text:
# On non-perturbative extensions of anti-de-Sitter algebras

## 1 Introduction

Non-perturbative charges in supersymmetry algebras are very important for our understanding of M-theory, since they are related to the presence of branes and the construction of BPS bounds for these states, which guarantee their stability. Whereas the central extension of the flat-space super-Poincaré algebra has been understood for a long time and used in many applications, a similar extension for the super-isometry algebras of the other supersymmetric vacua has not been used so far and, as a matter of fact, has not yet been constructed explicitly.111We prefer to refer to these additional charges in the algebra as “non-perturbative” as opposed to “central” in order to avoid confusion: the charges in this letter will be far from central.

There is a widely expressed expectation that the simple algebra $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ plays the role of a “universal” algebra for M-theory, in the sense that the non-perturbatively extended isometry algebras of the supersymmetric vacua can be obtained as subalgebras. To be more precise, it is known that the maximal central extension of the super-translation algebra of flat space can be obtained as a contraction of the $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ algebra, but the Lorentz generators have to be added by hand.222The superalgebra “expansion” procedure of Azcárraga et al.  provides an alternative way to incorporate the Lorentz generators. This construction however, uses the semi-direct sum structure present in the flat-space algebra: the bracket of two supertranslation generators never produces a Lorentz generator. This structure is not present in the isometry algebras of the other vacua, where the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket closes into all bosonic generators. A quick glance at the literature shows that indeed, problems arise. For instance, the isometry superalgebra of the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ vacuum, which is usually denoted as $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$, is *not* contained in $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$.333One of the reasons why this subtlety is often not observed is that the *bosonic* isometry algebra of the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ background does occur as a subalgebra of $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$; see Bars et al.  and Bandos et al.  for more on this issue. This fact will actually be important for us later (section 2.4).

There is a large body of work based on the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra. For instance, it has been used to determine the supergravity Kaluza-Klein spectrum , it is a crucial ingredient in the construction of the world-volume action for the supermembrane  in the associated background and it plays an important role in checks of the conjectured eleven-dimensional version of the AdS/CFT correspondence . This algebra is thus likely to be present, in some form or another, in the full algebra that incorporates perturbative as well as non-perturbative physics. Given the comments in the previous paragraph, one may be tempted to conjecture that $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ is in fact all there is, and that it already contains the information about non-perturbative states . This is, in our opinion, unlikely to be correct. One reason is that such a structure is not compatible with a flat space-time limit, in which central charges are known to appear. Moreover, it is known that the space-time superalgebra of the supermembrane in the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ background has to contain, apart from the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ generators, non-perturbative charges  corresponding to winding or infinitely extending membranes. This suggests that a larger algebra can indeed be constructed.

In the present letter we will consider extensions of $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ obtained by adding new bosonic generators yet keeping the number of fermionic generators fixed (less conservative options are possible and will be discussed elsewhere; see also the discussion section). Moreover, we will keep the commutators of the existing bosonic generators fixed. This restriction is motivated by the fact that, as we have argued above, the isometry algebra is reproduced by supermembrane charges even when central charges are taken into account. Because the anti-commutators of the fermions will get modified, the original algebra cannot be a sub-superalgebra of the extended one. When extending the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket we will therefore be guided by the requirement that the BPS equations of the old algebra should be obtainable from the new bracket by setting all new generators to zero.444This condition is violated if one tries to use the $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ algebra as a starting point for a non-perturbative extension, since in this algebra the $`\text{so}(6,2)\times \text{so}(5)`$ isometry generators appear in the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket with coefficients which are different from the ones in $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$. While such an approach has been attempted in the literature, we regard the BPS relations as essential and will therefore not follow this route. This corresponds to the condition that the extended algebra is also valid in the free theory, i.e. that no phase transition and associated change in the multiplet structure occurs at zero coupling (a reasonable assumption, since such non-smooth behaviour at zero coupling would invalidate perturbation theory altogether).

