text:
# D-branes, 𝐵 fields, and Ext groups

## 1 Introduction

One of the predictions of current proposals for the physical significance of derived categories (see  for an incomplete list of early references) is that massless boundary Ramond sector states of open strings connecting D-branes wrapped on complex submanifolds of Calabi-Yau’s, with holomorphic gauge bundles, should be counted by mathematical objects known as Ext groups. Specifically, if we have D-branes wrapped on the complex submanifolds $`i:SX`$ and $`j:TX`$ of a Calabi-Yau $`X`$, with holomorphic gauge fields in111Because of the Freed-Witten anomaly, gauge fields on D-brane worldvolumes do not couple to honest bundles, but rather to twisted bundles, which is reflected in the $`\sqrt{K_S^{}}`$ factors. A detailed explanation of the sheaf-brane correspondence, taking into account the Freed-Witten anomaly, appears in . $`\sqrt{K_S^{}}`$, $`\sqrt{K_T^{}}`$, respectively, then massless boundary Ramond sector states should be in one-to-one correspondence with elements of either

$$\text{Ext}_X^{}(i_{},j_{})$$

or

$$\text{Ext}_X^{}(j_{},i_{})$$

(depending upon the open string orientation).

In  we explicitly checked this proposal for large-radius Calabi-Yau’s, by using standard well-known BCFT methods to compute the massless Ramond sector spectrum of open strings connecting such D-branes, and then relating that spectrum to Ext groups. Naively the massless Ramond sector states are not counted by Ext groups, but rather sheaf cohomology groups that are merely related to Ext groups via spectral sequences. However, a closer examination of the physics revealed that, at least in cases we understand well, those spectral sequences are realized directly in BRST cohomology, and so the massless Ramond sector spectrum is counted directly by Ext groups.

In  we extended the work in  to consider D-branes in orbifolds. We again found that massless boundary Ramond sector states are counted by Ext groups, this time on quotient stacks. Previously, open string spectra in orbifolds had only been computed for topologically trivial brane configurations, so we were able to implicitly solve the old technical challenge of calculating spectra for more general configurations. We also commented on the physical meaningfulness of quotient stacks. For example, fractional branes cannot be described as sheaves on quotient spaces – they can only be described as sheaves on quotient stacks.

Both of the papers  implicitly assumed that there was no $`B`$ field background. In this paper we shall extend the methods of  to the case of nonzero, nontrivial, flat $`B`$ fields.

In the presence of a nontrivial $`B`$ field, one does not have an honest bundle on D-brane worldvolumes, essentially because in open strings gauge transformations of the $`B`$ field mix with transformations of the Chan-Paton factors, as

$`B`$ $``$ $`B+d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`A`$ $``$ $`A\mathrm{\Lambda }I`$
where $`I`$ is the identity matrix. Instead, the bundle is twisted, in the sense that the transition functions $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ no longer close to the identity on triple overlaps, but rather obey

$$g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ki}=\alpha _{ijk}$$

for some $`U(1)`$-valued 2-cocycle $`\alpha `$ partly defining the $`B`$ field. (For a readable description of nontrivial $`B`$ fields, see ). This twisting has played an important role in, for example, the derivation  of Douglas’s description of discrete torsion for D-branes , and has also been discussed in .

One can make rigorous mathematical sense of such twisted bundles , as well as analogous twisted notions of sheaf cohomology and Ext groups, as we shall review.

In this paper, after discussing how nontrivial flat $`B`$ fields can be described by certain elements of the group $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, we shall compute the massless boundary Ramond sector spectrum of open strings connecting D-branes, in the presence of a $`B`$ field defined by $`\omega H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, and we shall show that such states are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of twisted Ext groups, either

$$\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{}(i_{},j_{})$$

or

$$\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{}(j_{},i_{})$$

(depending upon the open string orientation).

We begin in section 2 with an overview of bundles and sheaves twisted by the $`B`$ field, and relevant bits of physics. In section 3 we discuss massless boundary Ramond sector spectra for open strings between parallel coincident branes. The analysis proceeds very much as in , and we find that said spectra are ultimately counted by Ext groups between twisted sheaves. In section 4 we discuss an example. Unfortunately, due to a lack of known Calabi-Yau manifolds with the relevant properties, we are not able to discuss a wide variety of examples, but we do at least illustrate how the relevant calculations are performed. In section 5 we discuss massless boundary Ramond sector spectra for parallel branes on submanifolds of different dimension. In section 6 we discuss massless boundary Ramond sector spectra for general branes. Finally, in appendix A we prove some spectral sequences used in this paper.

## 2 Overview of twisted sheaves

As mentioned in the introduction, in the presence of a nontrivial $`B`$ field, one no longer has an honest bundle on the worldvolume of a D-brane. Ordinarily on triple overlaps the transition functions $`g_{ij}`$ of a bundle obey the condition

$$g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ki}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}$$

However, $`B`$ field gauge transformations combine nontrivially with Chan-Paton translations, as

$`B`$ $``$ $`Bd\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`A`$ $``$ $`A+\mathrm{\Lambda }I`$
so if the $`B`$ field has nonzero transition functions, then the connection on our ‘bundle’ picks up affine translations between coordinate charts. The effect is that the transition functions $`g_{ij}`$ of the ‘bundle’ obey the condition

$$g_{ij}g_{jk}g_{ki}=\alpha _{ijk}$$
(1)
for a 2-cocycle $`(\alpha _{ijk})`$ representing a cohomology class in $`H^2(X,C^{\mathrm{}}(U(1)))`$. These cohomology classes define gerbes, and the $`\{g_{ij}\}`$ satisfying (1) define twisted bundles. From the exact sequence

$$0𝐙C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)C^{\mathrm{}}(U(1))0$$

we get a map $`H^2(X,C^{\mathrm{}}(U(1)))H^3(X,𝐙)`$ which takes $`[\alpha ]`$ to a class in $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$, the characteristic class of the gerbe. Note that

$$H^2(X,C^{\mathrm{}}(U(1)))H^3(X,𝐙).$$

See  for more details.

Note that modulo scalars, (1) becomes

$$\overline{g}_{ij}\overline{g}_{jk}\overline{g}_{ki}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}$$
(2)
where $`\overline{g}`$ is the $`\mathrm{PGL}(n)`$ image of $`g\mathrm{GL}(n)`$. If the twisted bundle has rank $`r`$, then (2) says that we get a cohomology class $`[\overline{g}]H^1(X,C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{PGL}(r)))`$. From the exact sequence

$$0𝐙_rC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{GL}(r))C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{PGL}(r))0$$

we get a coboundary map $`H^1(X,C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{PGL}(r)))H^2(X,𝐙_r)`$, taking $`[\overline{g}]`$ to an element of $`H^2(X,𝐙_r)`$. It is straightforward to check that the image of this class in $`H^2(X,C^{\mathrm{}}(U(1)))`$ induced by the inclusion $`𝐙_rU(1)`$ is precisely the class of the gerbe defined by the original $`\alpha `$. Since $`H^2(X,𝐙_r)`$ is torsion, we see that rank $`r`$ twisted bundles can only exist if the class of the underlying gerbe is $`r`$ torsion. In particular, if the gerbe is not a torsion class, then there are no finite-rank twisted bundles at all.

Such twisted bundles are understood in mathematics (see for example ). One can define not only twisted bundles, but also twisted coherent sheaves on a space. In fact, sheaves can also be defined in terms of local data and transition functions obeying a cocycle condition (see for example \[16, cor. I-14\]), so we can define twisted sheaves in exactly the same form as twisted bundles. On the other hand, although twisted bundles are immediately realized in D-brane physics, the physics of twisted sheaves is more obscure. Part of what we are doing in this paper amounts to giving concrete evidence that D-branes in flat $`B`$ field backgrounds can be accurately modeled by twisted sheaves (see also  for previous work in this vein).

In this holomorphic context, the twisting is defined by an element $`\alpha H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ associated to the $`B`$ field. Moreover, one can also define Ext groups between twisted sheaves. If $`𝒮`$, $`𝒯`$ are two coherent sheaves on $`X`$, both twisted by the same element $`\omega H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, then one can define $`\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{}(𝒮,𝒯)`$. We will say more about such Ext groups and how to arrive at elements of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ from a $`B`$ field momentarily. First we will review twisted sheaves in more detail.

For convenience of the reader, we give the complete definition of a twisted sheaf. If $`\alpha H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ is represented by a Čech 2-cocycle $`(\alpha _{ijk})`$ on an open cover $`\{U_i\}_{iI}`$, with the $`\alpha _{ijk}`$ holomorphic, an $`\alpha `$-twisted sheaf $``$ consists of a pair

$$(\{_i\}_{iI},\{\varphi _{ij}\}_{i,jI}),$$

where $`_i`$ is a sheaf on $`U_i`$ for all $`iI`$ and

$$\varphi _{ij}:_j|_{U_iU_j}_i|_{U_iU_j}$$

is an isomorphism for all $`i,jI`$, subject to the conditions:

1. $`\varphi _{ii}=\mathrm{Id}`$;
2. $`\varphi _{ij}=\varphi _{ji}^1`$;
3. $`\varphi _{ij}\varphi _{jk}\varphi _{ki}=\alpha _{ijk}\mathrm{Id}`$.

The class of twisted sheaves together with the obvious notion of homomorphism is an abelian category, the category of $`\alpha `$-twisted sheaves, leading to the stated notion of Ext groups by general homological algebra.

This notation is consistent, since one can prove that this category is independent of the choice of the covering $`\{U_i\}`$ (\[14, 1.2.3\]) or of the particular cocycle $`\{\alpha _{ijk}\}`$ (\[14, 1.2.8\])

Now a $`B`$-field is a connection on a gerbe. To say it is a connection means that we can express it locally as a 2-form $`B_i`$, subject to gauge transformations $`B_iB_j=d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$ for some 1-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$. The field strength $`H=dB`$ is then globally defined. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jk}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ki}`$ is exact, we can locally write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jk}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ki}=i\alpha _{ijk}^1d\alpha _{ijk}`$, where $`\alpha _{ijk}`$ are local $`U(1)`$-valued functions, once again representing the class of the underlying gerbe. In this context, $`[H]H^3(X,𝐑)`$ is the characteristic class of the gerbe (it actually lies in $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$). If in addition the $`B`$ field is flat, i.e. if $`H=0`$, then the above considerations lead to the holonomy class of $`B`$ in $`H^2(X,𝐑/𝐙)`$. See  for more details. In particular the contribution of the $`B`$-field to the action can be specified topologically for a closed string worldsheet.

A connection on a twisted $`U(N)`$ bundle in the presence of a $`B`$-field is analogous to the usual notion of a connection. We have a local collection of 1 forms $`A_i`$ satisfying

$$A_i\left(f_{ij}\right)A_j\left(f_{ij}\right)^1=f_{ij}^1df_{ij}I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}.$$

Here, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$ is the gauge transformation of the $`B`$-field as discussed above, and $`I`$ is the $`N\times N`$ identity matrix. Note that $`\text{Tr }F`$ is not gauge invariant, but $`\text{Tr }F+B`$ is gauge invariant.

