phi }^2}{2}a^3V(\phi )+6\frac{dG}{d\psi }a^2\dot{a}\dot{\psi }+6Ga\dot{a}^26kGa+\frac{a^3\dot{\psi }^2}{2}a^3W(\psi ).$$
(2.8)
The Euler–Lagrange equations, corresponding to the cosmological Einstein equations are

$$[F+G]\left[2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right]+2\left[\dot{\phi }\frac{dF}{d\phi }+\dot{\psi }\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right]\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)+$$
(2.9)
$$+\left[\dot{\phi }^2\frac{d^2F}{d\phi ^2}+\ddot{\phi }\frac{dF}{d\phi }+\dot{\psi }^2\frac{d^2F}{d\psi ^2}+\ddot{\psi }\frac{dF}{d\psi }\right]\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\phi }^2+\dot{\psi }^2)(V+W)\right]=0,$$

$$6[F+G]\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+6\left[\dot{\phi }\frac{dF}{d\phi }+\dot{\psi }\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right]\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)+\frac{6k}{a^2}[F+G]+\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\phi }^2+\dot{\psi }^2)+V+W=0,$$
(2.10)
$$\ddot{\phi }+3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\dot{\phi }+6\left[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right]\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)+\frac{dV}{d\phi }=0,$$
(2.11)
$$\ddot{\psi }+3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\dot{\psi }+6\left[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right]\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)+\frac{dW}{d\psi }=0,$$
(2.12)
where Eq. (2.10) is the energy constraint corresponding to the $`(0,0)`$–Einstein equation. Let us now go to solve the system (2.9)–(2.12) by using the Noether Symmetry Approach. The solutions strictly depend on the form of the functions $`F,G,V`$ and $`W`$. By the Noether symmetries it is possible to select these functions so that the system (2.10)–(2.12) can be reduced and then integrated.

## 3 Selecting Couplings and Potentials by the Noether Symmetries

Given an undefined extended gravity theory, the existence of a Noether symmetry can select the form of the coupling and the scalar field potential  or the form of the higher–order Lagrangian density, e.g. $`f(R,\mathrm{}R)`$ .

At the same time, as we will show in the next section, the symmetry allows to reduce the dynamical system by a cyclic variable making it easier to solve. Taking into account the Lagrangian (2.8), its configuration space is three–dimensional, $`Q=\{a,\phi ,\psi \}`$. In the language of quantum cosmology, it can be identified with a minisuperspace . The tangent space on which the Lagrangian (2.8) is defined is $`TQ=\{a,\dot{a},\phi ,\dot{\phi },\psi ,\dot{\psi }\}`$ so that the lift vector $`X`$, the infinitesimal generator of symmetry, is

$$X=\alpha \frac{}{a}+\beta \frac{}{\phi }+\gamma \frac{}{\psi }+\frac{d\alpha }{dt}\frac{}{\dot{a}}+\frac{d\beta }{dt}\frac{}{\dot{\phi }}+\frac{d\gamma }{dt}\frac{}{\dot{\psi }},$$
(3.1)
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are functions of $`a,\phi ,\psi `$. A Noether symmetry exists if the condition

$$L_X=0,$$
(3.2)
is realized. $`L_X`$ is the Lie derivative wit respect to $`X`$. Properly speaking, Eq. (3.2) corresponds to the contraction of the vector $`X`$ with the Lagrangian (2.8). The constant of motion connected to the Noether symmetry is nothing else but

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=i_X\vartheta _{}$$
(3.3)
where

$$\vartheta _{}=\frac{}{\dot{a}}da+\frac{}{\dot{\phi }}d\phi +\frac{}{\dot{\psi }}d\psi $$
(3.4)
is the Cartan one–form given by a Lagrangian $``$ and $`i_X`$ is the contraction with respect to $`X`$. The relation between Eqs. (3.2) and (3.3) can be easily seen if the vector is generally expressed as

$$X=\alpha ^i\frac{}{q^i}+\frac{d\alpha ^i}{dt}\frac{}{\dot{q}^i}.$$
(3.5)
Using the Euler–Lagrange equations, it can be shown that

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\alpha ^i\frac{}{\dot{q}^i}\right)=L_X.$$
(3.6)
If the Noether symmetry exists, Eq. (3.6) gives (3.2). In the Hamiltonian formalism, by a Legendre transformation, we get

$$=\dot{a}\pi _a+\dot{\phi }\pi _\phi +\dot{\psi }\pi _\psi ,$$
(3.7)
where $`\pi _q/\dot{q}`$, $`q=\{a,\phi ,\psi \}`$ are the conjugate momenta. The phase–space vector for the symmetry is now

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\dot{a}\frac{}{a}+\dot{\phi }\frac{}{\phi }+\dot{a\psi }\frac{}{\psi }+\ddot{a}\frac{}{\dot{a}}+\ddot{\phi }\frac{}{\dot{\phi }}+\ddot{\psi }\frac{}{\dot{\psi }},$$
(3.8)
and a Noether symmetry exists if

$$L_\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.$$
(3.9)
The conserved quantity (3.3) and the Hamiltonian (3.7) gives the Poisson brackets

$$\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\}=0.$$
(3.10)
Our issue is now to determine the functions $`F,G,V,W`$ by this Noether symmetry technique. We shall adopt the Lagrangian formalism. The condition (3.2) gives the system of partial differential equations

$$F\left(\alpha +2a\frac{\alpha }{a}\right)+G\left(\alpha +2a\frac{\alpha }{a}\right)+a\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)\left(\beta +a\frac{\beta }{a}\right)+a\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)\left(\gamma +a\frac{\gamma }{a}\right)=0,$$
(3.11)
$$3\alpha +12\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)\frac{\alpha }{\phi }+2a\frac{\beta }{\phi }=0,$$
(3.12)
$$3\alpha +12\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)\frac{\alpha }{\psi }+2a\frac{\gamma }{\psi }=0,$$
(3.13)
$$a\beta \frac{d^2F}{d\phi ^2}+\left(2\alpha +a\frac{\alpha }{a}+a\frac{\beta }{\phi }\right)\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)+2\frac{\alpha }{\phi }F+\frac{a^2}{6}\frac{\beta }{a}+a\frac{\gamma }{\phi }\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)+2\frac{\alpha }{\phi }G=0,$$
(3.14)
$$a\gamma \frac{d^2G}{d\psi ^2}+\left(2\alpha +a\frac{\alpha }{a}+a\frac{\gamma }{\psi }\right)\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)+2\frac{\alpha }{\psi }G+\frac{a^2}{6}\frac{\gamma }{a}+a\frac{\beta }{\psi }\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)+2\frac{\alpha }{\psi }F=0,$$
(3.15)
$$6\frac{\alpha }{\phi }\left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)+6\frac{\alpha }{\psi }\left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)+\frac{\beta }{\psi }a+\frac{\gamma }{\phi }a=0,$$
(3.16)
$$6k\left[\alpha F+\beta \left(\frac{dF}{d\phi }\right)a+\alpha G+\gamma \left(\frac{dG}{d\psi }\right)a\right]+a^2\left[3\alpha V+\beta a\left(\frac{dV}{d\phi }\right)+3\alpha W+\gamma a\left(\frac{dW}{d\psi }\right)\right]=0,$$
(3.17)
obtained by equating to zero the second degree coefficients in $`\dot{a}`$, $`\dot{\phi }`$, $`\dot{\psi }`$. The number of these equations is $`1+n(n+1)/2`$, where $`n`$ is the dimension of the configuration space $`Q`$. The system (3.11)–(3.17) is the straightforward generalization of the system (5.30)–(5.34) in  for the case of two scalar fields.

The integration of (3.11)–(3.17) gives as a result the functions $`\alpha (a,\phi ,\psi )`$, $`\beta (a,\phi ,\psi )`$, $`\gamma (a,\phi ,\psi )`$, $`F(\phi )`$, $`V(\phi )`$, $`G(\psi )`$, $`W(\psi )`$. Solutions are not unique and the various cases which we have found are summarized in Table I.

In Table II, being $`G(\psi )=0`$, the cases where only one nonminimal coupling is present are summarized. The value of the spatial curvature constant $`k`$ is also given. The quantities $`F_0`$, $`G_0`$, $`F_0^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ are constants. Using these results, the dynamical system (2.9)–(2.12) can be reduced since, as we shall show below, a change of variables can be found where a cyclic coordinate is present. This feature allows to integrate more simply the dynamics.