In the first part of this letter we then show that it is indeed possible to construct a non-perturbative extension of the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra along these lines, by starting from a very general Ansatz and solving the Jacobi identities. A fact which one observes at a rather early stage in this construction is that additional bosonic charges are required, charges which are not present in the $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ algebra. These appear in the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket, but only in linear combination with the bosonic generators of the non-extended isometry algebra. Without these additional charges it is impossible to satisfy the Jacobi identities.555If one does not add such charges, one is extremely limited in the possible non-perturbative extensions. This has been analysed some time ago in the context of $`N=2,3`$ and $`4`$ superconformal algebras by Bedding  and appeared more recently in ; see also . For instance, in case of the $`\text{AdS}_5\times S^5`$ algebra the result is that only a “trivial” u(1) extension is allowed by the Jacobi identities . However, we consider such an algebra without any other charges undesirable for reasons mentioned above. As a result, the maximally extended superalgebra we find is *not* simple, but instead contains an ideal which is isomorphic to the *bosonic* isometry algebra of the background. Its structure is depicted in the diagram below:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{osp}(1|32)& & \left(\text{so}(6,2)\text{so}(5)\right)\\ \{Q,\widehat{M}^{(8,5)},Z^{\left(2|1\right)},Z^{\left(4|2\right)}\}& & \left\{\widehat{W}^{(8,5)}\right\}\\ & & \\ & \text{osp}^{}(8|4)\\ & \left\{Q,M^{(8,5)}=\widehat{M}^{(8,5)}+\widehat{W}^{(8,5)}\right\}\end{array}$$
(1)
It is important to note that the isometry algebra of the background does not correspond to the second term in the sum, but instead is diagonally embedded. By taking the second term to be isomorphic to the bosonic isometry algebra of flat space-time, we show that the same “diagonalisation” procedure leads to the centrally extended super-Poincaré algebra. This provides evidence for a complete M-theory algebra of the form $`\text{osp}(1|32)G`$ where $`G`$ contains at least the bosonic isometry algebras of the M-theory vacua as subalgebras (the specific option of $`\text{osp}(1|32)\text{osp}(1|32)`$ has been suggested in the literature, though based on different arguments, see e.g. ).

The algebra obtained in this way should satisfy several physical requirements. First of all, there should exist a contraction to the flat, maximally extended super-Poincaré algebra (broken to $`\text{iso}(6,1)\text{so}(4)`$). We show that our algebra indeed satisfies this important requirement.

Secondly, we should argue that the representation theory of the extended algebra contains multiplets which correspond to the multiplets of the original algebra. Despite the fact that the non-extended algebra cannot be a sub-superalgebra of the extended one (in which case this proof would be trivial), its structure is hidden in the larger algebra. This in principle makes it possible that the relevant physical information present in the non-extended algebra (like the content of the supergraviton and Kaluza-Klein multiplets and the BPS relations for them) can be “lifted” to the extended algebra. One simple possibility, which is realised in the case of the super-Poincaré extension, is that there exist representations in which all new generators act trivially on all states. However, it turns out this is not case for our algebra. This is essentially due to the fact that the commutation relations between the supercharges and the new bosonic generators are *non-trivial* this is why calling these new charges “central” would be even less correct than in flat space-time, and we instead prefer to call these charges “non-perturbative”).

Another option could be that, despite the fact that the action of the new charges is non-trivial on the original $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ multiplets, this action is such that one still preserves the old BPS relations for these states. This can happen if the expectation values of the new generators on these states vanish, or conspire and cancel out from the BPS equations. Because the new charges do not commute with the other generators, one would probably end up with multiplets with more states than in the non-extended multiplet, but this is not necessarily a disastrous problem. In principle these states could correspond to (bound) multi-particle states of the perturbative spectrum, generated by application of the new “non-perturbative” generators on the old perturbative states.666These new states can not, however, correspond to branes, since we expect that branes decouple from the spectrum in the zero coupling limit. The perturbative multi-particle states, on the other hand, should be still present in this limit. In section 2.4 we investigate this possibility, and show that indeed some states in the supergraviton multiplet might fulfill these requirements. However, there seem to be no general arguments to prove the existence of the lift, and in fact it seems unlikely that it exists (a definite proof would involve the construction of explicit representations of the full algebra).

We thus conclude that an extension of the super-isometry algebras of M-theory vacua is possible, but that a physically satisfactory construction will most likely involve the introduction of yet more generators, over and above the minimal ones that we have considered. We conclude this letter with a few comments on such other alternatives, which are currently under investigation.