For completeness, we describe the relationship between elements of the group $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ and gerbes, at least in the case of a Calabi-Yau threefold. Extensions are straightforward. There is an exact sequence

$$H^2(X,𝒪_X)H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})H^3(X,𝐙)H^3(X,𝒪_X)$$

and on a Calabi-Yau threefold, $`H^2(X,𝒪_X)=0`$. Thus $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ is the kernel of

$$H^3(X,𝐙)H^3(X,𝒪_X)H^{0,3}(X).$$

This map can be described by first mapping $`H^3(X,𝐙)H^3(X,𝐑)`$, then following with the Hodge-theoretic projection of a de Rham third cohomology class onto its $`(0,3)`$ component. Since an element of $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$ is real, the $`(3,0)`$ component vanishes whenever its $`(0,3)`$ component vanishes. Thus we see that given an element of $`H^3(X,𝐙)(H^{2,1}(X)H^{1,2}(X))`$,222We are not being quite precise in notation here, as $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$ does not embed in $`H^3(X,𝐑)`$ in the presence of torsion. we can uniquely reconstruct a corresponding element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$. As an aside, we should mention that the group $`H^3(X,𝐙)(H^{2,1}(X)H^{1,2}(X))`$ plays an important role in the generalized Hodge conjecture in dimension three; see appendix B for a few more details.

In this paper, we are only interested in flat333Non-flat $`B`$ fields typically break supersymmetry in Calabi-Yau compactifications. In non-Calabi-Yau compactifications where they are used, non-flat $`B`$ fields typically fix Kähler moduli, usually preventing one from going to weak-coupling limits where the analysis of this paper is relevant. For these reasons, we shall not consider non-flat $`B`$ fields in this paper. We should also mention, though, that the mathematical analysis of appendix A does carry over to the case of non-flat $`B`$ fields when the D-branes are wrapped on a submanifold such that the restriction of the $`B`$ field curvature to the submanifold is torsion. $`B`$ fields, which means that the curvature (the de Rham image of the characteristic class) vanishes, so the corresponding element of $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$ is purely torsion. When this happens, its image in $`H^3(X,𝒪_X)`$ necessarily vanishes for the above reasons.

In summary, the torsion subgroup of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ is isomorphic to the torsion subgroup of $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$. So the elements of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ relevant to our study of D-branes correspond to purely topological information.

As we have seen above, one can define holomorphic locally free twisted sheaves of finite rank only when the twisting is by an element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ corresponding to a torsion element of $`H^3(X,𝐙)`$. The elements arising this way form the Brauer group. (A widely-believed conjecture of Grothendieck says that the elements of the Brauer group are the same as the torsion elements of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$.) For twistings by non-torsion elements, no locally free twisted sheaves of finite rank exist. So our physical constraint of flat $`B`$ fields translates directly into mathematics.

In passing, we will note that there is a closely analogous phenomenon in the study of WZW models. There, one has strings propagating on a group manifold with a nontrivial $`B`$ field background, in which the curvature $`H`$ of the $`B`$ field is nonzero (this is the point of the Wess-Zumino term, after all). D-branes cannot wrap the entire group manifold. Instead, D-branes can only wrap submanifolds $`S`$ such that the restriction of the characteristic class to $`S`$ is torsion , mirroring the statement that finite-rank locally-free twisted sheaves only exist when the characteristic class of the twisting is torsion.

Another way to think about twisted holomorphic bundles is that they are associated to projective space bundles that cannot be obtained by projectivizing an ordinary holomorphic vector bundle. In detail, given a projective space bundle, imagine lifting the fibers locally from $`𝐏^n`$ to $`𝐂^{n+1}`$. The original projective space bundle was a bundle, so its transition functions close on triple overlaps. However, if we lift those same transition functions from $`𝐏^n`$ to $`𝐂^{n+1}`$, then they need only close up to the action of $`𝐂^\times `$ on triple overlaps. In other words, given a projective space bundle, it need not lift to an honest vector bundle, but in general will only lift to a twisted vector bundle, twisted by an element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ defined by the failure of the transition functions to close on triple overlaps.

Given two twisted sheaves $``$, $``$, one can define a twisted sheaf of local homomorphisms $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(,)`$. If $``$ is twisted by $`\omega H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ and $``$ is twisted by $`\omega ^{}H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, then $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(,)`$ is a twisted sheaf, twisted by $`\omega ^1\omega ^{}H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$.

In particular, if two bundles $``$, $``$ are twisted by the same element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, then $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}(,)`$ is an ordinary, untwisted sheaf.

We can use that fact to set up homological algebra in the usual form. If $`𝒮`$, $`𝒯`$ are two twisted sheaves, but twisted by the same element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, then we can define local $`\underset{¯}{\text{Ext}}_{𝒪_X}^n(𝒮,𝒯)`$ and global $`\text{Ext}_X^n(𝒮,𝒯)`$.

This last fact is directly relevant for this paper, as in any given theory there is only a single $`B`$ field that twists the D-brane bundles. Thus, open string spectra are always computed between twisted sheaves that have been twisted by the same element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$, which means that for all our string spectrum calculations, there exists a relevant notion of Ext groups in mathematics, and the associated Ext sheaves are ordinary sheaves.

Serre duality functions for twisted sheaves much as for ordinary untwisted sheaves. For $`\omega H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ an element of the Brauer group (i.e. corresponding to a flat $`B`$ field), for any two $`\omega `$-twisted coherent sheaves $`𝒮`$, $`𝒯`$ on a Calabi-Yau manifold $`X`$, we have

$$\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^i(𝒮,𝒯)\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{ni}(𝒯,𝒮)^{}$$

We have spoken a great deal so far about twisted sheaves in general terms. Although our remarks apply in principle, in practice we unfortunately do not know of any examples of smooth Calabi-Yau manifolds with non-zero torsion part of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$.

We do know of some spaces that are close but not quite Calabi-Yau, and for the purposes of illustrating our methods with some concrete examples, we will mention a few such examples.

Our example of a space with nonzero torsion in $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ is taken directly from the appendix of . Let $`W𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3`$ be a generic hypersurface of bidegree (2,2), and let $`K𝐏^3`$ be the discriminant locus of the fibration $`p_1:W𝐏^3`$, where $`p_1`$ is the projection onto the first factor. One can show that $`K`$ is an octic surface with 80 ordinary nodes. Let $`d:X𝐏^3`$ be the double cover of $`𝐏^3`$ branched over $`K`$, and let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the blowup of the 80 nodes of $`X`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is smooth. Since we have blown-up the nodes, rather than small-resolved them, this space is not quite Calabi-Yau, but in some sense, close. As shown in , this space has 2-torsion in $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$.

## 3 Parallel coincident branes on $`SX`$

Let $`i:SX`$ be a smooth complex submanifold of a Calabi-Yau $`X`$, and let $`\omega H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ define a flat $`B`$ field. Let $``$, $``$ be two $`i^{}\omega `$-twisted holomorphic bundles on $`S`$, corresponding to the twisted bundles on the worldvolumes of two sets of branes, both wrapped on $`S`$.

Since we are assuming the $`B`$ field is flat, locally we can gauge the $`B`$ field to zero, so the physics analysis proceeds exactly as in , except that the Chan-Paton factors now couple to twisted bundles rather than honest bundles .444Note that we can sometimes make a similar gauge choice even if the $`B`$-field is not flat, namely if we only assume that the $`B`$ field becomes flat after restriction to $`S`$. So our subsequent physical analysis can proceed somewhat more generally than we consider in this paper. Mathematically, we can replace the hypothesis that the twisting class $`\alpha H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ is torsion with the weaker hypothesis that its restriction $`\alpha |_SH^2(S,𝒪_S^{})`$ is torsion. In this situation $`\alpha _S`$-twisted bundles on $`S`$ exist. The mathematical proofs in Appendix A can be extended to apply in this more general situation. We shall omit the detailed explanation (consult  for details). The boundary Ramond sector states are of the form

$$b_{\overline{ı}_1\mathrm{}\overline{ı}_n}^{\alpha \beta j_1\mathrm{}j_m}(\varphi _0)\eta ^{\overline{ı}_1}\mathrm{}\eta ^{\overline{ı}_n}\theta _{j_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{j_m}$$

where

$`\eta ^{\overline{ı}}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _+^{\overline{ı}}+\psi _{}^{\overline{ı}}`$
$`\theta _i`$ $`=`$ $`g_{i\overline{ȷ}}\left(\psi _+^{\overline{ȷ}}\psi _{}^{\overline{ȷ}}\right)`$
as BRST invariants in the standard notation for the $`B`$ model , subject to the boundary conditions $`\eta ^{\overline{ı}}=0`$ for Dirichlet directions, and naively $`\theta _i=0`$ for Neumann directions. (The boundary conditions are modified by the Chan-Paton factors, as in , a point we shall return to momentarily.) The indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are Chan-Paton indices, describing the $`i^{}\omega `$-twisted holomorphic bundles $``$, $``$ on $`S`$.

Naively, physical states of the form above should be in one-to-one correspondence with elements of the sheaf cohomology groups $`H^n(S,^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{S/X})`$.

Note that although $``$ and $``$ are both twisted bundles, instead of honest bundles, we can still speak of ordinary bundle-valued sheaf cohomology, since the product $`^{}`$ is untwisted.

As in , there is a spectral sequence

$$H^p(S,^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^q𝒩_{S/X})\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{p+q}(i_{},i_{})$$

relating the sheaf cohomology above to the desired ($`\omega `$-twisted) Ext groups. (See appendix A for proofs.)

How is this spectral sequence realized physically? As in , there are two important subtleties that must be taken into account:

1. $`TX|_S`$ need not split holomorphically, i.e. $`TX|_S\cong ̸TS𝒩_{S/X}`$ in general, so it is not quite right to interpret the vertex operators as $`𝒩_{S/X}`$-valued forms.
2. The boundary conditions are twisted, by the curvature of the Chan-Paton factors and the $`B`$ field (see , \[23, (3.3)\]), so that for Neumann directions, $`\theta _i0`$, but rather $`\theta _i=\left(\text{Tr }F_{i\overline{ȷ}}+B_{i\overline{ȷ}}\right)\eta ^{\overline{ȷ}}`$.

Just as in , in the special case that $`=`$, we shall see explicitly that taking care of these two subtleties has the effect of physically realizing the spectral sequence in BRST cohomology. Furthermore, we conjecture that the same result is true in general: being careful about these subtleties should have the effect of realizing all spectral sequences we discuss in this paper directly in BRST cohomology, so that the physical massless boundary Ramond sector states are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of Ext groups.

