text:
# Definitive Computation of Bernstein-Sato Polynomials

## 1. Introduction

Throughout this paper $`k`$ is a field of characteristic $`0`$, $`R_n(k)=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is the ring of polynomials in $`n`$ variables and $`A_n(k)=kx_1,\mathrm{},x_n,_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ is the corresponding Weyl algebra, i.e. an associative $`k`$-algebra generated by $`x`$’s and $``$’s with the relations $`_ix_i=x_i_i+1`$ for all $`i`$.

For every polynomial $`f`$$`R_n(k)`$ there are $`b(s)k[s]`$ and $`Q(x,,s)A_n(k)[s]`$ such that

(1.1)
$$b(s)f^s=Q(x,,s)f^{s+1}.$$

The polynomials $`b(s)`$ for which equation (1.1) exists form an ideal in $`k[s]`$. The monic generator of this ideal is denoted by $`b_f(s)`$ and called the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of $`f.`$ The roots of $`b_f(s)`$ are rational, in particular, $`b(s)[s]`$, where $``$ is the field of rational numbers. A good introduction to $`D`$-modules may be found in \[B\].

The simplest characteristics of a polynomial $`f`$ are its degree $`d`$ and its number of variables $`n`$. This paper is motivated by the following natural question: what can one say about $`b_f(s)`$ in terms of $`n`$ and $`d`$? We give what may be regarded as a complete answer to this question. Namely, we describe an algorithm that for fixed $`n`$ and $`d`$ gives a complete list of all possible Bernstein-Sato polynomials and, for each polynomial $`b(s)`$ in this list, a complete description of the polynomials $`f`$ such that $`b_f(s)=b(s)`$.

Let $`P(n,d;k)`$ be the set of all the equivalence classes of the non-zero polynomials of degree at most $`d`$ in $`n`$ variables with coefficients in $`k`$ modulo the equivalence relation $`fgf=cg\text{ }`$ for some $`0ck`$. Note that $`b_f(s)=b_g(s)`$ if $`fg`$. We view $`P(n,d;k)`$ as the set of the $`k`$-rational points of the projective space $`(n,d;k)_k^{N1}`$ where $`N`$ is the number of monomials in $`n`$ variables of degree at most $`d`$. G. Lyubeznik \[L\] defined $`B(n,d)`$ as the set of all the Bernstein-Sato polynomials of all the polynomials from $`P(n,d;k)`$ as $`k`$ varies over all fields of characteristic $`0`$ and he proved that $`B(n,d)`$ is a finite set. He also asked if the subset of $`(n,d;k)`$ corresponding to a given element of $`B(n,d)`$ is constructible. In this paper we give an affirmative answer to Lyubeznik’s question. The constructible sets in question turn out to be definable over $``$, i.e. their defining equations and inequalities are the same for all fields $`k`$.

A crucial ingredient in our proof is the fact, very recently discovered by T. Oaku \[O\] that there is an algorithm that, given a polynomial $`f`$, returns its Bernstein-Sato polynomial $`b_f(s)`$. Using Oaku’s algorithm and our proof of the constructibility of the set of polynomials $`f`$ having a fixed $`b_f(s)`$ we have developed an algorithm for the *definitive computation* of the Bernstein-Sato polynomials for each pair $`(n,d)`$, by which we mean that our algorithm, given $`n`$ and $`d`$, returns the list of all the elements of $`B(n,d)`$ and for each $`b(s)B(n,d)`$, a finite number of locally closed sets $`V_i=V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_i^{}`$ and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }`$ are Zariski closed subsets of $`(n,d;)`$ defined by explicit polynomial equations with rational coefficients, such that for every field $`k`$ of characteristic $`0`$, the subset of $`P(n,d;k)`$ having $`b(s)`$ as the Bernstein-Sato polynomial is the set of $`k`$-rational points of

$$S(b(s),k)=(_iV_i)_{}k(n,d;)_{}k=(n,d;k).$$

The definitive computation for fixed $`n`$ and $`d`$ could be useful in a number of ways. For example, it would produce an algorithm for the computation of $`b_f(s)`$ for $`fP(n,d;k)`$ that is likely to be considerably more efficient than all other currently available algorithms. It would also produce the smallest integer $`t`$ such that $`R_n(k)_f`$ is generated by $`\frac{1}{f^t}`$ as an $`A_n(k)`$-module for all $`f`$ of degree at most $`d`$ (this integer is denoted $`t(n,d)`$ in \[L\]). Moreover, using a similar technique we develop an algorithm for a *quasi-definitive computation* of the annihilator of $`\frac{1}{f^t}`$ in $`A_n(k)`$, which, provided $`t`$ is known, gives a presentation of $`R_n(k)_f`$ as an $`A_n(k)`$-module (see Example 2.4). We call it quasi-definitive because its output is not uniquely determined (see Remark 6.7). The last algorithm is particularly important for U. Walther’s algorithmic computation of local cohomology modules \[Wa\]. These applications are discussed in the next section. More applications will undoubtedly arise in the future.

The results of this paper are a part of my thesis. I would like to thank my advisor Gennady Lyubeznik for suggesting this problem to me.

## 2. Examples and Discussion

Our algorithms have been implemented as scripts written in the Macaulay 2 programming language (see \[M2\]). In this section we give some examples of actual computations and discuss possible uses of the results of computation.

###### Example 2.1.

If $`n=2`$ and $`d=2`$ then

$$f=a_{20}x^2+a_{11}xy+a_{02}y^2+a_{10}x+a_{01}y+a_{00},$$

so $`P(2,2;k)`$ is the set of the k-rational points of the projective space $`(2,2;k)=_k^5`$ with the homogeneous coordinate ring $`k[a_{ij}]`$, $`i,j=0,1,2`$. It takes our program less than 20 minutes on 300MHz Pentium-II machine to produce

$$B(2,2)=\{1,s+1,(s+1)^2,(s+1)(s+\frac{1}{2})\}$$

and give a description of the corresponding constructible sets of polynomials from $`B(2,2)`$ which is essentially equivalent to the following:

$``$ $`b_f(s)=1`$ iff $`fV_1=V_1^{}V_1^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_1^{}=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,1},a_{0,2},a_{1,0},a_{2,0})`$, while $`V_1^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{0,0})`$,

$``$ $`b_f(s)=s+1`$ iff $`fV_2=(V_2^{}V_2^{\prime \prime })(V_3^{}V_3^{\prime \prime })`$, where $`V_2^{}=V(0)`$, $`V_2^{\prime \prime }=V(\gamma _1)`$, $`V_3^{}=V(\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4)`$, $`V_3^{\prime \prime }=V(\gamma _3,\gamma _4,\gamma _5,\gamma _6,\gamma _7,\gamma _8)`$,

$``$ $`b_f(s)=(s+1)^2`$ iff $`fV_4^{}V_4^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_4^{}=V(\gamma _1)`$, $`V_4^{\prime \prime }=V(\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4)`$,

$``$ $`b_f(s)=(s+1)(s+\frac{1}{2})`$ iff $`fV_5^{}V_5^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_5^{}=V(\gamma _3,\gamma _4,\gamma _5,\gamma _6,\gamma _7,\gamma _8)`$, while $`V_5^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,1},a_{0,2},a_{1,0},a_{2,0})`$,

where $`\gamma _i`$ may be looked up in this list:

$`\gamma _1=a_{0,2}a_{1,0}^2a_{0,1}a_{1,0}a_{1,1}+a_{0,0}a_{1,1}^2+a_{0,1}^2a_{2,0}4a_{0,0}a_{0,2}a_{2,0}`$,

$`\gamma _2=2a_{0,2}a_{1,0}a_{0,1}a_{1,1}`$,

$`\gamma _3=a_{1,0}a_{1,1}2a_{0,1}a_{2,0}`$,

$`\gamma _4=a_{1,1}^24a_{0,2}a_{2,0}`$,

$`\gamma _5=2a_{0,2}a_{1,0}a_{0,1}a_{1,1}`$,

$`\gamma _6=a_{0,1}^24a_{0,0}a_{0,2}`$,

$`\gamma _7=a_{0,1}a_{1,0}2a_{0,0}a_{1,1}`$,

$`\gamma _8=a_{1,0}^24a_{0,0}a_{2,0}`$.

It is not hard to see that this definitive computation agrees with the well-known result that $`b_f(s)=1`$ iff $`f`$ is constant, $`b_f(s)=s+1`$ iff $`f`$ is non-constant and non-singular, and $`b_f(s)=(s+1)^2`$ ( resp. $`b_f(s)=(s+1)(s+\frac{1}{2})`$ ) iff f can be reduced to $`xy`$ (resp. $`x^2`$) by a linear change of variables.

The definitive computation for fixed $`n`$ and $`d`$ is likely to lead to a considerably more efficient way of computing $`b_f(s)`$ for $`fP(n,d;k)`$. Namely, to compute $`b_f(s)`$ for a concrete polynomial $`f`$ one just has to “search the database”, i.e. check which of the constructible sets this polynomial belongs to. Since there are finitely many of them and each one is described by explicit equations and inequalities in the coefficients of $`f`$ and each $`f`$ belongs to a unique one, we get a straightforward algorithm for computing $`b_f(s)`$ for all $`fP(n,d;k)`$.

All other known algorithms for computing $`b_f(s)`$ involve Gr bner bases computations. Often $`b_f(s)`$ is not very big but its computation is enormous because of the "intermediate explosion" caused by the fact that Gr bner bases computations are very time and memory consuming. But the algorithm of “searching the database” does not involve any Gr bner bases at all! For this reason it is likely to be considerably more efficient in computing $`f`$ for $`fP(n,d;k)`$, especially if the field $`k`$ is the fraction field of some finitely generated $``$-algebra, so that ordinary arithmetic operations in $`k`$ and hence Gr bner bases computations are especially expensive.

Certainly the algorithm just described requires “setting up the database”. A definitive computation for $`n`$ and $`d`$ must be performed just once. This part may be done on a “powerful computer” (we have in mind implementing some parallel processing techniques) and the results of this computation may then be stored in a file accessible for “not-so-powerful” machines, which are capable of performing the “search the database” part. However a definitive computation even for rather small values of $`n`$ and $`d`$ with the modest computer resources at our disposal and with the current level of efficiency of our program faces its own "intermediate explosion" problem.

###### Example 2.2.

If $`n=2`$ and $`d=3`$ then

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`a_{3,0}x^3+a_{2,1}x^2y+a_{1,2}xy^2+a_{0,3}y^3`$
$`+`$ $`a_{2,0}x^2+a_{1,1}xy+a_{0,2}y^2+a_{1,0}x+a_{0,1}y+a_{0,0},`$
so $`P(2,3;k)`$ is the set of the k-rational points of $`(2,3;k)=_k^9`$ with the homogeneous coordinate ring that involves $`10`$ variables. Our program exhausts all available memory, 128Mb, of the computer after about 3 hours and stops without producing an answer. However, a somewhat creative use of our program enables us to give a complete list of all the elements of $`B(2,3)`$ (but not the explicit descriptions of the constructible sets corresponding to each element of $`B(2,3)`$):

Since for any nonsingular polynomial its Bernstein-Sato polynomial is equal to $`s+1`$, it remains to consider the case where our $`f(2,3;k)`$ possesses a singularity at some point $`(x_0,y_0)`$. Keeping in mind that the Bernstein-Sato polynomial is stable under any linear substitution of variables, we may get rid of its linear part via the substitution $`xxx_0`$, $`yyy_0`$, i.e. $`f`$ takes the form

$$f=(ax^3+bx^2y+cxy^2+dy^3)+(a^{}x^2+b^{}xy+c^{}y^2).$$

Now it is easy to see that by homogeneous linear transformation the quadratic part may be shaped to one of the forms $`0`$, $`xy`$, $`x^2`$. Therefore it is enough to compute the Bernstein-Sato polynomial for the following polynomials:

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`ax^3+bx^2y+cxy^2+dy^3,`$
$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`(ax^3+bx^2y+cxy^2+dy^3)+xy,`$
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`(ax^3+bx^2y+cxy^2+dy^3)+x^2.`$
Our program returns the complete sets of possible Bernstein-Sato polynomials for $`f_1`$ in 22 minutes, for $`f_2`$ in 16 minutes and for $`f_3`$ in 21 minutes. Of course, in each of the three cases our program produces an explicit description of the corresponding constructible set in $`_k^3`$ (each of $`f_i`$ contains 4 indeterminate coefficients) for each element $`b(s)B_{f_i}`$. We omit these and list only the Bernstein-Sato polynomials:

$`B_{f_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}),`$
$`(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`(s+1)(s+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}})\};`$
$`B_{f_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(s+1)^2\};`$
$`B_{f_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(s+1)(s+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}),`$
$`(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}),`$
$`(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`(s+1)(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\}.`$
Thus

$`B(2,3)`$ $`=`$ $`\{(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}),`$
$`(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`(s+1)(s+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}),`$
$`(s+1)^2,`$
$`(s+1)(s+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}),`$
$`(s+1)^2(s+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}})(s+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}),`$
$`(s+1)(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`s+1,`$
$`1\}.`$
As was mentioned above, only the efficiency of the algorithm and the current efficiency of computer hardware and software obstruct us from getting a complete description of the constructible sets that correspond to the polynomials above.

