text:
# Geometry of Quaternionic Kähler connections with torsion

## 1 Introduction and statement of the results

An almost hyper complex structure on a 4n-dimensional manifold $`M`$ is a triple $`H=(J_\alpha ),\alpha =1,2,3`$, of almost complex structures $`J_\alpha :TMTM`$ satisfying the quaternionic identities $`J_\alpha ^2=id`$ and $`J_1J_2=J_2J_1=J_3`$. When each $`J_\alpha `$ is a complex structure, $`H`$ is said to be a hyper complex structure on $`M`$.

An almost quaternionic structure on $`M`$ is a rank-3 subbundle $`QEnd(TM)`$ which is locally spanned by almost hypercomplex structure $`H=(J_\alpha )`$; such a locally defined triple $`H`$ will be called an admissible basis of $`Q`$. A linear connection $``$ on $`TM`$ is called quaternionic connection if $``$ preserves $`Q`$, i.e. $`_X\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$ for all vector fields $`X`$ and smooth sections $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$. An almost quaternionic structure is said to be a quaternionic if there is a torsion-free quaternionic connection. A $`Q`$-hermitian metric is a Riemannian metric which is Hermitian with respect to each almost complex structure in $`Q`$. An almost quaternionic (resp. quaternionic) manifold with Q-hermitian metric is called an almost quaternionic Hermitian (resp. quaternionic hermitian) manifold

For $`n=1`$ an almost quaternionic structure is the same as an oriented conformal structure and it turns out to be always quaternionic. When $`n2`$, the existence of torsion-free quaternionic connection is a strong condition which is equivalent to the 1-integrability of the associated GL(n,H)SP(1) structure . If the Levi-Civita connection of a quaternionic hermitian manifold $`(M,g,Q)`$ is a quaternionic connection then $`(M,g,Q)`$ is called Quaternionic Kähler (briefly QK). This condition is equivalent to the statement that the holonomy group of $`g`$ is contained in SP(n).SP(1) . If on a QK manifold there exist an admissible basis $`(H)`$ such that each almost complex structure $`(J_\alpha )(H),\alpha =1,2,3`$ is parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection then the manifold is called hyper Kähler (briefly HK). In this case the holonomy group of $`g`$ is contained in SP(n).

The notions of quaternionic manifolds arise in a natural way from the theory of supersymmetric sigma models. The geometry of the target space of two-dimensional sigma models with extended supersymmetry is described by the properties of a metric connection with torsion . The geometry of (4,0) supersymmetric two-dimensional sigma models without Wess-Zumino term (torsion) is a hyper Kähler manifold. In the presence of torsion the geometry of the target space becomes hyper Kähler with torsion (briefly HKT) . This means that the complex structures $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$, are parallel with respect to a metric quaternionic connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion . Local (4,0) supersymmetry requires that the target space of two dimensional sigma models with Wess-Zumino term be either HKT or quaternionic Kähler with torsion (briefly QKT)  which means that the quaternionic subbundle is parallel with respect to a metric linear connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion and the torsion 3-form is of type (1,2)+(2,1) with respect to all almost complex structures in $`Q`$. The target space of two-dimensional (4,0) supersymmetric sigma models with torsion coupled to (4,0) supergravity is a QKT manifold . If the torsion of a QKT manifold is a closed 3-form then it is called strong QKT manifold. The properties of HKT and QKT geometries strongly resemble those of HK and QK ones, respectively. In particular, HKT  and QKT  manifolds admit twistor constructions with twistor spaces which have similar properties to those of HK  and QK .

The main object of interest in this article is the differential geometric properties of QKT manifolds. We find necessary and sufficient conditions to the existence of a QKT connection in terms of the Kähler 2-forms and show that the QKT-connection is unique if dimension is at least 8 (see Theorem 2.2 below). We prove that the QKT manifolds are invariant under conformal transformations of the metric. This allows us to present a lot of (compact) examples of QKT manifolds. In particular, we show that the compact quaternionic Hopf manifolds studied in , which do not admit a QK structure, are QKT manifolds. In the compact case we show the existence of Gauduchon metric i.e. the unique conformally equivalent QKT structure with co-closed torsion 1-form.

It is shown in  that the twistor space of a QKT manifold is always complex manifold provided the dimension is at least 8. It admits complex contact (resp. Kähler) structure if the torsion 4-form is of type (2,2) and some additional nondegeneratity (positivity) conditions are fulfilled . Most of the known examples of QKT manifolds are homogeneous constructed in. However, there are no homogeneous proper QKT manifolds (i.e. QKT which is not QK or HKT) with torsion 4-form of type (2,2) in dimensions greater than four by the result of . We generalise this result showing that there are no proper QKT manifolds with torsion 4-form of type (2,2) provided that the torsion is parallel and dimension is at least 8.

In dimension 4 a lot of examples of QKT manifolds are known . In particular, examples of homogeneous QKT manifolds are constructed in . We notice that there are many (even strong) QKT structures in dimension 4, all depending on an arbitrary 1-form. We give a local description of 4-dimensional QKT manifolds with parallel torsion; namely such a QKT manifold is a Riemannian product of a real line and a 3-dimensional Riemannian manifold. We observe that homogeneous QKT manifolds are precisely naturally reductive homogeneous Riemannian manifolds, the objects which are well known. We present a complete local description (up to an isometry) of 4-dimensional homogeneous QKT which was known in the setting of naturally reductive homogeneous 4-manifold . In the last section we consider 4-dimensional Einstein-like QKT manifold and find a closed relation with Einstein-Weyl geometry in dimension four. In particular, we show that every 4-dimensional HKT manifold is of this type.

Acknowledgements. The research was done during the author’s visit at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste Italy. The author thanks the Abdus Salam ICTP for support and the excellent environment. The author also thanks to G. Papadopoulos for his interest, useful suggestions and remarks. He is grateful to S.Marchiafava for pointing out some incorrect statements and L.Ornea for finding the time to read and comment on a first draft of the manuscript.

## 2 Characterisations of QKT connection

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha )Q,\alpha =1,2,3)`$ be a 4n-dimensional almost quaternionic manifold with $`Q`$-hermitian Riemannian metric $`g`$ and an admissible basis $`(J_\alpha )`$. The Kähler form $`F_\alpha `$ of each $`J_\alpha `$ is defined by $`F_\alpha =g(.,J\alpha .)`$. The corresponding Lee forms are given by $`\theta _\alpha =\delta F_\alpha J_\alpha `$.

For an $`r`$-form $`\psi `$ we denote by $`J_\alpha \psi `$ the $`r`$-form defined by
$`J_\alpha \psi (X_1,\mathrm{},X_r):=(1)^r\psi (J_\alpha X_1,\mathrm{},J_\alpha X_r),\alpha =1,2,3`$. Then $`(d^c\psi )_\alpha =(1)^rJ_\alpha d\psi `$. We shall use the notations $`d_\alpha F_\beta :=(d^cF_\beta )_\alpha `$, i.e. $`d_\alpha F_\beta (X,Y,Z)=dF_\beta (J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y,J_\alpha Z),\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3.`$

We recall the decomposition of a skew-symmetric tensor $`P\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}MTM`$ with respect to a given almost complex structure $`J_\alpha `$. The (1,1), (2,0) and (0,2) part of $`P`$ are defined by $`P^{1,1}(J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y)=P^{1,1}(X,Y),P^{2,0}(J_\alpha X,Y)=J_\alpha P^{2,0}(X,Y),P^{0,2}(J_\alpha X,Y)=J_\alpha P^{0,2}(X,Y)`$, respectively.

For each $`\alpha =1,2,3`$, we denote by $`dF_\alpha ^+`$ (resp. $`dF_\alpha ^{}`$) the $`(1,2)+(2,1)`$-part (resp. $`(3,0)+(0,3)`$-part) of $`dF_\alpha `$ with respect to the almost complex structure $`J_\alpha `$. We consider the following 1-forms

$$\theta _{\alpha ,\beta }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}dF_\alpha ^+(X,e_i,J_\beta e_i),\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3.$$

Here and further $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},4n`$ is an orthonormal basis of the tangential space.

Note that $`\theta _{\alpha ,\alpha }=\theta _\alpha `$.

The Nijenhuis tensor $`N_\alpha `$ of an almost complex structure $`J_\alpha `$ is given by
$`N_\alpha (X,Y)=[J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y][X,Y]J_\alpha [J_\alpha X,Y]J_\alpha [X,J_\alpha Y].`$

The celebrated Newlander-Nirenberg theorem  states that an almost complex structure is a complex structure if and only if its Nijenhuis tensor vanishes.

Let $``$ be a quaternionic connection i.e.

(2.1)
$$J_\alpha =\omega _\beta J_\gamma +\omega _\gamma J_\beta ,$$

where the $`\omega _\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$ are 1-forms.

Here and henceforth $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3)`$.

Let $`T(X,Y)=_XY_YX[X,Y]`$ be the torsion tensor of type (1,2) of $``$. We denote by the same letter the torsion tensor of type (0,3) given by $`T(X,Y,Z)=g(T(X,Y),Z)`$. The Nijenhuis tensor is expressed in terms of $``$ as follows

$`N_\alpha (X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`4T_\alpha ^{0,2}(X,Y)`$
$`+`$ $`(_{J_\alpha X}J_\alpha )(Y)(_{J_\alpha Y}J_\alpha )(X)(_YJ_\alpha )(J_\alpha X)+(_XJ_\alpha )(J_\alpha Y),`$
where the (0,2)-part $`T_\alpha ^{0,2}`$ of the torsion with respect to $`J_\alpha `$ is given by

(2.3)
$$T_\alpha ^{0,2}(X,Y)=\frac{1}{4}\left(T(X,Y)T(J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y)+J_\alpha T(J_\alpha X,Y)+J_\alpha T(X,J_\alpha Y)\right).$$

We recall that if a 3-form $`\psi `$ is of type (1,2)+(2,1) with respect to an almost complex structure $`J`$ then it satisfies the equality

(2.4)
$$\psi (X,Y,Z)=\psi (JX,JY,Z)+\psi (JX,Y,JZ)+\psi (X,JY,JZ).$$

Definition. An almost quaternionic hermitian manifold $`(M,g,(H_\alpha )Q)`$ is QKT manifold if it admits a metric quaternionic connection $``$ with totally skew symmetric torsion which is (1,2)+(2,1)-form with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$. If the torsion 3-form is closed then the manifold is said to be strong QKT manifold.