## 4 The Cosmological Solutions

The existence of a Noether symmetry gives, in any case, a cyclic variable so that the transformation

$$(a,\dot{a},\phi ,\dot{\phi },\psi ,\dot{\psi })(w,\dot{w},u,\dot{u},\dot{z})$$
(4.1)
is always possible. If more than one symmetry exists, more than one cyclic variable can be present . In a geometric language, it is always possible to choose a new set $`q_i=q_i(Q_k)`$ $`i,k=1,2,3,`$ adapted to the foliation given by $`X`$

$$i_XdQ_3=1,i_XdQ_j=0,j=1,2,$$
(4.2)
where $`i_X`$, as before, is the contraction given by $`X`$ and $`dQ_j=(Q_j/q_i)dq_i`$. Explicitly, in our case, Eqs. (4.2) become

$$\alpha \frac{w}{a}+\beta \frac{w}{\phi }+\gamma \frac{w}{\psi }=0,$$
(4.3)
$$\alpha \frac{u}{a}+\beta \frac{u}{\phi }+\gamma \frac{u}{\psi }=0,$$
(4.4)
$$\alpha \frac{z}{a}+\beta \frac{z}{\phi }+\gamma \frac{z}{\psi }=1,$$
(4.5)
where $`z`$ is the cyclic variable. However, the transformation (4.3)–(4.5) are specified as soon as the functions $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ are given. As an example, let us take into account Case 1 in Table I. Cases 2 and 3 of Table I and 1,2,3 of Table II can be deduced from it. The system (4.3)–(4.5) is solved by the choice of the new variables

$$w=a^3\psi ^2,u=a^3\phi ^2,z=\mathrm{ln}a.$$
(4.6)
For the scalar–field functions, as we said, we choose Case 1 in Table I. Lagrangian (2.8) becomes

$$=6F_0\dot{z}(\dot{w}2\dot{z}w)+\frac{1}{8w}(\dot{w}3\dot{z}w)^2V_0w+6G_0\dot{z}(\dot{u}2\dot{z}u)+\frac{1}{8w}(\dot{u}3\dot{z}u)^2W_0u$$
(4.7)
while the equations of motion are

$$6(8G_01)\ddot{z}+3(32G_03)\dot{z}^2+2\left(\frac{\ddot{u}}{u}\frac{\dot{u}^2}{2u^2}\right)+8W_0=0,$$
(4.8)
$$6(8F_01)\ddot{z}+3(32F_03)\dot{z}^2+2\left(\frac{\ddot{w}}{w}\frac{\dot{w}^2}{2w^2}\right)+8V_0=0,$$
(4.9)
$$(8F_01)\dot{w}(32F_03)\dot{z}w+(8G_01)\dot{u}(32G_03)\dot{z}u=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0$$
(4.10)
$$6(8F_01)\dot{z}\dot{w}3(32F_03)\dot{z}^2w+\frac{\dot{w}^2}{w}+8V_0w+6(8G_01)\dot{z}\dot{u}3(32G_03)\dot{z}^2u+\frac{\dot{u}^2}{u}+8W_0u=0,$$
(4.11)
where, clearly, $`z`$ is the cyclic variable and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is the constant of motion connected to $`z`$. With respect to the system (2.9)–(2.12), system (4.8)–(4.11) is reduced and it is highly symmetric due to the functions $`F(\phi ),G(\psi ),V(\phi ),W(\psi )`$ selected by the Noether symmetry.

Since the role of the two fields is completely symmetric, we can suppose that, depending on the value of the parameters, one can select two regimes of physical interest. For example, in the first case, dynamics is $`\phi `$ ($`u`$)–dominated, in the second case, it is $`\psi `$ ($`w`$)–dominated. The relation among the initial data is given by the energy condition (4.11). We get in the $`\phi `$ ($`u`$)–dominated regime

$$u(t)=c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t],$$
(4.12)
$$z(t)=z_1\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{c_1}{c_2}}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)+z_2\mathrm{ln}|c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]|+z_0,$$
(4.13)
for $`c_1c_2>0`$, and

$$z(t)=z_1\text{arctanh}\left(\sqrt{|\frac{c_1}{c_2}|}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)+z_2\mathrm{ln}|c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]|+z_0,$$
(4.14)
for $`c_1c_2<0`$, while in the $`\psi `$ ($`w`$)–dominated regime

$$w(t)=c_3\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]+c_4\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t],$$
(4.15)
$$z(t)=z_3\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{c_3}{c_4}}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]\right)+z_4\mathrm{ln}|c_3\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]+c_4\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]|+z_0,$$
(4.16)
for $`c_3c_4>0`$, and

$$z(t)=z_3\text{arctanh}\left(\sqrt{|\frac{c_3}{c_4}|}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]\right)+z_4\mathrm{ln}|c_3\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]+c_4\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]|+z_0,$$
(4.17)
for $`c_3c_4<0`$. The constants $`z_0`$, $`c_i,z_j`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},4`$ are integration constants while

$$\lambda _1=\frac{V_0(32F_03)}{4F_0(12F_01)},\lambda _2=\frac{W_0(32G_03)}{4G_0(12G_01)},$$
(4.18)
assume the role of cosmological constants depending on the couplings and the potentials.

Inverting the relations (4.6), we get

$$a(t)=a_0\left(c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[z_1\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{c_1}{c_2}}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)\right],$$
(4.19)
$$\phi (t)=\phi _0\left(c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)^2\left(\mathrm{exp}\left[z_1\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{c_1}{c_2}}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)\right]\right)^3,$$
(4.20)
for $`c_1c_2>0`$, and

$$a(t)=a_0\left(c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[z_1\text{arctanh}\left(\sqrt{|\frac{c_1}{c_2}|}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)\right],$$
(4.21)
$$\phi (t)=\phi _0\left(c_1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]+c_2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _2t]\right)^2\left(\mathrm{exp}\left[z_1\text{arctanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{c_1}{c_2}}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _1t]\right)\right]\right)^3,$$
(4.22)
for $`c_1c_2<0`$ in the $`\phi `$–dominated regime.

The situation is analogous in the $`\psi `$–dominate regime, but the constants $`\lambda _1`$, $`z_1`$, $`c_{1,2}`$ and $`\phi _0`$ have to be substituted with $`\lambda _2`$, $`z_2`$, $`c_{3,4}`$ and $`\psi _0`$.

It is easy to see hat we have two inflationary eras. Their durations are ruled by the parameter $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ which strictly depends on the strength of the couplings. Another interesting particular solution is

$$a(t)=a_0e^{z_0t},\phi (t)=\phi _0\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{4F_0z_0}{8F_01}t\right\},\psi (t)=\psi _0\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{4G_0z_0}{8G_01}t\right\},$$
(4.23)
where

$$V_0=\frac{z_0^2}{8(8F_01)}F_0\left(F_0\frac{1}{12}\right)\left(F_0\frac{1}{10.6}\right)$$
(4.24)
$$W_0=\frac{z_0^2}{8(8G_01)}G_0\left(G_0\frac{1}{12}\right)\left(G_0\frac{1}{10.6}\right).$$
(4.25)
Also here the inflationary behaviour is clear.

By using similar arguments, we can analyze Case 2 in Tab.I Here the potential terms cancel each other in the Lagrangian (4.7). We get the power–law solution

$$a(t)=a_0t^n,\phi (t)=\phi _0t^n,\psi (t)=\psi _0t^n,$$
(4.26)
which is particularly useful for extended inflation being $`n`$ an arbitrary constant depending on the initial conditions. A similar situation holds in Case 4, which is a minimally coupled case with two fields and two cosmological constants. For $`k=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=|\mathrm{\Lambda }|_2`$, one finds

$$a(t)=a_0t^n,\phi (t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}{a_0^3(13n)}t^{13n}+\phi _0,\psi (t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{a_0^3(13n)}t^{13n}+\psi _1,$$
(4.27)
for $`n1/3`$, and

$$a(t)=a_0t^{1/3},\phi (t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}{a_0^3}\mathrm{ln}t+\phi _0,\psi (t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{a_0^3}\mathrm{ln}t+\psi _0,$$
(4.28)
when $`n=1/3`$. In this case, two Noether symmetries are present and they assign the value of gravitational constant being

$$F_0+G_0=\frac{3(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2)}{4a_0^6}.$$
(4.29)
Let us now analyse, in detail, Case 5. Without loosing of generality, we can assume $`F_0^{}=F_0=0`$, $`\gamma _0=1`$ and studying the couplings $`F(\phi )=\phi ^2/12`$ and $`G(\psi )=G_0`$. Lagrangian (2.8) becomes

$$=\left(\frac{\phi ^2}{2}+6G_0\right)a\dot{a}^2+a^2\dot{a}\phi \dot{\phi }+a^3\left(\frac{\dot{\phi }^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\frac{a^3\dot{\psi }}{2}$$
(4.30)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. Clearly $`\psi `$ is the cyclic variable. Eqs. (4.3)–(4.5) are satisfied by

$$w=a,u=a\phi \psi ,z=a\phi .$$
(4.31)
With the further change

$$\chi =zu,$$
(4.32)
Lagrangian (4.30) reads

$$=\left(6G_0\dot{w}^2+\frac{\dot{z}^2}{2}\right)w+\left(\frac{\dot{\chi }^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)w^3,$$
(4.33)
where two cyclic variables appear. The dynamical system is