As was pointed out in \[L\], $`t(n,d)`$ (which is defined in the last paragraph of the preceding section) is the largest absolute value of all the negative integer roots of all the polynomials in $`B(n,d)`$. Thus we get

###### Corollary 2.3.

$`t(2,3)=1`$, i.e. if $`fR_2(k)`$ is of degree at most $`3`$, then $`\frac{1}{f}`$ generates $`R_2(k)_f`$ as an $`A_2(k)`$-module.

To compute the localization of $`R_n(k)`$ at a polynomial $`f0`$ one needs to compute $`\text{Ann}f^sA_n(k)[s]`$ and take $`N=\text{Ann}f^s|_{s=a}`$, where $`a`$ is the minimal integer root of $`b_f(s)`$. Then $`R_n(k)_f=A_n(k)/N`$ as an $`A_n(k)`$-module (see Section 5 below).

Using a technique similar to that for computing Bernstein-Sato polynomials, we constructed an algorithm for a quasi-definitive computation of $`\text{Ann}f^s`$ for all $`fP(n,d;k)`$. By this we mean an explicit subdivision of $`(n,d;k)`$ into a finite union of constructible subsets and for each such subset $`V,`$ an explicit finite set of elements $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{}A_n(k)[a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}][s]`$ with $`i_1+\mathrm{}+i_nd`$, such that $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _1^{},\beta _2^{},\mathrm{})`$ for every $`fV`$, where $`\beta _i^{}`$ is the image of $`\beta _i`$ under the specialization of the $`a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ to the corresponding coefficients of $`f`$.

###### Example 2.4.

Here is what we got for $`P(2,2;k)`$ (See Example 2.1 for notation):

$``$ $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3)`$ if $`f(V_1^{}V_1^{\prime \prime })(V_2^{}(V_{2,1}^{\prime \prime }V_{2,2}^{\prime \prime }))`$, where $`V_1^{}=V(0)`$, $`V_1^{\prime \prime }=V(\gamma _1)`$, $`V_2^{}=V(\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4)`$, $`V_{2,1}^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,2},a_{0,1})`$ and $`V_{2,2}^{\prime \prime }=V(\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4,\gamma _5,\gamma _6,\gamma _7)`$;

$``$ $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _1,\beta _4)`$ if $`fV_3^{}V_3^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_3^{}=V(\gamma _1)`$, while $`V_3^{\prime \prime }=V(\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4)`$;

$``$ $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _5,\beta _6)`$ if $`fV_4^{}(V_{4,1}^{\prime \prime }V_{4,2}^{\prime \prime })`$, where $`V_4^{}=V(\gamma _2,\gamma _3,\gamma _4,\gamma _5,\gamma _6,\gamma _7)`$, $`V_{4,1}^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{1,0},a_{2,0},a_{1,1},\gamma _5)`$ and $`V_{4,2}^{\prime \prime }=(a_{1,1},a_{0,2},a_{0,1},\gamma _7)`$;

$``$ $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _7,\beta _8)`$ if $`fV_5^{}V_5^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_5^{}=V(a_{1,0},a_{2,0},a_{1,1},\gamma _5)`$, while $`V_5^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,1},a_{0,2},a_{1,0},a_{2,0})`$;

$``$ $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _9,\beta _{10})`$ if $`fV_6^{}V_6^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`V_6^{}=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,2},a_{0,1},\gamma _7)`$, while $`V_5^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,1},a_{0,2},a_{1,0},a_{2,0})`$;

$``$ $`\text{Ann}(f^s)=(\beta _9,\beta _{11})`$ if $`f(V_7^{}V_7^{\prime \prime })V_8^{}`$, where $`V_7^{}=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,2},a_{0,1})`$, $`V_7^{\prime \prime }=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,2},a_{0,1},\gamma _7)`$ and $`V_8^{}=V(a_{1,1},a_{0,1},a_{0,2},a_{1,0},a_{2,0})`$;

where the polynomials $`\beta _i`$ are listed below:

$`\beta _1=a_{1,1}x_1dx_1+2a_{0,2}x_2dx_12a_{2,0}x_1dx_2a_{1,1}x_2dx_2+a_{0,1}dx_1a_{1,0}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _2=a_{1,1}a_{2,0}x_1^2dx_1+a_{1,1}^2x_1x_2dx_1+a_{0,2}a_{1,1}x_2^2dx_12a_{2,0}^2x_1^2dx_22a_{1,1}a_{2,0}x_1x_2dx_2`$

$`2a_{0,2}a_{2,0}x_2^2dx_2a_{1,1}^2sx_2+4a_{0,2}a_{2,0}sx_2+a_{1,0}a_{1,1}x_1dx_1+a_{0,1}a_{1,1}x_2dx_1`$

$`2a_{1,0}a_{2,0}x_1dx_22a_{0,1}a_{2,0}x_2dx_2a_{1,0}a_{1,1}s+2a_{0,1}a_{2,0}s+a_{0,0}a_{1,1}dx_12a_{0,0}a_{2,0}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _3=a_{2,0}x_1^2dx_2+a_{1,1}x_1x_2dx_2+a_{0,2}x_2^2dx_2a_{1,1}sx_12a_{0,2}sx_2+a_{1,0}x_1dx_2`$

$`+a_{0,1}x_2dx_2a_{0,1}s+a_{0,0}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _4=a_{1,1}^2x_1dx_14a_{0,2}a_{2,0}x_1dx_1+a_{1,1}^2x_2dx_24a_{0,2}a_{2,0}x_2dx_22a_{1,1}^2s`$

$`+8a_{0,2}a_{2,0}s2a_{0,2}a_{1,0}dx_1+a_{0,1}a_{1,1}dx_1+a_{1,0}a_{1,1}dx_22a_{0,1}a_{2,0}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _5=a_{1,1}dx_12a_{2,0}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _6=2a_{2,0}x_1dx_2+a_{1,1}x_2dx_22a_{1,1}s+a_{1,0}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _7=dx_1`$,

$`\beta _8=2a_{0,2}x_2dx_24a_{0,2}s+a_{0,1}dx_2`$,

$`\beta _9=dx_2`$,

$`\beta _{10}=2a_{2,0}x_1dx_14a_{2,0}s+a_{1,0}dx_1`$,

$`\beta _{11}=a_{2,0}x_1^2dx_12a_{2,0}sx_1+a_{1,0}x_1dx_1a_{1,0}s+a_{0,0}dx_1`$,

and the polynomials $`\gamma _i`$ are in this list:

$`\gamma _1=a_{0,2}a_{1,0}^2a_{0,1}a_{1,0}a_{1,1}+a_{0,0}a_{1,1}^2+a_{0,1}^2a_{2,0}4a_{0,0}a_{0,2}a_{2,0}`$,

$`\gamma _2=2a_{0,2}a_{1,0}a_{0,1}a_{1,1}`$,

$`\gamma _3=a_{1,0}a_{1,1}2a_{0,1}a_{2,0}`$,

$`\gamma _4=a_{1,1}^24a_{0,2}a_{2,0}`$,

$`\gamma _5=a_{0,1}^24a_{0,0}a_{0,2}`$,

$`\gamma _6=a_{0,1}a_{1,0}2a_{0,0}a_{1,1}`$,

$`\gamma _7=a_{1,0}^24a_{0,0}a_{2,0}`$.

## 3. Constructible Sets

In this section we describe some of the properties of constructible sets that are used in the next section. We recall that a set is constructible iff it is a finite union of locally closed sets and a set is locally closed iff it is the difference of two closed sets.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`C`$ be a constructible subset of a variety $`X`$. Then $`C`$ may be presented uniquely as a disjoint union $`_{i=1}^m(V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime })`$, where for all $`i`$ the sets $`V_i^{}`$ and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }`$ are closed, $`V_1^{}V_1^{\prime \prime }V_2^{}V_2^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}V_m^{}V_m^{\prime \prime }`$ and no two consequent sets in this chain have an irreducible component in common. We call it a canonical presentation of $`C`$ as a union of locally closed subsets.

###### Proof.

Let $`d(C)`$ be the maximal dimension of an irreducible component in $`\overline{C}`$. The only possible choices for $`V_1^{}`$ and $`V_2^{}`$. Now $`V_1^{}=\overline{C}`$ and $`V_1^{\prime \prime }=\overline{V_1^{}C}`$ and let $`C_1=CV_1^{\prime \prime }`$. Note that $`d(C_1)<d(C)`$ and we may assume by induction on $`d`$ that the chain $`V_2^{}V_2^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}V_m^{}V_m^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`C^{}=_{i=2}^m(V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime })`$ exists and is unique. Then $`V_1^{}V_1^{\prime \prime }V_2^{}V_2^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}V_m^{}V_m^{\prime \prime }`$ is the unique chain for $`C`$, which satisfies the condition in the statement. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

There is an algorithmic way for constructing such a presentation, starting with $`C`$ presented as a union of nonempty sets $`W_\alpha (W_\alpha ^{(1)}\mathrm{}W_\alpha ^{(h_\alpha )})`$, where $`W_\alpha `$ and $`W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ are closed irreducible subsets and $`W_\alpha W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ for all $`i`$. Let $`d(C)=\mathrm{max}_\alpha dimW_\alpha `$ (which agrees with the definition in the proof of the theorem).

Let $`V_1^{}`$ be the union of all maximal elements in the set $`\{W_\alpha \}`$ and $`V_1^{\prime \prime }`$ be the union of all $`W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ that are minimal with the following property: there is a set of pairs $`\{(\alpha _j,i_j)\}_{j=1}^l`$ such that $`W_{\alpha _1}`$ is a component of $`V_1^{}`$, $`W_{\alpha _l}^{(i_l)}=W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ and $`W_{\alpha _j}^{(i_j)}W_{\alpha _j1}`$ for all $`j=2,\mathrm{},l`$ . Now $`d(C(V_1^{}V_1^{\prime \prime }))`$ is less than $`d(C)`$, therefore, we may assume again by induction on $`d`$ that we are able to construct the rest of $`V_i^{}`$ and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`X`$ be a variety and $`f:XY`$ a map into any finite set $`Y`$. Then $`f^1(y)`$ is constructible for every $`yY`$ iff for every closed irreducible subvariety $`X^{}X`$ there is an open $`UX^{}`$ such that $`f|_U`$ is a constant function.

###### Proof.

Assume the second part holds. Take any $`yY`$ and let $`Z=f^1(y)`$. Let $`n=dimX`$ and assume the lemma is proved for dimensions less then $`n`$. First of all, since $`X`$ is a finite union of its irreducible components, we may proceed assuming that $`X`$ is irreducible. Let $`U`$ be an open subset of $`X`$ such that $`f(u)=y^{}`$ for all $`uU`$. If $`y^{}y`$ then $`ZXU`$, which has dimension less than $`n`$ and, therefore, $`Z`$ is constructible by the induction assumption. If $`y=y^{}`$ then $`(ZU)(XU)`$ is constructible, hence so is $`Z=U(ZU)`$.

It remains to check the case $`dimX=0`$, in which $`X`$ is a finite set of points and is certainly constructible.