## 2 M-theory on $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ and non-perturbative charges

### 2.1 Constructing an extended $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra

The bosonic isometry algebra of the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ background of M-theory is given by $`\text{so}(6,2)\times \text{so}(5)`$. Its super-extension is the superalgebra $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ (in order to denote Lie superalgebras we will follow the notation used by Van Proeyen , see also Frappat et al. ). This superalgebra can be written conveniently using a 13-dimensional notation. With this convention the algebra has the commutation relations777 The $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ indices are $`\text{so}(6,2)`$ indices and $`I,J,\mathrm{}`$ are $`\text{so}(5)`$ ones. The eight-dimensional spinors are anti-Weyl. Note that we take the gamma matrices of these two algebras to be commuting; this makes the relation to the eleven-dimensional algebra more complicated but simplifies most of the other calculations in this paper.

$`[M_{AB}^{(8)},M_{CD}^{(8)}]`$ $`=\delta _{AC}M_{BD}^{(8)},`$ $`[M_{IJ}^{(5)},M_{KL}^{(5)}]`$ $`=\delta _{IK}M_{JL}^{(5)},`$ (2)
$`[M_{AB}^{(8)},Q]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}Q\right),`$ $`[M_{IJ}^{(5)},Q]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ}Q\right)`$
together with

$$\{Q,Q\}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)M_{AB}^{(8)}2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)M_{IJ}^{(5)}.$$
(3)
Anti-symmetrisation on the appropriate indices on the right-hand side is understood.

As we have mentioned in the introduction, the superalgebra given above has been used extensively, and appears for instance in the space-time supersymmetry algebra of the supermembrane. Keeping track of total derivative terms, central charge terms have been observed to arise in the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket of the superalgebra of the membrane in $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$; see the work of Sato  and Furuuchi et al. . Just as in flat space one encounters first of all a two-form charge. One does not see a five-form charge in the membrane algebra since the only term one can write down vanishes identically, but this charge is expected to appear in the matrix model (such charges have indeed been found in the pp-wave limit, see Sugiyama and Yoshida  for a membrane analysis and Hyun and Shin  for a matrix model computation).888One should not confuse these superalgebras with the world-volume algebras considered by Bergshoeff et al. ; the algebras considered in that paper involve world-volume spinors and *are* maximally extended. Motivated by these facts, we thus set out to construct a maximal non-perturbative extension of (3) and the other commutators.

The supercharges appearing in (3) are in the 32-dimensional representation of the bosonic subalgebra, or more precisely, in the $`(\mathrm{𝟖}_s,\mathrm{𝟒})`$. In order to determine the maximal extension of the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket, one has to consider the symmetric tensor product

$$\left((\mathrm{𝟖}_s,\mathrm{𝟒})(\mathrm{𝟖}_s,\mathrm{𝟒})\right)_{\text{symm}}=(\mathrm{𝟐𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(\mathrm{𝟐𝟖},\mathrm{𝟓})(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}^{},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}).$$
(4)
From the representation theory point-of-view, the *minimal* form of the maximal extension of the algebra, compatible with the presence of an $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ “core”, should thus at the very least have a $`\{Q,Q\}`$ commutator of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q,Q\}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)M_{AB}^{(8)}2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)M_{IJ}^{(5)}\hfill \\ \hfill +c\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)Z_{ABI}^{(2|1)}+d\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABCD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)Z_{ABCDIJ}^{(4|2)}.\end{array}$$
(5)
The minus sign on the charge $`Z^{(4|2)}`$ denotes that we have chosen this charge to be anti-self-dual. Both the left-hand side and the right-hand side contain $`528`$ physical components. We should stress here that (5) does not appear in the commutation relations of the simple algebra $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$: with the normalisation of the isometry generators chosen as in (2), the relative coefficient between the $`M^{(8)}`$ and $`M^{(5)}`$ generators in the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket of this algebra comes out as $`1`$, as opposed to the $`2`$ in (5).

Apart from the fact that the algebra based on the extension (5) eventually turns out to be inconsistent with the Jacobi identities for any non-zero values of $`c`$ and $`d`$, there is also a simpler, counting argument that suggests that this Ansatz cannot be correct. Namely, upon contracting the generators that appear in the expressions above to the flat space generators, one knows that the isometry generators $`M`$ of flat space-time disappear from the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket, leaving only the translation generators. Therefore, this contraction of (5) will necessarily lead to a disbalance between the number of components on the left-hand side and the right-hand side, which one knows does not happen in the maximally extended super-Poincaré algebra.