$$6G_0(2\ddot{w}w+\dot{w}^2)=\frac{\dot{z}^2}{2}+3w^2\left(\frac{\dot{\chi }^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$
(4.34)
$$\dot{\chi }w^3=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,$$
(4.35)
$$\dot{z}w=\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,$$
(4.36)
$$\dot{z}^2+12G_0\dot{w}^2+\dot{\chi }^2w^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }w^2=0,$$
(4.37)
whose general solution is given by the elliptic integral

$$\frac{w^2dw}{\sqrt{A_1w^6+A_2w^2+A_3}}=\pm t,$$
(4.38)
where

$$A_1=\frac{A_1}{6G_0},A_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2}{6G_0},A_3=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2}{12G_0}.$$
(4.39)
In the particular case where $`A_2=0`$, we get the explicit solution

$$a(t)=a_0\sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{sinh}(\pm 3\sqrt{A_1}t)},$$
(4.40)
$$\phi (t)=\frac{\phi _0}{\sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{sinh}(\pm 3\sqrt{A_1}t)}},$$
(4.41)
$$\psi (t)=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\pm 3\sqrt{A_1})t}{3\sqrt{A_1}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pm \sqrt{A_1}t)}\frac{1}{6\sqrt{A_1}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\pm 3\sqrt{A_1}t}{2}\right)+\psi _0,$$
(4.42)
which asymptotically gives a de Sitter behaviour. A last interesting case is 8 in Tab.I, which can be assigned by the functions

$$F=F_0,V(\phi )=\mathrm{\Lambda },k=1,$$

$$G(\psi )=G_0+\frac{\psi ^2}{16}+\left(\frac{\phi _0^2}{12\psi _0^4}\right)\psi ^4,W(\psi )=\frac{\psi ^4}{4\psi _0^2}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(4.43)
being $`G(\psi )`$ and $`W(\psi )`$ free for the Noether symmetry. The model is relevant for hyper-extended inflation (see e.g. ). Power law solutions like in  are easily found.

The cases in Tab.II are essentially subcases of those discussed above.

## 5 Inflation and graceful exit

As we discussed in Introduction, the goal to get a sufficient inflationary period and then to exit from it, without imposing any particular fine tuning, can be achieved by assuming the variation of the bubble nucleation rate $`ϵ`$. However, we are taking into account a first order phase transition after which we recover a Friedman stage . In principle, being $`ϵ=\lambda /H^4`$, we can expect the variation of both $`\lambda `$ and $`H`$. The form of $`\lambda `$ strictly depends on the form of the theory and, as it is discussed in , it is time independent toward the late times, if we are dealing with a Brans–Dicke theory. In our cases, by using (1.7), we get that most of the couplings selected by the existence of Noether symmetry can be recast in a Brans–Dicke–like form.

In spite of the variation of the effective gravitational coupling, it is reasonable to assume $`\lambda `$ to be approximatively constant , so that the mechanism of the graceful exit can be essentially connected to the variation of $`H`$.

However, this argument does not work for more general classes of theories, as hyperextended inflation , where $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is not a constant. Among the cases in Tabs. I and II, we have also couplings of the form

$$\omega (\varphi )=\frac{F(\phi )}{2(dF/d\phi )^2}=\frac{\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2+F_0^{}\phi +F_0}{2\left[\frac{1}{6}\phi +F_0^{}\right]^2},$$
(5.1)
see e.g. the cases 5 in Tab.I and 4 in Tab.II. This situation deserves more attention since we can distinguish a regime where we match a sort of hyperextended inflation $`(\phi 0)`$ and a regime where the extended inflationary scheme is recovered $`(\phi \mathrm{})`$. In any case, the microwave background bounds have to be satisfied, as discussed in . Furthermore, taking into account double–field models, the contributions to $`\lambda `$ come from $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$. Being both fields nonminimally coupled, and from the forms of couplings selected by the Noether symmetry, we are dealing with a double Brans–Dicke–like theory where the extended inflationary mechanism is improved. Looking at the solutions of previous section, we can have double inflationary stages ruled by the parameters of couplings and self–interaction potentials (see e.g. (4.19)–(4.22) or (4.26)). This situation is extremely interesting since ”very” large scale structure and large scale structure can be selected by these inflationary phases. In fact, we can have ”two” first–order phase transitions and then ”two” bubble nucleations where the size of bubbles is given by the coupling parameters. In other words, we can expect two graceful exits given by the superposition of two extended inflationary phases. To be more precise, at a given time $`t>t_0`$ after nucleation, the ”comoving” bubble radius is

$$r(t,t_0)=_{t_0}^t𝑑ta(t)^1,$$
(5.2)
while the ”physical” size of the bubble is

$$(t,t_0)=a(t)r(t,t_0).$$
(5.3)
When $`t\mathrm{}`$, the form of $`a(t)`$ selects the size of the bubble. In the cases (4.19),(4.22) and (4.23), this size is finite since the asymptotic behaviour is $`a(t)\mathrm{exp}H_0t`$. For power law behaviours, the growth of the bubble size is linear.

Besides, we have a variation of the Hubble parameter in most of the cases we dealt with: in (4.19), (4.21), and (4.40), it converges to a constant for $`t\mathrm{}`$, in (4.23), it is exactly a constant, in the other cases, it is $`Ht^1`$.

Graceful exit is achieved if, being $`\lambda `$ a constant, $`ϵ`$ is less than $`ϵ_{crit}`$ during inflation and, after bubble nucleation, $`ϵ>ϵ_{crit}`$. In our cases, $`H`$ is the key parameter which governs the behaviour of $`ϵ`$. For power–law solutions, as for standard extended inflationary models, the graceful exit is easily recovered (see Eqs(4.26) and (4.27)). In the asymptotically exponential cases, the parameter $`ϵ`$ goes to a constant for $`t\mathrm{}`$ and the graceful exit problem has no solution. In fact, the function $`H`$, calculated from (4.19) and (4.21), is a sort of step function with two different constant values at $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. The related $`H^4`$ has a singularity in the origin which does not allow a graceful exit from inflation. The situation for the solution (4.40) is similar.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, we derived exact cosmological solutions in double scalar–tensor gravity theories by the general approach of searching for Noether symmetries. This work generalizes those in . The couplings and the potentials of both scalar fields are connected with the existence of the symmetries, and the solutions of dynamics furnish power law or de Sitter evolutions. As a consequence, in all the above cases it is easy to calculate the bubble nucleation rate $`ϵ=\lambda /H^4`$ to test if one succeeds in graceful exit. Depending on the value of intervening parameters, this can be accomplished in several cases.

Furthermore, being in principle, both fields nonminimally coupled and self–interacting with a potential, their role is mixed and it is not possible to distinguish, a priori, a Brans–Dicke field and an inflaton field as in other extended inflationary models. This distinction seems, in our opinion, rather artificial in view of a stochastic approach to the fundamental interactions where the effective role of the various fields is distinguishable only in the low energy limit (see  and reference therein) and there is no reason why a field should interact with the gravitational field and the other one not.

Another remark deserves double inflation which is ruled by the parameters of the theory and, then, by the Noether symmetry. As it is well known this feature is of extreme interest in perturbation theory since it can furnish the seeds for the formation of structures at large and at very large scales. As we have seen, it is very common in our approach and it could contribute to the enhancement of a successful extended inflation.

Finally, we want to stress the fact that the standard Newtonian coupling can be recovered in several of the above models, being

$$G_{eff}=\frac{1}{2[F(\phi )+G(\psi )]},$$
(6.1)
so that as soon as $`F(\phi )F_0`$ and/or $`G(\psi )G_0`$, general relativity is restored (in our units $`F_0+G_01/2`$) and both fields can contribute to its recovering. This means that in an accurate setting of the models, one could succeed both in graceful exit and in recovering of standard gravity.