Conversely, assume that $`f^1(y)`$ is constructible for every $`yY`$. Let $`X^{}X`$ be a closed irreducible subvariety. Then $`X^{}=_{yY}(f^1(y)X^{})`$ and, since $`Y`$ is a finite set and $`X^{}`$ is irreducible, the closure of $`X_y^{}=f^1(y)X^{}`$ for some $`yY`$ is equal to $`X^{}`$. But $`X_y^{}`$ is constructible, hence it is open in its closure $`\overline{X_y^{}}=X^{}`$. ∎

## 4. Parametric Gr bner Bases

This section describes an approach to computing parametric Gr bner bases in Weyl algebras. A good source on computing Gr bner bases in non-commutative algebras is \[KR,We\]. For a discussion of parametric Gr bner bases, which leads to the notion of comprehensive Gr bner bases, see \[We\] for the commutative case and \[K,We\] for the case of solvable algebras. However, everything that is needed for this paper is stated and proved in this section.

Let $`C=k[\overline{a}]`$ ($`\overline{a}=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_m\}`$) be the ring of parameters and $`R=C\overline{y},\overline{x},\overline{}`$ be the ring of non-commutative polynomials in $`\overline{y}=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_l\}`$, $`\overline{x}=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ and $`\overline{}=\{_1,\mathrm{},_n\}`$ with coefficients in $`C`$, where $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\overline{}`$ satisfy the same relations as in a Weyl algebra and $`\overline{y}`$ is contained in the center of $`R`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

For a prime $`P`$ in $`C`$, we shall call the natural map $`Ck(P)`$ as well as the induced map $`R=C\overline{y},\overline{x},\overline{}k(P)\overline{y},\overline{x},\overline{}`$, where $`k(P)`$ is the residue field at $`P`$, the *specialization* at the point $`P`$ and denote both maps by $`\sigma _P`$.

The next result is similar to Oaku’s Proposition 7 in \[O\].

Let $`<`$ be an order on monomials in $`a`$, $`y`$, $`x`$ and $``$ such that every $`a_i`$ is $`<<`$ than any of $`x_j`$, $`y_j`$ or $`_j`$ (i.e. the order $`<`$ eliminates $`x_j`$, $`y_j`$ and $`_j`$). Assume $`G`$ is a finite Gr bner basis in $`R`$, then we claim that $`\sigma _P(G)=\{\sigma _P(g)|gG\}`$ is a Gr bner basis in $`\sigma _P(R)`$ for “almost” every $`P\text{Spec}C`$. Namely,

###### Lemma 4.2.

For any $`G`$ there exists a polynomial $`hC`$ such that $`\sigma _P(G)`$ is a Gr bner basis for every $`P`$ not containing $`h`$.

###### Proof.

We need to make some definitions. For a polynomial $`f`$ let $`inM(f)`$ be the initial monomial $`inC(f)`$ the initial coefficient such that $`in(f)=inC(f)inM(f)`$ the initial term of $`f`$. Also for $`fR`$ let $`inM_{}(f)\overline{y},\overline{x},\overline{}`$ and $`inC_{}(f)C`$ be the initial monomial and the initial coefficient of $`f`$ viewed as a polynomial in $`x,y,`$ with coefficients in $`C`$ with respect to $``$, the restriction of $`<`$ to $`\overline{y},\overline{x},\overline{}`$.

One obvious observation is that a specialization $`\sigma _P:(R,<)(\sigma _P(R),)`$ preserves the order.

Let $`h=_{gG}inC_{}(g)C`$. Consider any $`P\text{Spec}C`$ not containing $`h`$. Take a polynomial $`f^{}`$ in ideal of $`\sigma _P(R)`$ generated by $`\sigma _P(G)`$, then there is $`f`$ such that $`f^{}=\sigma _P(f)`$ and $`inM_{}(f)=inM(f^{})`$. Since $`G`$ is a Gr bner basis in $`R`$, we have $`inM(g)|inM(f)`$ for some $`gG`$, which means that $`inM_{}(g)|inM_{}(f)`$. Now, $`inM(\sigma _P(g))=inM_{}(g)`$, because $`inC_{}(g)P`$. Thus $`inM(\sigma _P(g))|inM(\sigma _P(f))`$, which proves that $`\sigma _P(G)`$ is a Gr bner basis. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

The statement of the lemma is true for reduced Gr bner bases as well.

The lemma leads to the following

###### Algorithm 4.4.

| Input: | $`F^{}`$: | a finite set of generators for a prime ideal $`QC`$. |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`F`$: | a finite set of generators of a left ideal $`IR`$ containing $`QA_n`$, |
| Output: | $`G`$: | a (reduced) Gr bner basis in $`R`$ with respect to $`<`$, |
|  | $`h`$: | a polynomial in $`C`$, which we shall call an *exceptional polynomial*, |
|  |  | such that for any $`P\text{Spec}(k[a_1,\mathrm{},a_m])`$, $`PQ`$ and $`hP`$ |
|  |  | the ideal $`\sigma _P(I)\sigma _P(R)`$ has a $`\sigma _P(G)`$ as a (reduced) Gr bner |
|  |  | basis with respect to $``$. |

1. Compute a Gr bner basis $`G`$ of $`I+QR`$ (which is generated by $`FF^{}`$) .
2. Return $`G`$ and $`h=_{gGQ}inC_{}(g)`$.

###### Remark 4.5.

If all polynomials in $`F^{}`$ and all $`C`$-coefficients of all elements of $`F^{}`$ are homogeneous, then so is the exceptional polynomial $`h`$.

## 5. Oaku’s Algorithm

The original algorithm of T.Oaku for computing the Bernstein-Sato polynomial appeared in \[O\]. However there exist several modifications of the algorithm (see \[S,S,T\] for example). For our needs a version of the algorithm described in \[Wa\] will be utilized.

Let $`fR_n(k)`$. Denote by $`\text{Ann}f^s`$ the ideal of all elements in $`A_n(k)[s]`$ annihilating $`f^s`$. The following algorithm is Algorithm 4.4. from \[Wa\] with $`L=(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$.

###### Algorithm 5.1.

| Input: | $`f`$: | a polynomial in $`R_n(k)`$ , |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Output: | $`\{P_j^{}\}`$: | generators of $`\text{Ann}f^s`$ |

1. Set $`Q=\{_i+\frac{df}{dx_i}_t,t\}`$.
2. Homogenize all $`q_iQ`$ using the new variable $`y_1`$ with respect to the weight $`w`$, where $`w(t)=w(y_1)=1`$, $`w(_t)=w(y_2)=1`$, $`w(x_i)=w(_i)=0`$. Denote the homogenized elements $`q_i^h`$.
3. Compute a Gr bner basis for the ideal generated by $`q_1^h,\mathrm{},q_r^h,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}y_1y_2`$ in $`A_{n+1}[y_1,y_2]`$ with respect to an order eliminating $`y_1,y_2`$.
4. Select the operators $`\{p_j\}_1^b`$ in this basis which do not contain $`y_1,y_2`$.
5. For each $`p_j`$, if $`w(p_j)>0`$ then replace $`p_j`$ by $`p_j^{}=_t^{w(P_j)}p_j`$ else replace $`p_j`$ by $`p_j^{}=t^{w(P_j)}p_j`$.
6. Return the operators $`\{p_j^{}\}_1^b`$.

The following is Algorithm 4.6 in \[Wa\].

###### Algorithm 5.2.

| Input: | $`f:`$ | o polynomial in $`R_n(k)`$, |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Output: | $`b_f(s)`$ | the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of $`f`$. |

1. Determine $`\text{Ann}f^s`$ following Algorithm 5.1.
2. Find a reduced Gr bner basis for the ideal $`\text{Ann}f^s+A_n[s]f`$ using an order that eliminates $`x`$ and $``$.
3. Return the unique element in the basis contained in $`k[s]`$.

## 6. The Main Results

Consider $`(n,d;k)`$ with the coordinate ring $`C=k[\overline{a}]`$, where $`\overline{a}=\{a_\alpha :|\alpha |d\}`$. Let $`f=_{|\alpha |d}a_\alpha x^\alpha `$.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`b(s)B(n,d)`$. The corresponding set $`S(b(s),k)(n,d;k)`$ in $`𝔸_k^N`$ is defined as the set of all the points $`P(n,d;k)`$ such that $`b_{\sigma _P(f)}(s)=b(s)`$. (We view points in $`(n,d;k)`$ as homogeneous primes in $`C`$. See Definition 4.1 for $`\sigma _P(f)`$.)

Let $`Q`$ be a homogeneous prime in $`C`$. Then $`\sigma _Q(f)`$ is a polynomial with coefficients in a field, hence $`b_{f_Q}(s)`$ may be computed. What would happen if we run Algorithm 5.2 trying to compute $`b_{f_Q}(s)`$ “lifting from $`k(Q)`$, the fraction field of $`C/Q`$, to $`C`$” every single step of the algorithm? Notice that $`\sigma _Q:Ck(Q)`$ has $`C/Q`$ as its image. Since the steps of the algorithm that do not involve Gr bner bases computation do not involve division either, we have to worry only about the two steps that deal with Gr bner bases. Suppose for these two steps we used 4.4 with $`F^{}`$ is a set generating $`Q`$, in particular we obtained the exceptional polynomials $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$. Set $`h=h_1h_2`$, then the output, which is going to be $`b_{\sigma _Q(f)}(s)`$, is also the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of $`\sigma _P(f)`$ for every $`PQ`$ such that $`hP`$. Thus we have

###### Algorithm 6.2.

| Input: | $`f`$: | a polynomial in $`R_n(C)`$, |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`F^{}`$: | generators of a homogeneous prime ideal, |
| Output: | $`b(s)`$: | a polynomial in $`[s]`$, |
|  | $`H`$: | generators of a homogeneous ideal in $`C`$ such that |
|  |  | $`b(s)=b_{\sigma _P(f)}(s)`$ for every point $`PV^{}\backslash V^{\prime \prime }`$, |
|  |  | where $`V^{}=V(F^{})`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }=V(H)`$ ($`V^{\prime \prime }V^{}(n,d;k)`$). |

1. Compute the polynomial $`b(s)`$ and the exceptional polynomial $`h`$ as described above.
2. Return $`b(s)`$ and $`\{h\}F^{}`$.

###### Remark 6.3.

If we consider $`C^{}=Ck^{}`$ and $`f1R_n(C^{})`$, where $`k^{}`$ is an extension of $`k`$, then $`b(s)`$ is the Bernstein-Sato polynomial for any point in $`(V^{}_kk^{})(V^{\prime \prime }_kk^{})`$.

The next theorem gives an affirmative answer to Lyubeznik’s question about the constructibility of the set $`S(b(s),k)`$ of Definition 6.1.

###### Theorem 6.4.

The set $`S(b(s),k)`$ is constructible for every $`b(s)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof follows from the above algorithm. For the function $`\varphi :(n,d;k)B(n,d)`$, $`\varphi (P)=b_{\sigma _P(f)}(s)`$ the following is true. For every projective $`V^{}(n,d;k)`$ there is an open set $`U=V^{}V^{\prime \prime }V^{}`$ such that $`f|_U`$ is a constant function. Therefore we may apply Lemma 3.3. ∎

Algorithm 6.2 leads to the main algorithm and theorem of the paper.

###### Algorithm 6.5.

Input: $`n,d`$.

Output: The set of pairs $`L=\{(b(s),S(b(s)))|b(s)B(n,d)\}`$, where $`S(b(s))=S(b(s),)(n,d;)`$.

* Set $`L:=\mathrm{}`$, $`f:=_{|\alpha |d}a_\alpha x^\alpha `$ .
* Define the recursive procedure BSP($`Q`$), where $`Q\text{Spec}([\overline{a}])`$.

| BSP($`Q`$) := { |
| --- |
| Apply Algorithm 6.2 to $`V(Q)`$ and $`f`$ |
| to get an ideal $`I`$ in $`C`$ and $`b(s)[s]`$; |
| IF there is a pair $`(b(s),S)L`$ |
| THEN replace it by $`(b(s),S(V(Q)V(I)))`$ |
| ELSE $`L:=L\{(b(s),V(Q)V(I))\}`$; |
| IF $`V(I)\mathrm{}`$ THEN { |
| Find the minimal primes $`\{Q_i\}`$ associated to $`I`$; |
| FOR each $`Q_i`$ DO BSP($`Q_i`$) ; |
| } |
| } |

* Run BSP($`0`$).