It follows that the holonomy group of $``$ is a subgroup of SP(n).SP(1).

By means of (2.1), (2) and (2.4), the Nijenhuis tensor $`N_\alpha `$ of $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$, on a QKT manifold is given by

(2.5)
$$N_\alpha (X,Y)=A_\alpha (Y)J_\beta XA_\alpha (X)J_\beta YJ_\alpha A_\alpha (Y)J_\gamma X+J_\alpha A_\alpha (X)J_\gamma Y,$$

where

(2.6)
$$A_\alpha =\omega _\beta +J_\alpha \omega _\gamma .$$

Remark 1. The definition of QKT manifolds given above is equivalent to that given in  because the requirement the torsion to be (1,2)+(2,1)-form with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$, is equivalent, by means of (2.5), to the fourth condition of (4) in . The torsion of $``$ is (1,2)+(2,1)-form with respect to any (local) almost complex structure $`JQ`$ . This follows also from (2.5) and the general formula (6) in  which expresses $`N_J`$ in terms of $`N_{J_1},N_{J_2},N_{J_3}`$. In fact, it is sufficient that the torsion is a (1,2)+(2,1)-form with respect to the only two almost complex structures of $`(H)`$ since the formula (3.4.4) in ) gives the necessary expression of $`N_{J_3}`$ by $`N_{J_1}`$ and $`N_{J_2}`$. Indeed, it is easy to see that the formula (3.4.4) in  holds for the (0,2)-part $`T_\alpha ^{0,2},\alpha =1,2,3`$, of the torsion. Hence, the vanishing of the (0,2)-part of the torsion with respect to any two almost complex structures in $`(H)`$ implies the vanishing of the (0,2)-part of $`T`$ with respect to the third one.

On a QKT manifold there are three naturally associated 1-forms to the torsion defined by

(2.7)
$$t_\alpha (X)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}T(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i),\alpha =1,2,3.$$

We have

###### Proposition 2.1

On a QKT manifold $`J_1t_1=J_2t_2=J_3t_3.`$

Proof. Applying (2.4) with respect to $`J_\beta `$ we obtain

$`t_\alpha (X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}T(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}T(X,J_\beta e_i,J_\gamma e_i)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}T(J_\beta X,e_i,J_\gamma e_i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}T(J_\beta X,J_\beta e_i,J_\alpha e_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}T(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i).`$
The last equality implies $`t_\alpha =J_\beta t_\gamma `$ which proves the assertion. Q.E.D.

The 1-form $`t=J_\alpha t_\alpha `$ is independent of the chosen almost complex structure $`J_\alpha `$ by Proposition 2.1. We shall call it the torsion 1-form of a given QKT manifold.
Remark 2. Every QKT manifold is a quaternionic manifold. This is an immediate consequence of (2.5) and Proposition 2.3 in .

However, the converse to the above property is not always true. In fact, we have

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha Q)`$ be a 4n-dimensional ($`n>1`$) quaternionic manifold with $`Q`$-hermitian metric $`g`$. Then $`M`$ admits a QKT structure if and only if the following conditions hold

(2.8)
$$(d_\alpha F_\alpha )^+(d_\beta F_\beta )^+=\frac{1}{2}\left(K_\alpha F_\beta J_\beta K_\beta F_\alpha (K_\beta J_\alpha K_\alpha )F_\gamma \right),$$

where $`(d_\alpha F_\alpha )^+`$ denotes the (1,2)+(2,1) part of $`(d_\alpha F_\alpha )`$ with respect to the $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$. The 1-forms $`K_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$, are given by

(2.9)
$$K_\alpha =\frac{1}{1n}\left(J_\beta \theta _\alpha +\theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }\right).$$

The metric quaternionic connection $``$ with torsion 3-form of type (1,2)+(2,1) is unique and is determined by

(2.10)
$$=^g+\frac{1}{2}\left((d_\alpha F_\alpha )^+\frac{1}{2}\left(J_\alpha K_\alpha F_\gamma +K_\alpha F_\beta \right)\right),$$

where $`^g`$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$.

Proof. To prove the ’if’ part, let $``$ be a metric quaternionic connection satisfying (2.1) which torsion $`T`$ has the required properties. We follow the scheme in . Since $`T`$ is skew-symmetric we have

(2.11)
$$=^g+\frac{1}{2}T.$$

We obtain using (2.1) and (2.11) that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T(X,J_\alpha Y,Z)+(T(X,Y,J_\alpha Z))`$ $`=`$ $`g((_X^gJ_\alpha )Y,Z)`$
$`+`$ $`\omega _\beta (X)F_\gamma (Y,Z)\omega _\gamma (X)F_\beta (Y,Z).`$
The tensor $`^gJ_\alpha `$ is decomposed by parts according to $`J_\alpha =(J_\alpha )^{2,0}+(J_\alpha )^{0,2}`$, where

(2.13)
$$g((_X^gJ_\alpha )^{2,0}Y,Z)=\frac{1}{2}\left((dF_\alpha )^+(X,J_\alpha Y,J_\alpha Z)(dF_\alpha )^+(X,Y,Z)\right)$$

(2.14)
$$g((_X^gJ_\alpha )^{0,2}Y,Z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(g(N_\alpha (X,Y),J_\alpha Z)g(N_\alpha (X,Z),J_\alpha Y)g(N_\alpha (Y,Z),J_\alpha X)\right)$$

Taking the (2,0) part in (2) we obtain using (2.13) that

$`T(X,J_\alpha Y,Z)+T(X,Y,J_\alpha Y)`$ $`=`$ $`(dF_\alpha ^+(X,J_\alpha Y,J_\alpha Z)(dF_\alpha ^+(X,Y,Z)`$
$`+`$ $`C_\alpha (X)F_\gamma (Y,Z)+C_\alpha (J_\alpha X)F_\beta (Y,Z),`$
where

(2.16)
$$C_\alpha =\omega _\beta J_\alpha \omega _\gamma .$$

The cyclic sum of (2) and the fact that $`T`$ and $`(dF_\alpha )^+`$ are (1,2)+(2,1)-forms with respect to each $`J_\alpha `$, gives

(2.17)
$$T=(d_\alpha F_\alpha )^+\frac{1}{2}\left(J_\alpha C_\alpha F_\gamma +C_\alpha F_\beta \right).$$

Further, we take the contractions in (2.17) to get

$`J_\alpha t_\alpha =\theta _\alpha J_\beta C_\alpha ,`$
(2.18) $`J_\alpha t_\alpha =J_\gamma \theta _{\beta ,\alpha }nJ_\gamma C_\beta ,`$
$`J_\alpha t_\alpha =J_\beta \theta _{\gamma ,\alpha }nJ_\alpha C_\gamma `$
Using Proposition 2.1, (2.6) and (2.16), we obtain consequently from (2) that

(2.19)
$$A_\alpha =J_\alpha C_\beta +J_\gamma C_\gamma =J_\beta \left(\theta _\gamma \theta _\beta \right),$$

(2.20)
$$(n1)J_\beta C_\alpha =\theta _\alpha J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }.$$

Then (2.8) and (2.9) follow from (2.17) and (2.20).

For the converse, we define $``$ by (2.10). To complete the proof we have to show that $``$ is a quaternionic connection. We calculate

$`g((_XJ_\alpha )Y,Z)`$ $`=`$ $`g((_X^gJ_\alpha )Y,Z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(T(X,J_\alpha Y,Z)+T(X,Y,J_\alpha Z)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _\beta (X)F_\gamma (Y,Z)\omega _\gamma (X)F_\beta (Y,Z),`$
where we used (2.13), (2.14), (2.19), (2.9), (2.6), (2.16) and the compatibility condition (2.8) to get the last equality. The uniqueness of $``$ follows from (2.10) as well as from Theorem 10.3 in  which states that any quaternionic connection is entirely determined by its torsion (see also ). Q.E.D.

In the case of HKT manifold, $`K_\alpha =dF_\alpha ^{}=0`$ and Theorem 2.2 is a consequence of the general results in  (see also ) which imply that on a hermitian manifold there exists a unique linear connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion preserving the metric and the complex structure, the Bismut connection. This connection was used by Bismut  to prove a local index theorem for the Dolbeault operator on non-Kähler manifold. The geometry of this connection is referred to KT-geometry by physicists. Obstructions to the existence of (non-trivial) Dolbeault cohomology groups on a compact KT-manifold are presented in .

We note that (2.19) and (2.20) are also valid in the case $`n=1`$.

We get, as a consequence of the proof of Theorem 2.2, the following integrability criterion which is discovered in dimension 4 in .

###### Proposition 2.3

The Nijenhuis tensors of a QKT manifold depend only on the difference between the Lie forms. In particular, the almost complex structures $`J_\alpha `$ on a QKT manifold $`(M,(J_\alpha )Q,g,)`$ are integrable if and only if

$$\theta _\alpha =\theta _\beta =\theta _\gamma $$

Proof. The Nijenhuis tensors are given by (2.5) and (2.19). Q.E.D.

###### Corollary 2.4

On a 4n-dimensional QKT manifold the following formulas hold

$$J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }=J_\gamma \theta _{\alpha ,\beta },$$

(2.21)
$$(n^2+n)\theta _\alpha n\theta _\beta n^2\theta _\gamma +J_\gamma \theta _{\beta ,\alpha }+nJ_\alpha \theta _{\gamma ,\beta }(n+1)J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }=0.$$

If $`n=1`$ then $`\theta _\alpha =J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }=J_\gamma \theta _{\alpha ,\beta }`$.