Table I – Symmetries in double nonminimally coupled models.

| N. | $`\alpha `$ | $`\beta `$ | $`\gamma `$ | $`F(\phi )`$ | $`G(\psi )`$ | $`V(\phi )`$ | $`W(\psi )`$ | $`k`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | $`a`$ | $`3\phi /2`$ | $`3\psi /2`$ | $`F_0\phi ^2`$ | $`G_0\psi ^2`$ | $`V_0\phi ^2`$ | $`W_0\psi ^2`$ | 0 |
| 2 | $`a`$ | $`3\phi /2`$ | $`3\psi /2`$ | $`F_0\phi ^2`$ | $`G_0\psi ^2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | 0 |
| 3 | $`a`$ | $`3\phi /2`$ | $`3\psi /2`$ | $`F_0\phi ^2`$ | $`G_0\psi ^2`$ | 0 | $`W_0\psi ^2`$ | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`F_0`$ | $`G_0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ | $`k`$ |
| 5 | 0 | $`1/a`$ | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2+F_0^{}\phi +F_0`$ | $`G_0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ | 0 |
| 6 | 0 | $`1/a`$ | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2+F_0^{}\phi +F_0`$ | $`G_0`$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | 0 |
| 7 | 0 | $`1/a`$ | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2`$ | $`G_0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ | 0 |
| 8 | 0 | $`\beta _0`$ | 0 | $`F_0`$ | $`G(\psi )`$ | $`0,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`W(\psi )`$ | $`k`$ |
| 9 | 0 | $`1/a`$ | 0 | $`\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2+F_0^{}\phi +F_0`$ | $`G(\psi )`$ | $`0,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`W(\psi )`$ | 0 |

Table II – Symmetries in single nonminimally coupled models.

| N. | $`\alpha `$ | $`\beta `$ | $`\gamma `$ | $`F(\phi )`$ | $`V(\phi )`$ | $`W(\psi )`$ | $`k`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | $`a`$ | $`3/2\phi `$ | $`3\psi /2`$ | $`F_0\phi ^2`$ | $`V_0\phi ^2`$ | $`W_0\psi ^2`$ | 0 |
| 2 | $`a`$ | $`3\phi /2`$ | $`3\psi /2`$ | $`F_0\phi ^2`$ | $`0`$ | $`W_0\psi ^2`$ | 0 |
| 3 | $`a`$ | $`3\phi /2`$ | $`3\psi /2`$ | $`F_0\phi ^2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | $`1/a`$ | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2+F_0^{}\phi +F_0`$ | 0 | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | 0 |
| 5 | 0 | $`1/a`$ | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`\frac{1}{12}\phi ^2+F_0^{}\phi +F_0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ | 0 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | $`\gamma _0`$ | $`F_0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ | $`k`$ |

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the referee for the useful comments. Research supported by MURST fund 40% and 60% art. 65 D.P.R. 382/80. GL acknowledges UE (P.O.M. 1994/1999) for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Supersymmetric black hole solutions with 𝑅²-interactions SPIN-00/10, ITP-UU-00/07, hep-th/0003157

## 1 Introduction

In this note we briefly describe a class of extremal static multi-center black hole solutions arising in four-dimensional $`N=2`$ supergravity theories with terms quadratic in the Weyl tensor. These configurations preserve $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. They are determined in terms of harmonic functions associated with the electric and magnetic charges carried by the black holes. We refer to an upcoming publication  for a detailed description of the construction of these solutions.

## 2 Supersymmetry transformation <br>rules

The $`N=2`$ supergravity theories that we consider are based on vector multiplets and hypermultiplets coupled to the supergravity fields and contain the standard Einstein-Hilbert action as well as terms quadratic in the Riemann tensor. To describe such theories in a transparent way we make use of the superconformal multiplet calculus , which incorporates the gauge symmetries of the $`N=2`$ superconformal algebra. The corresponding high degree of symmetry allows for the use of relatively small field representations. One is the Weyl multiplet, whose fields comprise the gauge fields corresponding to the superconformal symmetries and a few auxiliary fields. The other are abelian vector multiplets and hypermultiplets, as well as a general chiral supermultiplet. The latter will be treated as independent in initial stages of the analysis but at the end will be expressed in terms of the fields of the Weyl multiplet. Some of the additional (matter) multiplets will provide compensating fields which are necessary in order that the superconformal action becomes gauge equivalent to a Poincaré supergravity theory. The compensating fields bridge the deficit in degrees of freedom between the Weyl multiplet and the Poincaré supergravity multiplet. For instance, the graviphoton, represented by an abelian vector field in the Poincaré supergravity multiplet, is provided by an $`N=2`$ superconformal vector multiplet.

It is possible to analyze the conditions for residual $`N=1`$ supersymmetry directly in this superconformal setting, postponing a transition to Poincaré supergravity till the end. This implies in particular that our intermediate results are subject to local scale transformations. Only towards the end we will convert to expressions that are scale invariant. We will use this strategy in the following in order to construct black hole solutions with residual $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. This is exactly the same strategy we employed when we determined $`N=2`$ supersymmetric backgrounds in the presence of $`R^2`$-interactions .

The superconformal algebra contains general-coordinate, local Lorentz, dilatation, special conformal, chiral SU(2) and U(1), supersymmetry ($`Q`$) and special supersymmetry ($`S`$) transformations. The gauge fields associated with general-coordinate transformations ($`e_\mu ^a`$), dilatations ($`b_\mu `$), chiral symmetry ($`𝒱_{\mu j}^i,A_\mu `$) and $`Q`$-supersymmetry ($`\psi _\mu ^i`$), are realized by independent fields. The remaining gauge fields of Lorentz ($`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$), special conformal ($`f_\mu ^a`$) and $`S`$-supersymmetry transformations ($`\varphi _\mu ^i`$) are dependent fields. They are composite objects, which depend in a complicated way on the independent fields . The corresponding curvatures and covariant fields are contained in a tensor chiral multiplet, which comprises $`24+24`$ off-shell degrees of freedom; in addition to the independent superconformal gauge fields it contains three auxiliary fields: a Majorana spinor doublet $`\chi ^i`$, a scalar $`D`$ and a selfdual Lorentz tensor $`T_{abij}`$ (where $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ are chiral SU(2) spinor indices). We summarize the transformation rules for some of the independent fields of the Weyl multiplet under $`Q`$\- and $`S`$-supersymmetry and under special conformal transformations, with parameters $`ϵ^i`$, $`\eta ^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{K}^a`$, respectively,

$`\delta e_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}^i\gamma ^a\psi _{\mu i}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
$`\delta \psi _\mu ^i`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒟_\mu ϵ^i\frac{1}{8}T^{abij}\gamma _{ab}\gamma _\mu ϵ_j\gamma _\mu \eta ^i,`$
$`\delta b_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\overline{ϵ}^i\varphi _{\mu i}\frac{3}{4}\overline{ϵ}^i\gamma _\mu \chi _i\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }^i\psi _{\mu i}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (2.1)
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{K}^ae_\mu ^a,`$
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}i\overline{ϵ}^i\varphi _{\mu i}+\frac{3}{4}i\overline{ϵ}^i\gamma _\mu \chi _i+\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\eta }^i\psi _{\mu i}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
$`\delta T_{ab}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`8\overline{ϵ}^{[i}R(Q)_{ab}^{j]},`$
$`\delta \chi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{12}\gamma _{ab}D\text{/}T^{abij}ϵ_j+\frac{1}{6}R(𝒱)_{ab}{}_{j}{}^{i}\gamma _{}^{ab}ϵ^j`$
$`\frac{1}{3}iR(A)_{ab}\gamma ^{ab}ϵ^i+Dϵ^i+\frac{1}{12}T_{ab}^{ij}\gamma ^{ab}\eta _j,`$
where $`𝒟_\mu `$ are derivatives covariant with respect to Lorentz, dilatational, U(1) and SU(2) transformations, whereas $`D_\mu `$ are derivatives covariant with respect to all superconformal transformations. The quantities $`R(Q)_{\mu \nu }^i`$, $`R(A)_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`R(𝒱)_{\mu \nu }_j^i`$ are supercovariant curvatures related to $`Q`$-supersymmetry, U(1) and SU(2) transformations. We suppress terms of higher order in the fermions throughout this paper, as we will be dealing with a bosonic background.

Let us now turn to the abelian vector multiplets, labelled by an index $`I=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$. For each value of the index $`I`$, there are $`8+8`$ off-shell degrees of freedom, residing in a complex scalar $`X^I`$, a doublet of chiral fermions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^I`$, a vector gauge field $`W_\mu ^I`$, and a real SU(2) triplet of scalars $`Y_{ij}^I`$. Under $`Q`$\- and $`S`$-supersymmetry the fields $`X^I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^I`$ transform as follows:

$`\delta X^I`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}^i\mathrm{\Omega }_i^I,`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_i^I`$ $`=`$ $`2D\text{/}X^Iϵ_i+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ij}(F_{\mu \nu }^I\frac{1}{4}\epsilon _{kl}T_{\mu \nu }^{kl}\overline{X}^I)\gamma ^{\mu \nu }ϵ^j`$ (2.2)
$`+Y_{ij}^Iϵ^j+2X^I\eta _i,`$
where the quantity $`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ denotes the anti-selfdual part of the abelian field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^I=2_{[\mu }W_{\nu ]}^I`$.

The covariant quantities of the vector multiplet constitute a reduced chiral multiplet. A general chiral multiplet comprises $`16+16`$ off-shell degrees of freedom and carries an arbitrary Weyl weight $`w`$ (corresponding to the Weyl weight of its lowest component). The covariant quantities of the Weyl multiplet also constitute a reduced chiral multiplet, denoted by $`W^{abij}`$, whose lowest-$`\theta `$ component is the tensor $`T^{abij}`$. From this multiplet one may form a scalar (unreduced) chiral multiplet $`W^2=[W^{abij}\epsilon _{ij}]^2`$ which has Weyl and chiral weights $`w=2`$ and $`c=2`$, respectively .