Let us specialize to the case $`=`$, to see how the spectral sequence is realized explicitly. As the argument is essentially identical to that in , we shall be brief. We deal with both of the subtleties above in the same form as in . The first subtlety is dealt with by lifting $`𝒩_{S/X}`$-valued forms to $`TX|_S`$-valued forms, which can be directly associated to vertex operators, unlike $`𝒩_{S/X}`$-valued forms. The resulting $`TX|_S`$-valued forms need not be holomorphic, however. Their images under $`\overline{}`$ are $`TS`$-valued forms, to which we can apply the boundary condition $`\theta _i=\left(\text{Tr }F_{i\overline{ȷ}}+B_{i\overline{ȷ}}\right)\eta ^{\overline{ȷ}}`$. Thus, the BRST operator acting on the $`TX|_S`$-valued forms can be interpreted as a composition of $`\overline{}`$ and an evaluation map. For example, starting from an element of $`H^0(S,^{}𝒩_{S/X})`$, we have the composition

$$H^0(S,^{}𝒩_{S/X})\stackrel{\delta }{}H^1(S,^{}TS)\stackrel{eval}{}H^2(S,^{})$$

where the first map ($`\delta `$) is the coboundary map, and the second map ($`eval`$) is the evaluation map realizing the boundary conditions. This argument is identical to that used in , except for the fact that here $``$ is an $`i^{}\omega `$-twisted holomorphic bundle, not an honest holomorphic bundle. Also just as in , the composition above is exactly the differential $`d_2`$ of the spectral sequence.

Finally, as in , we still have an Atiyah class $`a()H^1(S,\mathrm{\Omega }^1End())`$ corresponding to the canonical extension

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }^1j()0$$
(3)
of twisted sheaves defined by the twisted sheaf of 1-jets of $``$. The second map is simply cup product with $`a()`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1End()`$ is an ordinary sheaf. The computation proceeds exactly as in . The only change is that the boundary conditions get modified as we have discussed above, corresponding to (3) being an extension of twisted sheaves rather than of ordinary sheaves.

Thus, we have seen explicitly that in the special case $`=`$, the spectral sequence is realized directly in BRST cohomology. We conjecture that the same statement is true for more general $``$, $``$.

## 4 Example

In this section we shall briefly consider an example involving branes wrapped on a submanifold of a space with nontrivial torsion in $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$.

Now, as mentioned earlier, we do not have any examples of Calabi-Yau’s with such a property. However, we do have some examples of spaces that are not quite Calabi-Yau, and for the purposes of illustrating how to perform computations using the technology presented here, such an example will do. Of course, since the space $`X`$ is not Calabi-Yau, our computations will be purely formal in nature – they cannot reflect any physics, since the B model cannot be defined on $`X`$.

Recall earlier we mentioned an example taken from the appendix of . Let $`W𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3`$ be a generic hypersurface of bidegree (2,2), and let $`K𝐏^3`$ be the discriminant locus of the fibration $`p_1:W𝐏^3`$, where $`p_1`$ is the projection onto the first factor. One can show that $`K`$ is an octic surface with 80 ordinary nodes. Let $`d:X𝐏^3`$ be the double cover of $`𝐏^3`$ branched over $`K`$, and let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the blowup of the 80 nodes of $`X`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is smooth.

The discussion in  identifies a 2-torsion element $`\alpha H^2(\stackrel{~}{X},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}^{})`$ by exhibiting a $`𝐏^1`$ bundle over $`X`$ minus its nodes, and showing that this is not the projectivization of a vector bundle $``$. After blowing up the nodes, this argument can be transferred to $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

In other words, the $`𝐏^1`$ bundle of  is the projectivization of an $`\alpha `$-twisted bundle $``$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

Let us imagine (formally) working with the B model on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, and wrapping D-branes on all of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ with twisted bundle $``$. Since we are wrapping all of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, the spectral sequence is unnecessary. In any case, the spectral sequence degenerates and $`\text{Ext}_{\stackrel{~}{X},\omega }^i(,)H^i(^{})`$. Note that $`^{}`$ is an ordinary bundle (the associated Azumaya algebra of Brauer group theory). In passing, note that it is only because the $`B`$ field is nontrivial that we could consider such twisted bundles on the brane worldvolume – were the $`B`$ field to be zero, for example, no such branes would exist.

Now let $`D_i`$ be the exceptional divisor of the blowup of one of the 80 nodes. Each $`D_i𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. In particular, there is no torsion in $`H^2(D_i,𝒪_{D_i}^{})`$ or $`H^3(D_i,𝐙)`$ and so the $`B`$ field can be trivialized after restricting to $`D_i`$. Thus the gauge fields on $`D`$-branes wrapping $`D_i`$ live in ordinary bundles.

If $`i`$ and $`j`$ are distinct, they are disjoint and so

$$\text{Ext}^i(i_{}𝒪_{D_i},j_{}𝒪_{D_j})=0,$$

where $`i:D_i\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`j:D_j\stackrel{~}{X}`$ are the natural inclusions.

Furthermore, the spectral sequence for

$$\text{Ext}^i(i_{}𝒪_{D_i},i_{}𝒪_{D_i})$$

is identical to the corresponding spectral sequence in the absence of a $`B`$-field, so the presence of the $`B`$-field does not affect the spectrum.

## 5 Parallel branes on submanifolds of different dimension

Let $`\omega H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ define the $`B`$ field, let $`i:SX`$ and $`j:TX`$ be smooth complex submanifolds of $`X`$ with $`TS`$, and let $``$, $``$ be $`i^{}\omega `$-twisted holomorphic bundles on $`S`$, $`T`$, respectively, corresponding to branes wrapped on $`S`$ and $`T`$.

The physical analysis in this case proceeds just as in . The massless boundary Ramond sector states are of the form

$$b_{\overline{ı}_1\mathrm{}\overline{ı}_n}^{\alpha \beta j_1\mathrm{}j_m}(\varphi _0)\eta ^{\overline{ı}_1}\mathrm{}\eta ^{\overline{ı}_n}\theta _{j_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{j_m}$$

where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are Chan-Paton factors describing the $`j^{}\omega `$-twisted bundles $`|_T`$ and $``$, the $`\eta `$ indices are tangent to $`T`$, and (momentarily ignoring the twisting of ) the $`\theta `$ indices are normal to $`SX`$. Naively, the BRST cohomology classes of such states appear to be counted by the sheaf cohomology groups $`H^n(T,^{}|_T\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{S/X}|_T)`$.

Exactly as in , there is a spectral sequence

$$H^n(T,\left(|_T\right)^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{S/X})\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{n+m}(i_{},j_{})$$

(See appendix A for proofs.)

Exactly as in , we have neglected certain subtleties, described in more detail in the previous section, and we conjecture that when those subtleties are taken into account, we are left with BRST cohomology classes counted by the $`\omega `$-twisted Ext groups above, as we explicitly saw happens for parallel coincident branes in the previous section.

## 6 General intersecting branes

The analysis for general intersections proceeds much as in the above and in . Let $`S`$, $`T`$ be smooth submanifolds, and let $``$, $``$ be twisted holomorphic vector bundles on $`S`$, $`T`$, respectively, each twisted by the pullback of an element of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$. In order to write down the massless boundary Ramond sector states for the general case, we need to take into account facts about branes at angles . We refer the reader to  for details of the analysis in the untwisted case, and the analysis in the twisted case is a nearly exact duplicate. Suffice it to say that the massless boundary Ramond sector spectrum, ignoring subtleties in boundary conditions, appears to be counted by the sheaf cohomology groups

$$\begin{array}{c}H^p(ST,^{}|_{ST}|_{ST}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{qm}\stackrel{~}{N}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{ST/T})\\ H^p(ST,|_{ST}^{}|_{ST}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{qn}\stackrel{~}{N}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{ST/S})\end{array}$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{N}=TX|_{ST}/\left(TS|_{ST}+TT|_{ST}\right)$$

and $`m=\text{rk }𝒩_{ST/T}`$, $`n=\text{rk }𝒩_{ST/S}`$.

Just as in , the line bundles $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{ST/T}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{ST/S}`$ are a reflection of the Freed-Witten anomaly . Strictly speaking, the sheaf $`i_{}`$ corresponds to a D-brane with worldvolume bundle $`\sqrt{K_S^{}}`$, to account for anomalies when the normal bundle is non-spin. We have been able to ignore this subtlety previously in our discussion, but here for general intersections it returns to haunt us. When the open string B model is well-defined (i.e. taking into account another anomaly), the ratios of the square roots of the canonical bundles are the same as the line bundles above, appearing in the spectral sequence. The necessity of these line bundles can also be proven on purely mathematical grounds, as a necessary requirement for finding a relationship to Ext groups, and from Serre duality. These subtleties are all discussed in great detail in , and we refer the reader there for more information.

Exactly as in , there are two spectral sequences

$`H^p(ST,^{}|_{ST}|_{ST}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{qm}\stackrel{~}{N}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{ST/T})`$
$``$ $`\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{p+q}(i_{},j_{})`$
$`H^p(ST,|_{ST}^{}|_{ST}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{qn}\stackrel{~}{N}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{ST/S})`$
$``$ $`\text{Ext}_{X,\omega }^{p+q}(j_{},i_{})`$
(See appendix A for proofs.)

All the subtleties that arose in  have immediate analogues here. For purposes of brevity, we merely refer the reader to  for more details. Just as in , we conjecture that both of the spectral sequences above are realized physically in BRST cohomology, due ultimately to Chan-Paton-induced boundary condition twistings of the form described in , as we explicitly saw happens earlier in the special case of parallel coincident branes.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we have explicitly computed the massless boundary Ramond sector spectrum in open strings between D-branes wrapped on holomorphic submanifolds, with nontrivial flat $`B`$ fields turned on, carrying on the program of . Just as in our earlier work , we find that the spectra are again counted by Ext groups, this time Ext groups between twisted sheaves, where the twist is determined by the $`B`$ field.

It has been previously proposed  that some properties of D-branes could be modeled by derived categories. The proposals in , however, really only speak to a special class of D-branes, namely, those with no background fields turned on – no $`B`$ field, and no Higgs field vevs. In this paper we begin to see how some of those constraints can be lifted. In the presence of a nontrivial flat $`B`$ field, for example, we have given concrete evidence that ordinary derived categories should be replaced by derived categories of twisted sheaves. (See also  for some previous work in this vein.) It should also be possible to lift some of the other restrictions mentioned. For example, it has been suggested  that giving nilpotent vevs to Higgs fields might be modeled sheaf-theoretically in terms of sheaves on nonreduced subschemes of Calabi-Yau’s. Work to compare open string spectra in such backgrounds with Ext groups between sheaves on nonreduced subschemes is in progress.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank D. Morrison for useful conversations. The work of A.C. is partially supported by an NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. The work of S.K. is partially supported by NSF grant DMS 02-96154 and NSA grant MDA904-02-1-0024. The work of E.S. is partially supported by NSF grant DMS 02-96154.