We therefore introduce additional charges $`W_{AB}^{(8)}`$ and $`W_{IJ}^{(5)}`$ and change the bracket of supersymmetry charges (5) to

$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q,Q\}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)\left(M_{AB}^{(8)}+\stackrel{~}{a}W_{AB}^{(8)}\right)+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)\left(2M_{IJ}^{(5)}+\stackrel{~}{b}W_{IJ}^{(5)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +c\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)Z_{ABI}^{(2|1)}+d\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABCD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}𝒞_{(13)}^1\right)Z_{ABCDIJ}^{(4|2)},\end{array}$$
(6)
We also make the most general Ansatz for the other brackets which is compatible with representation theory (these can be found in equations (34)–(39) in the appendix). In order to fix the coefficients, we have systematically analysed the Jacobi identities, details of which can be found in the appendix.

The upshot of this analysis is the following. Firstly, one observes that one actually does not have to go through all of the Jacobi identities in order to fix the coefficients. Once the structure of the algebra involving the $`\{M^{(8)},W^{(8)},M^{(5)},W^{(5)}\}`$ generators is fixed, one can diagonalise this sector. One then finds that an ideal isomorphic to $`\text{so}(6,2)\text{so}(5)`$ is generated by the linear combinations

$$\widehat{W}^{(8)}:=\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{m}1}\left(\stackrel{~}{m}M^{(8)}W^{(8)}\right)\text{and}\widehat{W}^{(5)}:=\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{n}1}\left(\stackrel{~}{n}M^{(5)}W^{(5)}\right)$$
(7)
The parameters $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ are related (see (46)) and correspond to a single rescaling freedom in the algebra. Note that this ideal is isomorphic but not identical to the bosonic isometry algebra of the background. The only non-trivial commutators involving the $`\widehat{W}`$ charges are in fact (suppressing indices for brevity)

$$[\widehat{W}^{(8)},\widehat{W}^{(8)}]=\widehat{W}^{(8)},[\widehat{W}^{(5)},\widehat{W}^{(5)}]=\widehat{W}^{(5)},$$
(8)
while other ones vanish (and the $`\widehat{W}`$ charges in particular map the supercharges to zero). The other linear combination that one can make,

$$\widehat{M}^{(8)}:=\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{m}1}\left((\stackrel{~}{m}1)M^{(8)}+W^{(8)}\right)\text{and}\widehat{M}^{(5)}:=\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{n}1}\left((\stackrel{~}{n}1)M^{(5)}+W^{(5)}\right)$$
(9)
combines with $`Q,Z^{(2|1)}`$ and $`Z^{(4|2)}`$. By computing the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket one sees that the $`\widehat{M}^{(8)}`$ and $`\widehat{M}^{(5)}`$ generators now appear with relative coefficient one. In fact, these charges turn out to generate the algebra $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$. In terms of the original, unhatted generators, the algebra is given by (2), the supercharge bracket (6) (with fixed values of $`c`$ and $`d`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$), as well as the commutation relations

$`[M^{(8)},W^{(8)}]`$ $`=W^{(8)},`$ $`[W^{(8)},W^{(8)}]`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{m}1)M^{(8)}+W^{(8)}`$ (10)
$`[M^{(5)},W^{(5)}]`$ $`=W^{(5)},`$ $`[W^{(5)},W^{(5)}]`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{n}(\stackrel{~}{n}1)M^{(5)}+W^{(5)}.`$ (11)
Our non-perturbative charges are even less “central” than in the super-Poincaré case; the brackets with the supercharges mimic the brackets in (2):

$`[W^{(8)},Q]`$ $`=\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{8}\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ $`[W^{(5)},Q]`$ $`=\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}}{8}\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ (12)
$`[Z^{(2|1)},Q]`$ $`=C\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ $`[Z^{(4|2)},Q]`$ $`=D\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$
(where $`C`$ and $`D`$ are again determined in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$). The appearance of non-trivial commutators like (12) is in fact very general. They appear whenever the non-perturbative charges transform non-trivially under the action of the isometry generators, and these isometry generators also appear on the right-hand side of the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket. In this case a non-trivial $`[Q,Z]`$ commutator is required in order to make the $`(Q,Q,Z)`$ Jacobi identity work.