In the following, we will also allow for the presence of an arbitrary chiral background superfield , whose component fields will be indicated with a caret. We denote its bosonic component fields by $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\widehat{B}_{ij}`$, $`\widehat{F}_{ab}^{}`$ and by $`\widehat{C}`$. Here $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{C}`$ denote complex scalar fields, appearing at the $`\theta ^0`$\- and $`\theta ^4`$-level of the chiral background superfield, respectively, while the symmetric complex SU(2) tensor $`\widehat{B}_{ij}`$ and the anti-selfdual Lorentz tensor $`\widehat{F}_{ab}^{}`$ reside at the $`\theta ^2`$-level. The fermion fields at level $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^3`$ are denoted by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$. Under $`Q`$\- and $`S`$-supersymmetry $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ transform as

$`\delta \widehat{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}^i\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i,`$
$`\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$ $`=`$ $`2D\text{/}\widehat{A}ϵ_i+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ij}\widehat{F}_{ab}\gamma ^{ab}ϵ^j+\widehat{B}_{ij}ϵ^j`$ (2.3)
$`+2w\widehat{A}\eta _i,`$
where $`w`$ denotes the Weyl weight of the background superfield. Eventually this multiplet will be identified with $`W^2`$ in order to generate the $`R^2`$-terms in the action. This identification implies the following relations , which we will need in due time,

$`\widehat{A}`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _{ij}T_{ab}^{ij})^2,`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i`$ $`=`$ $`16\epsilon _{ij}R(Q)_{ab}^jT^{klab}\epsilon _{kl},`$
$`\widehat{B}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`16\epsilon _{k(i}R(𝒱)^k{}_{j)ab}{}^{}T_{}^{lmab}\epsilon _{lm}`$
$`64\epsilon _{ik}\epsilon _{jl}\overline{R}(Q)_{ab}^kR(Q)^{lab},`$
$`\widehat{F}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`16(M)_{cd}{}_{}{}^{ab}T_{}^{klcd}\epsilon _{kl}`$
$`16\epsilon _{ij}\overline{R}(Q)_{cd}^i\gamma ^{ab}R(Q)^{jcd},`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$ $`=`$ $`32\epsilon _{ij}\gamma _{ab}R(Q)_{cd}^j(M)_{cd}^{ab}`$
$`+16((S)_{abi}+3\gamma _{[a}D_{b]}\chi _i)T^{klab}\epsilon _{kl}`$
$`64R(𝒱)_{ab}{}_{}{}^{k}{}_{i}{}^{}\epsilon _{kl}^{}R(Q)_{ab}^l,`$
$`\widehat{C}`$ $`=`$ $`64(M)_{cd}^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}(M)_{cd}^{}^{ab}`$ (2.4)
$`+32R(𝒱)_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}{}_{l}{}^{}R(𝒱)_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}_{k}^{}`$
$`32T^{ijab}D_aD^cT_{cbij}`$
$`+128\overline{}(S)_i^{ab}R(Q)_{ab}^i`$
$`+384\overline{R}(Q)^{abi}\gamma _aD_b\chi _i.`$
We refer to  for a precise definition of the various curvature tensors. The derivatives $`D_a`$ are superconformally covariant.

In the presence of a chiral background superfield, the coupling of the abelian vector multiplets to the Weyl multiplet is encoded in a function $`F(X^I,\widehat{A})`$, which is holomorphic and homogenous of degree two,

$`X^IF_I+w\widehat{A}F_{\widehat{A}}=2F,`$
$`F_I=_{X^I}F,F_{\widehat{A}}=_{\widehat{A}}F.`$ (2.5)
The field equations of the vector multiplets are subject to equivalence transformations corresponding to electric-magnetic duality, which will not involve the fields of the Weyl multiplet and of the chiral background. As is well-known, two complex $`(2n+2)`$-component vectors can be defined which transform linearly under the SP$`(2n+2;𝐑)`$ duality group, namely

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}X^I\\ \\ F_I(X,\widehat{A})\end{array}\right)\text{ and}\left(\begin{array}{c}F_{\mu \nu }^{+I}\\ \\ G_{\mu \nu I}^+\end{array}\right).`$ (2.6)
The first vector has weights $`w=1`$ and $`c=1`$, whereas the second one has zero Weyl and chiral weights. The field strengths $`G_{\mu \nu I}^\pm `$ are defined as follows:

$`G_{\mu \nu I}^+=\overline{F}_{IJ}F_{\mu \nu }^{+J}+𝒪_{\mu \nu I}^+,`$
$`G_{\mu \nu I}^{}=F_{IJ}F_{\mu \nu }^J+𝒪_{\mu \nu I}^{},`$ (2.7)
where

$`𝒪_{\mu \nu I}^+=\frac{1}{4}(F_I\overline{F}_{IJ}X^J)T_{\mu \nu ij}\epsilon ^{ij}+\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^+\overline{F}_{I\widehat{A}}.`$
(2.8)
They appear in the field equations of the vector fields. Eventually we will solve the Bianchi identities, $`𝒟^\mu (F^{}F^+)_{\mu \nu }^I=0`$, and the field equations, $`𝒟^\mu (G^{}G^+)_{\mu \nu }^I=0`$, for a given configuration of magnetic and electric charges in a static spacetime geometry with the chiral background turned on. These charges, which will be denoted by $`(p^I,q_I)`$, comprise a symplectic vector.

Next, let us introduce a particular spinor that transforms inhomogenously under $`S`$-supersymmetry transformations. This spinor is given by

$`\zeta _i^V\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_i^I{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^I}}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{A}}}\right)𝒦`$ (2.9)
$`=i\mathrm{e}^𝒦\left[(\overline{F}_I\overline{X}^JF_{IJ})\mathrm{\Omega }_i^I\overline{X}^IF_{I\widehat{A}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\right],`$
where we introduced the symplectically covariant factor (with $`w=2`$ and $`c=0`$),

$$\mathrm{e}^𝒦=i\left[\overline{X}^IF_I(X,\widehat{A})\overline{F}_I(\overline{X},\overline{\widehat{A}})X^I\right],$$
(2.10)
which resembles (but is not equal to) the Kähler potential in special geometry. It can be shown, using the results contained in , that $`\zeta _i^V`$ transforms covariantly under symplectic reparametrizations. Under $`Q`$\- and $`S`$-supersymmetry $`\zeta _i^V`$ transforms as (ignoring higher-order fermionic terms)

$`\delta \zeta _i^V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^𝒦𝒟\text{/}\mathrm{e}^𝒦ϵ_i+2i𝒜\text{/}ϵ_i\frac{1}{2}i\epsilon _{ij}_{\mu \nu }^{}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }ϵ^j`$ (2.11)
$`+\mathrm{e}^𝒦[(\overline{F}_I\overline{X}^J\overline{F}_{IJ})N^{IK}F_{KA}\widehat{B}_{ij}`$
$`(\overline{F}_I\overline{X}^JF_{IJ})N^{IK}\overline{F}_{KA}\epsilon _{ik}\epsilon _{jl}\widehat{B}^{kl}]ϵ^j`$
$`+2\eta _i,`$
where

$`𝒜_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}e^𝒦\left(\overline{X}^J\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{𝒟}}F_J\overline{F}_J\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{𝒟}}X^J\right),`$
$`_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^𝒦\left(\overline{F}_IF_{\mu \nu }^I\overline{X}^IG_{\mu \nu I}^{}\right).`$ (2.12)
In arriving at (2.11) we have used the field equations for the auxiliary fields $`Y_{ij}^I`$ , which is necessary for $`\delta \zeta _i^V`$ to take a symplectically covariant form.

We note that $`\delta \zeta _i^V`$ is not the only spinor that can be constructed which transform inhomogenously under $`S`$-supersymmetry transformations. Another such spinor, which we denote by $`\zeta _i^H`$, is constructed out of the hypermultiplet fermions . It transforms as follows under $`Q`$\- and $`S`$-supersymmetry,

$`\delta \zeta _i^\mathrm{H}=\frac{1}{2}\chi ^1𝒟\text{/}\chi \epsilon _{ij}ϵ^j+k\text{/}_{ij}ϵ^j+\epsilon _{ij}\eta ^j,`$ (2.13)
where $`\chi `$ denotes the hyper-Kähler potential and where $`k_{\mu ij}`$ denotes a quantity that is symmetric in $`i,j`$  , but whose explicit form is not important here.

Since the $`\zeta _i`$ transform inhomogenously under $`S`$-supersymmetry, they can act as compensators for this symmetry. This observation is relevant when constructing supersymmetric backgrounds, where one requires (some of) the $`Q`$-supersymmetry variations of the spinors (as well as of derivatives of the spinors) to vanish modulo a uniform $`S`$-transformation. This can conveniently be done by considering $`S`$-invariant spinors, constructed by employing $`\zeta _i`$. Relevant examples of such spinors are, for instance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^IX^I\zeta _i^V`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_iw\widehat{A}\zeta _i^V`$.