Proof. The first formula follows directly from the system (2). Solving the system (2) with respect to $`C_\alpha `$ we obtain

(2.22)
$$(n^31)J_\beta C_\alpha =(\theta _\alpha J_\gamma \theta _{\beta ,\alpha })+n(\theta _\beta J_\alpha \theta _{\gamma ,\beta })+n^2(\theta _\gamma J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }).$$

Then (2.21) is a consequence of (2.22) and (2.20). The last assertion follows from (2.20) . Q.E.D.

###### Corollary 2.5

On a 4n-dimensional ($`n>1`$) QKT manifold the $`sp(1)`$-connection 1-forms are given by

(2.23)
$$\omega _\beta =\frac{1}{2}J_\beta \left(\theta _\gamma \theta _\beta +\frac{1}{1n}\theta _\alpha \right)+\frac{1}{2(1n)}\theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }.$$

Proof. The proof follows in a straightforward way from (2.19), (2.20), (2.6) and (2.16). Q.E.D.

Theorem 2.2 and the above formulas lead to the following criterion

###### Proposition 2.6

Let $`(M,g,(H))`$ be a 4n-dimensional ($`n>1`$) QKT manifold. The following conditions are equivalent:

i) $`(M,g,(H))`$ is a HKT manifold;

ii) $`d_\alpha F_\alpha ^+=d_\beta F_\beta ^+=d_\gamma F_\gamma ^+`$;

iii) $`\theta _\alpha =J_\beta \theta _{\gamma ,\alpha }.`$

Proof. If $`(M,g,(H))`$ is a HKT manifold, the connection 1-forms $`\omega _\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$. Then ii) and iii) follow from (2.16), (2.20), (2.9) and (2.8).

If iii) holds, then (2.20) and (2.19) yield $`C_\alpha =A_\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$, since $`n>1`$. Consequently, $`2\omega _\alpha =J_\beta C_\beta J_\beta A_\beta =0`$ by (2.16) and (2.6). Thus the equivalence of i) and iii) is proved.

Let ii) holds. Then we compute that $`\theta _\alpha =J_\gamma \theta _{\beta ,\alpha }`$. Since $`n>1`$, the equality (2.22) leads to $`C_\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$, which forces $`\omega _\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$ as above. This completes the proof. Q.E.D.

The next theorem shows that QKT manifolds are stable under a conformal transformations.

###### Theorem 2.7

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ be a 4n-dimensional QKT manifold. Then every Riemannian metric $`\overline{g}`$ in the conformal class \[g\] admits a QKT connection. If $`\overline{g}=fg`$ for a positive function $`f`$ then the QKT connection $`\overline{}`$ corresponding to $`\overline{g}`$ is given by

$`\overline{g}(\overline{}_XY,Z)=fg(_XY,Z)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(df(X)g(Y,Z)+df(Y)g(X,Z)df(Z)g(X,Y)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(J_\alpha dfF_\alpha +J_\beta dfF_\beta +J_\gamma dfF_\gamma \right)(X,Y,Z).`$
If $`M`$ is compact then there exists a unique (up to homotety) metric $`g_G[g]`$ with co-closed torsion 1-form.

Proof. First we assume $`n>1`$. We shall apply Theorem 2.2 to the quaternionic Hermitian manifold $`(M,\overline{g}=fg,(J_\alpha )Q)`$. We denote the objects corresponding to the metric $`\overline{g}`$ by a line above the symbol e.g. $`\overline{F_\alpha }`$ denotes the Kähler form of $`J_\alpha `$ with respect to $`\overline{g}`$. An easy calculation gives the following sequence of formulas

(2.25)
$$d_\alpha \overline{F}_\alpha ^+=J_\alpha dfF_\alpha +fd_\alpha F_\alpha ^+;\overline{\theta }_\alpha =\theta _\alpha +(2n1)d\mathrm{ln}f;\overline{\theta }_{\alpha ,\gamma }=\theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }J_\beta d\mathrm{ln}f.$$

We substitute (2.25) into (2.9), (2.19) and (2.23) to get

(2.26)
$$\overline{K}_\alpha =K_\alpha 2J_\beta d\mathrm{ln}f,\overline{A}=A,\overline{\omega }_\alpha =\omega _\alpha J_\beta d\mathrm{ln}f.$$

Using (2.25) and (2.26) we verify that the conditions (2.8) with respect to the metric $`\overline{g}`$ are fulfilled. Theorem 2.2 implies that there exists a QKT connection $`\overline{}`$ with respect to $`(\overline{g},Q)`$. Using the well known relation between the Levi-Civita connections of conformally equivalent metrics, (2.25) and (2.26), we obtain (2.7) from (2.10).

If $`n=1`$ we define the new QKT connection with respect to $`(\overline{g},Q)`$ by (2.7).

Using (2.7), we find that the torsion tensors $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$ of $``$ and $`\overline{}`$ are related by

(2.27)
$$\overline{T}=fT+J_\alpha dfF_\alpha +J_\beta dfF_\beta +J_\gamma dfF_\gamma .$$

Consequently, we obtain from (2.27) for the torsion 1-forms $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ that

(2.28)
$$\overline{t}=t(2n+1)d\mathrm{ln}f.$$

If $`M`$ is compact, we may apply to (2.28) the theorem of Gauduchon for the existence of a Gauduchon metric on a compact Weyl manifold  to obtain the desired metric $`g_G`$. Q.E.D.

We shall call the unique metric with co-closed torsion 1-form on a compact QKT manifold the Gauduchon metric.

###### Corollary 2.8

On a compact QKT manifold with closed (non exact) torsion 1-form the Gauduchon metric $`g_G`$ cannot have positive definite Riemannian Ricci tensor. In particular, if it is an Einstein manifold then it is of non-positive scalar curvature.

Further, if the Gauduchon metric is Ricci flat then the corresponding torsion 1-form $`t_G`$ is parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of $`g_G`$.

Proof. The two form $`dt`$ is invariant under conformal transformations by (2.28). Then the Gauduchon metric has harmonic torsion 1-form i.e $`dt=\delta t=0`$. The claim follows from the Weitzenböeck formula (see e.g. ) $`_M\{|dt|^2+|\delta t|^2\}𝑑V=_M\{|^gt|^2+Ric^g(t^\mathrm{\#},t^\mathrm{\#})\}𝑑V=0,`$ where $`t^\mathrm{\#}`$ is the dual vector field of $`t`$, $`|.|`$ is the usual tensor norm and $`dV`$ is the volume form. Q.E.D.

Theorem 2.7 allows us to supply a large class of (compact) QKT manifold. Namely, any conformal metric of a QK, HK or HKT manifold will give a QKT manifold. This leads to the notion of locally conformally QK (resp. locally conformally HK, resp. locally conformally HKT) manifolds (briefly l.c.QK (resp. l.c.HK, resp. l.c.HKT) manifolds) in the context of QKT geometry.

The l.c.QK and l.c.HK manifolds have already appeared in the context of Hermitian-Einstein-Weyl structures  and of 3-Sasakian structures . These two classes of quaternionic manifolds are studied in detail (mostly in the compact case) in .

We recall that a quaternionic Hermitian manifold $`(M,g,Q)`$ is said to be l.c.QK (resp. l.c.HK, resp. l.c.HKT) manifold if each point $`pM`$ has a neighbourhood $`U_p`$ such that $`g|_{U_p}`$ is conformally equivalent to a QK (resp.HK, resp.HKT) metric. There are compact l.c.QK manifold which do not admit any QK structure . Typical examples of compact l.c. QK manifolds without any QK structure are the quaternionic Hopf spaces $`H=(^n\{0\})/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an appropriate discrete group acting diagonally on the quaternionic coordinates in $`^n`$ (see ).

We recall that on a l.c.QK manifold the 4-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\alpha =1}^3F_\alpha F_\alpha `$ satisfies $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \mathrm{\Omega },d\omega =0`$, where $`\omega `$ is locally defined by $`\omega =2d\mathrm{ln}f`$. On a l.c.QK manifold viewed as a QKT manifold by Theorem 2.7 the torsion 1-form is equal to $`t=(2n+1)\omega `$ by (2.28). The QK manifolds are Einstein provided the dimension is at least 8 . Then, the Gauduchon Theorem  applied to l.c.QK manifold in  can be stated in our context as follows

###### Corollary 2.9

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a compact 4n-dimensional ($`n>1`$) QKT manifold which is l.c.QK and assume that no metric in the conformal class \[g\] of g is QK. Then the torsion 1-form of the Gauduchon metric $`g_G`$ is parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of $`g_G`$.

Theorem 2.7, Theorem 2.2 together with Proposition 2.3 and Proposition 2.6 imply the following

###### Corollary 2.10

Every l.c.QK manifold admits a QKT structure.

Further, if $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is a 4n-dimensional $`n>1`$ QKT manifold then:

i) $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is a l.c.QK manifold if and only if

(2.29)
$$T=\frac{1}{2n+1}\left(t_\alpha F_\alpha +t_\beta F_\beta +t_\gamma F_\gamma \right),dt=0;$$

ii) $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is a l.c.HKT manifold if and only if the 1-form $`\theta _\alpha J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }`$ is closed i.e.

$$d(\theta _\alpha J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma })=0;$$

iii) $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is a l.c.HK manifold if an only if (2.29) holds and

$$\theta _\alpha J_\beta \theta _{\alpha ,\gamma }=\frac{2(1n)}{2n+1}t.$$

## 3 Curvature of a QKT space

Let $`R=[,]_[,]`$ be the curvature tensor of type (1,3) of $``$. We denote the curvature tensor of type (0,4) $`R(X,Y,Z,V)=g(R(X,Y)Z,V)`$ by the same letter. There are three Ricci forms given by

$$\rho _\alpha (X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}R(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i),\alpha =1,2,3.$$

###### Proposition 3.1

The curvature of a QKT manifold $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ satisfies the following relations

(3.30)
$$R(X,Y)J_\alpha =\frac{1}{n}\left(\rho _\gamma (X,Y)J_\beta \rho _\beta (X,Y)J_\gamma \right),$$

(3.31)
$$\rho _\alpha =d\omega _\alpha +\omega _\beta \omega _\gamma .$$

Proof. We follow the classical scheme (see e.g. ). Using (2.1) we obtain

$$R(X,Y)J_\alpha =(d\omega _\beta +\omega _\gamma \omega _\alpha )(X,Y)J_\gamma +(d\omega _\gamma +\omega _\alpha \omega _\beta )(X,Y)J_\beta .$$

Taking the trace in the last equality, we get

$`\rho _\alpha (X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}R(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}R(X,Y,J_\beta e_i,J_\gamma e_i)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}R(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)+2n(d\omega _\alpha +\omega _\beta \omega _\gamma )(X,Y)J_\beta .`$
Q.E.D.