###### Remark.

This algorithm returns some presentations for constructible sets $`S(b(s),)`$, the canonical presentations for which may be obtained by using the algorithm discussed in Remark 3.2.

###### Corollary 6.6.

The set $`S(b(s),k)`$ is defined over $``$, i.e. there exist ideals $`I_i[\overline{a}]`$ and $`J_i[\overline{a}]`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},m)`$ such that for any field $`k`$

$$S(b(s),k)=\underset{i}{}(V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime }),$$

where $`V_i^{}=V(k[\overline{a}]I_i)`$ is the zero set of the extension of $`I_i`$ and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }=V(k[\overline{a}]J_i)`$ is the zero set of the extension of $`J_i`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from the algorithm and Remark 6.3.

The annihilators $`\text{Ann}(f^s)`$ are computed using Algorithm 5.1 and the same technique as in the algorithm above. The output is a set of pairs $`\{(I_i,V_i)\}`$, where $`I_i`$ are the ideals in $`A_n(k)[\overline{a}][s]`$ and $`V_i`$ are locally closed sets, such that for any polynomial $`f`$ with coefficients in $`k`$ that corresponds to a point $`PV_i`$ the ideal $`\text{Ann}(f^s)`$ equals $`\sigma _P(I_i)`$, the ideal $`I_i`$ specialized to $`P`$.

After doing the above steps, the real life algorithm that produces Example 2.4 compresses its output in the following way. If $`(I_i,V_i)`$ and $`(I_j,V_j)`$ are two different pairs such that $`\sigma _P(I_i)=\sigma _P(I_j)`$ for all $`PV_j`$ then these two are replaced by the pair $`(I_i,V_iV_j)`$.

###### Remark 6.7.

The stratification of the parameter space produced by such computation is not unique. So we have to use prefix “quasi“ in “quasi-definitive computation”, because the annihilators, as opposed to Bernstein-Sato polynomials, depend on the parameters making it possible to slice the space of parameters in many ways.


format: text

text:
# Eleven dimensional supergravity as a constrained topological field theory

## 1 Introduction

Eleven dimensional supergravity has been an object of fascination since it was first discovered more than twenty years ago. It is the highest dimension in which a supergravity theory exists, and it contains all of the lower dimensional supergravities as dimensional reductions. It has also been proposed as a description of the classical limit of a phase of $``$ theory, which is not itself described by any consistent string theory. Anyone wanting to understand the dynamical structure of the different supergravities, and their inter-relations with each other under reductions and various kinds of duality transformations are recommended to start with the $`11`$ dimensional theory.

It is thus very interesting to wonder whether $`11`$ dimensional supergravity might be made into a quantum theory directly, using some non-perturbative approach. It is true that it is non-renormalizable in perturbation theory, but so are general relativity and the $`N=1,2`$ supergravities in four dimensions, and this has not prevented a great deal of progress being made understanding the exact structure of their canonical and path integral quantum theories-. A beautiful and robust structure was found that could not have been seen in perturbation theory, which leads to definite physical predictions such as the discrete spectra of the area and volume operators. The eigenstates of these operators provide a basis of states for background independent quantum theories of gravity, which are the spin network basis. These are constructed in terms of simple combinatorial and representation theory data, are closely related to the fusion algebras of conformal field theory and exist also for supersymmetric theories.

It is also clear now that these theories have rigorously defined hamiltonian and path integral formulations and so do exist as examples of diffeomorphism invariant quantum field theories. This existence is independent of the question of whether they have classical limits which reproduce classical general relativity or supergravity. This is presently an open question for general relativity and supergravity in $`d=4`$. Even if the particular dynamics of quantum general relativity in $`d=4`$ leads to a theory which is sensible at the Planck scale but lacks a good classical limit, it is still reasonable to conjecture that the robust and theory independent features of the background independent formulation of quantum gravity uncovered in loop quantum gravity will play a role in a background independent formulation of $``$ theory.

There is a simple reason to expect that the classical limit will exist for a background independent of $`11`$ dimensional supergravity, but not for $`d=3+1`$ general relativity, which is that whenever such a limit exists one expects a sensible perturbation theory to exist around any classical background that arises in a classical limit. There is no such consistent perturbation theory for pure four dimensional general relativity but there is one for many, if not all, consistent compactifications of $`11`$ dimensional supergravity-these are of course exactly the perturbative string theories. In fact, there is a simple argument that where such a limit exists the weakly coupled excitations will be described by a string theory.

It is then sensible to suppose that one way to uncover the structure of the states and operators that will go into the background independent formulation of $``$ theory is to make an exact canonical quantization of $`11`$ dimensional supergravity and discover what structures play the role of the spin networks and super-spin networks in $`D=3+1`$. The first step in any such attempt must be to have a suitable form for the action. What is required to make progress in a non-perturbative approach to quantization is to have a first order polynomial form of the action, which has the property that it arises from a topological field theory by the imposition of a set of constraints. The reason is it is by now understood that all the beautiful results which have followed from the use of the Ashtekar-Sen and related variables are due ultimately to the fact that in $`4`$ dimensions general relativity and supergravity (at least up to $`N=2`$) can be understood as arising in this way from topological field theories111Indeed, such a form of the theory was understood earlier, by Plebanski. The significance of this form was only realized after Sen discovered the equivalent Hamiltonian variables, in an attempt to understand the canonical structure of supergravity. This was then formalized by Ashtekar for the canonical theory and in  for the lagrangian theory. Attempts to relate this form to topological field theory then led to a rediscovery of Plebanski’s action and its extension to supergravity.. A further reason for taking this route is that in the presence of appropriate boundary conditions it leads to holographic formulations of quantum general relativity and supergravity in which the Bekenstein bound is realized naturally because the boundary theories are built from the state spaces of Chern-Simons theory222This method has also been used recently to construct an explicit description of the quantum geometry of the black hole horizon..

The main goal of this paper is then to present a formulation of the $`11`$ dimensional supergravity as a constrained topological field theory. In the next section we introduce an $`11`$ dimensional topological field theory which has the property that its algebra of first class constraints, which generate the gauge transformations of the theory, reproduces exactly the $`11`$ dimensional super-Poincare algebra, including its central charges. The theory is introduced in the next section and the canonical analysis is given in section 4. In section 3 we show how the eleven dimensional supergravity action arises by imposing a certain set of constraints on the topological field theory. We then arrive at the supergravity action in the form given by Fre and d’Auria and Fre. A feature of that form of the theory, which plays an important role as well in our formulation, is the presence of two abelian potentials, which are a six form and a three form. Although we are not completely certain of the correct way to express it, we believe it likely that the formulation of a gravitational theory as a constrained topological field theory is closely related to the idea of formulating it in terms of free differential algebras, which was pursued by Fre and collaborators333Another approach to the relationship between topological field theory and supergravity is described in ..

This paper represents only the first step of a program of quantization of $`11`$ dimensional supergravity. Still to be investigated is the implications for the canonical structure of the full $`11`$ dimensional supergravity action and the possible existence of a quantization using the methods of loop quantum gravity.

In the next section we introduce the topological quantum field theory in $`11`$ dimensions and in section 4 we derive its canonical formalism and compute its constraint algebra. We find that it is first class and that the algebra of constraints does reproduce weakly444That is up to the constraints that say that the curvatures vanish in a topological field theory the super-Poincare algebra in $`11`$ dimensions with central charges. Along the way, in section 3, we show how constraints and lagrange multiplier terms may be added to the topological field theory to arrive at the full $`11`$ dimensional supergravity action, in the form given by Fre.

## 2 TQFT for the $`11`$ dimensional super-Poincare algebra

The first step in our construction is to find the TQFT whose algebra of constraints reproduces the supersymmetry algebra of supergravity in $`11`$ dimensions, including the central extensions. This algebra has the form555We list the convention used in this paper. $`(i)`$ Indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},10`$ are spacetime indices while $`i,j,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},10`$ are used for spatial indices; $`(ii)`$ The capital $`A,B,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},32`$ stand for the $`Sp(32)`$ spinor indices; $`(iii)`$ $`a,b,\mathrm{},=0,1,\mathrm{},10`$ represent $`SO(10,1)`$ indices. We sometimes use a condensed index notation in which $`a_p=a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_p`$.

$$\{Q^A,Q^B\}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{AB}G^a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}G^{ab}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_5}^{AB}G^{a_5},$$
(1)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_p}^{AB}:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_p]}^{AB}.$$
(2)
Here $`G^a`$ must be the generator of spacetime diffeomorphisms, so that $`G^0`$ must be related to the Hamiltonian and $`G^i`$ to the diffeomorphism constraints of the theory, while $`G^{ab}`$ and $`G^{a_5}`$ are the central extensions. This can be understood to be a contraction of $`Osp(1|32)`$.

One place to begin is with the fields of a gauge theory for the superalgebra $`Osp(1|32)`$ in $`10+1`$ dimensions. The generators of the superalgebra consist of the translation generator $`G_a`$, Lorentz generator $`J_{ab}`$, supersymmetry generators $`Q^A`$ and five-index antisymmetric generator $`G^{[abcde]}G^{a_5}`$. One starting point would be to define a 1-form superconnection associated with those generators:

$$𝒜_\mu :=A_\mu ^{ab}J_{ab}+e_\mu ^aG_a+\Psi _\mu ^AQ_A+A_\mu ^{a_\mathit{5}}G_{a_\mathit{5}},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^A`$ are $`32`$ component Majorana spinors. We may then introduce a $`BF`$ action as

$$=_M𝑑x^{\mathit{11}},$$
(4)
where $``$ is a super nine form and $`F`$ is the curvature of $`Osp(1|32)`$ defined by

$$=d𝒜+𝒜𝒜.$$
(5)
Unfortunately this route seems not to lead to the standard $`11`$ dimensional supergravity666But it is of interest and has been pursued in .. The difference seems to be that the relevant gauge group for 11 dimensional supergravity, at least at the classical level, is the Super-poincare group, which is a contraction of $`Osp(1|32)`$. As a result, the central generators are realized in supergravity by functionals of a three form abelian gauge field rather than by a standard component of a connection one-form. The basic mystery of the construction of $`11`$ dimensional supergravity (as well as many of its lower dimensional reductions) is how such a field may be seen to arise from a gauge theoretic structure as does the connection of spacetime. From the point of view in which gravitational theories are understood as constrained topological field theories, this mystery can be solved, for topological field theories can indeed be constructed based on gauge theories of Abelian $`p`$-forms and they can be quantized using the methods of loop quantum gravity. Indeed as we shall see here, one can construct a topological field theory whose constraint algebra realizes perfectly the full super-Poincare algebra, with the abelian $`p`$ forms realizing the central charges777Thus, while we solve the problem of encoding the central charges in an algebra of canonical constraints, in a way that leads under suitable constraints to $`11`$ dimensional supergravity, we do not solve the problem of what all this may have to do with $`Osp(1|32)`$..

In order to achieve this we have found it necessary to introduce not only the three form gauge field $`a_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ but its dual, which is a six form field $`b_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }`$. This leads us to a formalism which is similar to that of D’Auria and Fre. Indeed, as our results show, there is likely a close relationship between their conception of supergravity based on Cartan integrable algebras and the more recent conception of a gravitational theory as a constrained topological field theory.

We now introduce our $`11`$ dimensional super-Poincare topological field theory.