## Appendix A Proofs of spectral sequences

In this appendix we derive the spectral sequences used in the rest of the paper. We work with a background smooth variety (or complex manifold) $`X`$, endowed with a $`B`$-field $`\alpha H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$. We consider branes $`(S,)`$ and $`(T,)`$ supported at the smooth subvarieties $`S`$ and $`T`$ of $`X`$. We let $`W`$ be their scheme theoretic intersection, and we label the inclusions as follows:

The bundles $``$ and $``$ are twisted by $`i^{}\alpha `$ and $`j^{}\alpha `$ on $`S`$ and $`T`$, respectively. Note that although we do not assume that $`\alpha `$ is torsion on $`X`$, the assumption that $``$ and $``$ exist (and have finite rank) implies that $`i^{}\alpha `$ and $`j^{}\alpha `$ are torsion on $`S`$ and $`T`$, respectively. We assume that $`W`$ is smooth; in concrete terms this means that the set theoretic intersection of $`S`$ and $`T`$ is smooth, and furthermore the equality

$$T_{w,W}=T_{w,S}T_{w,T}$$

holds at every point $`wW`$.

The main spectral sequence that we want to derive is:

###### Theorem A.1.

Let $`m`$ be the rank of $`N_{W/T}`$, the normal bundle of $`W`$ in $`T`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ be the vector bundle on $`W`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{N}=T_X|_W/(T_S|_W+T_T|_W).$$

There exists a convergent spectral sequence

$${}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}=H^p(W,^{}|_W|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{W/T}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{qm}\stackrel{~}{N})\text{Ext}_X^{p+q}(i_{},j_{}).$$

We use the convention that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0\stackrel{~}{N}=𝒪_W`$ for a bundle $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ on $`W`$, even if $`\stackrel{~}{N}=0`$. $`^{}`$ denotes the dual of the bundle $``$.

Since $``$ and $``$ are twisted by $`i^{}\alpha `$ and $`j^{}\alpha `$, respectively, $`i_{}`$ and $`j_{}`$ are defined, and they are both $`\alpha `$-twisted, \[14, 1.2.10\]. Thus $`\underset{¯}{\text{Ext}}_X^{p+q}(i_{},j_{})`$ is untwisted and hence $`\text{Ext}_X^{p+q}(i_{},j_{})`$ makes sense. See \[14, 1.2.12\] for details. Similarly, $`^{}|_W|_W`$ is untwisted, so the $`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}`$ term is defined.

Before we can proceed to the proof of Theorem A.1 we need several auxiliary results.

###### Proposition A.2.

Around every point $`wW`$ there exists an open neighborhood $`UX`$ and a smooth subvariety $`Y`$ of $`U`$ containing $`w`$ such that

* $`SY`$,
* $`WU`$ is the scheme theoretic intersection of $`Y`$ and $`T`$, and
* $`Y`$ and $`T`$ intersect in the expected dimension, i.e.

$$dimY+dimTdimX=dimW.$$

###### Proof.

Proceed by induction on $`n=dimTdimW`$. If $`n=0`$, then $`TS`$ and we can take $`Y=X`$. If $`n>0`$, then $`dimW<dimT`$, and since we assumed that

$$T_{W,w}=T_{T,w}T_{S,w},$$

we conclude that $`T_{T,w}`$ is not contained in $`T_{S,w}`$.

Observe that $`T_{S,w}`$ is the intersection of the (Zariski) tangent spaces $`T_{X^{},w}`$ of all the local hypersurfaces $`X^{}`$ through $`w`$ that contain $`S`$. Since $`T_{T,w}`$ is not contained in $`T_{S,w}`$, there exists a hypersurface $`X^{}`$ that contains $`S`$ and such that $`T_{T,w}T_{X^{},w}`$. Thus $`X^{}`$ and $`T^{}=TX`$ are smooth at $`w`$, of dimensions $`dimX1`$ and $`dimT1`$, respectively, and $`SX^{}`$. We have

$$ST^{}=S(X^{}T)=(SX^{})T=ST=W,$$

thus we are in the same situation as before, but with $`dimT^{}dimW=n1`$. By the induction hypothesis we can find $`Y`$ in $`X^{}`$ satisfying the conditions of the proposition. Considering $`Y`$ inside of $`X`$ instead of $`X^{}`$ still satisfies (a) and (b), and we have

$`dimY+dimTdimX`$ $`=dimY+(dimT^{}+1)(dimX^{}+1)`$
$`=dimY+dimT^{}dimX^{}=dimW.`$
###### Proposition A.3.

If $`ST`$ then

$$\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^q𝒩_{T/X}^{}|_S,$$

where $`𝒩_{T/X}`$ is the normal bundle of $`T`$ in $`X`$. (We abuse notation and write $`𝒪_S`$ for $`i_{}𝒪_S`$, etc.)

###### Proof.

Since the question is local and $`T`$ is locally a complete intersection, we can use the Koszul resolution with respect to the normal bundle to obtain a locally free resolution of $`𝒪_T`$

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{q+1}𝒢^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^q𝒢^{}\mathrm{}𝒢^{}𝒪_X𝒪_T0$$

around every point of $`T`$, where $`𝒢`$ is locally free on $`X`$ and $`𝒢|_T𝒩_{T/X}`$. To compute $`\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)`$ we tensor this resolution by $`𝒪_S`$, which has the effect of restricting all the bundles to $`S`$ and making all the maps in the complex zero, hence the result. ∎

###### Proposition A.4 (\[26, Corollary to Théorème 4, p. V-20\]).

If $`W`$ is of the expected dimension, i.e.,

$$dimS+dimTdimX=dimW,$$

then

$$\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)=0$$

for $`q>0`$.

###### Proposition A.5.

$$\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{N}=T_X/(T_S+T_T)`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition A.2, around every point of $`W`$ we can find $`Y`$ smooth such that $`S`$ is contained in $`Y`$, $`T`$ and $`Y`$ intersect in the expected dimension, and $`W=TY`$.

Since $`T`$ and $`Y`$ intersect in the expected dimension, using Proposition A.4 we see that the change-of-rings spectral sequence \[27, Exercise A3.45\]

$$\text{Tor}_q^Y(𝒪_S,\text{Tor}_p^X(𝒪_T,𝒪_Y))\text{Tor}_{p+q}^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)$$

consists of the single column

$$\text{Tor}_q^Y(𝒪_S,\text{Tor}_0^X(𝒪_T,𝒪_Y))=\text{Tor}_q^Y(𝒪_S,𝒪_W)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^q𝒩_{S/Y}^{}|_W,$$

where the last equality is Proposition A.3. In other words,

$$\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^q𝒩_{S/Y}^{}|_W.$$

At each $`wW`$, the composition of maps

$$𝒩_{S/Y,w}=T_{Y,w}/T_{S,w}T_{X,w}/T_{S,w}T_{X,w}/(T_{S,w}+T_{T,w})=\stackrel{~}{N}_w$$

is injective, because a tangent vector to $`Y`$ will be tangent to $`T`$ only if it is tangent to $`W`$, and then it is tangent to $`S`$. Comparing dimensions, we see that the natural map $`𝒩_{S/Y}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is therefore an isomorphism. Finally, one can trace through the identifications and see that the local isomorphism

$$\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{}$$

does not depend on the choice of $`Y`$, hence it lifts to a global isomorphism.

As this calculation can be tedious, we supplement this argument with an alternative approach. The claimed result is elementary to check directly for $`q=0`$. For $`q=1`$ this is also straightforward: using the exact sequence

$$0_S𝒪_X𝒪_S0,$$

we compute that $`\text{Tor}_1^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)`$ is isomorphic to the kernel of the map

$$_S𝒪_T𝒪_T,$$

namely

$$\frac{_S_T}{_S_T}.$$

But this can be seen directly to be isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{N}^{}`$; the isomorphism is induced by the natural map $`(_S_T)/(_S_T)\stackrel{~}{N}^{}`$ taking a class represented by a function $`f`$ to the linear functional on $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ induced by $`df`$.

For $`q>1`$ we note the existence of a natural map

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\text{Tor}_1^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T).$$
(4)
This alternating product is constructed by using the exterior algebra structure on any local Koszul resolution and the multiplication on $`𝒪_T`$. As the algebra structure on the Koszul complex is canonical (a change of regular sequence induces a canonical isomorphism of algebras), the map (4) is canonical, independent of the choice of local defining equations yielding the Koszul complex. Then our earlier local calculations show that (4) is an isomorphism. ∎

From here on we switch to the language of derived categories. Recall (, ) that objects in the derived category of twisted coherent sheaves on a space (or abelian groups, etc.) are complexes of such sheaves, with morphisms defined using the machinery of derived categories. For a morphism between smooth spaces (as well as in much more general cases), one has derived functors corresponding to push forward, pull back, $``$, Hom, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}`$, etc. Applying any of these functors to a complex yields again a complex. Given such a complex $`𝒞`$ (of twisted sheaves, abelian groups, etc.) we can consider its $`q`$-th cohomology object, denoted by $`^q(𝒞)`$. It is a twisted sheaf or an abelian group, accordingly. We use the convention that $`_q(𝒞)=^q(𝒞)`$.

Note that pushing forward by an affine morphism is exact, so we do not need to derive this functor. Also, tensoring by a locally free sheaf is exact, and this tensoring operation does not need to be derived either. On the other hand, pulling back to a subvariety is only right exact, so we need to left-derive it to get a well-defined functor on derived categories. Since resolutions by locally free sheaves of finite rank may not exist (if $`\alpha `$ is not torsion on $`X`$, there are no locally free sheaves of finite rank on $`X`$), we need to use resolutions by $`𝒪_X`$-flat modules. These are not quasi-coherent, but resolutions using them exist for arbitrary $`\alpha `$ (\[14, 2.1.2\]), and since they are acyclic with respect to the pull-back functor they can be used to compute derived pull-backs by the general yoga of derived functors.