Using Proposition 3.1 we find a simple necessary and sufficient condition a QKT manifold to be a HKT one, i.e. the holonomy group of $``$ to be a subgroup of Sp(n).

###### Proposition 3.2

A 4n-dimensional $`(n>1)`$ QKT manifold is a HKT manifold if and only if all the three Ricci forms vanish, i.e $`\rho _1=\rho _2=\rho _3=0`$.

Proof. If a QKT manifold is a HKT manifold then the holonomy group of $``$ is contained in Sp(n). This implies $`\rho _\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$.

For the converse, let the three Ricci forms vanish. The equations (3.31) mean that the curvature of the Sp(1) connection on $`Q`$ vanish. Then there exists a basis $`(I_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3)`$ of almost complex structures on $`Q`$ and each $`I_\alpha `$ is $``$-parallel i.e. the corresponding connection 1-forms $`\omega _{I_\alpha }=0,\alpha =1,2,3`$. Then each $`I_\alpha `$ is a complex structure, by (2.5) and (2.6). This implies that the QKT manifold is a HKT manifold. Q.E.D.

We denote by $`Ric,Ric^g`$ the Ricci tensors of the QKT connection and of the Levi-Civita connection, respectively. In fact $`Ric(X,Y)=_{i=1}^{4n}R(e_i,X,Y,e_i)`$.

Our main technical result is the following

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ be a 4n-dimensional QKT manifold. The following formulas hold

(3.32) $`n\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)+\rho _\beta (X,J_\beta Y)+\rho _\gamma (X,J_\gamma Y)=`$
$`nRic(XY)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}(dT)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(T)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y);`$
(3.33) $`(n1)\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)={\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{n+2}}Ric(X,Y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4(n+2)}}\left\{(n+1)(dT)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)(dT)_\beta (X,J_\beta Y)(dT)_\gamma (X,J_\gamma Y)\right\}`$
(3.34) $`+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2(n+2)}}\left\{(n+1)(T)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)(T)_\beta (X,J_\beta Y)(T)_\gamma (X,J_\gamma Y)\right\},`$
where

$`(dT)_\alpha (X,Y)=_{i=1}^{4n}dT(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i),(T)_\alpha (X,Y)=_{i=1}^{4n}(_XT)(Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)`$.

Proof. Since the torsion is a 3-form, we have

(3.35)
$$(_X^gT)(Y,Z,U)=(_XT)(Y,Z,U)+\frac{1}{2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}\{g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U)\},$$

where $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}`$ denote the cyclic sum of $`X,Y,Z`$.

The exterior derivative $`dT`$ is given by

$`dT(X,Y,Z,U)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}}\{(_XT)(Y,Z,U)+g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U)\}`$
$``$ $`(_UT)(X,Y,Z)+{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}}\{g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U)\}.`$
The first Bianchi identity for $``$ states

(3.37)
$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}R(X,Y,Z,U)=\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}\{(_XT)(Y,Z,U)+g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U)\}.$$

We denote by $`B`$ the Bianchi projector i.e. $`B(X,Y,Z,U)=\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}R(X,Y,Z,U)`$.

The curvature $`R^g`$ of the Levi-Civita connection is connected by $`R`$ in the following way

(3.38) $`R^g(X,Y,Z,U)`$ $`=`$ $`R(X,Y,Z,U){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_XT)Y,Z,U)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_YT)X,Z,U)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g(T(Y,Z),T(X,U)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g(T(Z,X),T(Y,U)).`$
Define $`D`$ by $`D(X,Y,Z,U)=R(X,Y,Z,U)R(Z,U,X,Y)`$, we obtain from (3.38)

(3.39) $`D(X,Y,Z,U)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_XT)(Y,Z,U){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_YT)(X,Z,U){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_ZT)(U,X,Y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_UT)(Z,X,Y),`$
since $`D^g`$ of $`R^g`$ is zero.

Using (3.30) and (3.37) we find the following relation between the Ricci tensor and the Ricci forms

$`\rho _\alpha (X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}\left(R(Y,e_i,X,J_\alpha e_i)+R(e_i,X,Y,J_\alpha e_i)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}B(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Ric(Y,J_\alpha X)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Ric(X,J_\alpha Y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}B(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}\left\{\rho _\beta (J_\gamma Y,X)\rho _\beta (J_\gamma X,Y)+\rho _\gamma (J_\beta X,Y)\rho _\gamma (J_\beta Y,X)\right\}.`$
On the other hand, using (3.30), we calculate

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}D(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}\{R(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i,Y)+R(Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_iX)\}`$
$`=`$ $`Ric(Y,J_\alpha X)Ric(X,J_\alpha Y)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left\{\rho _\beta (X,J_\gamma Y)+\rho _\beta (Y,J_\gamma X)\rho _\gamma (Y,J_\beta X)\rho _\gamma (X,J_\beta Y)\right\}.`$
Combining (3) and (3), we derive

(3.42)
$$n\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)+\rho _\beta (X,J_\beta Y)+\rho _\gamma (X,J_\gamma Y)=$$

$$nRic(XY)+\frac{n}{2}B_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)+\frac{n}{2}D_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y),$$

where the tensors $`B_\alpha `$ and $`D_\alpha `$ are defined by $`B_\alpha (X,Y)=_{i=1}^{4n}B(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)`$ and
$`D_\alpha (X,Y)=_{i=1}^{4n}D(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i,Y)`$. Taking into account (3.39), we get the expression

(3.43)
$$D_\alpha (X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}(_XT)(Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}(_YT)(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)\alpha =1,2,3.$$

To calculate $`B_\alpha +D_\alpha `$ we use (3) twice and (3.43). After some calculations, we derive

(3.44)
$$B_\alpha (X,Y)+D_\alpha (X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}dT(X,Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4n}{}}(_XT)(Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i),\alpha =1,2,3.$$

We substitute (3.44) into (3.42). Solving the obtained system, we obtain

(3.45) $`(n1)\left\{\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)\rho _\beta (X,J_\beta Y)\right\}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left\{(dT)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)(dT)_\beta (X,J_\beta Y)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left\{(T)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)(T)_\beta (X,J_\beta Y)\right\}.`$
Finally, (3.42) and (3.45) imply (3.33). Q.E.D.
Remark 3. The Ricci tensor of a QKT connection is not symmetric in general. From (3.37), (3.35) and the fact that $`T`$ is a 3-form we get the formula $`Ric(X,Y)Ric(Y,X)=_{i=1}^{4n}(_{e_i}^gT)(e_i,X,Y)=\delta T(X,Y).`$ Hence, the Ricci tensor of a linear connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion is symmetric if and only if the torsion 3-form is co-closed.

## 4 QKT manifolds with parallel torsion and homogeneous QKT structures

Let $`(G/K,g)`$ be a reductive (locally) homogeneous Riemannian manifold. The canonical connection $``$ is characterised by the properties $`g=T=R=0`$ ,p.193. A homogeneous quaternionic Hermitian manifold (resp. homogeneous hyper Hermitian) manifold $`(G/K,g,Q)`$ is a homogeneous Riemannian manifold with an invariant quaternionic Hermitian subbundle $`Q`$ (resp. three invariant anti commuting complex structures ). This means that the bundle $`Q`$ (resp. each of the three complex structures) is parallel with respect to the canonical connection $``$. The torsion of $``$ is totally skew-symmetric if and only if the homogeneous Riemannian manifold is naturally reductive  (see also . Homogeneous QKT (resp. HKT) manifolds are homogeneous quaternionic Hermitian (resp. homogeneous hyper Hermitian) manifold which are naturally reductive. Examples of homogeneous HKT and QKT manifolds are presented in . The homogeneous QKT manifolds in  are constructed from homogeneous HKT manifolds.

In this section we generalise the result of  which states that there are no homogeneous QKT manifold with torsion 4-form $`dT`$ of type (2,2) in dimensions greater than four. First, we prove the following technical result

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ be a 4n-dimensional $`(n>1)`$ QKT manifold with 4-form $`dT`$ of type (2,2) with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$. Suppose that the torsion is parallel with respect to the QKT-connection. Then the Ricci forms $`\rho _\alpha `$ are given by

(4.46)
$$\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Z)=\lambda g(X,Y),\alpha =1,2,3,$$

where $`\lambda `$ is a smooth function on $`M`$.

Proof. Let the torsion be parallel i.e. $`T=0`$. Remark 3 shows that the Ricci tensor is symmetric. The equalities (3) and (3.37) imply

(4.47)
$$B(X,Y,Z,U)=\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}\{g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U)\}=\frac{1}{2}dT(X,Y,Z,U).$$

We get $`D=0`$ from (3.39).