To begin with we define the topological field theory associated to the $`11`$ dimensional super-Poincare algebra, unextended by central charges. The gauge field is then of the form,

$$𝒜_\mu :=A_\mu ^{ab}J_{ab}+e_\mu ^aG_a+\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^AQ_A.$$
(6)
The components of the curvature are given by

$$F^{ab}=dA^{ab}A^{ac}A_c^b,$$
(7)
$$F^a=de^aA^{ab}e_b\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{aA}{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^B,$$
(8)
$$F^A=D\mathrm{\Psi }^A=d\mathrm{\Psi }^A\frac{1}{4}A^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abB}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^B.$$
(9)
To represent the central charges we introduce the three form $`a_{\mu _3}`$ and its dual which is a 6-form field $`b_{\mu _6}`$. We introduce their curvatures,

$$F^{}=db15daa\frac{ı}{2}\rho ^5,$$
(10)
$$F^{\mathrm{}}=da\frac{1}{2}\rho ^2,$$
(11)
where

$$\rho _{a_p}^p:=\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{a_pA}{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^BE_{a_p}^p,$$
(12)
and

$$E_{a_p}^p=e_{a_1}e_{a_2}\mathrm{}e_{a_p}.$$
(13)
Using these curvatures we then write a TQFT,

$$I^{TQFT}=\frac{1}{g^2}B_{ab}F^{ab}+B_aF^a+B_AF^A+B^{\mathrm{}}F^{\mathrm{}}+B^{}F^{}.$$
(14)
The $`B`$’s are lagrange multipliers which have the form degree indicated. The field equations are

$$F^{ab}=F^a=F^A=F^{\mathrm{}}=F^{}=0,$$
(15)
and

$$𝒟B^{ab}e^{[a}B^{b]}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{abA}{}_{B}{}^{}B^B=0,$$
(16)
$$𝒟B^a\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{abA}{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^Be^bB^{\mathrm{}}\frac{5i}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{ab_4A}{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^Be_{b_4}B^{}=0,$$
(17)
$$𝒟B^Ai\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aB}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^BB^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abB}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^BE^{ab}B^{\mathrm{}}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_5B}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^BE^{a_5}B^{}=0,$$
(18)
$$dB^{}=0,$$
(19)
$$dB^{\mathrm{}}30daB^{}+15adB^{}=0.$$
(20)
In section (4) we will discuss the canonical formulation of the action (14) and show that its algebra of first class constraints replicates the superalgebra (1).

## 3 Constraining the $`TQFT`$ to get supergravity in $`11`$ dimensions

We obtain an action for $`11`$ dimensional supergravity by adding constraint and lagrange multiplier terms,

$$I_{11D}^{SUGRA}=I^{TQFT}+I^{CONST.}+I^{F_4},$$
(21)
where

$`I^{CONST.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \lambda _{ab}}(B^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9l^9}}E^{ab})+\lambda _A(B^A{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_8B}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^BE^{a_8})`$ (22)
$`+\lambda _a(B^a{\displaystyle \frac{7ı}{30}}E_7^{ab_6}\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{c_5A}\mathrm{\Psi }^Bϵ_{b_6c_5})`$
$`+\lambda _{}(B^{}56da)+\lambda _{\mathrm{}}(B^{\mathrm{}}+56ı\rho ^5),`$
and

$$I^{F_4}=2F_{a_4}R^{\mathrm{}}E_{b_7}^7ϵ^{a_4b_7}+\frac{1}{330}F_{a_4}F^{a_4}E_{11}^{}.$$
(23)
It is not difficult to see that the variations of the lagrange multipliers $`\lambda `$ reproduce the $`D=11`$ supergravity action in the form given by Fre.

$`I^{SG}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9l^9}E^{ab}}F^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{7ı}{30}}E_7^{ab_6}\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{c_5A}\mathrm{\Psi }^Bϵ_{b_6c_5}F^a+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_8B}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^BE^{a_8}F^A`$ (24)
$`+56ı\rho ^5F^{\mathrm{}}+56daF^{}`$
$`2F_{a_4}R^{\mathrm{}}E_{b_7}^7ϵ^{a_4b_7}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{330}}F_{a_4}F^{a_4}E_{11}^{}.`$
Elimination of the lagrange multipliers then leads to the theory in the original form.

We not that the lagrange multiplier terms $`I^{F_4}`$ are necessary to get the $`da^2`$ terms in the supergravity action. Were they absent the $`a`$ field would have dynamics only from the Chern-Simons like terms $`adada`$. One interesting question that this approach should be able to answer is why supersymmetry requires both the Maxwell and Chern-Simons like terms in the supergravity action.

## 4 Canonical formulation of the $`11D`$ TQFT

We now describe to the canonical decomposition of the TQFT given by (14). Our main goal here is to find the algebra of its constraints. We assume that the eleven dimensional spacetime $`^{11}`$ has the form $`^{11}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{10}\times R`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{10}`$ is a compact ten dimensional manifold. We then make a $`10+1`$ decomposition to find that888Note that the decomposition is much simpler than in the standard case as there is no metric and hence no lapse and shift. The decomposition is purely a matter of pulling back forms.

$`I^{TQFT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dt{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{10}}}d^{10}x\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^{iab}\dot{A}_{iab}+\pi ^{ia}\dot{e}_{ia}+\pi ^{iA}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{iA}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6!}}p^{i_6}\dot{b}_{i_6}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}R^{i_3}\dot{a}_{i_3}`$ (25)
$`+B_0^{ab}F_{ab}+B_0^AF_A+B_0^aF_a+B_0^{\mathrm{}}F^{\mathrm{}}+B_0^{}F^{}`$
$`+A_{0ab}J^{ab}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{0A}Q^A+e_{0a}G^a+a_{0ij}G_2^{ij}+b_{0i_5}G_5^{i_5}\},`$
where now all forms are in the $`10`$ dimensional space.

The expressions for the canonical momenta are,

$`\pi _{ab}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{g^2}}(B_{ab}^{})^i,`$
$`\pi _a^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}(B_a^{})^i,`$
$`\pi _A^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}(B_A^{})^i,`$
$`p^{i_6}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}(B_{}^{})^{i_6},`$
$`R^{i_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}(B_{\mathrm{}}^{})^{i_3}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{i_3j_3}a_{j_3}.`$ (26)
The constraints take the form

$`Q^A`$ $`=`$ $`D_i\pi ^{iA}ı\pi ^{ia}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aB}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_i^B\mathrm{\Psi }_i^B\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abB}^A(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})E_{jk}^{ab}ı\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_5B}^Ap^{ik_5}E_{k_5}^{b_5}\right\},`$ (27)
$`G^a`$ $`=`$ $`D_k\pi ^{ka}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bAB}^a(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})e_k^b+{\displaystyle \frac{5ı}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_4AB}^ap^{ijk_4}E_{k_4}^{b_4}\right\},`$ (28)
$`J^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_i\pi ^{iab}\pi ^{i[a}e_i^{b]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{iA}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{abA}{}_{B}{}^{}\pi ^{Bi},`$ (29)
$`G_5^{i_5}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}_ip^{ij_5},`$ (30)
$`G_2^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[_kR^{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}(_ka_{l_3})p^{ijkl_3}].`$ (31)
It’s now straightforward to check the Poisson brackets of two supersymmetric constraint functional satisfies weakly the relation (1). More precisely, we find,

$`\{Q^A(x),Q^B(y)\}_+`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{10}(x,y)\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{AB}G^a`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}\left[+E_{jk}^{ab}(G_2^{jk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}G_5^{jkl_3}a_{l_3})+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}(F_{il_3}^{\mathrm{}}E_{jk}^{ab}+a_{l_3}F_{ij}^ae_k^b)\right]`$
$`ı\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab^4}^{AB}[E_{k_5}^{ab_4}G_5^{k_5}+p^{ikl_4}E_{l_4}^{b_4}F_{ik}^a]\}.`$
It is interesting to see that the constraints by which the curvatures vanish are needed to close the algebra. It is also interesting that in order to realize the central charge proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abcde}^{AB}`$ it is necessary to have the canonical momenta and the constraint associated with the six form field $`b`$.

Similarly, we find that

$`\{G^a(x),G^b(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{10}(x,y)\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^{ab}[2F_{ki}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B[R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3}]+\mathrm{\Psi }_i^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_2^{ij}+G_5^{ijl_3}a_{l_3}+p^{ijl_4}F_{l_4}^{\mathrm{}})]`$ (33)
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{defAB}^{ab}[2ıF_{ki}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^Bp^{ijkl_3}E_{l_3}^{def}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{4}}G_5^{ijl_3}E_{l_3}^{def}+ıp^{ijklm_2}F_{kl^d}E_{m_2}^{ef}]\}.`$
In both of these relations there are delicate cancellations involving two and four fermion terms. These involve careful application of the Fiertz identities for $`11`$ dimensions. It is also interesting that the central charges come into the commutator of the translation generators (33). This may be a clue as to how the whole structure may descend from some $`Osp(1|32)`$ invariant framework.

We also find that,

$$\{Q^A(x),G_2^{ij}(y)\}=\frac{5}{4}\delta ^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abB}^A\left(G_5^{lmnij}\mathrm{\Psi }_l^BE_{mn}^{ab}+p^{lmnkij}[F_{kl}^BE_{mn}^{ab}+2F_{kl}^a\mathrm{\Psi }_l^Be_n^b]\right),$$
(34)
$$\{G^a(x),G_2^{ij}(y)\}=\frac{5}{4}\delta ^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bAB}^a\left(G_5^{lmnij}\mathrm{\Psi }_l^A\mathrm{\Psi }_m^Be_n^b+p^{lmnkij}[2F_{kl}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_m^Be_n^b+\mathrm{\Psi }_l^A\mathrm{\Psi }_m^BF_{kn}^b]\right),$$
(35)
$$\{Q^A(x),G_5^{ijklm}(y)\}=\{G^a(x),G_5^{ijklm}(y)\}=0.$$
(36)
Thus, $`G_2^{ij}`$ and $`G_5^{ijklm}`$ form a supersymmetry multiplet. We find also

$$\{Q^A(x),G^a(y)\}=0.$$
(37)
The commutators of the $`J^{ab}`$ are defined by the transformation properties under the local lorentz group.

$$\{J^{ab},J_{cd}\}=\delta ^{10}(x,y)\delta _{[c}^{[a}J_{d]}^{b]},$$
(38)
$$\{J^{ab}(x),G^c(y)\}=\delta ^{10}(x,y)\delta _c^{[a}G^{b]},$$
(39)
$$\{J^{ab}(x),Q_A(y)\}=\delta ^{10}(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{abB}Q_B,$$
(40)
$$\{J^{ab}(x),G_2^{ij}(y)\}=0,$$
(41)
$$\{J^{ab}(x),G_5^{ijklm}\}=0.$$
(42)
Finally, we find that all the other communtators vanish. Thus the constraint algebra does in fact reproduce the super-Poincare algebra with central charges.

## 5 Conclusions

We have reported here the first step of a program to construct a non-perturbative formulation of $``$ theory by making a background independent quantization of $`11`$ dimensional supergravity. The next step is to construct the quantization of the $`11`$ dimensional topological quantum field theory, using the methods of loop quantum gravity. This can be done both canonically and through a path integral quantization using an extension of the methods of spin foam or evolving spin networks to $`p`$-form gauge fields. Some work in this direction already exists and this part of the program should go through directly. It is clear from the form of the theory that this will involve extended objects whose spacetime dimensions are $`2,3`$ and $`6`$. These will then give background independent objects corresponding to strings, membranes and five-branes.

In the topological quantum field theory these will have trivial dynamics and the states will be functionals only of homotopy classes of the ten dimensional spacial manifold (which is fixed in a canonical quantization). The problem will then be to reduce the gauge invariance of the topological quantum field theory so as to give rise to local degrees of freedom. There are two ways to accomplish this. The conservative, straightforward path will be to construct the canonical quantization of the eleven dimensional supergravity, by imposing the constraints in the above action classically. This will involve a lot of tedious calculation, to check the resulting algebra of constraints, but should be nonetheless straightforward. One will then impose the quantum constraints rather than the vanishing curvature conditions on the Hilbert space of states.

A second route to the theory will be to follow Barrett and Crane and impose the constraints directly in a path integral expression for the topological quantum field theory.

While these will involve a great deal of work, the key point is that at every stage one will be working with a background independent definition of the Hilbert space of the theory, whose degrees of freedom have the correct dimensionality and supersymmetry transformation properties to lead to strings, membranes and fivebranes in the classical limit. It is difficult to believe that something of value for the understanding of $``$ theory will not come out of such an investigation.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are grateful to Clifford Johnson, Hermann Nicolai, Mike Reisenberger and Kelle Stelle for discussions during the course of this investigation as well as to the theoretical physics group at Imperial College for hospitality during the course of this work. This work was supported by the NSF through grant PHY95-14240 and a gift from the Jesse Phillips Foundation.