We also find that the new charges do not commute among each other:

$`[M^{(8)},Z^{(2|1)}]=\stackrel{~}{m}^1[W^{(8)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=Z^{(2|1)},`$ (13)
$`[M^{(5)},Z^{(2|1)}]=\stackrel{~}{n}^1[W^{(5)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}Z^{(2|1)},`$
$`[M^{(8)},Z^{(4|2)}]=\stackrel{~}{m}^1[W^{(8)},Z^{(4|2)}]`$ $`=2Z^{(4|2)},`$
$`[M^{(5)},Z^{(4|2)}]=\stackrel{~}{n}^1[W^{(5)},Z^{(4|2)}]`$ $`=Z^{(4|2)}.`$
The commutators between $`Z^{(2|1)}`$ and $`Z^{(4|2)}`$ are similarly non-trivial but more complicated, see the appendix for details. By a rescaling of the fermions one can furthermore eliminate the dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$.

To summarise, the expressions (6)–(13) define the maximally extended super-isometry algebra of the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ vacuum of M-theory. This algebra has the structure

$$\text{osp}(1|32)\left(\text{so}(6,2)\text{so}(5)\right),$$
(14)
but it is very important that the non-extended algebra $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ is embedded in this algebra in a non-trivial way, as depicted in (1) given in the introduction. We should stress that, while it may make sense to write the algebra in a basis which makes (14) manifest (i.e. using the hatted generators), this is not the natural basis one would encounter in for instance the supermembrane algebra. Moreover, it obscures the physical meaning of the $`M`$ generators as isometry generators of the background.

Note that the Jacobi identities leave *no room* for the inclusion of a parameter which can smoothly tune the new charges to zero. However, there is some freedom to completely discard the $`Z^{(4|2)}`$ charge, which may be important for certain world-volume symmetry algebras.

### 2.2 The flat space-time limit

If our algebra is to be the correct one, it has to pass several physical consistency checks. One check is that there is a flat space-time limit in which the algebra reduces to the centrally extended, super-$`\text{iso}(6,1)\times \text{so}(4)`$ algebra. (Obviously, one can never recover the eleven-dimensional super-Poincaré vacuum, since the local Lorentz algebra in the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ space-time is broken from $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ to $`\text{so}(6,1)\text{so}(4)`$, and contraction does not change the number of generators).

To take the flat space-time limit of the $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ algebra presented in the previous section we first rewrite the algebra in a manifestly $`\text{so}(6,1)\text{so}(4)`$ symmetric form. The isometry generators in the two formulations are related according to

$`M_{\underset{¯}{1}a}^{(8)}`$ $`RP_a,`$ $`M_{ab}^{(8)}`$ $`M_{ab}^{(8)},`$ $`W_{\underset{¯}{1}a}^{(8)}`$ $`R^\mathrm{\Sigma }W_a^{(1)}`$ $`W_{ab}^{(8)}`$ $`RZ_{ab}^{(2)}`$ (15)
$`M_{5i}^{(5)}`$ $`RP_i,`$ $`M_{ij}^{(5)}`$ $`M_{ij}^{(5)},`$ $`W_{5i}^{(5)}`$ $`R^\mathrm{\Sigma }W_i^{(1)},`$ $`W_{ij}^{(5)}`$ $`RZ_{ij}^{(2)}.`$ (16)
where we have split the indices as $`A=(\underset{¯}{1},a)`$ and $`I=(i,5)`$. Here $`R`$ is the dimensionless radius of the AdS7 factor (i.e. the dimensionful radius divided by the Planck length) while the radius of the $`S^4`$ equals $`R/2`$. We will comment below on the value of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ when we take the limit to flat space-time. The $`Z^{(2|1)}`$ generators split as

$$Z_{\underset{¯}{1}a|i}^{(2|1)}RZ_{(1,1)}^{(2)},Z_{\underset{¯}{1}a|5}^{(2|1)}RZ_{(1,4)}^{(5)},Z_{ab|5}^{(2|1)}RZ_{(2,0)}^{(5)}RZ_{(5,0)}^{(5)},Z_{ab|i}^{(2|1)}RZ_{(2,3)}^{(5)},$$
(17)
while the $`Z^{(4|2)}`$ generators split and scale as