Suppose now that the 4-form $`dT`$ is of type (2,2) with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3.`$. Then it satisfies the equalities

(4.48)
$$dT(X,Y,Z,U)=dT(J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y,Z,U)+dT(J_\alpha X,Y,J_\alpha Z,U)+dT(X,J_\alpha Y,J_\alpha Z,U).$$

The similar arguments as we used in the proof of Proposition 2.1 but applying (4.48) instead of (2.4), yield

###### Lemma 4.2

On a QKT manifold with 4-form $`dT`$ of type (2,2) with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$, the following equalities hold:

(4.49)
$$(dT)_1(X,J_1Y)=(dT)_2(X,J_2Y)=(dT)_3(X,J_3Y),$$

(4.50)
$$(dT)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)=(dT)_\alpha (J_\alpha X,Y),\alpha =1,2,3.$$

We substitute (4.49), (4.47) and $`D=0`$ into (3.45) and (3.33) to get

(4.51)
$$\rho _1(X,J_1Y)=\rho _2(X,J_2Y)=\rho _3(X,J_3Y),$$

(4.52)
$$\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)=\frac{n}{n+2}Ric(X,Y)+\frac{n}{4(n+2)}(dT)_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y),\alpha =1,2,3.$$

The equality (4.50) shows that the 2-form $`dT_\alpha `$ is a (1,1)-form with respect to $`J_\alpha `$. Hence, the $`dT_\alpha `$ is (1,1)-form with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$, because of (4.49). Since the Ricci tensor $`Ric`$ is symmetric, (4.52) shows that the Ricci tensor $`Ric`$ is of hybrid type with respect to each $`J_\alpha `$ i.e. $`Ric(J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y)=Ric(X,Y),\alpha =1,2,3`$ and the Ricci forms $`\rho _\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$ are (1,1)-forms with respect to all $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$. Taking into account (3.30), we obtain

$`R(X,J_\alpha X,Z,J_\alpha Z)+R(X,J_\alpha X,J_\beta Z,J_\gamma Z)`$
$`+`$ $`R(J_\beta X,J_\gamma X,Z,J_\alpha Z)+R(J_\beta X,J_\gamma X,J_\beta Z,J_\gamma Z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha X)+\rho _\alpha (J_\beta X,J_\gamma X)\right)g(Z,Z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha X)g(Z,Z),`$
where the last equality of (4) is a consequence of the following identity

$$\rho _\alpha (J_\beta X,J_\gamma X)=\rho _\beta (J_\beta X,X)=\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha X).$$

The left side of (4) is symmetric with respect to the vectors $`X,Z`$ because $`D=0`$. Hence, $`\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha X)g(Z,Z)=\rho _\alpha (Z,J_\alpha Z)g(X,X),\alpha =1,2,3`$. The last equality together with (4.51) implies (4.46). Q.E.D.

###### Theorem 4.3

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ))`$ be a 4n-dimensional ($`n>1`$) QKT manifold with 4-form $`dT`$ of type (2,2) with respect to each $`J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$. Suppose that the torsion is parallel with respect to the QKT-connection. Then $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ))`$ is either a HKT manifold with parallel torsion or a QK manifold.

Proof. We apply Proposition 4.1. If the function $`\lambda =0`$ then $`\rho _\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$, by (4.46) and Proposition 3.2 implies that the QKT manifold is actually a HKT manifold.

Let $`\lambda 0`$. The condition (4.46) determines the torsion completely. We proceed involving (3.31) into the computations as in . We calculate using (2.1) and (4.46) that

(4.54)
$$(_Z\rho _\alpha )(X,Y)=\lambda \left\{\omega _\beta (Z)F_\gamma (X,Y)\omega _\gamma (Z)F_\beta (X,Y)\right\}d\lambda (Z)F_\alpha (X,Y).$$

Applying the operator $`d`$ to (3.30), we get taking into account (4.46) that

(4.55)
$$d\rho _\alpha =\lambda (F_\beta \omega _\gamma \omega _\beta F_\gamma )$$

On the other hand, we have

(4.56)
$$d\rho _\alpha =\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}\{(_Z\rho _\alpha )(X,Y)+\lambda (T(X,Y,J_\alpha Z)\},\alpha =1,2,3.$$

Comparing the left-hand sides of (4.55) and (4.56) and using (4.54), we derive

$$\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}\left\{(T(X,Y),J_\alpha Z)\right\}=d\lambda F_\alpha (X,Y,Z),\alpha =1,2,3.$$

The last equality implies $`\lambda T=J_\alpha d\lambda F_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3.`$ If $`\lambda `$ is a non zero constant then $`T=0`$ and we recover the result of . If $`\lambda `$ is not a constant then there exists a point $`pM`$ and a neighbourhood $`V_p`$ of $`p`$ such that $`\lambda |_{V_p}0`$. Then

(4.57)
$$T=J_\alpha d\mathrm{ln}\lambda F_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3.$$

We take the trace in (4.57) to obtain

(4.58)
$$4(n1)J_\alpha d\mathrm{ln}\lambda =0,\alpha =1,2,3.$$

The equation (4.58) forces $`d\lambda =0`$ since $`n>1`$ and consequently $`T=0`$ by (4.57). Hence, the QKT space is a QK manifold which completes the proof. Q.E.D.

On a locally homogeneous QKT manifold the torsion and curvature are parallel and Theorem 4.3 leads to the following

###### Theorem 4.4

A (locally) homogeneous 4n-dimensional $`(n>1)`$ QKT manifold with torsion 4-form $`dT`$ of type (2,2) is either (locally) homogeneous HKT space or a (locally) symmetric QK space.

Theorem 4.4 shows that there are no homogeneous (proper) QKT manifolds with torsion 4-form of type (2,2) in dimensions greater than four which is proved in  by different methods using the Lie algebra arguments.

## 5 Four dimensional QKT manifolds

In dimension 4 the situation is completely different from that described in Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 4.3 in higher dimensions. For a given quaternionic structure on a 4-dimensional manifold $`(M,g(H))`$ (or equivalently, given an orientation and a conformal class of Riemannian metrics ) there are many QKT structures . More precisely, all QKT structures associated with $`(g,(H))`$ depend on a 1-form $`\psi `$ due to the general identity

(5.59)
$$\psi =J\psi F,$$

where $``$ is the Hodge $``$-operator, $`J`$ is an $`g`$-orthogonal almost complex structure with Kähler form $`F`$ (see ). Indeed, for any given 1-form $`\psi `$ we may define a QKT-connection $``$ as follows: $`=^g+\frac{1}{2}\psi `$. Conversely, any 3-form $`T`$ can be represented by $`T=(T)`$ and the connection given above is a quaternionic connection with torsion $`T=\psi `$. Hence, a QKT structure on a 4-dimensional oriented manifold is a pair $`(g,t)`$ of a Riemannian metric $`g`$ and an 1-form $`t`$. The choice of $`g`$ generates three almost complex structures $`(J_\alpha ),\alpha =1,2,3`$, satisfying the quaternionic identities . The torsion 3-form T is given by

(5.60)
$$T=t=t_\alpha F_\alpha =t_\beta F_\beta =t_\gamma F_\gamma .$$

As consequence of (5.59), we obtain $`dT=dt=\delta t`$. The last identity means that the torsion 3-form $`T`$ is closed if and only if the 1-form $`t`$ is co-closed. Thus, in dimension 4 there are many strong QKT structures.

In higher dimensions the conformal change of the metric induces a unique QKT structure by Theorem 2.7. We may define a QKT connection corresponding to a conformally equivalent metric $`\overline{g}=fg`$ in dimension 4 by (2.7) and call this conformal QKT transformation. In the compact case, taking the Gauduchon metric of Theorem 2.7, we obtain

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`(M,g,(H),)`$ be a compact 4-dimensional QKT manifold. In the conformal class \[g\] there exists a unique (up to homotety) strong QKT structure conformally equivalent to the given one.

Further, we consider QKT structures with parallel torsion. We have

###### Theorem 5.2

A 4-dimensional QKT manifold $`M`$ with parallel torsion 3-form is a strong QKT manifold, the torsion 1-form is parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection and $`M`$ is locally isometric to the product $`N^3\times `$, where $`N^3`$ is a three dimensional Riemannian manifold admitting a Riemannian connection $``$ with totally skew-symmetric torsion, parallel with respect to $``$.

Proof. The proof is based on the following

###### Lemma 5.3

A 4-dimensional QKT manifold has parallel torsion 3-form if and only if it has parallel torsion 1-form with respect to the Levi-Civita connection.

Proof of Lemma 5.3. We calculate using (5.60) and (2.1) that

$`(_ZT)(X,Y,U)`$ $`=`$ $`t_\alpha (U)\left(\omega _\beta (Z)F_\gamma (Y,X)\omega _\gamma (Z)F_\beta (Y,X)\right)`$
$``$ $`t_\alpha (X)\left(\omega _\beta (Z)F_\gamma (Y,U)\omega _\gamma (Z)F_\beta (Y,U)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`t_\alpha (Y)\left(\omega _\beta (Z)F_\gamma (X,U)\omega _\gamma (Z)F_\beta (X,U)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`F_\alpha (Y,U)(_Zt_\alpha )X+F_\alpha (X,Y)(_Zt_\alpha )UF_\alpha (X,U)(_Zt_\alpha )Y.`$
Taking the trace in (5), we obtain

(5.62)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(_ZT)(X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)=2(_Zt_\alpha )X2\left(\omega _\beta (Z)t_\gamma (X)\omega _\gamma (Z)t_\beta (X)\right).$$

Using (2.1), we get

(5.63)
$$(_Zt_\alpha )X=(_Zt)J_\alpha X\left(\omega _\beta (Z)t_\gamma (X)\omega _\gamma (Z)t_\beta (X)\right).$$

The equation (5.63) and (5.62) yield

(5.64)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(_ZT)(J_\alpha X,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)=2(_Zt)X,\alpha =1,2,3.$$

Then $`t=0`$ since the torsion is parallel. But $`^gt=t`$ by (2.11) and (5.60). Hence, $`^gt=0`$.

For the converse, we insert (5.63) into (5) to get

(5.65)
$$(_ZT)(X,Y,U)=F_\alpha (Y,U)(_Zt)J_\alpha X+F_\alpha (X,Y)(_Zt)J_\alpha U+F_\alpha (U,X)(_Zt)J_\alpha Y,$$

since the dimension is equal to four. If $`^gt=0`$ then $`t=0`$ and (5.65) leads to $`T=0`$ which proves the lemma. Q.E.D.