## Appendix A: Conventions and notations

Here we give the conventions and notations in this paper. We adopt the convention that if $`\omega `$ is a p-form, then:

$$\omega _p:=\omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}dx^{\mu _1}dx^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _p},$$
(43)
or we could write it with abstract indices as,

$$\omega _{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_p}=p!\omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}(dx^{\mu _1})_{[a_1}(dx^{\mu _2})_{a_2}\mathrm{}(dx^{\mu _p})_{a_p]},$$
(44)
Where the antisymmetrization symbol is defined by,

$$[a_1\mathrm{}a_n]=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{p}{}()^{\delta _p}a_{p(1)}\mathrm{}a_{p(n)},$$
(45)
where $`_p`$ is the sum over permutations and $`\delta _p`$ is the parity of the permutation. Given any two forms such that one is p-form and the other one is q-form, we can define the wedge product of these two forms as,

$$\omega _p\omega _q^{^{}}=\frac{11!}{p!q!}\omega _{[a_1\mathrm{}a_p}\omega _{b_1\mathrm{}b_q]}^{^{}}.$$
(46)
It’s straightforward to show the wedge product has the following property,

$$\omega _p\omega _q^{^{}}=(1)^{pq}\omega _q^{^{}}\omega _p.$$
(47)
The exterior differential $`d`$ is a map from vector space of p-form to that of $`(p+1)`$-form,

$$d\omega _p=(d\omega )_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_p}=(p+1)_{[a}\omega _{b_1\mathrm{}b_p]}.$$
(48)
we can also show that

$$d(\omega _p\omega _q^{^{}})=(d\omega _p)\omega _q^{^{}}+(1)^p\omega _pd(\omega _q^{^{}}).$$
(49)
If $`\omega _{11}`$ is a 11-form on the manifold $``$, we define the integral of the form on the manifold as,

$$\omega _{11}=\frac{1}{11!}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}\omega _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}d^{11}x,$$
(50)
where $`ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}`$ is the volume element on $``$ such that

$$ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}ϵ_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}=11!,$$
(51)
and locally if the manifold splits into space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}`$ and time $`R`$ which is denoted by the coordinate $`0`$, then an induced volume on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}`$ is given by,

$$ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{10}}=ϵ^{0\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}=\omega ^{\mu _10\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}=\mathrm{}=ϵ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{10}0}.$$
(52)
## Appendix B: Gamma matrix

Some important features of Gamma matrices in eleven dimensional space time are derived in this part. They are essential to show the closure of the constraint algebra in present paper. It’s well known that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrix plays an important role to describe the spinor fields in various dimensions. They form the Clifford algebra,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^c+\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=2\eta ^{ac},$$
(53)
we also introduce the notation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\mathrm{\Gamma }^a:=2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ac},$$
(54)
Then in the case of eleven dimensional space time, we can derive the following identities

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=11,$$
(55)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^c=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ac}+\eta ^{ac}.$$
(56)
(55) and (56) are very useful when we try to simplify the expression or rearrange the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices into a new order. For instance,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(2\eta ^{da}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d)=2\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d=9\mathrm{\Gamma }^d,$$
(57)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=(1)^n(112n)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_n}.$$
(58)
In this paper we also often use the following formula which are given in ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_1\mathrm{}a_nb}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}\mathrm{\Gamma }^bn\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}}\eta ^{a_n]b},$$
(59)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ba_1\mathrm{}a_n}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}n\eta ^{b[a_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_2\mathrm{}a_n]}.$$
(60)
Next we give two important identities of Gamma matrices which are essential to show the closure of constraint algebra. Both of them involve the exchanging of spinor indices of different $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices, therefore we write down the elements of these matrices labeled by the spinor indices explicitly. These identities are999We ignore an important matrix in all the paper, namely, the charge conjugation matrix for a neat version of Gamma matrix. But we’d better keep it in mind and realize it appeared where it should be. In eleven dimensions it is also important to know that only $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^a,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}\}`$ and their dual matrices are symmetric (under the action of charge conjugation matrix) while the others are antisymmetric. Since in the Poisson bracket of supersymmetry constraints, the charge conjugation matrix is involved and any term which is anti-symmetric will vanish. Therefore in the following equations we only write down the symmetric term explicitly.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a}^{}{}_{E}{}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{ab}{}_{F}{}^{B)}=\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{EF}^{ab}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{abAB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aEF}),$$
(61)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{a}{}_{E}{}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}^{}{}_{F}{}^{B)}3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}^{}{}_{E}{}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}^{}{}_{F}{}^{B)}=\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{aAB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{EF}^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{EF}^a)+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]EF},$$
(62)
It’s not difficult to see, they go back to the ordinary Fiertz identities respectively when four spinor fields are involved,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{aA}\mathrm{\Psi }^B\mathrm{\Psi }_E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{}{}_{F}{}^{E}\mathrm{\Psi }^F=0,$$
(63)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{aA}\mathrm{\Psi }^B\mathrm{\Psi }_E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab_1..b_4}^{}{}_{F}{}^{E}\mathrm{\Psi }^F=3\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2B}^A\mathrm{\Psi }^B\mathrm{\Psi }_E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}^{}{}_{F}{}^{E}\mathrm{\Psi }^F.$$
(64)
To prove identities $`(\text{61})`$ and $`(\text{62})`$, we need apply the Fiertz decomposition formula in eleven dimensional space time.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_E^{a(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{}{}_{F}{}^{B)}=\frac{1}{32}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})_{EF}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{de}^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{de}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})_{EF}+\frac{1}{5!}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})_{EF}\right].$$
(65)
Then our task is just to simplify the terms involving the multiplication of several Gamma matrices in $`(\text{65})`$. Exploiting the formula given above, it’s straightforward to derive the following results,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}=8\mathrm{\Gamma }^{db}+(antisymmetricterms\mathrm{}),$$
(66)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{de}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}=16\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[d}\eta ^{e]b}+(antisymmetricterms\mathrm{}),$$
(67)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}=0+(antisymmetricterms\mathrm{}).$$
(68)
Substituting $`(\text{66})`$-$`(\text{68})`$ into $`(\text{65})`$, we easily arrive at the identity $`(\text{61})`$.

As far as the second identity $`(\text{62})`$ is concerned, we just need do more complicated but straightforward calculations as in the case of first identity.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_E^{a(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}^{}{}_{F}{}^{B)}=\frac{1}{32}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4})_{EF}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{de}^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{de}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4})_{EF}+\frac{1}{5!}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4})_{EF}\right],$$
(69)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}^{}{}_{E}{}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}^{}{}_{F}{}^{B)}=\frac{1}{32}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]})_{EF}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{de}^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{de}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]})_{EF}+\frac{1}{5!}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}^{AB}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]})_{EF}\right].$$
(70)
In $`(\text{69})`$, the terms in brackets can be simplified respectively as,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}=5\mathrm{\Gamma }^{db_1\mathrm{}b_4}+antisym.terms,$$
(71)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{de}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}=3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{deb_1\mathrm{}b_4}+84\eta ^{e[b_1}\eta ^{|d|b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{b_3b_4]}+antisym.terms,$$
(72)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab_1\mathrm{}b_4}`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{b_1\mathrm{}b_4}40\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[d_1\mathrm{}d_4}\eta ^{d_5][b_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{b_2\mathrm{}b_4]}`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\mathrm{}b_4}^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}5!\delta _{[b_2}^{[d_1}\delta _{b_1}^{d_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}^{d_3d_4d_5]}+55!\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[d_1}\delta _{[b_1}^{d_2}\delta _{b_2}^{d_3}\delta _{b_3}^{d_4}\delta _{b_4]}^{d_5]}`$
$`+antisym.terms,`$
and in (70), the terms in brackets can be simplified as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\mathrm{}b_4}^d+antisym.terms,$$
(74)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{de}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\mathrm{}b_4}^{de}4\delta _{[b_2}^{[d}\delta _{b_1}^{e]}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}+antisym.terms,$$
(75)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b_1b_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1\mathrm{}b_4}^{d_1\mathrm{}d_5}40\delta _{[b_2}^{[d_1}\delta _{b_1}^{d_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_3b_4]}^{d_3d_4d_5]}+5!\delta _{[b_2}^{[d_1}\delta d_{2}^{}{}_{b_1}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d_3}\delta _{b_4}^{d_4}\delta _{b_3]}^{d_5]}.$$
(76)
Substituting all the terms into (69) and (70) respectively, we will find the identity (62) holds indeed.

## Appendix C: The proof of the closure of constraint algebra

In this section we only show the closure of two Poisson brackets. One involves the Gaussian constraint, and the other is the supersymmetric constraint. The other Poisson brackets are closed trivially. First we consider the Poisson bracket of Gaussian constraint. To make the calculation clear, we divide the constraint into two parts,

$$G^a=:G_1^a+G_2^a,$$
(77)
Where

$$G_1^a=D_k\pi ^{ka},$$
(78)
and

$$G_2^a=\mathrm{\Psi }_i^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bAB}^a(R^{ijk}+\frac{15}{3!}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})e_k^b+\frac{5ı}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_4AB}^ap^{ijk_4}E_{k_4}^{b_4}\right\}.$$
(79)
It’s straightforward to compute the Poisson brackets of them,

$$\{G_1^a,G_2^b\}=0,$$
(80)
$$\{G_2^a,G_2^b\}=\delta ^{10}30\mathrm{\Psi }_{iA}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{acA}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B\mathrm{\Psi }_{mE}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{bdE}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^De_{kc}e_{pd}p^{mnpijk},$$
(81)
$`\{G_1^a,G_2^b\}`$ $`+`$ $`\{G_2^a,G_1^b\}=\delta ^{10}\{[15\mathrm{\Psi }_{iA}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{abA}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B\mathrm{\Psi }_{mE}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{cdE}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^De_{kc}e_{pd}p^{mnpijk}`$ (84)
$`15\mathrm{\Psi }_{iA}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{abcdeA}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B\mathrm{\Psi }_{kC}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cD}^C\mathrm{\Psi }_p^DE_{demn}p^{ijkmnp}]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^{ab}\left[2F_{ki}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})+\mathrm{\Psi }_i^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^B({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_2^{ij}+G_5^{ijl_3}a_{l_3}+p^{ijl_4}F_{l_4}^{\mathrm{}})\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{defAB}^{ab}[2ıF_{ki}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_j^Bp^{ijkl_3}E_{l_3}^{def}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{4}}G_5^{ijl_3}E_{l_3}^{def}+ıp^{ijklm_2}F_{kl^d}E_{m_2}^{ef}]\}.`$
Now add $`(\text{81})`$ and $`(\text{84})`$ together and notice that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd]}=\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ac}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{db}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ad}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{bc}).$$
(85)
we find the sum of three terms $`(\text{81})`$, $`(\text{84})`$ and $`(\text{84})`$ vanishes by employing the standard Fiertz identity $`(\text{64})`$. Making a collection of $`(\text{80})`$-$`(\text{84})`$, we show the closure of Poisson bracket of Gauss constraint which corresponds to (33) in the paper.

The Poisson bracket $`(\text{32})`$ can be derived in a similar way except that we need apply the identities (61) and (62) to cancel those extra terms.