$$Z_{\underset{¯}{1}abc|ij}^{(4|2)}RZ_{(3,2)}^{(5)},Z_{\underset{¯}{1}abc|i5}^{(4|2)}RZ_{(4,1)}^{(5)}.$$
(18)
We used the notation $`Z_{(p,q)}^{(2)}`$ and $`Z_{(p,q)}^{(5)}`$ to denote a two-form resp. five-form which transforms as a $`(p,q)`$-form under the $`\text{so}(6,1)\text{so}(4)`$ algebra. Counting the generators, we are left with precisely the number of central charges expected in the flat space-time algebra, except for the two additional $`W^{(1)}`$ charges. However, as we will see, these additional charges do not pose problems. Finally, the supercharges are redefined as

$$Q\sqrt{R}Q.$$
(19)
The flat space-time limit is now obtained by taking the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit. In order to compare the result with a direct construction of the algebra in flat space-time, one has to express the $`\text{so}(6,2)\text{so}(5)`$ gamma matrices in terms of $`\text{so}(6,1)\text{so}(4)`$ ones (this can be done by using $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ intermediate notation as explained in (31) and (32) in the appendix). One easily finds agreement between these two results. The $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket turns into

$`\{Q,Q\}`$ $`=\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^aC^1\right)P_a+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^iC^1\right)P_i+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{ab}C^1\right)Z_{ab}^{(2)}+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{ij}C^1\right)Z_{ij}^{(2)}+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{ai}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}C^1\right)Z_{ai}^{(2)}`$ (20)
$`+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{abijk}C^1\right)Z_{abijk}^{(5)}+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{aijkl}C^1\right)Z_{aijkl}^{(5)}+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{abcde}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}C^1\right)Z_{abcde}^{(5)}`$
$`+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{abcdi}C^1\right)Z_{abcdi}^{(5)}+\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{abcij}C^1\right)Z_{abcij}^{(5)},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i`$ are gamma matrices in $`C(6,1)`$ and $`C(4,0)`$ respectively, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ denotes the chirality matrix in $`C(4,0)`$ and the charge conjugation matrix is given by $`CC_{(6,1)}\times C_{(4)}`$. Note that the four-dimensional spinors are not Weyl, which explains the appearance of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, yet dualisation has been freely used in the seven-dimensional sector (for instance to identify $`Z_{(2,0)}^{(5)}Z_{(5,0)}^{(5)}`$ in (17)). The bracket (20) is precisely what one would get if one were to construct this flat-space central extension from scratch.

Several comments are in order here. Firstly, note that flat space five-form $`Z^{(5)}`$ arises both from the $`Z^{(2|1)}`$ and the $`Z^{(2|4)}`$ charges. Secondly, the parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (15) with which we scale the $`W^{(8)}`$ and $`W^5`$ charges should lie in the range

$$\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{\Sigma }1.$$
(21)
For $`\frac{1}{2}<\mathrm{\Sigma }<1`$, the charges $`W_a^{(1)}`$ and $`W_i^{(1)}`$ decouple from the remainder of the algebra in the flat space-time limit: they disappear from the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket and become mutually commuting, while keeping their transformation property under the action of the $`M`$ generators.999It might be that this one-form charge is related to the possibility of constructing kappa-symmetric open membranes which end on a string . In the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$, these two one-form charges combine with the momenta, and appear only through the combinations $`(P_a+W_a)`$ and $`(P_i+W_i)`$ in the full algebra. The other linear combination has trivial commutators with all other generators, including the Lorentz generators $`M`$. This case is perhaps more natural and resembles a similar situation in string theory, where winding charges combine with momenta .

Finally, note that it was crucial for the correct flat space limit that the generators $`M^{8,5}`$ and $`W^{8,5}`$ get scaled away from the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ commutator, but *not* $`\widehat{M}^{(8,5)}`$, $`\widehat{W}^{(8,5)}`$. The latter option would lead to a reduction of the number of generators on the right hand side of this commutator, while the left hand side would still contain the same number of components. Hence, to take the the correct flat space limit it is crucial to correctly identify the bosonic isometry generator as belonging to the *diagonal* $`\text{so}(6,2)\times \text{so}(4)`$ within the algebra (14).