## 3 The ansatz

We seek to construct static multi-center black hole solutions with $`N=1`$ residual supersymmetry. For the line element we make the ansatz

$`ds^2=e^{2g(\stackrel{}{x})}dt^2+e^{2f(\stackrel{}{x})}d\stackrel{}{x}^2.`$ (3.1)
We impose the following restriction on the $`Q`$-supersymmetry transformation parameter $`ϵ_i`$,

$`ϵ_i=h\epsilon _{ij}\gamma _0ϵ^j,`$ (3.2)
where $`h(\stackrel{}{x})`$ denotes a phase factor of chiral weight $`c=1`$. The condition (3.2) is covariant with respect to SU(2) and spatial rotations. The multi-center solutions that we wish to construct have the feature that, when the centers are made to coincide, they lead to one-center solutions that are invariant with respect to SU(2) and spatial rotations. The latter satisfy condition (3.2).

In addition to (3.2), we impose that $`𝒜_\mu =0`$ as well as $`_{\mu \nu }^{}=0`$.

We denote the magnetic and electric charges associated to each center by $`(p_A^I,q_{AI})`$. In the geometry (3.1) the Bianchi identities and field equations for the vector fields are solved by

$`F_{ti}^IF_{ti}^{+I}`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{gf}_iH^I,`$
$`G_{tiI}^{}G_{tiI}^+`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{gf}_iH_I,`$ (3.3)
where $`H^I`$ and $`H_I`$ denote harmonic functions given by

$`H^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\left(h_A^I+{\displaystyle \frac{p_A^I}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_A|}}\right),`$
$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\left(h_{AI}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_{AI}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_A|}}\right).`$ (3.4)
Here $`h_A^I`$ and $`h_{AI}`$ denote integration constants. We now identify $`\widehat{A}`$ with $`(\epsilon _{ij}T^{abij})^2`$ so that we are dealing with black hole solutions in the presence of $`R^2`$-interactions.

## 4 Static multi-center solutions

It will be convenient  to use rescaled variables $`Y^I=\mathrm{e}^{𝒦/2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}X^I`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\mathrm{e}^𝒦\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2\widehat{A}`$. Here $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is taken to have weights $`c=1`$ and $`w=0`$ so that $`Y^I`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ have vanishing chiral and Weyl weights. Then, from (2.10) and from (2.12), we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2`$ $`=`$ $`i\left[\overline{Y}^IF_I(Y,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\overline{F}_I(\overline{Y},\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}})Y^I\right],`$
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{i}{2}_\mu \mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}𝒜_\mu ^Y,`$ (4.1)
$`𝒜_\mu ^Y`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2}\left(\overline{Y}^J\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}F_J\overline{F}_J\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}Y^J\right).`$
Using (3.1), we find  that the vanishing of the $`Q`$-supersymmetry variation (subject to (3.2)) of the various $`S`$-invariant spinors yields a number of restrictions on the $`N=1`$ background, as follows. In a Poincaré frame (where $`b_\mu =0`$ and $`𝒦=\mathrm{const}.`$) we find that

$`e^{2g}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2f}=\mathrm{e}^𝒦|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{𝒦/2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}T_{ti}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4_if,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=64(_if)^2,`$
$`F_{ti}^I`$ $`=`$ $`_i\left[e^{2f}(Y^I+\overline{Y}^I)\right],`$
$`𝒜_\mu ^Y`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.2)
The symplectic vector $`(Y^I,F_I(Y,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}))`$ is determined in terms of the symplectic vector $`(H^I,H_I)`$ as follows:

$`_i\left(\begin{array}{c}Y^I\overline{Y}^I\\ \\ F_I(Y,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\overline{F}_I(\overline{Y},\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}})\end{array}\right)=i_i\left(\begin{array}{c}H^I\\ \\ H_I\end{array}\right).`$
Thus, we see that as one approaches the individual centers ($`|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_A|0`$) the scalar fields $`Y^I`$ are entirely determined in terms of the charges associated to these individual centers. This behaviour, namely that the values of the $`Y^I`$ near the centers are independent of the constants $`h_A^I`$ and $`h_{AI}`$ which determine the values of the $`Y^I`$ far away from the centers, is the same that has been observed without $`R^2`$-interactions .

In addition, we find that $`h=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}/|\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$, whereas the field $`D`$ is determined to be $`D=\frac{1}{3}R`$. The SU(2) curvature $`R(𝒱)_{\mu \nu }^i_j`$, and hence $`\widehat{B}_{ij}`$, vanishes. Since $`𝒜_\mu ^Y=0`$, also the U(1) curvature $`R(A)_{\mu \nu }`$ vanishes.

The solution given above describes a static multi-center black hole with residual $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in the presence of $`R^2`$-interactions. It approaches flat Minkowski spacetime at spatial infinity. Setting $`\mathrm{e}^𝒦|\mathrm{\Sigma }|_{\mathrm{}}^2=1`$ expresses its ADM mass as $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}=\mathrm{e}^𝒦_A(p_A^IF_I(Y_{\mathrm{}})q_{AI}Y_{\mathrm{}}^I)`$.

In the case of one center, the solution interpolates between two $`N=2`$ supersymmetric vacua : flat spacetime at spatial infinity and Bertotti-Robinson spacetime at the horizon. When switching off $`R^2`$-interactions this solution agrees with the one constructed in . Its macroscopic entropy is given by

$`𝒮=\pi r^2\left[|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2+4\mathrm{Im}\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}F_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(Y,\mathrm{{\rm Y}})\right)\right]|_{r=0}.`$ (4.4)
## 5 Outlook

The static multi-center solution (4.2) can now be used as the starting point for computing the metric on the moduli space of four-dimensional BPS black holes in the presence of $`R^2`$-interactions. In the absence of $`R^2`$-interactions, it was found  that the moduli metric of electrically charged BPS black holes is determined in terms of a moduli potential $`\mu `$ given by $`\mu =d^3xe^{4f}`$. It was furthermore established  that for small black hole separations the associated one-dimensional Lagrangian describing the slow-motion of these BPS black holes exhibits an enhanced superconformal symmetry. It was suggested  that it should be possible to reproduce the macroscopic entropy of BPS black holes by performing a state counting in this superconformal quantum mechanics model. This would imply that the degeneracy of states of such a model is encoded in the moduli potential $`\mu `$. In view of the formula (4.4) for the macroscopic entropy one thus expects that $`\mu `$ will receive corrections steming from $`R^2`$-interactions. This is indeed likely to be the case, since the one-dimensional Lagrangian describing the slow-motion of the black holes will now be derived from a four-dimensional action containing $`R^2`$-interactions. Schematically, since the four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell action gives rise to a moduli potential $`\mu =d^3xe^{4f}`$, the term $`\mathrm{Im}F_{\widehat{A}}R|T|^2`$, which appears in the four-dimensional Lagrangian with $`R^2`$-interactions, suggests a correction to the moduli potential of the form $`d^3xe^{2f}\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}F_\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$. In view of (4.4), this suggests that in the presence of $`R^2`$-terms the moduli potential $`\mu `$ will be given by $`\mu =d^3xe^{2f}[e^{2f}+4\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}F_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(Y,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}))]`$. This feature is currently under investigation .

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the European Commission TMR programme ERBFMRX-CT96-0045.


text:
# Description of GADEL

## General Info

The system works on SUN/Solaris or PC/Linux with Sicstus Prolog3.7.x and C. It is written in Prolog and it generates a Sicstus library in C. The current version is about 3000 lines of Prolog.

## Description of the System

### Default Logic and Genetic Algorithms

Default Logic has been introduced by Reiter (?) in order to formalize common sense reasoning from incomplete information, and is now recognized as one of the most appropriate framework for non monotonic reasoning. In this formalism, knowledge is represented by a default theory $`(W,D)`$ where $`W`$ is a set of first order formulas representing the sure knowledge, and $`D`$ a set of *default rules* (or defaults). A *default* $`\delta =\frac{\alpha :\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n}{\gamma }`$ is an inference rule providing conclusions relying upon given, as well as absent information meaning “if the *prerequisite* $`\alpha `$ is proved, and if for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ each *justification* $`\beta _i`$ is individually consistent (in other words if nothing proves its negation) then one concludes the *consequent* $`\gamma `$”. From a default theory $`(W,D)`$ one tries to build some extensions, that are maximal sets of plausible conclusions. Reiter has given the following pseudo iterative characterization of an extension $`E`$: we define

* $`E_0=W`$
* and for all $`k0`$,

$`E_{k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`Th\left(E_k\right)\{\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha :\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n}{\gamma }}D,`$
$`\alpha E_k,\neg \beta _iE,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$

then, $`E`$ is an extension of $`(W,D)`$ iff $`E=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}E_k`$. The computation of an extension is known to be $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^pcomplete`$ (?). Even if the system DeRes (?) has very good performance on certain classes of default theories, there is no efficient system for general extension calculus. The aim of the present work is to describe the first implementation of the GADEL system (*Genetic Algorithms for DEfault Logic*) which applies Genetic Algorithms principles to propositional default reasoning (?).