The supersymmetric constraint is

$$Q^A=Q_1^A+Q_2^A,$$
(86)
where

$$Q_1^A=D_i\pi ^{iA}ı\pi ^{ia}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aB}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_i^B,$$
(87)
and

$$Q_2^A=\mathrm{\Psi }_i^B\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abB}^A(R^{ijk}+\frac{15}{3!}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})E_{jk}^{ab}ı\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_5B}^Ap^{ik_5}E_{k_5}^{b_5}\right\}.$$
(88)
We find the Poisson brackets of them are

$$\{Q_1^A,Q_1^B\}=i\delta ^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{AB}D_i\pi ^{ia},$$
(89)
$$\{Q_2^A,Q_2^B\}=30\delta ^{10}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^C\mathrm{\Psi }_j^D\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[abC}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd]D}^{B)}E_{kmnp}^{abcd}p^{ijkmnp},$$
(90)
$`\{Q_1^A,Q_2^B\}`$ $`+`$ $`\{Q_2^A+Q_1^B\}=\delta ^{10}\{D_i[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}e_{jk}^{ab}(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_5}^{AB}E_{j_5}^{a_5}p^{ij^5}]`$ (91)
$`+4i\mathrm{\Psi }_i^C\mathrm{\Psi }_j^D(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aC}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{B)ab}e_{bk}(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})+{\displaystyle \frac{5i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aC}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{B)ab_4}E^{b_4k_4}p^{ijk_4})\}.`$
In (91), it’s a little tedious to deal with the terms with covariant derivative. To express them as the sum of constraints, we use the fact that

$$D_{[\mu }e_{\nu ]}^a=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^a+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{A[\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{aA}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu ]}^B,$$
(92)
and

$$_{[\mu }a_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}=\frac{1}{4}F^{\mathrm{}}+\frac{3!}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{A[\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{abA}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^Be_{|a|\rho }e_{|b|\sigma ]},$$
(93)
and then expand those terms as follows,

$`D_i[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}e^ab_{jk}(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}a_{mnp}p^{ijkmnp})]=(\mathrm{})F^a+(\mathrm{})G^{ij}+(\mathrm{})G^{i_5}+(\mathrm{})F_{imnp}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{ic}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{aC}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^De_k^b(R^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{3!}}a_{mnp}p^{ijkmnp})+15\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}e_{jk}^{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_{iC}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cdD}^C\mathrm{\Psi }_m^De_{np}^{cd}p^{ijkmnp},`$ (94)
$$D_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_5}^{AB}E_{j_5}^{a_5}p^{ij^5})=(\mathrm{})G^{j_5}+(\mathrm{})F^a+\frac{5i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab_4}^{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_{iC}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{aC}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^DE_{k_4}^{b_4}p^{ijk_4},$$
(95)
where we ignore the explicit expressions of terms involving curvatures and constraints, but the final results are given in (32). Making use of identities $`(\text{61})`$, we add the terms containing $`(R^{ijk}+\frac{15}{3!}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})`$ together in the brackets of $`(\text{91})`$ and have

$$i\mathrm{\Psi }_i^C\mathrm{\Psi }_j^De_{bk}(R^{ijk}+\frac{15}{3!}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})(4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aC}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{B)ab}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CD}^a)=i\mathrm{\Psi }_i^C\mathrm{\Psi }_j^De_{bk}(R^{ijk}+\frac{15}{3!}p^{ijkl_3}a_{l_3})\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CD}^{ab},$$
(96)
and using $`(\text{62})`$, we pick out all the terms containing $`p^{ijkmnp}`$ in the algebra $`(\text{90})`$ and $`(\text{91})`$, and find

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^C\mathrm{\Psi }_j^DE_{kmnp}^{abcd}p^{ijkmnp}(30\mathrm{\Gamma }_{C[ab}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd]D}^{B)}10\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ce}^{(A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^{B)eabcd}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eabcd}^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CD}^e+15\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[ab}^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd]CD})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^C\mathrm{\Psi }_j^DE_{k_4}^{b_4}p^{ijkmnp}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_4CD}^a.`$ (97)
Next combining all the terms in (89), (96) and (97) together, we find it’s nothing but the Gauss constraint $`G^a`$! After collecting the other terms remaining which contain curvatures and constraints in the algebra we finally arrive at $`(\text{32})`$, which is what we need to show.


text:
# On the ‘Irreducible’ Freedman-Townsend Vertex

## Abstract

An irreducible cohomological derivation of the Freedman-Townsend vertex in four dimensions is given.

PACS number: 11.10.Ef

The problem of consistent interactions that can be introduced among gauge fields in such a way to preserve the number of gauge symmetries  has been reformulated as a deformation problem of the master equation  in the framework of the antifield BRST formalism . That deformation setting was applied to Chern-Simons models , Yang-Mills theories  and two-form gauge fields . The deformation procedure for two-form gauge fields employs a reducible BRST background.

The purpose of this letter is to reanalyze the problem of constructing consistent interactions among two-form gauge fields (in four dimensions), but following an irreducible BRST line in spite of the reducibility present within the initial model. Our method contains two basic steps. First, starting with abelian two-form gauge fields in first-order version (obtained by means of adding some auxiliary fields), we construct an irreducible BRST symmetry associated with the reducible one and show that we can substitute the reducible symmetry by the irreducible one. Second, we consistently deform the solution to the master equation associated with the irreducible BRST symmetry. In this manner we obtain precisely the well-known Freedman-Townsend vertex , the deformed gauge symmetries and also the deformed solution to the master equation. However, our deformed solution to the master equation differs from that obtained in the literature  by the fact that on the one hand our method introduces some additional fields (necessary at the construction of the irreducible BRST symmetry) which do not contribute to new type of couplings, and, on the other hand, the deformed BRST transformations resulting from our formalism do not involve the antifields due to the absence of terms quadratic in the antifields in the deformed solution to the master equation, so the gauge-fixed BRST symmetry is off-shell nilpotent. To our knowledge, such an irreducible procedure for the Freedman-Townsend model has not previously been published, our method establishing thus a new result.

The starting point is the Lagrangian action for abelian two-form gauge fields in first-order form (also known as the abelian Freedman-Townsend model)

$$S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu }]=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\left(F_{\mu \nu }^aB_a^{\mu \nu }+g_{ab}A_\mu ^aA^{b\mu }\right),$$
(1)
where $`B_a^{\mu \nu }`$ is an antisymmetric tensor field, the field strength of $`A_\mu ^a`$ is defined by $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}^a`$, with $`\left[\mu \nu \right]`$ expressing antisymmetry with the indices between brackets, and $`g_{ab}`$ is an invertible, symmetric and constant matrix. It is simply to see that if we eliminate the auxiliary fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ on their equations of motion, we recover the action of free abelian two-form gauge fields. Action (1) is invariant under the gauge transformations $`\delta _ϵB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda ϵ_{\rho a}`$, $`\delta _ϵA_\mu ^a=0`$, where $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ is the antisymmetric symbol in four dimensions. The above gauge transformations are off-shell first-stage reducible as if we take $`ϵ_{\rho a}=_\rho ϵ_a`$, then $`\delta _ϵB_a^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

The reducible Lagrangian BRST symmetry corresponding to the model described by action (1), $`s_R=\delta _R+\gamma _R`$, contains two main pieces, namely, the Koszul-Tate differential $`\delta _R`$ and a model of longitudinal derivative along the gauge orbits $`\gamma _R`$. In the case of our model, the generators of the Koszul-Tate complex are the fermionic antighost number one antifields $`B_{\mu \nu }^a`$ and $`A_a^\mu `$, the bosonic antighost number two antifields $`\eta ^{a\mu }`$ and the fermionic antighost number three antifields $`C^a`$. The definitions of $`\delta _R`$ read as

$$\delta _RB_a^{\mu \nu }=0,\delta _RA_\mu ^a=0,$$
(2)
$$\delta _RB_{\mu \nu }^a=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^a,\delta _RA_a^\mu =\left(g_{ab}A^{b\mu }+_\nu B_a^{\nu \mu }\right),$$
(3)
$$\delta _R\eta ^{a\mu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\nu B_{\lambda \rho }^a,$$
(4)
$$\delta _RC^a=_\mu \eta ^{a\mu }.$$
(5)
The introduction of the antifields $`C^a`$ is implied by the necessity to ‘kill’ the non trivial antighost number two co-cycles $`\mu ^a=_\mu \eta ^{a\mu }`$ in the homology of $`\delta _R`$. The longitudinal complex contains the pure ghost number one fermionic ghosts $`\eta _{a\mu }`$ and the pure ghost number two bosonic ghosts for ghosts $`C_a`$. The definitions of $`\gamma _R`$ read as

$$\gamma _RA_\mu ^a=0,\gamma _RB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda \eta _{\rho a},\gamma _R\eta _{a\mu }=_\mu C_a,\gamma _RC_a=0.$$
(6)
Extending $`\delta _R`$ on the ghosts through $`\delta _R\eta _{a\mu }=0`$, $`\delta _RC_a=0`$, and $`\gamma _R`$ on the antifields by $`\gamma _RA_a^\mu =0`$, $`\gamma _RB_{\mu \nu }^a=0`$, $`\gamma _R\eta ^{a\mu }=0`$, $`\gamma _RC^a=0`$, we find that $`s_R^2=0`$, $`H^0\left(s_R\right)=\left\{\mathrm{physical}\mathrm{observables}\right\}`$, where $`H^0\left(s_R\right)`$ represents the zeroth order cohomological group of $`s_R`$.

The main idea underlying our construction is to redefine the antifields $`\eta ^{a\mu }`$ in such a way that the new co-cycles of the type $`\mu ^a`$ identically vanish. If this is done, then the antifields $`C^a`$ are useless as there are no longer any non trivial co-cycles at antighost number two. In this way, we infer an irreducible Koszul-Tate complex, which further leads to a longitudinal complex that contains no more the ghosts for ghosts $`C_a`$. Accordingly our idea, we redefine the antifields $`\eta ^{a\mu }`$ like

$$\eta ^{a\mu }\eta ^{a\mu }=M_{b\nu }^{a\mu }\eta ^{b\nu },$$
(7)
where $`M_{b\nu }^{a\mu }`$ are taken to satisfy the conditions

$$_\mu M_{b\nu }^{a\mu }=0,$$
(8)
$$M_{b\nu }^{a\mu }\epsilon ^{\nu \sigma \lambda \rho }_\sigma B_{\lambda \rho }^b=\epsilon ^{\mu \sigma \lambda \rho }_\sigma B_{\lambda \rho }^a.$$
(9)
With the help of (4), (7) and (9) we find that

$$\delta \eta ^{a\mu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \sigma \lambda \rho }_\sigma B_{\lambda \rho }^a.$$
(10)
The last equations do not further imply non trivial co-cycles because the new co-cycles of the type $`\mu ^a`$ identically vanish via (8), hence we passed to an irreducible situation. In (10) we employed the notation $`\delta `$ instead of $`\delta _R`$ in order to emphasize that the Koszul-Tate complex becomes irreducible. The solution to (78) is expressed by

$$M_{b\nu }^{a\mu }=\delta _b^a\left(\delta _\nu ^\mu \frac{^\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{}=_\lambda ^\lambda `$. Substituting (11) in (10), we get

$$\delta \left(\eta ^{a\mu }\frac{^\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}\eta ^{a\nu }\right)=\epsilon ^{\mu \sigma \lambda \rho }_\sigma B_{\lambda \rho }^a.$$
(12)
At this stage we introduce some scalar fields $`\phi _a`$ whose antifields $`\phi ^a`$ are demanded to be the non vanishing solutions to the equations

$$\mathrm{}\phi ^a=\delta \left(_\mu \eta ^{a\mu }\right).$$
(13)
The non vanishing solutions $`\phi ^a`$ enforce the irreducibility as (13) possess non vanishing solutions if and only if $`\delta \left(_\mu \eta ^{a\mu }\right)0`$, therefore if and only if $`\mu ^a`$ are no longer co-cycles. Using (1213) we find that

$$\delta \eta ^{a\mu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \sigma \lambda \rho }_\sigma B_{\lambda \rho }^a^\mu \phi ^a.$$
(14)
In order to preserve the nilpotency of $`\delta `$ we set

$$\delta \phi ^a=0.$$
(15)
If we maintain the actions of $`\delta `$ like in the reducible case

$$\delta B_a^{\mu \nu }=0,\delta A_\mu ^a=0,$$
(16)
$$\delta B_{\mu \nu }^a=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^a,\delta A_a^\mu =\left(g_{ab}A^{b\mu }+_\nu B_a^{\nu \mu }\right),$$
(17)
and define

$$\delta \phi _a=0,$$
(18)
then the formulas (1418) describe an irreducible Koszul-Tate complex. We remark that the irreducibility was gained by introducing the supplementary fields $`\phi _a`$ and their antifields $`\phi ^a`$ in the theory. From (1418) we can derive the Lagrangian action and the gauge transformations of the irreducible theory. If we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{S}_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu },\phi _a]`$ the Lagrangian action of the irreducible model, then by means of the general relations $`\delta \phi ^a=\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_0^L/\delta \phi _a`$ and (15) we obtain that