Lemma 5.3 shows that $`(M,g)`$ is locally isometric to the Riemannian product $`\times N^3`$ of a real line and a 3-dimensional manifold $`N^3`$ (see e.g. ). Using (5.60) we see that $`T(t^\mathrm{\#},X^{},Y^{})=0`$ for every vector fields $`X^{},Y^{}`$ orthonormal to the vector field $`t^\mathrm{\#}`$ dual to the torsion 1-form $`t`$. Hence, the torsion $`T`$ and therefore the connection $``$ descend to $`N^3`$.

In particular, $`\delta t=0`$ and therefore the QKT structure is strong. Q.E.D.

As a consequence of Theorem 5.2, we recover the following two results proved in  in the setting of naturally reductive homogeneous 4-manifolds

###### Theorem 5.4

A (locally) homogeneous 4-dimensional QKT manifold is locally isometric to the Riemannian product $`\times N^3`$ of a real line and a naturally reductive homogeneous 3-manifold $`N^3`$.

###### Theorem 5.5

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a 4-dimensional compact homogeneous QKT manifold. Then the universal covering space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of $`M`$ is isometric to the Riemannian product $`\times N^3`$ of a real line and the three dimensional space $`N^3`$ is one of the following

i) $`R^3,S^3,^3`$;

ii) isometric to one of the following Lie groups with a suitable left invariant metric:

1. $`SU(2)`$;

2. $`\stackrel{~}{SL(2,)}`$, the universal covering of $`SL(2,)`$;

3. the Heisenberg group.

Theorem 5.5 is based on the classification of 3-dimensional simply connected naturally reductive homogeneous spaces given in .

### 5.1 Einstein-like QKT 4-manifolds

It is well known  that a 4n-dimensional ($`n>1)`$ QK manifold is Einstein and the Ricci forms satisfy $`\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)=\rho _\beta (X,J_\beta Y)=\rho _\gamma (X,J_\gamma Y)=\lambda g(X,Y)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a constant. However, the assumptions that these properties hold on a QKT manifold ($`n>1)`$ force the torsion to be zero  and the QKT manifold is a QK manifold. Actually, we have already generalised this result proving that if $`\lambda `$ is not a constant the torsion has to be zero (see the proof of Theorem 4.3).

If the dimension is equal to 4 the situation is different. In this section we show that there exists a 4-dimensional (proper) QKT manifold satisfying similar curvature properties as those mentioned above.

We denote by $`K`$ the following (0,2) tensor

$`K(X,Y):=\rho _\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)+\rho _\beta (X,J_\beta Y)+\rho _\gamma (X,J_\gamma Y)`$.

The tensor $`K`$ is independent of the chosen local almost complex structures $`(J_\alpha )`$ because of the following

###### Proposition 5.6

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ be a 4-dimensional QKT manifold. Then:

(5.66)
$$K=Ric+^gt\frac{\delta t}{2}g;$$

(5.67)
$$Skew(Ric)=\frac{1}{4}<dt,F_\alpha >F_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}(d^ct)_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3;$$

(5.68)
$$Ric^g=Sym(Ric)+\frac{1}{2}(|t|^2gtt),$$

where $`<,>`$ is the scalar product of tensors induced by $`g`$, $`Skew`$ (resp. $`Sym`$) denotes the skew-symmetric (resp. symmetric) part of a tensor.

In particular, the Ricci tensor is symmetric if and only if the torsion 1-form is closed.

Proof. We use (3.42). From (5.64) and (3.43), we obtain

(5.69)
$$D_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)=(_Xt)Y(_{J_\alpha Y}t)J_\alpha X,\alpha =1,2,3.$$

To compute $`B_\alpha `$ we need the following general identity

###### Lemma 5.7

On a 4-dimensional QKT manifold we have $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U))=0.`$

Proof of Lemma 5.7. Since $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XYZ}g(T(X,Y),T(Z,U))`$ is a 4-form it is sufficient to check the equality for a basis of type $`\{X,J_\alpha X,J_\beta X,J_\gamma X\}`$. The last claim is obvious because of (5.60).

For each $`\alpha \{1,2,3\}`$, Lemma 5.7, (5.65) and (5.64) yield

(5.70)
$$B_\alpha (X,J_\alpha Y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma }{XJ_\alpha Ye_i}(_XT)(J_\alpha Y,e_i,J_\alpha e_i)=(_Xt)Y+(_{J_\alpha Y}t)J_\alpha X\delta tg(X,Y).$$

Substituting (5.69), (5.70) into (3.42) and putting $`n=1`$, we derive (5.66) since $`^gt=t`$. Taking the trace in (5.65), we get $`_{i=1}^4(_{e_i}T)(e_i,X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^4dt(e_i,J_\alpha e_i)F_\alpha (X,Y)+dt(J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y),\alpha =1,2,3.`$ Then (5.67) follows from the last equality and Remark 3. The equation (5.68) is a direct consequence of (3.38) and (5.60). Q.E.D.

A $`4n`$-dimensional QKT manifold $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is said to be a Einstein QKT manifold if the symmetric part $`Sym(Ric)`$ of the Ricci tensor of $``$ is a scalar multiple of the metric $`g`$ i.e. $`Sym(Ric)=\frac{Scal}{4n}g,`$ where $`Scal=tr_gRic`$ is the scalar curvature of $``$.

We note that the scalar curvature $`Scal`$ of an Einstein QKT manifold may not be a constant.

We shall say that a 4-dimensional QKT manifold is sp(1)-Einstein if the symmetric part $`Sym(K)`$ of the tensor $`K`$ is a scalar multiple of the metric $`g`$ since the tensor $`K`$ is determined by the sp(1)-part of the curvature. On a sp(1)-Einstein QKT manifold $`Sym(K)=\frac{Scal^K}{4}g,`$ where $`Scal^K=tr_gK`$.

For a given QKT manifold with torsion 1-form $`t`$ we consider the corresponding Weyl structure $`^W`$, i.e. the unique torsion-free linear connection determined by the condition

(5.71)
$$^Wg=tg.$$

Conversely, in dimension 4, to a given Weyl structure $`^Wg=\psi g`$ we associate the QKT connection with torsion $`T=(\psi )`$. Note that a given Weyl structure on a conformal manifold (M,\[g\]) does not depend on the particularly chosen metric $`g[g]`$ but depends on the conformal class \[g\]. A Weyl structure is said to be Einstein-Weyl if the symmetric part $`Sym(Ric^W)`$ of its Ricci tensor is a scalar multiple of the metric $`g`$. Weyl structures and especially Einstein-Weyl structures have been much studied. For a nice overview of Einstein-Weyl geometry see . The next theorem shows the link between Einstein-Weyl geometry and sp(1)-Einstein QKT manifolds in dimension 4.

###### Theorem 5.8

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ be a 4-dimensional QKT manifold with torsion 1-form $`t`$. The following conditions are equivalent:

i) $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is a sp(1)-Einstein QKT manifold.

ii) The corresponding Weyl structure is an Einstein-Weyl structure.

Proof. The Weyl connection $`^W`$ determined by (5.71) is given explicitly by

$$_X^WY=_X^gY+\frac{1}{2}t(X)Y+\frac{1}{2}t(Y)X\frac{1}{2}g(X,Y)t^\mathrm{\#}.$$

The symmetric part of its Ricci tensor is equal to

(5.72)
$$Sym(Ric^W)=Ric^gSym(^gt)\frac{1}{2}(|t|^2gtt)+\frac{\delta t}{2}g.$$

Keeping in mind that $`^gt=t`$, we get from (5.66), (5.68) and (5.72) that
$`Sym(Ric^W)=Sym(K)`$. The theorem follows from the last equality. Q.E.D.

It is well known  that on a 4-dimensional conformal manifold there exists a hypercomplex structure iff the conformal structure has anti-self-dual Weyl tensor (see also ). Every 4-dimensional hypercomplex manifold $`(M,g,(H_\alpha ))`$, i.e. (an oriented anti-self-dual 4-manifold) carries a unique HKT structure in view of the results in . Indeed, let $`\theta =\theta _\alpha =\theta _\beta =\theta _\gamma `$ be the common Lee form. The unique HKT structure is defined by $`=^g\frac{1}{2}\theta `$  (the uniqueness is a consequence of a general result in , see also ). The HKT structure on a 4-dimensional hypercomplex manifold is sp(1)-Einstein since the tensor $`K`$ vanishes. The corresponding Weyl structure to the given HKT structure on a 4-dimensional hyperhermitian manifold is the Obata connection , i.e. the unique torsion-free linear connection which preserves each of the three hypercomplex structures. As a consequence of Theorem 5.8, we recover the result in  which states that the Obata connection of a hyper complex 4-manifold is Einstein-Weyl and the symmetric part of its Ricci tensor is zero.

Theorem 5.8 and (5.66) show that every Einstein-Weyl structure determined by (5.71) on a 4-dimensional conformal manifold whose vector field dual to the 1-form $`t`$ is Killing, induces an Einstein and sp(1)-Einstein QKT structure.

###### Corollary 5.9

Let $`(M,[g],^W)`$ be a compact 4-dimensional Einstein-Weyl manifold. Then the corresponding QKT structure to the Gauduchon metric of $`^W`$ is Einstein and sp(1)-Einstein.

Proof. On a compact Einstein-Weyl manifold the vector field dual to the Lee form of the Gauduchon metric is Killing by the result of Tod . Then the claim follows from Theorem 5.8 and (5.66). Q.E.D.