Based on the principle of natural selection, Genetic Algorithms have been quite successfully applied to combinatorial problems such as scheduling or transportation problems. The key principle of this approach states that, species evolve through adaptations to a changing environment and that the gained knowledge is embedded in the structure of the population and its members, encoded in their chromosomes. If individuals are considered as potential solutions to a given problem, applying a genetic algorithm consists in generating better and better individuals. A genetic algorithm consists of the following components:

* a representation of the potential solutions in a chromosome, in most cases, a string of bits representing its genes,
* an initial population,
* an evaluation function which rates each potential solution w.r.t. the given problem,
* genetic operators that define the composition of the offsprings : two different operators will be considered : crossover allows to generate two new chromosomes (the offsprings) by crossing two chromosomes of the current population (the parents), mutation arbitrarily alters one or more genes of a selected chromosome,
* parameters : population size $`p_{size}`$ and probabilities of crossover $`p_c`$ and mutation $`p_m`$.

and an iteration process:

* evaluate each chromosomes,
* order the population according to evaluation rates and select the bests chromosomes,
* perform crossover and mutation on pairs of randomly selected chromosomes,
* repeat this full process until a user-defined number of populations has been explored.

The best chromosome of each population w.r.t. the evaluation function represents the current best solution to the problem.

Before a detail description of the GADEL system, it is necessary to give some arguments about the choice of the implementation language:

* In the previous section we have presented the most common version of GA but in fact each part of the system can take various forms. To develop easily a GA system the implementation language must be very flexible and modular.
* A GA system is an iterative system. The implementation language must be efficient.
* Default Logic is based on classical logic. To develop easily a GA system about Default Logic, the implementation language must be logic and symbolic.

From above, the choice of the implementation language is obvious: the most popular and efficient of the logic programming language, Prolog. We assume in the rest of the paper a minimal knowledge of Prolog. The article is organized as follows: section 2 presents the genetic algorithms aspects of GADEL, section 3 provides the process of compilation of a default theory to a prolog program, section 4 focuses on the evaluation function of GADEL and section 5 describes our experiments w.r.t. other existing systems.

### GADEL: a GA system

#### Representation and semantics.

Our purpose is to construct an extension of a given default theory $`(W,D)`$. For each default $`\frac{\alpha :\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n}{\gamma }`$ we encode in the chromosome the prerequisite $`\alpha `$ and all justifications $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n`$ conjointly. Given a set of defaults of size $`n`$ the chromosome will be of size $`2n`$. A candidate extension $`CE(G)`$ associated to a chromosome $`G`$ is :

$$CE(G)=Th(W\left\{\begin{array}{c}\gamma _i\frac{\alpha _i:\beta _i^1,\mathrm{},\beta _i^{k_i}}{\gamma _i}D\hfill \\ andG|_{2i1}=1andG|_{2i}=0\hfill \end{array}\right\})$$

#### Population tree.

According to the principles of Genetic Algorithms, we now consider a population of individuals representing candidate extensions. Usually chromosomes are strings of bits and population are sets of chromosomes. We have chosen a new representation for the population: binary trees. A population is defined inductively on the set of constructors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`zero`$, $`one`$ and $`zeroone`$ of arity, respectively, 0, 1, 1, and 2. The two advantages of this representation are its compactness and unicity of each chromosome.

For example, the population $`\{0101,1000,1010\}`$ is represented by the tree in Figure 1.

### Compilation of default theory

A default theory is the given of a set of (propositional) formulas $`W`$ and a set of defaults $`D`$. Prerequisite, conclusion and justifications of a default are all (propositional) formulas. So the GADEL system needs a classical theorem prover. It must be efficient because it is applied on each chromosome at each new population. The obvious choice is to compile all these sets of formulas into a set of clauses. We have chosen the compilation to a disjunctive Prolog program.

#### Small introduction to disjunctive logic programming.

The theoretical basis of Prolog is the SLD-resolution for Horn clauses111A Horn clause is a clause with at most one positive literal. It is not possible to directly insert disjunctive clauses in a Prolog program222A clause is disjunctive if it contains at least two positive literals. Disjunctive logic programming (resp. disjunctive Prolog) is an “extension” of Horn logic programming (resp. Prolog) which allows disjunctions in the heads of definite333A clause is definite if it contains one and only one positive literal clauses (resp. Prolog clauses). A way to handle disjunctive clauses is the case-analysis principle: a set of clauses $`\{CC^{},C_1,\mathrm{},C_m\}`$ is unsatisfiable if and only if the two sets of clauses $`\{C,C_1,\mathrm{},C_m\}`$ and $`\{C^{},C_1,\mathrm{},C_m\}`$ are also unsatisfiable. Disjunctive clauses $`(h_1\mathrm{}h_p\neg b_1\mathrm{}\neg b_n)`$ ($`h_k`$, $`1kp`$ and $`b_k`$, $`1kn`$ atoms) are then written $`(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$. We have chosen the SLOU-resolution approach (?) (case-analysis and SLD-reduction) as the theoretical basis of SLOU Prolog, our implementation of disjunctive Prolog.

The strategy of SLOU Prolog applies case-analysis by necessity: the case-analysis is used only when a head $`h_i`$ of a disjunctive clause $`(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$ is useful in the proof. This strategy needs that a negative clause444A clause is negative if it contains only negative literals $`\neg b_1\mathrm{}\neg b_n`$ is written $`falseb_1\mathrm{}b_n`$ and $`false`$ becomes the goal. This choice assumes that almost all the clauses are definite (Prolog) clauses.

#### From set of defaults to disjunctive Prolog program.

Let us give a default $`\frac{\alpha _i:\beta _i^1,\mathrm{},\beta _i^{k_i}}{\gamma _i}`$, the $`i^{th}`$ of the default theory and a chromosome $`G`$. If $`G|_{2i1}=1`$ and $`G|_{2i}=0`$ then the default is supposed to be applied and $`\gamma `$ must be added to the candidate extension. Hence $`G`$ has to be a parameter of the theorem prover. In order to calculate $`(CE(G)\alpha _i)`$ or $`(j(CE(G)\neg \beta _i^j))`$, $`i`$ and $`(i,j)`$ also have to be parameters of the theorem prover. So a propositional variable $`h`$ is compiled in a disjunctive Prolog atom $`h(I,G)`$. We can now describe the compilation of the three parts of a default rule.

* Compilation of a conclusion: In order to calculate $`CE(G)`$, we must add $`\gamma _i`$ to the candidate extension if $`G|_{2i1}=1`$ and $`G|_{2i}=0`$. We first normalize $`\gamma _i`$ in a set of disjunctive clauses $`\{h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n\}`$ and compile it in a disjunctive Prolog definition:

$`\{h_1(I,G);\mathrm{};h_p(I,G):`$
$`G|_{2I1}=1,G|_{2I}=0,b_1(I,G),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G)\}`$
* Compilation of a prerequisite: The function $`f`$ of the GADEL evaluation function compares $`G|_{2i1}`$ with $`CE(G)\alpha _i`$ (see section Evaluation function of GADEL). To prove it with a disjunctive logic program we prove $`CE(G),\neg \alpha _ifalse`$. We first normalize $`\neg \alpha _i`$ in a set of clauses $`\{h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n\}`$ and compile it in a disjunctive Prolog definition:

$`\{h_1(I,G);\mathrm{};h_p(I,G):`$
$`I=i,b_1(I,G),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G)\}`$
* Compilation of justifications: The function $`f`$ of the GADEL evaluation function compares $`G|_{2i}`$ with $`j(CE(G)\neg \beta _i^j)`$. To prove it with a disjunctive logic programs we prove $`(j(CE(G),\beta _i^jfalse))`$. We first normalize $`\beta _i^j`$ in a set of clauses $`\{h_1\mathrm{}h_p`$$`b_1\mathrm{}b_n\},j`$, and compile it in a disjunctive Prolog definition:

$`\{h_1(I,G);\mathrm{};h_p(I,G):`$
$`I=(i,j),b_1(I,G),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G)\}`$
* Compilation of a formula $`\omega W`$: We first normalize $`\omega `$ in a set of clauses $`\{h_1\mathrm{}h_p`$ $`b_1\mathrm{}b_n\}`$ and compile it in a disjunctive Prolog definition:

$`\{h_1(I,G);\mathrm{};h_p(I,G):`$
$`b_1(I,G),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G)\}`$