###### Proposition A.6.

We have

$$_q(𝐋j^{}i_{})=l_{}(|_W_q(𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T)|_W).$$

Combined with Proposition A.5, this yields

$$_q(𝐋j^{}i_{})=l_{}(|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{}).$$

###### Proof.

By the projection formula (\[14, 2.3.5\]\[28, II.5.6\]) we have

$$j_{}𝐋j^{}i_{}=i_{}\underset{X}{\overset{𝐋}{}}j_{}𝒪_T.$$

On the other hand, since $`j_{}`$ is exact, we have

$$_q(j_{}𝐋j^{}i_{})=j_{}_q(𝐋j^{}i_{}),$$

and thus

$$_q(𝐋j^{}i_{})=j^{}_q(j_{}𝐋j^{}i_{})=j^{}_q(i_{}\underset{X}{\overset{𝐋}{}}j_{}𝒪_T).$$

(Here we have used the fact that for a sheaf or twisted sheaf, pulling back in the underived way its push-forward by a closed embedding yields back the original sheaf.) Using the projection formula again for $`i_{}`$ we have

$$i_{}\underset{X}{\overset{𝐋}{}}j_{}𝒪_T=i_{}(_S𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T),$$

and since $``$ is locally free on $`S`$ we get

$$_q(i_{}\underset{X}{\overset{𝐋}{}}j_{}𝒪_T)=i_{}_q(_S𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T)=i_{}(_S_q(𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T)).$$

But for sheaves and underived operations, $`j^{}i_{}=l_{}k^{}`$. Therefore

$`_q(𝐋j^{}i_{})`$ $`=`$ $`j^{}i_{}(_S_q(𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T))`$
$`=`$ $`l_{}k^{}(_S_q(𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T))`$
$`=`$ $`l_{}(|_W_q(𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T)|_W),`$
which is the first result. Applying again the projection formula we have

$$_q(𝐋i^{}j_{}𝒪_T)=i^{}_q(i_{}𝒪_S\underset{X}{\overset{𝐋}{}}j_{}𝒪_T)=i^{}\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T).$$

By Proposition A.5,

$$\text{Tor}_q^X(𝒪_S,𝒪_T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{},$$

hence the second result. ∎

###### Proposition A.7.

If $`l:WT`$ is a locally complete intersection embedding of varieties or complex analytic spaces of relative dimension $`m`$ (such is the case if, for example, W is a smooth subvariety of the smooth variety $`T`$), and $`\alpha `$ is an element of $`\mathrm{Br}(T)`$, then we have a natural isomorphism

$$𝐑\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_T(l_{}𝒢,)l_{}𝐑\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_W(𝒢,l^!)$$

for $`𝒢𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(W,l^{}\alpha )`$ and $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(T,\alpha )`$, where

$$l^!()=𝐋l^{}()\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{W/T}[m].$$

(Here, $`𝒩_{W/T}=(_W/_W^2)^{}`$, and $`[m]`$ denotes the shift by $`m`$.)

Applying $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to both sides we conclude that $`l^!`$ is a right adjoint to $`l_{}`$, as functors between $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(W,l^{}\alpha )`$ and $`𝐃_{\mathrm{coh}}^b(T,\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

To prove the first statement it is enough to show that there exist natural local isomorphisms

$$𝐑\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_U(l_{}𝒢|_U,|_U)=l_{}𝐑\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_V(𝒢|_V,l^!(|_V))$$

for $`U`$ an open set of $`T`$, sufficiently small to trivialize $`\alpha `$, and $`V=UW`$. (Here we work with either the analytic or the étale topology, as the Zariski topology is not fine enough for the Brauer group to be interesting.) In this form, the above isomorphism is nothing else than duality for a finite morphism (\[28, III.7.3, III.6.7 and Definition after III.1.3\]; see  for similar statements for morphisms of analytic spaces).

The second statement follows immediately from the fact that

$$𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }(T,𝐑\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_T(,))=𝐑\text{Hom}_T(,)$$

for $`\alpha `$-twisted sheaves \[14, 2.3.2\]. ∎

Now we can finally prove the main result.

Proof of the main theorem. The functor $`𝐋j^{}`$ is left adjoint to $`j_{}`$ (\[14, 2.3.9\]\[28, II.5.11\]), so we have

$$\text{Ext}_X^{p+q}(i_{},j_{})=^{p+q}𝐑\text{Hom}_X(i_{},j_{})=^{p+q}𝐑\text{Hom}_T(𝐋j^{}i_{},).$$

Writing down the Grothendieck spectral sequence for the composition of the two functors $`𝐑\text{Hom}_T(,)`$ (contravariant) and $`𝐋j^{}i_{}()`$ (covariant) yields the convergent spectral sequence

$${}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}=^p𝐑\text{Hom}_T(_q(𝐋j^{}i_{}),)^{p+q}𝐑\text{Hom}_T(𝐋j^{}i_{},).$$

(Note the implicit change of sign in $`q`$, due to the fact that $`𝐑\text{Hom}_T(,)`$ is contravariant.) Using Proposition A.6 we get that

$${}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}=^p𝐑\text{Hom}_T(l_{}(|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{}),),$$

which by Grothendieck duality (Proposition A.7) gives

$${}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}=^p𝐑\text{Hom}_W(|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{},|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{W/T}[m]).$$

But $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{}`$ are locally free, so

$`{}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}`$ $`=^p𝐑\text{Hom}_W(|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}^{},|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{W/T}[m])`$
$`=H^{pm}(W,^{}|_W|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝒩_{W/T}\mathrm{\Lambda }^q\stackrel{~}{N}).`$
Renumbering and putting it all together we arrive at our result: there exists a convergent spectral sequence

$${}_{}{}^{2}E_{}^{pq}=H^p(W,^{}|_W|_W\mathrm{\Lambda }^m𝒩_{W/T}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{qm}\stackrel{~}{N})\text{Ext}_X^{p+q}(i_{},j_{}).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## Appendix B Notes on the generalized Hodge conjecture

In this appendix we collect a few notes related to the generalized Hodge conjecture. In particular, when describing the precise relationship between elements of $`H^2(X,𝒪_X^{})`$ and gerbes on Calabi-Yau threefolds, we encountered the group

$$H^3(X,𝐙)\left(H^{2,1}(X)H^{1,2}(X)\right)$$

which plays an important role in the generalized Hodge conjecture in dimension three. For more details on this circle of ideas, see .

Define the intermediate Jacobian

$$J(X)=\left(H^{3,0}(X)H^{2,1}(X)\right)^{}/\left(H^3(X,𝐙)\right),$$

a complex torus of dimension $`h^{2,1}+1`$. Given a family of holomorphic curves on the Calabi-Yau $`X`$, parametrized by $`S`$, there is an Abel-Jacobi mapping

$$\mathrm{Alb}(S)=\left(H^{1,0}(S)\right)^{}/H_1(S)J(X).$$

Now $`J(X)`$ is not an abelian variety, but it contains an abelian variety $`A(X)`$ whose dimension is equal to the rank of $`H^3(X,𝐙)(H^{2,1}(X)H^{1,2}(X))`$. In fact, $`A(X)`$ is the maximal abelian variety contained in $`J(X)`$ and orthogonal to $`H^{3,0}(X)`$. The generalized Hodge conjecture asserts that the Abel-Jacobi mapping is surjective for some family of curves.

For example, on the Fermat quintic threefold, $`H^3(X,𝐙)(H^{2,1}(X)H^{1,2}(X))`$ has rank 200 and consequently $`A(X)`$ is an abelian variety of dimension 200. In this case, it is straightforward to check that the Abel-Jacobi image for the family of lines on $`X`$ is precisely $`A(X)`$. Furthermore, $`A(X)`$ decomposes as a direct sum of genus 2 Jacobians. This genus 2 Jacobian has appeared in the physics literature in  and the relevant mathematics has been discussed more recently in .


format: text

text:
# Current constraints on Cosmological Parameters from Microwave Background Anisotropies.

## I Introduction

The last years have been an exciting period for the field of the CMB research. With recent CMB balloon-borne and ground-based experiments we are entering a new era of ’precision’ cosmology that enables us to use the CMB anisotropy measurements to constrain the cosmological parameters and the underlying theoretical models. With the TOCO$`97/98`$ (,) and BOOMERanG-$`97`$ () experiments a firm detection of a first peak on about degree scales has been obtained. In the framework of adiabatic Cold Dark Matter (CDM) models, the position, amplitude and width of this peak provide strong supporting evidence for the inflationary predictions of a low curvature (flat) universe and a scale-invariant primordial spectrum (, , ).

The new experimental data from BOOMERanG LDB (), DASI (), MAXIMA (), CBI (), VSA () and, more recently, ACBAR (), ARCHEOPS () and revised and improved analysis from BOOMERanG () and VSA () have provided further evidence for the presence of the first peak and refined the data at larger multipole (see e.g. ). The combined data suggest the presence of a second and third peak in the spectrum, confirming the model prediction of acoustic oscillations in the primeval plasma and sheding new light on various cosmological and inflationary parameters (, , ) ***However, it is important to notice that datasets appeared before April 2001 do not show presence of multiple peaks (see ) and that analsyses of the most recent datasets not based on Bayesian methods can give weaker constraints on the peak amplitude and positions (see e.g. ).

In this Rapid Communication we compare the latest measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies angular power spectrum with the theoretical predictions of the standard CDM scenario in order to constrain most of its parameters.

Similar and careful analysis have been done recently (, , ), the work presented here can be considered as a last-minute update of most of the results already published but it will also differ for following aspects: First of all, we will include the new ARCHEOPS, ACBAR, BOOMERanG and VSAE datasets, which provide the best determination to the date of region in the spectrum from the scales sample to COBE up to the Silk damping scales.

Second, we will also focus on possible deviations to the standard scenario, like gravity waves, an equation of state for the dark energy $`w_Q>1`$ or an extra-background of relativistic particles.

Our paper is then organized as follows: In section II we present the analysis method we used. In Section III we report our results. In Section IV we discuss our conclusions.

## II Method

As a first step, we consider a template of adiabatic, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM models computed with CMBFAST (), sampling the various parameters as follows: the physical density in cold dark matter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2\omega _{cdm}=0.01,\mathrm{}0.40`$, in steps of $`0.01`$; the physical density in baryons $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2\omega _b=0.001,\mathrm{},0.040`$, in steps of $`0.001`$, the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.0,\mathrm{},0.95`$, in steps of $`0.05`$ and the curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0.5,\mathrm{}\mathrm{.0.5}`$ step $`0.05`$. The value of the Hubble constant is not an independent parameter, since:

$$h=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _{cdm}+\omega _b}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k}}.$$
(1)
We allow for a reionization of the intergalactic medium by varying also the compton optical depth parameter $`\tau _c`$ in the range $`\tau _c=0.0,\mathrm{},0.45`$ in steps of $`0.05`$ We point out that values of $`\tau _c>0.20`$ are in disagreement with recent estimates of the redshift of reionization $`z_{re}6\pm 1`$ (see e.g. ) which point towards $`\tau _c0.05`$. However, since the reionization mechanisms is still unclear, we prefer to consider also greater values of $`\tau _c`$..

We also vary the scalar spectral index of primordial fluctuations in the range $`n_S=0.7,\mathrm{},1.3`$ in steps of $`0.02`$.

We will then restrict our analysis to flat models and, adding external priors as described below, we will constrain possible extensions of the standard model. In particular, we will consider a background of gravity waves, parametrized as a contribution to the CMB anisotropy quadrupole $`r=C_2^T/C_2^S`$. We consider the tensor spectral index $`n_T`$ to be $`n_T=r/6.8`$ for $`n_S<1`$ and $`n_T=0`$ for $`n_S>1`$.

We will also consider an equation of state for the dark energy $`w_Q1`$ sampled as $`w_Q=1.0,\mathrm{},0.4`$ in step of $`0.05`$. Finally we will constrain an extra-background of relativistic particles, parametrized through an effective number of relativistic neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Delta }N^{eff}`$ sampled as $`\mathrm{\Delta }N^{eff}=0.0,\mathrm{},10.0`$ in step of $`0.5`$.