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu },\phi _a]=S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu }],$$
(19)
such that the dependence on $`\phi _a`$ is trivial. On the other hand, with the help of the original gauge transformations and (14), it results that the gauge transformations of the irreducible system are expressed by

$$\delta _ϵB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda ϵ_{\rho a},\delta _ϵA_\mu ^a=0,\delta _ϵ\phi _a=^\mu ϵ_{a\mu }.$$
(20)
In this manner, we derived an irreducible theory based on action (19) and the irreducible gauge transformations (20) associated with the abelian Freedman-Townsend model. From (19) we notice that the newly added fields $`\phi _a`$ are not involved with the Lagrangian action of the irreducible theory, hence they are purely gauge. As a consequence, the physical observables (gauge invariant functions) of the irreducible model do not depend on the $`\phi _a`$’s and, in addition, are invariant under the gauge transformations $`\delta _ϵB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda ϵ_{\rho a},\delta _ϵA_\mu ^a=0`$, so they coincide with the physical observables of the original redundant theory. The construction of the irreducible longitudinal differential along the gauge orbits, $`\gamma `$ is realized via the definitions

$$\gamma B_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda \eta _{\rho a},\gamma A_a^\mu =0,\gamma \phi _a=^\mu \eta _{a\mu },\gamma \eta _{a\mu }=0,$$
(21)
such that $`\gamma `$ is nilpotent, $`\gamma ^2=0`$, without introducing the ghosts for ghosts. If we extend $`\delta `$ to the ghosts through $`\delta \eta _{a\mu }=0`$ and $`\gamma `$ to the antifields by $`\gamma B_{\mu \nu }^a=0`$, $`\gamma A_a^\mu =0`$, $`\gamma \phi ^a=0`$, $`\gamma \eta ^{a\mu }=0`$, then the homological perturbation theory  guarantees the existence of the irreducible BRST symmetry $`s_I=\delta +\gamma `$ that is nilpotent, $`s_I^2=0`$, and satisfies the property $`H^0\left(s_I\right)=\left\{\mathrm{physical}\mathrm{observables}\right\}`$, where ‘physical observables’ are referring to the irreducible system. As we previously mentioned, the physical observables corresponding to the reducible and irreducible formulations coincide, which leads to $`H^0\left(s_R\right)=H^0\left(s_I\right)`$, and moreover, the two Lagrangian BRST symmetries are nilpotent $`s_R^2=0=s_I^2`$. By virtue of the last two relations we conclude that the two symmetries are equivalent from the BRST point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the basic equations underlying the antifield-BRST formalism. In consequence, we can replace the reducible Lagrangian BRST symmetry with the irreducible one in the case of the model under study.

With the above conclusion at hand, we pass to the deformation procedure of the irreducible version in the context of the antifield formalism . A consistent deformation of the free action $`S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu }]`$ and of its gauge invariances defines a deformation of the corresponding solution to the master equation that preserves both the master equation and the field/antifield spectra. So, if $`S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu }]+gd^4x\alpha _0+O\left(g^2\right)`$ stands for a consistent deformation of the free action, with deformed gauge transformations $`\overline{\delta }_ϵB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\lambda ϵ_{\rho a}+g\beta _a^{\mu \nu }+O\left(g^2\right)`$, $`\overline{\delta }_ϵ\phi _a=^\mu ϵ_{a\mu }+g\beta _a+O\left(g^2\right)`$, then the deformed solution to the master equation

$$\overline{S}=S+gd^4x\alpha +O\left(g^2\right),$$
(22)
satisfies $`(\overline{S},\overline{S})=0`$, where

$$S=S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu }]+d^4x\left(\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }B_{\mu \nu }^a_\lambda \eta _{\rho a}+\phi ^a^\mu \eta _{a\mu }\right),$$
(23)
and $`\alpha =\alpha _0+B_{\mu \nu }^a\overline{\beta }_a^{\mu \nu }+\phi ^a\overline{\beta }_a+\mathrm{`}\mathrm{more}`$’. Here, ‘$`\mathrm{more}`$’ stands for terms ’of antighost number greater than one. The master equation $`(\overline{S},\overline{S})=0`$ holds to order $`g`$ if and only if

$$s_I\alpha =_\mu j^\mu ,$$
(24)
for some local $`j^\mu `$. This means that the non trivial first-order consistent interactions belong to $`H^0\left(s_I|d\right)`$, where $`d`$ is the exterior space-time derivative. In the case where $`\alpha `$ is a coboundary modulo $`d`$ ($`\alpha =s_I\rho +_\mu b^\mu `$), then the deformation is trivial (it can be eliminated by a redefinition of the fields). In order to investigate the solution to (24) we develop $`\alpha `$ accordingly the antighost number

$$\alpha =\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{},antigh\left(\alpha _k\right)=k,$$
(25)
where the last term from the sum can be assumed to be annihilated by $`\gamma `$. Because the free theory is irreducible, we can assume that $`\alpha `$ stops at antighost number one, i.e., $`\alpha =\alpha _0+\alpha _1`$, with $`\alpha _1=\alpha ^{a\mu }\eta _{a\mu }`$, where $`\alpha ^{a\mu }`$ pertains to $`H_1\left(\delta |d\right)`$, hence is a solution of the equation $`\delta \alpha ^{a\mu }+_\rho \lambda ^{a\rho \mu }=0`$. Like in the reducible case , $`H_2\left(\delta |d\right)`$ does not vanish, but the term $`\alpha _2`$ can be shown to vanish. Indeed, on the one hand $`\alpha _2`$ is of the form $`\alpha _2=\alpha ^{ab\mu \nu }\eta _{a\mu }\eta _{b\nu }`$, where $`\alpha ^{ab\mu \nu }`$ belongs to $`H_2\left(\delta |d\right)`$. On the other hand, the most general element in $`H_2\left(\delta |d\right)`$ reads as

$$\alpha ^a=C_{bc}^a\left(\eta ^{b\mu }A_\mu ^c+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }B_{\mu \nu }^bB_{\rho \sigma }^c+g^{cd}\phi ^b_\mu A_d^\mu \right),$$
(26)
with $`g^{cd}`$ the inverse of $`g_{cd}`$, which further gives that $`\alpha ^{ab\mu \nu }=\alpha ^ah^{b\mu \nu }`$, where $`h^{b\mu \nu }`$ are some constants. By Lorentz covariance $`\alpha ^{ab\mu \nu }`$ must vanish, therefore $`\alpha _2`$ also vanishes. Let us investigate now the term $`\alpha _1`$. The general form of an object from $`H_1\left(\delta |d\right)`$ that is annihilated by $`\gamma `$ reads as

$$\alpha ^{a\mu }=C_{bc}^a\left(\phi ^bf^{c\mu }\left(A\right)+\epsilon ^{\rho \nu \lambda \mu }B_{\rho \nu }^bA_\lambda ^c\right),$$
(27)
where $`f^{c\mu }\left(A\right)`$ is a function of $`A_\mu ^a`$ and $`C_{bc}^a`$ are some constants, with $`C_{bc}^a=C_{cb}^a`$. It is simple to see that $`\delta \alpha ^{a\mu }=_\rho \left(\frac{1}{2}C_{bc}^a\epsilon ^{\rho \nu \lambda \mu }A_\nu ^bA_\lambda ^c\right)`$, so $`\alpha ^{a\mu }`$ is in $`H_1\left(\delta |d\right)`$. On the other hand, we obtain

$$\delta \alpha _1+\gamma \left(\frac{1}{2}C_{bc}^aB_a^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c\right)=_\mu \left(\frac{1}{2}C_{bc}^a\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }A_\nu ^bA_\lambda ^c\eta _{a\rho }\right).$$
(28)
If we compare the last equation with (24) at antighost number zero (i.e., with the equation $`\delta \alpha _1+\gamma \alpha _0=_\mu n^\mu `$), it follows that

$$\alpha _0=\frac{1}{2}C_{bc}^aB_a^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c.$$
(29)
Thus, the deformed solution to order $`g`$ reads as

$`\overline{S}=S+g{\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{bc}^aB_a^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c+`$
$`C_{bc}^a(\phi ^bf^{c\mu }\left(A\right)+\epsilon ^{\rho \nu \lambda \mu }B_{\rho \nu }^bA_\lambda ^c)\eta _{a\mu }).`$ (30)
If we compute the antibracket $`(\overline{S},\overline{S})`$ we obtain

$$(\overline{S},\overline{S})=\frac{1}{3}g^2C_{[bc}^eC_{d]e}^a\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }d^4xA_\mu ^bA_\nu ^cA_\lambda ^d\eta _{a\rho }g^2d^4xu,$$
(31)
where $`\left[bcd\right]`$ expresses the antisymmetry with respect to the indices between brackets. If we denote the term in $`g^2`$ from (22) by $`g^2d^4xb`$, then the interaction is consistent to order $`g^2`$ if and only if $`u=s_Ib+_\mu k^\mu `$ . However, from (31) we see that $`u`$ cannot be of that form, and so it must vanish. This means that the constants $`C_{bc}^a`$ must fulfill the Jacobi identity

$$C_{[bc}^eC_{d]e}^a=0,$$
(32)
hence must define the structure constants of a Lie algebra. In this situation (31) vanishes, so $`\overline{S}`$ (which is only of order $`g`$) is a solution of the master equation without adding higher order terms in $`g`$ (the vanishing of $`u`$ implies that all the higher order terms vanish).

The terms from $`\overline{S}`$ that do not involve the antifields, $`S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_a^{\mu \nu }]\frac{1}{2}C_{bc}^agd^4xB_a^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$, give nothing but the well-known action of the non-abelian Freedman-Townsend model, while $`\overline{S}`$ itself represents the corresponding solution to the master equation deriving from our irreducible BRST approach to this model. The terms from (On the ‘Irreducible’ Freedman-Townsend Vertex) that are linear in the antifields show that the deformed gauge transformations read as $`\overline{\delta }_ϵB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\left(D_\lambda \right)_a^bϵ_{\rho b}`$, $`\overline{\delta }_ϵA_\mu ^a=0`$, $`\overline{\delta }_ϵ\phi _a=^\mu ϵ_{a\mu }+gC_{ab}^cf^{b\mu }\left(A\right)ϵ_{c\mu }`$, such that the gauge transformations for $`B_a^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A_\mu ^a`$ take the familiar form in the literature. In the above formulas, the covariant derivative is defined by $`\left(D_\lambda \right)_a^b=\delta _a^b_\lambda +gC_{ac}^bA_\lambda ^c`$. In addition, we have derived a class of gauge transformations for $`\phi _a`$. We remark that the functions $`f^{c\mu }\left(A\right)`$ are still undetermined. They must be in such a way that the deformed gauge transformations are irreducible. A choice that preserves the irreducibility and, in the meantime, makes manifest the nice structure represented by the covariant derivative is $`f^{c\mu }\left(A\right)=A^{c\mu }`$, so $`\overline{\delta }_ϵ\phi _a=\left(D^\mu \right)_a^bϵ_{b\mu }`$. The solution (On the ‘Irreducible’ Freedman-Townsend Vertex) with $`f^{c\mu }\left(A\right)`$ replaced by $`A^{c\mu }`$ differs from that obtained in the literature by many authors  in the reducible framework. The solution (On the ‘Irreducible’ Freedman-Townsend Vertex) does not contain terms that are quadratic in the antifields (like in the reducible situation), so the irreducible BRST transformations $`\overline{s}_IF=(F,\overline{S})`$ do not involve the antifields, such that the gauge-fixed BRST symmetry does not depend on the gauge-fixing fermion, by contrast with the reducible setting. In consequence, our approach leads to a gauge-fixed BRST symmetry that is off-shell nilpotent. Indeed, we have that $`\overline{s}_IB_a^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\left(D_\lambda \right)_a^b\eta _{b\rho }`$, $`\overline{s}_IA_\mu ^a=0`$, $`\overline{s}_I\phi _a=\left(D^\mu \right)_a^b\eta _{b\mu }`$, $`\overline{s}_I\eta _{a\mu }=0`$. In the meantime, the absence of the term quadratic in the antifields will consequently imply the absence of the three-ghost coupling term in the gauge-fixed action, such that the gauge-fixed action in the context of our irreducible approach takes a simpler form. This completes our irreducible procedure for deriving the Freedman-Townsend vertex.

To conclude with, in this letter we have exposed a cohomological approach to the Freedman-Townsend model consisting in two basic steps, namely, the construction of an irreducible BRST symmetry for the abelian version and the subsequent deformation of the irreducible theory. The results arising in our irreducible procedure prove the uniqueness of the Freedman-Townsend vertex in four dimensions (which has also been derived in , but within the reducible background) and also lead to a deformed solution of the master equation that has not previously been derived in the literature. In this light, our irreducible approach represents an efficient alternative to the reducible version exposed in .