#### From disjunctive Prolog to Prolog.

During the execution of a disjunctive Prolog program, some clauses are dynamic: case-analysis creates from a disjunctive clause $`(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$ $`p`$ new clauses $`(h_1b_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$ and $`\{h_k\}_{1<kp}`$. A disjunctive clause is called usable if it has not been splitted in this set of clauses otherwise it is called unusable. A new clause is usable if it is the result of a case-analysis. To realize the case-analysis principle in Prolog, one needs to extend each predicate with a program continuation $`P`$ (a difference list) that handles those dynamic clauses. A disjunctive Prolog clause $`(h_1(I,G);\mathrm{};h_p(I,G):`$ $`b_1(I,G),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G))`$ is then compiled in a set of Prolog clauses as follows:

$`h_1(I,G,P):`$
$`usable\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{?}(h_1b_1\mathrm{}b_n,P),`$
$`b_1(I,G,P),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G,P)`$
;
$`usable\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{?}(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n,P),`$
$`unusable\mathrm{\_}!(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n,P),`$
$`\{`$ $`same\mathrm{\_}assumptions(P,P_l),`$
$`usable\mathrm{\_}!(h_l,P_l),false(I,G,P_l),\}_{1<lp}`$
$`usable\mathrm{\_}!(h_1b_1\mathrm{}b_n,P),`$
$`b_1(I,G,P),\mathrm{},b_n(I,G,P).`$
$`\{h_k(I,G,P):`$
$`usable\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{?}(h_k,P)`$
;
$`usable\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{?}(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n,P),`$
$`unusable\mathrm{\_}!(h_1\mathrm{}h_pb_1\mathrm{}b_n,P),`$
$`\{`$ $`same\mathrm{\_}assumptions(P,P_l),`$
$`usable\mathrm{\_}!(h_l,P_l),false(I,G,P_l),\}_{1lp,lk}`$
$`usable\mathrm{\_}!(h_kb_1\mathrm{}b_n,P).\}_{1<kp}`$
### Evaluation function of GADEL

The evaluation function is the heart of the GADEL system. It rates each chromosome given a default theory compiled in a disjunctive prolog program.

#### Evaluation of pair of genes.

For a default $`\delta _i=\frac{\alpha _i:\beta _i^1,\mathrm{},\beta _i^{k_i}}{\gamma _i}`$, an intermediate evaluation function $`f`$ is defined in Table 1. Given the two positions $`G|_{2i1}`$ and $`G|_{2i}`$ in the chromosome associated to the default $`\delta _i`$, the first point is to determine w.r.t. these values if this default is supposed to be involved in the construction of the candidate extension and then to check if this application is relevant.

We only illustrate $`f`$ on the case $`G|_{2i1}=1`$ and $`G|_{2i}=0`$ of the Table 1 (with penalty $`p_2`$ and a default with only one justification):

$`f(I,(G,Eval\mathrm{\_}G_{>I}),(G,Eval\mathrm{\_}G_I)):`$
$`G|_{2I1}=1,G|_{2I}=0,`$
$`false(I,G,\mathrm{\_}P),\%\%(CE(G)\alpha _i)=true`$
$`false((I,1),G,\mathrm{\_}P),\%\%(CE(G)\neg \beta _i)=true`$
$`Eval\mathrm{\_}G_IisEval\mathrm{\_}G_{>I}+p_2.`$
#### Evaluation of chromosome and population.

The evaluation of a chromosome is the total sum of the evaluations for each pair of genes. Our evaluation function is calculated directly over the population tree by a depth-first traversal. The result is a set of pairs of a chromosome and its evaluation. During the traversal, the construction of the current evaluated chromosome is prefixed and the evaluation of the genes is postfixed.

$`evaluation(Current\mathrm{\_}Pop,Evaluated\mathrm{\_}Pop):`$
$`eval\mathrm{\_}alpha(0,\mathrm{},Current\mathrm{\_}Pop,Evaluated\mathrm{\_}Pop).`$
$`eval\mathrm{\_}alpha(I,G,one(Subtree),Evaluations):`$
$`G|_{2I1}=1,`$
$`eval\mathrm{\_}beta(I,G,Subtree,Evaluations).`$
$`eval\mathrm{\_}beta(I,G,zero(Subtree),Evaluations^{}):`$
$`G|_{2I}=0,`$
$`I^{}isI+1,`$
$`eval\mathrm{\_}alpha(I^{},G,Subtree,Evaluations),`$
$`map(f,I,Evaluations,Evaluations^{}).`$
## Applying the System

### Methodology

Methodology for using GADEL is the same as using default logic as a framework for knowldege representation.

### Specifics

The semantics of our system is the Reiter’s propositional default logic.

### Users and Useability

The GADEL system takes default theory as Prolog facts in an input file. Classical formulas of default theory are arbitrary formulas with conjunctions, disjunctions and negations (noted resp. $`\&\&`$, $`||`$ and $`!`$). A default is a triplet composed of a prerequisite, a list of justifications and a conclusion. GADEL is a framework for non monotonic reasoning systems. To extend GADEL to an other system, one needs to redefine the evaluation function.

## Evaluating the System

### Benchmarks

We define two kinds of benchmarks: a taxonomic default theory “*people*” described in Table 2 and the well known Hamiltonian cycle problem in Table 5 as it has been described and encoded in (?).

### Comparison

DeRes and GADEL are compared on our two kinds of benchmarks. CPU times given are in seconds on a SUN E3000 $`(2\times 250Mhz)`$. The parameters of the genetic algorithm are $`p_c=0.8`$ and $`p_m=0.1`$.

#### GADEL:1/DeRes:0.

Table 3 gives results about the people default theory. Each line corresponds to the common part of $`W_{people}`$ augmented with one of the specified formula of the first column. The second column gives $`p_{size}`$ the initial number of chromosomes in the population, the third one is the average number of populations needed to find an extension. The last two columns give CPU times. (?) describes the very good performances of DeRes on some kind of default theories: the stratified ones. But it is also noticed that for a non stratified default theory the performance of DeRes are not enough to deal with a non very few number of defaults. Results given in this table shows that DeRes has a lot of difficulties with our taxonomic people example (even if the local prover is used). Conversely the number of populations are quite small for GADEL (even if the time is not so good: all the implementation is written in Prolog).

Table 4 gives results about $`W_{people}\{man\}`$ with different sizes of populations (200 tests for each size of population). The second line gives $`p_{size}`$ the initial number of chromosomes in the population. The third one gives the time spent for one complete computation of a new population. The fourth one gives the average number of populations needed to find an extension. The last one gives the average time to find an extension. These results demonstrate that the size of the population must be balanced by the time spent for one complete computation of a new population. The increase of the population size does not necessarily increase the efficiency of the genetic algorithm. Finally, Figure 2 presents for $`W_{people}\{man\}`$ with $`N=17`$ the number of tests w.r.t. the number of populations needed to obtain an extension. This figure suggests to stop computation after 6 populations and to restart with a brand new one since $`80\%`$ of tests end after 6 populations at most.

#### GADEL:1/Deres:1.

GADEL has poor performances on Hamiltonian problems. We think that it is because we do not take into account the groundedness (?) into our evaluation function. As a matter of fact, in the Hamiltonian problem, a solution is exactly one “chain”555We say that $`\delta `$ is chained to $`\delta ^{}`$ if the prerequisite of $`\delta ^{}`$ is deducible from $`W`$ and the consequent of $`\delta `$. of defaults, but, there is a lot of potential solutions (whose evaluation is null) based on two, or more, chains of defaults. The only criterion to discard these candidate extensions is the groundedness property that they do not satisfy. Conversely, in people example, a solution is a set of non conflicting defaults, but at most four defaults are chained together, and so the groundedness property is less important to reach a solution. We are now testing some new evaluation functions in order to take into account this criterion.

#### Other systems.

We have also in mind that in the area of logic programming and non monotonic reasoning there exist others systems (Smodels (?), DLV (?)) able to compute stable models of extended logic program. Since this task is equivalent to compute an extension of a default theory it seems interesting to compare GADEL to these systems. But, even if DLV has the advantage to accept formulas with variables which are instantiated before computation, this system does not accept theories like our people example. On its part, Smodels does not deal with this default theory because it can not be represented by a normal logic program without disjunction. Because we have the objective to deal with every kind of propositional formulas, GADEL spends a lot of time in theorem proving and it seems not realistic to compare it with those two systems. But it will be very inter-resting to work on GADEL’s architecture in order to improve its performances on particular subclasses of default theories.

### Problem Size

The system is a prototype which can handle non stratified theories with about one hundred defaults.

## Conclusion

In this paper, we have described the first implementation of our system GADEL whose goal is to compute extensions of every kind of finite propositional Reiter’s default theories. Our new approach, using principles of genetic algorithms, seems to be relevant as it is illustrated by our experimental results. But this present work is a first approach and we have in mind many improvements as : more accurate definition of the evaluation function, using reparation techniques, local search heuristics.