For the CMB data, we use the recent results from the BOOMERanG-98, DASI, MAXIMA-1, CBI, VSAE, ACBAR and ARCHEOPS experiments. Where possible, we use the publicly available window functions and offset lognormal correction prefactors $`x_b`$ in order to compute the theoretical band power signal $`C_B`$ as in . The likelihood for a given theoretical model is defined by $`2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}=(C_B^{th}C_B^{ex})M_{BB^{}}(C_B^{}^{th}C_B^{}^{ex})`$ where $`M_{BB^{}}`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the likelihood matrix at the peak.

We include the beam and calibration uncertainties by the marginalization methods presented in (, see also ).

In addition to the CMB data we will also consider the real-space power spectrum of galaxies in the 2dF 100k galaxy redshift survey using the data and window functions of the analysis of Tegmark et al. ().

To compute $`^{2dF}`$, we evaluate $`p_i=P(k_i)`$, where $`P(k)`$ is the theoretical matter power spectrum and $`k_i`$ are the $`49`$ k-values of the measurements in . Therefore we have $`2ln^{2dF}=_i[P_i(Wp)_i]^2/dP_i^2`$, where $`P_i`$ and $`dP_i`$ are the measurements and corresponding error bars and $`W`$ is the reported $`27\times 49`$ window matrix. We restrict the analysis to a range of scales where the fluctuations are assumed to be in the linear regime ($`k<0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). When combining with the CMB data, we marginalize over a bias $`b`$ considered to be an additional free parameter.

Furthermore, we will also incorporate constraints obtained from the luminosity measurements of type I-a supernovae (SN-Ia). The observed apparent bolometric luminosity is related to the luminosity distance, measured in Mpc, by $`m_B=M+5logd_L(z)+25`$. where M is the absolute bolometric magnitude. The luminosity distance is sensitive to the cosmological evolution through an integral dependence on the Hubble factor $`d_l=(1+z)_0^z(dz^{}/H(z^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_Q,\mathrm{\Omega }_M,w_q)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ and $`w_Q`$ are the energy density and equation of state of the “dark energy” component. We evaluate the likelihoods assuming a constant equation of state, such that $`H(z)=\rho _0_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i(1+z)^{(3+3w_i)}`$. The predicted $`m_{eff}`$ is then calculated by calibration with low-z supernovae observations where the Hubble relation $`d_lH_0cz`$ is obeyed. We calculate the likelihood, $``$, using the relation $`=_0\mathrm{exp}(\chi ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_Q,\mathrm{\Omega }_M,w_Q)/2)`$ where $`_0`$ is an arbitrary normalisation and $`\chi ^2`$ is evaluated using the observations of (), marginalising over $`H_0`$.

Finally, we will also consider a $`1\sigma `$ contraint on the Hubble parameter, $`h=0.71\pm 0.07`$, derived from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) measurements ().

In order to constrain a parameter $`x`$ we marginalize over the values of the other parameters $`\stackrel{}{y}`$. This yields the marginalized likelihood distribution

$$(x)P(x|\stackrel{}{𝒞}_B)=(x,\stackrel{}{y})𝑑\stackrel{}{y}.$$
(2)
The central values and $`1\sigma `$ limits are then found from the 16%, 50% and 84% integrals of $`(x)`$.

## III Results: Standard Parameters

In Fig. $`1`$ we plot the likelihood contours on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2n_S`$ planes, using only the CMB data.

As we can see from Figure $`1`$ (Left Panel) the data strongly suggest a flat universe (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$). From our CMB dataset we obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.03\pm 0.06`$ at $`95\%`$ C.L..

The inclusion of complementary datasets in the analysis breaks the angular diameter distance degeneracy and provides evidence for a cosmological constant at high significance. Adding the HST constraint, the 2dF dataset and SN-Ia gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.67_{0.13}^{+0.07}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.63_{0.09}^{+0.11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.70_{0.05}^{+0.07}`$, all at $`68\%`$ c.l..

Combining CMB and 2dF gives $`h=0.69\pm 0.07`$ in extremely good agreement with the HST result.

In the right panel of Fig.1 we plot the CMB likelihood contours in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2n_S`$ plane. As we can see, the present CMB data is in beautiful agreement with both a nearly scale invariant spectrum of primordial fluctuations, as predicted by inflation, and the value for the baryon density $`\omega _b=0.020\pm 0.002`$ ($`95\%`$ C.L.) predicted by Standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (see e.g. ) from measurements of primordial deuterium. For the scalar spectral index, we found: $`n_s=0.97\pm 0.04`$. However, the CMB constraint is also in agreement in between $`2\sigma `$ with the lower BBN value $`0.006<\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2<0.017`$ obtained from measurements of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ () at $`95\%`$ C.lL..

An increase in the optical depth $`\tau _c`$ after recombination by reionization (see e.g.  for a review) or by some more exotic mechanism damps the amplitude of the CMB peaks. Degeneracies with other parameters such as $`n_S`$ are present (see e.g. ) and we cannot strongly bound the value of $`\tau _c`$. In the range of parameters we considered we have $`\tau _c0.24`$ at $`1\sigma `$.

The amount of non-baryonic dark matter is also constrained by the CMB data with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{dm}h^2=0.12\pm 0.02`$ at $`68\%`$ c.l.. The presence of power around the third peak is crucial in this sense, since it cannot be easily accommodated in models based on just baryonic matter (see e.g. , ,  and references therein).

Furthermore, under the assumption of flatness, we can derive important constraints on the age of the universe $`t_0`$. From our cmb dataset we obtain $`t_0=14.6\pm 0.9`$ GYrs consistent with the analyses of (, , ).

## IV Results: Beyond the Standard Model.

As discussed before, even if the present CMB observations can be fitted with just $`5`$ parameters it is interesting to extend the analysis to other parameters allowed by the theory. Here we will just consider a few of them.

Gravity Waves.

The metric perturbations created during inflation belong to two types: scalar perturbations, which couple to the stress-energy of matter in the universe and form the “seeds” for structure formation and tensor perturbations, also known as gravitational wave perturbations. Both scalar and tensor perturbations contribute to CMB anisotropy. In most of the recent CMB analysis the tensor modes have been neglected, even though a sizable background of gravity waves is expected in most of the inflationary scenarios. Furthermore, in the simplest models, a detection of the GW background can provide information on the second derivative of the inflaton potential and shed light on the physics at $`10^{16}Gev`$ (see e.g. ).

The shape of the $`C_{\mathrm{}}^T`$ spectrum from tensor modes is drastically different from the one expected from scalar fluctuations, affecting only large angular scales (see e.g. ). The effect of including tensor modes is similar to just a rescaling of the degree-scale $`COBE`$ normalization and/or a removal of the corresponding data points from the analysis.

This further increases the degeneracies among cosmological parameters, affecting mainly the estimates of the baryon and cold dark matter densities and the scalar spectral index $`n_S`$ (,, , ).

The amplitude of the GW background is therefore weakly constrained by the CMB data alone, however, when information from galaxy clustering and SN-Ia are included, an upper limit on $`r`$ can be obtained.

In Fig.2 we plot the contraints obtained in the $`n_Sr`$ plane under the assumption of flatness and including the 2dF and SN-Ia data. As we can see, the possibility of a tensor component is still in agreement with the combined analysis of these datasets. Including a conservative BBN constraint $`\omega _b<0.024`$ further improves the bound to $`r0.42`$ at $`95\%`$ c.l.. Similar bounds have been found in a previous analysis (), without the VSAE, ACBAR and Boomerang revised datasets.

Quintessence.

The discovery that the universe’s evolution may be dominated by an effective cosmological constant  is one of the most remarkable cosmological findings of recent years. One candidate that could possibly explain the observations is a dynamical scalar “quintessence” field. The common characteristic of quintessence models is that their equations of state, $`w_Q=p/\rho `$, vary with time while a cosmological constant remains fixed at $`w_{Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }}=1`$. Observationally distinguishing a time variation in the equation of state or finding $`w_Q`$ different from $`1`$ will therefore be a success for the quintessential scenario. Quintessence can also affect the CMB by acting as an additional energy component with a characteristic viscosity. However any early-universe imprint of quintessence is strongly constrained by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q(MeV)<0.045`$ at $`2\sigma `$ for temperatures near $`T1Mev`$ ().

In Figure 3 we plot the likelihood contours in the ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`w_Q`$) plane from our joint analyses of CMB+SN-Ia+HST+2dF together with the contours from the SN-Ia dataset only. The new CMB results improve the constraints from previous and similar analysis (see e.g., ), , ) with $`w_Q<0.87`$ at $`68\%`$ c.l.. The current constraints are then perfectly in agreement with the $`w_Q=1`$ cosmological constant case and gives no support to a quintessential field scenario with $`w_Q>1`$.

In our analysis we only consider the case of a constant-with-redshift $`w_Q`$. The assumption of a constant $`w_Q`$ is based on several considerations: first of all, since both the luminosities and angular distances (that are the fundamental cosmological observables) depend on $`w_Q`$ through multiple integrals, they are not particularly sensitive to variations of $`w_Q`$ with redshift. Therefore, with current data, no strong constraints can be placed on the redshift-dependence of $`w_Q`$. Second, for most of the dynamical models on the market, the assumption of a piecewise-constant equation of state is a good approximation for an unbiased determination of the effective equation of state

$$w_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{w_Q(a)\mathrm{\Omega }_Q(a)𝑑a}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Q(a)𝑑a}$$
(3)
predicted by the model. Hence, if the present data is compatible with a constant $`w_Q=1`$, it may not be possible to discriminate between a cosmological constant and a dynamical dark energy model.

However one should be be very careful about drawing definitive conclusions about dark energy, since a constant equation of state is still an approximation of a real model of dark energy (see e.g. ). The analysis presented here should be therefore regarded as a ’test’ for deviations from the cosmological constant scenario.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Neutrinos.

As we saw in the previous section, the SBBN $`95\%`$ CL region, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ ($`95\%`$ c.l.) (High BBN) and $`0.006<\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2<0.017`$ (Low BBN), have a large overlap with the analogous CMBR contour. This fact, if it will be confirmed by future experiments on CMB anisotropies, can be seen as one of the greatest success, up to now, of the standard hot big bang model.

SBBN is well known to provide strong bounds on the number of relativistic species $`N_\nu `$. On the other hand, Degenerate BBN (DBBN), first analyzed in Ref. , gives very weak constraint on the effective number of massless neutrinos, since an increase in $`N_\nu `$ can be compensated by a change in both the chemical potential of the electron neutrino, $`\mu _{\nu _e}=\xi _eT`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$. Practically, SBBN relies on the theoretical assumption that background neutrinos have negligible chemical potential, just like their charged lepton partners. Even though this hypothesis is perfectly justified by Occam razor, models have been proposed in the literature , where large neutrino chemical potentials can be generated.

Combining the DBBN scenario with the bound on baryonic and radiation densities allowed by CMBR data, it is possible to obtain strong constraints on the parameters of the model. Such an analysis was, for example, performed in (, , , ) using the first data release of BOOMERanG and MAXIMA (, ).