The Ricci tensor of a 4-dimensional QKT manifold is symmetric iff the torsion 1-form is closed by Proposition 5.6. Applying Theorem 3 in  and using Theorem 5.8, we obtain

###### Corollary 5.10

Let $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ be a 4-dimensional compact sp(1)-Einstein QKT manifold with symmetric Ricci tensor. Suppose that the torsion 1-form is not exact. Then the torsion 1-form corresponding to the Gauduchon metric $`g_G`$ of $`(M,g,(J_\alpha ),)`$ is parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of $`g_G`$ and the universal cover of $`(M,g_G)`$ is isometric to $`\times S^3`$. In particular, the quaternionic bundle $`(J_\alpha )`$ admits hypercomplex structure.

A lot is known about Einstein-Weyl manifolds (see a nice survey ). There are many (compact) Einstein-Weyl 4-manifolds (e.g. $`S^2S^2`$). Among them there are (anti)-self-dual as well as non (anti)-self-dual. We mention here the Einstein-Weyl examples of Bianchi IX type metric . All these Einstein-Weyl 4-manifolds admit sp(1)-Einstein QKT structures by Theorem 5.8.

It is also known that there are obstructions to the existence of Einstein-Weyl structures on compact 4-manifold . If the manifold $`M`$ is finitely covered by $`T^2S^2`$ which cannot be Einstein-Weyl then $`M`$ does not admit Einstein-Weyl structure and therefore there are no sp(1)-Einstein structures on $`M`$.

Authors’ address:
Stefan Ivanov
University of Sofia, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Department of Geometry,
5 James Bourchier blvd, 1126 Sofia, BULGARIA.
E-mail: ivanovsp@fmi.uni-sofia.bg


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Hints of new physics have recently been advocated through the neutrino sector. The recent observation by the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration of the atmospheric zenith angle dependent deficit  has strengthened this conclusion. Also the long term puzzle of the solar neutrino deficit  has been a strong demonstration on the existence of new physics. Recent results on neutrino oscillation have been also reported by the Liquid Scintillation Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment . The observed anomalies in the neutrino data can be naturally understood in terms of massive neutrino oscillations.

The theoretical picture for neutrino oscillation poses a real challenge in understanding the form of the lepton mass matrix as derived from the neutrino oscillation data. A definite picture is obscure due to the large number of free parameters in the neutrino and charged lepton mass matrices. The phenomenological solution is not unique and clearly the need for more data and theoretical breakthrough is essential.

Neutrino oscillation can explain both the solar and atmospheric data in terms of three-generation neutrinos  (ignoring the LSND results .) In the simplest explanation picture, the solar neutrino data can be understood in terms of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillation with a small mass splitting not to influence atmospheric data. On the other hand, atmospheric data can be explained in terms of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ large mixing with a large mass splitting compared to the solar case . However, if we combine the LSND result with the solar and atmospheric data then we have to include at least an extra light neutrino. The full oscillation data requires the existence of three different scales of neutrino mass-squared differences. The different scales can be accommodated only if at least a light fourth neutrino exists. Such a light neutrino has to be sterile, i.e., to decouple from the low-energy observables as indicated by the low-energy experiments . Some recent phenomenological studies indicate that in the minimal scheme the dominant transition of solar neutrinos is due to $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing, while the dominant transition of atmospheric neutrinos in long-baseline (LBL) experiments is due to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing .

The inclusion of a sterile neutrino still poses another theoretical challenge. Namely, to understand both the origin of the sterile fermion and the very low mass it has. The small mass is probably the most difficult issue in introducing such a particle. Any successful scenario has to explain the tiny mass of the sterile neutrino in a natural way. A possible scenario would be to generate the light mass through radiative corrections . Another interesting scenario would be to postulate that the extra neutrino is active at a relatively high-energy scale. At that scale the extra neutrino is massless as the assumed dynamics, due to some symmetry, forbids its mass generation. Once the high-energy symmetry is broken (probably in the TeV region), a Dirac mass can be generated while the neutrino decouples from the low-energy regime, i.e., becomes a sterile. Finally, by invoking the seesaw mechanism we can understand the highly suppressed Majorana mass of such a sterile neutrino.

In this work we consider the possibility of understanding the origin of a light sterile neutrino through the second scenario. A similar model has been discussed in Ref. , however, the model suffers from theoretical anomalies. Furthermore, an explicit formulation of the model is highly complicated. The model we discuss in this work does not suffer from theoretical drawbacks. It is based on the gauge nonuniversal symmetry $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_l\times SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y`$ discussed extensively in Refs. . We refer to this model as the TopFlavor model which is anomaly free and phenomenologically well motivated. Several recent phenomenological studies have been published in the literature . To account for the existence of the sterile neutrino, we modify the standard fermion content by the inclusion of few extra fermions. The extra fermion spectrum does not appreciably affect the low-energy regime because of the heavy mass of the extra active fermions, as discussed later. Only one-neutral fermion emerges with a small mass while decouples from the low-energy regime which we then call the sterile neutrino.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the model. In Sec. III, we enlarge the fermion spectrum by introducing extra fermions and discuss the mechanism for generating the mass of the sterile and active fermions. Finally, in Sec. IV we provide some numerical discussion of the model.

## II Structure of the Model

The TopFlavor model  is based on the gauge symmetry G= $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_l\times SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y`$. In this model, the third generation of fermions (top quark $`t`$, bottom quark $`b`$, tau lepton $`\tau `$, and its neutrino $`\nu _\tau `$) is subjected to a new gauge interaction at the high energy scale, instead of the usual weak interaction advocated by the standard model (SM) of the electroweak interaction. On the contrary, the first and second generations only feel the weak interaction supposedly equivalent to the SM case. The new gauge dynamics is attributed to the $`SU(2)_h`$ symmetry under which the left-handed fermions of the third generation transform in the fundamental representation (doublets), while they remain to be singlets under the $`SU(2)_l`$ symmetry. On the other hand, the left-handed fermions of the first and second generation transform as doublets under the $`SU(2)_l`$ group and singlets under the $`SU(2)_h`$ group. The $`U(1)_Y`$ group is the SM hypercharge group. The right-handed fermions only transform under the $`U(1)_Y`$ group as assigned by the SM. Finally, the QCD interactions and the color symmetry $`SU(3)_c`$ are the same as that in the SM.

The spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the group G=$`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_l\times SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y`$ is accomplished by introducing the complex scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1,2,2,0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(1,2,1,1)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(1,1,2,1)`$. For the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field we explicitly write

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi _1^0& \pi _1^+\\ \pi _2^{}& \pi _2^0\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where all scalar fields are complex. The group G is then broken in three different stages. The first stage of symmetry breaking is accomplished once the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field acquires a vacuum expectation value (vev) $`u`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& 0\\ 0& u\end{array}\right),`$ where $`u`$ is taken to be real. The form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ guarantees the breakdown of $`SU(2)_l\times SU(2)_hSU(2)`$. Therefore, the unbroken symmetry is essentially the SM gauge symmetry $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_w\times U(1)_Y`$, where $`SU(2)_w`$ is the usual SM weak group. At this stage, three of the gauge bosons acquire a mass of the order $`u`$, while the other gauge bosons remain massless. The phenomenology of the model imposes the constraint $`u\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ TeV  The second and third stage of symmetry breaking (the electroweak symmetry-breaking) is accomplished through the scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ by acquiring their vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_1\end{array}\right)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_2\end{array}\right)`$, respectively. The electroweak symmetry-breaking scale $`v`$ is defined $`v\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}=246`$ GeV. Since the third generation of fermions is heavier than the first two generations, it is suggestive to conclude that $`v_2v_1`$. The surviving symmetry at low energy is $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$ gauge symmetry. Because of this pattern of symmetry breaking, the gauge couplings $`g_l`$, $`g_h`$, and $`g_Y`$ of $`SU(2)_l`$, $`SU(2)_h`$, and $`U(1)_Y`$, respectively, are related to the $`U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$ gauge coupling $`e`$ by the relation $`1/e^2=1/g_l^2+1/g_h^2+1/g_Y^2`$ . We define

$$g_l=\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi },g_h=\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi },g_Y=\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(2)
where $`\theta `$ is the usual weak mixing angle and $`\varphi `$ is a new parameter of the model.

For $`g_h>g_l`$ (equivalently $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi <1`$), we require $`g_h^24\pi `$ (which implies $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi g^2/(4\pi )0.04`$) so that the perturbation theory is valid. Similarly, for $`g_h<g_l`$, we require $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi 0.96`$. For simplicity, we focus on the region where $`xu^2/v^21`$, and ignore the corrections which are suppressed by higher powers of $`1/x`$. The light gauge boson masses are found to be $`M_{W^\pm }^2=M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =M_0^2(1+O(1/x)),`$ where $`M_0ev/2\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. While for the heavy gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^{}`$, one finds

$$M_{W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}^2=M_Z^{}^2=M_0^2\left(\frac{x}{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }+O(1)\right).$$
(3)
Up to this order, the heavy gauge bosons are degenerate in mass because they do not mix with the hypercharge gauge boson field. The SM fermions acquire their masses through their Yukawa interaction via the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ scalar fields. For instance, the leptonic Yukawa sector is given by

$`_{\text{Yukawa}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_L}^1\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left[g_{11}^ee_R+g_{12}^e\mu _R+g_{13}^e\tau _R\right]+`$ (4)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_L}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left[g_{21}^ee_R+g_{22}^e\mu _R+g_{23}^e\tau _R\right]+`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_L}^3\mathrm{\Phi }_2\left[g_{31}^ee_R+g_{32}^e\mu _R+g_{33}^e\tau _R\right]+h.c.,`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ e_L\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }_L^2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mu L}\\ \mu _L\end{array}\right),\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{L}^3=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\tau \mathrm{L}}\\ \tau _\mathrm{L}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
The phenomenology of the model has been studied extensively in Refs.  222Although some differences in the scalar sector exist among those references.. Comparisons with the Large Electron Positron (LEP) and other low-energy data have been investigated and constraints on the heavy gauge bosons mass are reported as $`M_W^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ TeV. The parameter $`xu^2/v^2`$ is constrained by LEP data to be larger than 20. Other low-energy data such as the $`\tau `$ life time imposes a higher constraint on $`x`$ for specific scenarios of lepton mixing. Flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) effects in the lepton and quark sectors have been explored and contributions to different processes have been calculated . Therefore, in this work we only concentrate on the leptonic mass matrix and refer the reader to Refs.  for a detailed study of the phenomenology of the model.