We recall that the neutrino chemical potentials contribute to the total neutrino effective degrees of freedom $`N_\nu `$ as

$$N_\nu =3+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \left[\frac{30}{7}\left(\frac{\xi _\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2+\frac{15}{7}\left(\frac{\xi _\alpha }{\pi }\right)^4\right].$$
(4)
Notice that in order to get a bound on $`\xi _\alpha `$ we have here assumed that all relativistic degrees of freedom, other than photons, are given by three (possibly) degenerate active neutrinos.

Figure 4 summarizes the main results with the new CMB data for the DBBN scenario (see caption). We plot the $`95\%`$ CL contours allowed by DBBN together with the analogous $`95\%`$ CL region coming from the CMB data analysis, with only weak age prior, $`t_0>11`$gyr and the $`95\%`$ CL region of the joint product distribution $`_{DBBN}`$$`_{CMB}`$.

We obtain the bound $`N_\nu 8.4`$, at $`95\%`$ CL, which translates into the bounds $`0.01\xi _e0.24`$, sensibly more stringent than what can be found from DBBN alone. Combining CMBR and DBBN data with the Supernova Ia data  strongly reduces the degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. At $`95\%`$ C.L. we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu <6.2`$, corresponding to $`0.01\xi _e0.18`$ and $`|\xi _{\mu ,\tau }|2.3`$.

It is however important to note that possible extra relativistic degrees of freedom, like light sterile neutrinos, would contribute to $`N_\nu `$ as well, and in this respect BBN cannot distinguish between their contribution to the total universe expansion rate and the one due to neutrino degeneracy. Therefore, in a more general framework, our estimates for $`N_\nu `$ can only represent an upper bound for the total neutrino chemical potentials.

Similar results have been obtained in ,  and .

## V Conclusions

The recent CMB data represent a beautiful success for the standard cosmological model. Furthermore, when constraints on cosmological parameters are derived under the assumption of adiabatic primordial perturbations their values are in agreement with the predictions of the theory and/or with independent observations.

As we saw in the previous section modifications as gravity waves, quintessence or extra background of relativistic particles are still compatible with current CMB observations, but are not necessary and can be reasonably constrained when complementary datasets are included.

Since the inflationary scenario is in agreement with the data and all the most relevant parameters are starting to be constrained within a few percent accuracy, the CMB is becoming a wonderful laboratory for investigating the possibilities of new physics. With the promise of large data sets from Map, Planck and SNAP satellites and from the SLOAN digital sky survey, opportunities may be open, for example, to constrain dark energy models, variations in fundamental constants and neutrino physics.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Rachel Bean, Ruth Durrer, Steen Hansen, Pedro Ferreira, Mike Hobson, Will Kinney, Anthony Lasenby, Gianpiero Mangano, Gennaro Miele, Ofelia Pisanti, Antonio Riotto, Graca Rocha, Joe Silk, and Roberto Trotta for comments, discussions and help.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The idea that the coordinates of spacetime do not commute was proposed by Snyder in 1947 . When supersymmetry and supergravity were invented, it was a natural idea to consider also the possibility that the fermionic coordinates of superspace do not commute. In 1982 a model was constructed  in which the Dirac bracket for a fermionic point particle was proportional to the coordinates of spacetime

$`\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}_D=\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }x^m.`$ (1)
Due to the composite nature of $`x^m`$, it was hoped that this might yield a granular structure of spacetime.

From a more mathematical point of view, non-commuting (super) coordinates arise naturally in non-commutative geometry and in particular in realizations of quantum groups . These realizations employ (anti)-commutators of supercoordinates $`z^A=(x^m,\theta ^\alpha )`$ that are quadratic in supercoordinates

$`[z^A,z^B\}=R_{CD}^{AB}z^Cz^D.`$ (2)
Consistency requirements lead to a cubic equation for the matrix $`R`$, the Yang-Baxter equation. In order to be able to treat cases like (1), a linear term was added to the right hand side of (2) in , and a model was constructed in $`1+1`$ dimensional space with two $`\theta `$’s in which (1) and (2) were combined. This model still satisfied the Yang-Baxter equation.

Non-commutative coordinates also appear in string theory. As shown in  and elaborated upon in , string theory in the presence of an NS-NS $`B`$-field admits in space-time an alternative formulation in terms of non-commutative geometry, where the coordinates satisfy

$`[x^m,x^n]=i\theta ^{mn},`$ (3)
where $`\theta ^{mn}=(B^1)^{mn}`$. Non-commutative field theories can be obtained by taking a suitable scaling limit where $`\alpha ^{}0`$ while scaling the space-time metric as $`g_{ij}\alpha ^{}^2`$ and keeping the $`B`$-field fixed.

A natural next step is to try to obtain non-commutative fermionic coordinates from string theory. Indications that such a structure might be relevant in string theory were recently found e.g. in . There is a rather trivial version of non-commutative superspace in the literature where $`\{\theta ,\theta \}`$ and $`[x,\theta ]`$ remain zero, but $`[x,x]0`$. This superspace is useful in providing a superfield formalism for certain supersymmetric non-commutative gauge theories, see e.g. , but we will be interested in the case where also $`\{\theta ,\theta \}0`$ and $`[x,\theta ]0`$. A general ansatz of this type was already discussed in , but our focus will be to obtain such deformations from string theory.

Two of us already considered this problem a few years ago in collaboration with K. Skenderis, in the context of the NSR(spinning) string. However, due to the well-known difficulties of implementing spacetime spinors in the NSR approach, no results were obtained. The Green-Schwarz superstring was also considered, but here the well-known problems with its covariant quantization precluded a sound basis to depart from. Recently, however, a completely covariant quantization of superstrings was developed  which covariantizes Berkovits’ pure spinor approach (see e.g. the review ). A manifestly super-Poincaré-invariant nilpotent BRST operator with a finite number of ghost fields was obtained, and a new definition of physical states was derived which yields the correct spectrum for the open and closed superstring at the massless and massive level.

Given that there now exists a covariant quantum description of a string model with spacetime supercoordinates $`x^m`$ and $`\theta ^\alpha `$, it is possible to return to the question of the non-commutativity of supercoordinates and base the discussion on a concrete consistent quantum string with manifest spacetime super-Poincaré invariance. Recently, this was done in four dimensions by Ooguri and Vafa  using the four dimensional covariant formulation of the superstring given in 111We would like to thank R. Dijkgraaf for informing us of the results in .. In particular, they found that the the graviphoton field strength (which sits in the RR sector of the theory) gives rise to non-commutative fermionic coordinates, and that field theories on such spaces are sensititve to higher order topological string amplitudes.

Here we will generalize the calculation of $`[x,x]`$ and $`\{\theta ,\theta \}`$ in  to ten dimensions. In particular, following , we will consider strings in arbitrary constant bosonic and fermionic background fields. The action is obtained by modifying the free action by adding the integrated $`(1,1)`$ vertex operator with constant background fields. The general form of this vertex operator was recently obtained in . Then we shall invert the kinetic operator to obtain the propagators, and after imposing suitable boundary conditions, we shall derive expressions for the (anti)-commutators of the supercoordinates in a suitable scaling limit. These expressions depend on the constant background fields. Once we allow these background fields to become $`x,\theta `$-dependent, and expand them in terms of $`x`$ and $`\theta `$, we arrive at relations as in (1) and (2). The $`\{\theta ,\theta \}`$ anti-commutator is given by a bispinor that contains all RR field strengths. In particular, (1) is obtained by taking an axion (the RR pseudoscalar in IIB string theory) which is proportional to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu `$.

## 2 Action

In the formulation of  the fields that appear are the superspace coordinates $`x^\mu ,\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}`$, the fields $`p_\alpha ,p_{\overline{\alpha }}`$ conjugate to $`\theta `$, and several ghost fields. We will restrict attention to the type IIB string, so that both $`\theta `$’s have the same chirality. The massless vertex operators have been described in  and they give rise to the linearized field equations of type IIB supergravity. The field equations appear as a set of equations for a set of superfields (see also ) which are the entries of the following matrix:

$$_{M\overline{N}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_\alpha _{\overline{\beta }}& A_\alpha _n& A_\alpha ^{\overline{\beta }}\\ A_m_{\overline{\beta }}& A_m_n& A_m^{\overline{\beta }}\\ A^\alpha _{\overline{\beta }}& A^\alpha _n& A^\alpha ^{\overline{\beta }}\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
We will at first only be interested in vertex operators corresponding to constant fields and/or field strengths. To be precise, we will impose

$$_mA_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=\mathrm{}=_mA^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=0.$$
(5)
In addition, we will take

$$D_\gamma A^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=D_{\overline{\gamma }}A^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=0.$$
(6)
With these assumptions, the integrated vertex operator becomes relatively simple. It is given by

$$𝒱_{z\overline{z}}^{(0,0)}=F_z^MF_{\overline{z}}^{\overline{N}}_{M\overline{N}}$$
(7)
where

$$F_z^M=(_z\theta ^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Pi }_z^m,d_{z\alpha }).$$
(8)
The full form of the general integrated vertex operator is quite complicated, but because of the assumptions (5) and (6) the structure simplifies quite a lot and we are only left with (7). We see that all the terms are quadratic in quantum fields, including the ghosts. We have checked for the open string that requiring the curvature $`f_{mn}`$ (the lowest component of the superfield $`F_{mn}`$) and the gaugino $`u^\alpha `$ to be constant, and choosing the gauge $`\theta ^\alpha A_\alpha (x,\theta )=0`$, the vertex operator is quadratic in $`x^m,\theta ^\alpha ,p_\alpha `$ and the ghost (except for a tadpole when the gluino is nonvanishing). We expect the same to happen for the closed string. This is very convenient and implies that the whole calculation should be identical to one done in e.g. the Berkovits formalism.

If we use the known expansion of (4) in component fields and the equations of motion for the background fields, and add the integrated vertex operator (7) to the free world-sheet action, the ghost-independent part of the action becomes

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2z}`$ $`[x^m\overline{}x^n(g_{mn}2\pi \alpha ^{}b_{mn})+p_\alpha \overline{}\theta ^\alpha +\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}\overline{p}_{\overline{\alpha }}`$ (9)
$`+2\pi \alpha ^{}(p_\alpha \psi _m^\alpha \overline{}x^m+x^m\overline{\psi }_m^{\overline{\alpha }}\overline{p}_{\overline{\alpha }}p_\alpha F^{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}\overline{p}_{\overline{\alpha }})]`$
where $`=\frac{1}{2}(_\sigma +i_\tau )`$, $`\overline{}=\frac{1}{2}(_\sigma +i_\tau )`$, and $`b_{mn}=iB_{mn}`$ in Euclidean space, with $`B_{mn}`$ real. Furthermore, $`p_\alpha ,\overline{p}_{\overline{\alpha }}`$ and $`F^{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }`$ are antihermitian, while $`\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }},\psi _m^\alpha `$, and $`\psi _m^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ are hermitian.

As a matter of convention, we put an extra factor of $`2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ in front of the terms that came from the vertex operator.

## 3 Two-point functions

One way to proceed from (9) is to integrate out $`p_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{p}_{\overline{\alpha }}`$. If we assume that $`F^{\alpha \overline{\alpha }}`$ is invertible (this condition can easily be relaxed) one obtains

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2z}`$ $`[x^m\overline{}x^n(g_{mn}2\pi \alpha ^{}b_{mn}+2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^{\overline{\alpha }}F_{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }^1\psi _n^\alpha )`$
$`+\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}F_{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }^1\psi _m^\alpha \overline{}x^m+x^m\overline{\psi }_m^{\overline{\alpha }}F_{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }^1\overline{}\theta ^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}F_{\overline{\alpha }\alpha }^1\overline{}\theta ^\alpha ]`$
Notice that we can redefine

$`\theta ^\alpha `$ $``$ $`\theta ^\alpha 2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^\alpha x^m`$
$`\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ $``$ $`\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^{\overline{\alpha }}x^m`$ (11)
which has the effect of removing all gravitino dependence from the action. Without loss of generality we will therefore set the gravitini equal to zero and reinstate them at the end.

The propagators

$`G^{MN}(z,z^{})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}G^{mn}(z,z^{})& G^{m\beta }(z,z^{})& G^{m\overline{\beta }}(z,z^{})\\ G^{\alpha n}(z,z^{})& G^{\alpha \beta }(z,z^{})& G^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(z,z^{})\\ G^{\overline{\alpha }n}(z,z^{})& G^{\overline{\alpha }\beta }(z,z^{})& G^{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}(z,z^{})\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
are obtained by inverting the field operators $`F_{MN}`$ as $`F_{MN}G^{NP}(z,z^{})=\alpha ^{}\delta _M^P\delta (zz^{})`$. One finds that (with zero gravitini) only $`G^{mn},G^{\alpha \overline{\beta }},G^{\overline{\alpha }\beta }`$ have sources, and satisfy

$`\overline{}G^{mn}(z,z^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^{}g^{mn}\delta ^2(zz^{})`$
$`\overline{}G^{\overline{\gamma }\beta }(z,z^{})=2\pi \alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{}^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}\delta ^2(zz^{})`$
$`\overline{}G^{\gamma \overline{\beta }}(z,z^{})=2\pi \alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{}^{\gamma \overline{\beta }}\delta ^2(zz^{}).`$ (16)
The boundary conditions which follow from the Euler-Lagrange field equations for $`\theta ^\alpha `$ and $`x^n`$ read

$`\left(\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}\overline{}\theta ^\alpha \right)|_{z=\overline{z}}=0`$ (17)
$`(g_{mn}2\pi \alpha ^{}b_{mn})\overline{}x^n(g_{mn}+2\pi \alpha ^{}b_{mn})x^n|_{z=\overline{z}}=0.`$
To obtain the first condition, we assumed that $`\theta ^\alpha =\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ on the boundary; in flat space this follows from the requirement that the action be supersymmetric, and we assume that it continues to hold in the presence of costant background fields. The last boundary condition is the usual boundary condition  for the bosonic sector. The equation for $`G^{mn}(z,z^{})`$ in (16) is also the standard one, and therefore the propagator $`G^{mn}(z,z^{})`$ has exactly the form given in eqns (2.3)-(2.5) in .

We shall now determine $`G^{\gamma \beta }(z,z^{})`$. From (16) we find

$`G^{\gamma \beta }(z,z^{})=P^{\gamma \beta }\mathrm{ln}(z\overline{z}^{})+Q^{\gamma \beta }\mathrm{ln}(\overline{z}z^{}).`$ (18)
To determine $`P^{\gamma \beta }`$ and $`Q^{\gamma \beta }`$ we use the boundary conditions in (17) to deduce the following relations

$`G^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }=\overline{}G^{\beta \gamma },G^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}=\overline{}G^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}.`$ (19)
Since $`G^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }(z,z^{})`$ is given by $`\alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F^{\gamma \overline{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}|zz^{}|+P^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }\mathrm{ln}(z\overline{z}^{})+Q^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }\mathrm{ln}(\overline{z}z^{})`$, one finds from the first relation in (19)

$`\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}F^{\gamma \overline{\beta }}}{zz^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }}{z\overline{z}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\gamma \beta }}{\overline{z}z^{}}}|_{z=\overline{z}}=0.`$ (20)
Hence $`P^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }=0`$ while $`Q^{\gamma \beta }=\alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F^{\gamma \overline{\beta }}`$. In a similar manner one finds from the second relation in (19), using $`G^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}=P^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}\mathrm{ln}(z\overline{z}^{})+Q^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{z}z^{})`$, and $`G^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}(z,z^{})=G^{\overline{\gamma }\beta }(z^{},z)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}}{z\overline{z}^{}}}\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})F^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}}{\overline{z}^{}\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }}{z^{}\overline{z}^{}}}|_{z=\overline{z}}=0.`$ (21)
Hence $`P^{\overline{\beta }\gamma }=0`$ while $`P^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}=\alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}`$. Since $`P^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\gamma }}=P^{\beta \gamma }`$, we find

$`G^{\gamma \beta }(z,z^{})=\alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z\overline{z}^{}}{\overline{z}z^{}}}\right),`$ (22)
As in SW this implies that for $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ approaching the boundary one has

$`G^{\gamma \beta }(z,z^{})=\pi i\alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F^{\beta \overline{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ(\tau \tau ^{})+\mathrm{regular}\mathrm{terms}.`$ (23)
Finally, this leads to

$`\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^{\overline{\beta }}\}=i(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2F^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}.`$ (24)
Notice that we did not have to take any particular scaling limit to obtain this result. Indeed, the quadratic term in $`\theta `$ in the action can be interpreted as a pure $`B`$-term, due to the anti-commutativity of $`\theta `$.

## 4 Non-commutative superspace

The final result that we have obtained reads

$`[x^m,x^n]`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\alpha ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_A^{mn}`$
$`\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^{\overline{\beta }}\}`$ $`=`$ $`i(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2F^{\alpha \overline{\beta }},`$ (25)
where the subscript $`A`$ denotes the restriction to the antisymmetric part of a matrix. Of course, on the boundary we have to impose that $`\theta ^\alpha =\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ so that it only the symmetric part of $`F^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ that really appears in (4).

Next, we reintroduce the gravitino. We do this by shifting $`\theta `$ as explained above. After this shift, we no longer have the boundary condition $`\theta ^\alpha =\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ on the boundary, but instead we will have

$$\theta ^\alpha +2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^\alpha x^m=\theta ^{\overline{\alpha }}+2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^{\overline{\alpha }}x^m$$
(26)
at the boundary. With nonzero gravitino we find

$`[x^m,x^n]`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\alpha ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_A^{mn}`$
$`[x^m,\theta ^\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`i(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_A^{mn}\psi _n^\alpha `$
$`[x^m,\theta ^\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`i(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_A^{mn}\psi _n^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ (27)
$`\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^{\overline{\beta }}\}`$ $`=`$ $`i(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2F^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+i(2\pi \alpha ^{})^3\psi _m^\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_A^{mn}\psi _n^{\overline{\alpha }}.`$ (28)
A good scaling limit of this system is (assuming $`B`$ has maximal rank) to take $`\alpha ^{}0`$, to scale $`g_{mn}`$ as $`(\alpha ^{})^2`$, and to keep fixed

$$\theta ^{mn}=(B^1)^{mn},\mathrm{\Psi }_m^\alpha 2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{\overline{\alpha }}2\pi \alpha ^{}\psi _m^{\overline{\alpha }},^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2F^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}.$$
(29)
Then the (anti)commutators reduce to

$`[x^m,x^n]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta ^{mn}`$
$`[x^m,\theta ^\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta ^{mn}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\alpha `$
$`[x^m,\theta ^\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta ^{mn}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{\overline{\alpha }}`$ (30)
$`\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^{\overline{\beta }}\}`$ $`=`$ $`i^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+i\mathrm{\Psi }_m^\alpha \theta ^{mn}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{\overline{\alpha }}.`$ (31)
This is our final result for the non-commutative superspace as obtained from string theory.

## 5 Non-constant background fields

So far we have taken the background fields to be constant. One can in principle also consider non-constant background fields. For commuting coordinates, this was studied in detail by Kontsevich . If we put $`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }(x)`$, the Jacobi identities impose certain constraints on $`\theta ^{mn}`$. If these Jacobi identities are satisfied, the commutators can be used to define a generalization of the Moyal $``$-product.

The relation between the work of Kontsevich and string theory was clarified in . From the bosonic string one can extract a topological theory that upon quantization produces the generalized $``$ product. This generalized product is therefore present in string theory, but emerges most clearly in a topological limit. If we do not take the topological limit, the full structure of the theory is more complicated.

It would be interesting to work out corresponding statements for non-commutative superspaces with non-constant (anti)-commutators. Again, Jacobi identities will constrain the space-time fields. In addition, one has to worry whether or not the space-time fields solve the string theory equations of motion (for some discussion, see ). Nevertheless, we expect that also in this case, non-commutative superspace with space-time dependent (anti)-commutators describes a sector of string theory in the corresponding background fields. We leave a detailed study of these issues to future research.

## 6 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have seen that non-commutative superspace appears quite naturally in string theory. There are many interesting problems and generalizations that one may consider.

The world-volume theory for D-branes is described, in superspace, by a $`\kappa `$-symmetric world-volume theory. Perhaps these can be generalized to non-commutative superspaces. If so, there may also exist a generalization of the Seiberg-Witten map  that related the commutative action with explicit background fields to the non-commutative action with no superfields.

For special choices of (space-time dependent) backgrounds, particularly interesting non-commutative superspaces may appear. For example, as discussed in the introduction, one may try to obtain a structure of the form

$$\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}=x^\mu \gamma _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }$$
(32)
which is similar to the bracket obtained in . In view of our results, brackets of the form (32) can appear by considering e.g. an axion configuration (which is the RR scalar) of the form $`a\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu `$. This is not an axion background that to our knowledge has any special meaning, and in fact appears rather problematic. Still, it would be interesting to explore this further.

On a more formal level, one would like to understand better the geometrical structure of non-commutative superspace, and which physical theories allow an extension to this space.

It is also important to realize that in the presence of background fields, supersymmetry will generally be broken. In e.g. type IIB string theory on a Calabi-Yau, the supersymmetry breaking appears through the superpotential $`G\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with G the RR three-form field strength, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the holomorphic three-form . We can alternatively study whether supersymmetry is broken directly in non-commutative superspace, by looking at whether the deformation is compatible with global supersymmetry. It would be interesting to understand more directly the relation between these two ways of breaking supersymmetry. Ultimately this may lead to a useful novel mechanism of supersymmetry breaking.

## 7 Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Robbert Dijkgraaf for discussions and for communicating some of the results in . In addition, we would like to thank G. Policastro for working out the vertex for constant backgrounds. The research of JdB is partially supported by the stichting FOM. Research of PAG and PvN is partially supported by NSF Grant PHY-0098527.