## III Extra Fermions

To explain the existence of the light sterile neutrino in our scenario we enlarge the particle spectrum by the inclusion of extra fermions. We consider the minimal number of particles needed to account for the existence of the light sterile neutrino and without introducing anomalies in the structure of the model. Furthermore, consistency with low-energy data should be maintained and therefore the extra active fermions should decouple from the low-energy regime.

At the high-energy scale the gauge symmetry is assumed to be G=$`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_l\times SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y`$. At a lower scale, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a few TeV, the gauge symmetry is broken into the SM symmetry group $`H_1=SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_w\times U(1)_Y`$. At the electroweak scale the final stage of symmetry breaking occurs and the surviving symmetry group is $`H_2=SU(3)_c\times U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$. The fermion spectrum includes the standard three fermion generations with the transformation, under G, as explained in Sec. II.

We enlarge the fermion spectrum by the inclusion of three sets of extra fermions as follow:

* To explain the extremely light neutrino masses we invoke the seesaw mechanism. Therefore, four right-handed neutrinos are introduced, $`\nu _{eR}`$, $`\nu _{\mu R}`$, $`\nu _{\tau R}`$, and $`\nu _{sR}`$. The four right-handed neutrinos are singlets under G and are assumed to be Majorana fermions with masses of the order of the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) scale.
* We introduce a bi-doublet fermion field $`S_L`$ with the transformation $`S_L(1,2,2,0)`$. Explicitly, $`S_L=\nu _{sL}+S_L^a\tau ^a`$ transforms, under G, as

$$S_Lg_1S_Lg_2^{},$$
(6)
where $`g_1SU(2)_l`$ and $`g_2SU(2)_h`$. Once the symmetry group G is broken down into the symmetry group $`H_1`$, the field $`S_L`$ decomposes into two parts, with transformation under $`H_1`$ as $`(1,3,0)+(1,1,0)`$. The neutral field with the transformation $`(1,1,0)`$ corresponds to the sterile neutrino. The triplet field remains an active and thus must acquire a heavy Dirac mass in order to be consistent with the low-energy data . To prevent the uncontrolled Majorana mass we assume that $`S_L`$ carries a conserved quantum number $`z_L`$ at the high-energy scale. The new quantum number is due to a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry which causes no harmful anomaly to spoil the foundation of the model .
* We introduce another triplet fermion field $`S_R=S_R^a\tau ^a`$ with the transformation, under G, as $`(1,1,3,0)`$ just for the purpose of giving a Dirac mass to the active triplet field of $`S_L`$. Similar to $`S_L`$, the field $`S_R`$ is assumed to carry a quantum number $`z_R`$ to prevent the dangerous Majorana mass term. Hence, a Dirac mass for the extra active fermions is generated through the Yukawa interaction term

$$_a=\frac{g_a}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\overline{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{R}\right],$$
(7)
where $`g_a1`$ is a Yukawa coupling. Once the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ acquires its vev $`u\mathrm{\Gamma }>`$ 1 TeV, a Dirac mass for the triplet fermions is generated, $`m_a=g_au\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ TeV. In order for the Yukawa term in Eq. (7) to conserve the assumed global $`U(1)`$ symmetry, we require $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to carry a quantum number $`z_0`$ such that $`z_L=z_R+z_0`$.

The sterile neutrino $`\nu _{sL}`$ acquires its Dirac mass through the Yukawa term

$$_s=\frac{g_s}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\overline{\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{L}}\tau _2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\tau _2\right]\nu _{\mathrm{sR}},$$
(8)
where $`g_s1`$ is a Yukawa coupling. The Yukawa terms in Eqs. (7,8) conserve the new quantum number provided that we demand $`z_L=z_0=z_R/2`$. It is important to notice that the form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is as given in Eq. (1). A simple choice would be

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\pi ^0+i\pi ^a\tau _a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi ^0+i\pi ^3& i\sqrt{2}\pi ^+\\ i\sqrt{2}\pi ^{}& \pi ^0i\pi ^3\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^a`$ are taken to be real fields. However, for this particular choice $`\tau _2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\tau _2=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and therefore, the Yukawa terms in Eqs. (7,8) are not simultaneously invariant under the assumed global $`U(1)`$ symmetry. To conclude, the extra fields we introduce are the minimal number of fields required to account for the existence of a light sterile neutrino without spoiling the accuracy of the low-energy data, and also without introducing any theoretical anomalies into the model.

The full neutrino Yukawa interaction terms are given as

$`_{\text{Yukawa}}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_L}^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\left[g_{11}^\nu \nu _{eR}+g_{12}^\nu \nu _{\mu R}+g_{13}^\nu \nu _{\tau R}+g_{14}^\nu \nu _{sR}\right]+`$ (10)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_L}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\left[g_{21}^\nu \nu _{eR}+g_{22}^\nu \nu _{\mu R}+g_{23}^\nu \nu _{\tau R}+g_{24}^\nu \nu _{sR}\right]+`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }_L}^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2\left[g_{31}^\nu \nu _{eR}+g_{32}^\nu \nu _{\mu R}+g_{33}^\nu \nu _{\tau R}+g_{34}^\nu \nu _{sR}\right]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}[\overline{S_L}\tau _2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\tau _2]\left[g_{41}^\nu \nu _{eR}+g_{42}^\nu \nu _{\mu R}+g_{43}^\nu \nu _{\tau R}+g_{44}^\nu \nu _{sR}\right]+h.c.,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{1,2}i\tau _2\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^{}`$. The Dirac mass matrix derived from Eq. (10) is written as

$$M_D=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}g_{11}^\nu v_1& g_{12}^\nu v_1& g_{13}^\nu v_1& g_{14}^\nu v_1\\ g_{21}^\nu v_1& g_{22}^\nu v_1& g_{23}^\nu v_1& g_{24}^\nu v_1\\ g_{31}^\nu v_2& g_{32}^\nu v_2& g_{33}^\nu v_2& g_{34}^\nu v_2\\ g_{41}^\nu u& g_{42}^\nu u& g_{43}^\nu u& g_{44}^\nu u\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
The right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`M_R`$ is assumed to have a common mass scale of the order of the GUT scale, $`M_X10^{15}`$ GeV. Therefore, the full neutrino mass matrix forms a $`8\times 8`$ matrix which can be written as

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_D\\ M_D^T& M_R\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
By invoking the seesaw mechanism the left-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix is then given as

$$M_L=M_DM_R^1M_D^T.$$
(13)
Due to the seesaw mechanism all elements of $`M_L`$ are highly suppressed by the GUT scale $`M_X`$ of the right-handed Majorana mass matrix $`M_R`$. Therefore, we can introduce the sterile neutrino with a natural mechanism for generating its light mass as required by the neutrino oscillation data. In the next section we give further discussion of the derived neutrino mass matrix.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

The mass matrix in Eq. (11) is written in its most general form. A quantitative analysis is attainable only if the structure of the mass matrix is fully determined which requires further theoretical assumptions to be incorporated in the structure of the model. Nevertheless, the structure of the mass matrix already suggests an interesting behavior. There are three hierarchical energy scales in the mass matrix $`M_D`$, namely, $`uv_2v_1`$ which could be connected to the observed three hierarchical mass scales in the neutrino data, namely, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}.}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2`$. It is suggestive to conclude that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{M_X}}\right)^21\mathrm{eV}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}.}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_2^2}{M_X}}\right)^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{M_X}}\right)^210^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ (14)
as indicated by the neutrino oscillation data . In fact from the LEP data, we already know that $`u\mathrm{\Gamma }>v\sqrt{20}1.2`$ TeV . The observed mass scales can be obtained if we simply choose $`u1.2`$ TeV and $`v_2230`$ GeV. From which we conclude that $`v_175`$ GeV, $`M_X(110)\times 10^{15}`$ GeV, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}.}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{v_2^4}}10^{+3},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{v_1^4}}10^{+5},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}.}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_2^4}{v_1^4}}10^{+2}.`$ (15)
In the simplest scheme where oscillation data can be explained in terms of two flavor mixing, it has been argued that the dominant transition of solar neutrino is due to $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing . Such a picture can hardly be satisfied by our model with the above choice of parameters and without the need for fine tuning. In the case of $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing one can show that the effective $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix is given as

$$M_L=\frac{1}{M_X}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_1v_1^2& g_2v_1u\\ g_2v_1u& g_3u^2\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where the couplings $`g_{1,2,3}1`$. Therefore, one can show that the solar mass splitting is given as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2u^4/M_X^2`$ which is many orders of magnitude larger than the experimental fit . If we take $`M_X`$ to be of order $`10^{18}`$ GeV, which is close to the Planck scale, we get a result consistent with the experimental fit as shown in Table 1, where we consider the numerical values $`u=1200`$ GeV, $`M_X=10^{18}`$ GeV, and $`v_1=75`$ GeV. In Table 1, the numerical values of the Yukawa couplings as well as their solar neutrino solution are given.

However, such a solution is not favored as we can not explain the apparent hierarchy among the solar, atmospheric, and LSND data.

In conclusion we have provided a scenario based on the TopFlavor model to explain the existence of a light sterile neutrino. The scenario is anomaly free and phenomenologically compatible with all existing low-energy data. The scenario can also qualitatively explain the hierarchy in the observed mass scales of the neutrino oscillation data. Quantitative results are obtained for special cases.

## Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank G. Senjanovic for useful discussion and comments. Also they would like to thank ICTP for the kind hospitality where some part of this work was done.


text:
# Inhomogeneous isospin distribution in the reactions of 28Si + 112Sn and 124Sn at 30 and 50 MeV/nucleon.

##