### 2.3 The super-Poincaré algebra from a diagonal embedding

While the presence of $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ in our algebra is reminiscent of the structure of the maximally extended super-Poincaré algebra, the isometry generators are embedded in a different way, namely through “diagonal embedding” instead of through a semi-direct sum. In the present section we would like to comment on this difference and show how the diagonal embedding approach also works for the flat space-time situation.

Remember that a contraction of the $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ algebra leads to the maximally extended eleven-dimensional super-*translation* algebra , spanned by the translation generators $`P`$ and two- and five-form central charges $`Z^{(2)}`$ and $`Z^{(5)}`$. To obtain the full super-Poincaré algebra, one has to add the Lorentz generators of the $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ algebra separately: one starts with the semi-direct sum $`\text{so}(10,1)\text{osp}(1|32)`$ (where $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ acts non-trivially on $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$), and does not scale these generators in the process of contraction (see however ).

Alternatively, inspired by the structure that has appeared in the previous section, one could start from the algebra $`\text{osp}(1|32)\text{so}(10,1)`$ (where “$``$” denotes the *direct* sum). Let us denote the generators of $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ in $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ with $`\widehat{Z}^{(2)}`$ and the ones sitting in the other $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ with $`\widehat{M}^{(2)}`$. Decomposing the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ commutator with respect to the $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ subalgebra of $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$, one gets the familiar expression

$$\{Q,Q\}\widehat{P}+\widehat{Z}^{(2)}+\widehat{Z}^{(5)}.$$
(22)
The rest of the $`\text{osp}(1|32)`$ commutators can be written schematically as

$`[\widehat{Z}^{(2)},\widehat{Z}^{(2)}]\widehat{Z}^{(2)}`$ $`[\widehat{Z}^{(2)},\widehat{Z}^{(5)}]\widehat{Z}^{(2)}+\widehat{Z}^{(5)}`$ $`[\widehat{Z}^{(5)},\widehat{Z}^{(5)}]\widehat{Z}^{(2)}+\widehat{Z}^{(5)}`$ (23)
$`[\widehat{P},\widehat{Z}^{(2)}]\widehat{P}`$ $`[\widehat{P},\widehat{Z}^{(5)}]\widehat{Z}^{(5)}`$ $`[\widehat{P},\widehat{P}]\widehat{P}+\widehat{Z}^{(2)}.`$ (24)
As in the AdS case, one identifies the Lorentz generators of the flat vacuum with a diagonal subalgebra of the two $`\text{so}(10,1)`$ algebras,

$$M^{(2)}\widehat{M}^{(2)}+\widehat{Z}^{(2)},Z^{(2)}\widehat{M}^{(2)}\widehat{Z}^{(2)},P\widehat{P}.$$
(25)
In taking the contraction to the flat space limit, one scales the generators as

$$Q\sqrt{R}Q,PRP,MM,Z^{(2)}RZ^{(2)},Z^{(5)}RZ^{(5)}.$$
(26)
It is now obvious that by rewriting (23) in terms of the new variables $`M^{(2)}`$ and $`Z^{(2)}`$ and applying the scaling (26), one arrives at the commutation relations of the full super-Poincaré algebra (with trivial commutation relations between all central charges and a nontrivial action of the Lorentz generators $`M^{(2)}`$ on all central charges). Note that before the contraction, the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ commutator contains, just as in the AdS case, a linear combination of the bosonic generators and central charges. Additionally, the bosonic generators drop out from the commutator only after having taken the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit.

From the two explicit examples we have worked out in detail in this note, it is suggestive that the general form of the complete M-theory algebra could be of the form $`\text{osp}(1|32)G`$, where $`G`$ is a minimal *bosonic* algebra that incorporates the isometry algebras of all M-theory vacua. However, we still have to analyse the representation theory of our algebra and compare it with the representation theory of $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$.

### 2.4 Representation theory and the graviton multiplet

If the non-perturbatively extended algebra presented in this paper is to be compatible with existing literature, we should show (at the very least) that the massless graviton multiplet of the non-extended $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra “lifts” to a representation of the bigger algebra. The fact that the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra is not a sub-superalgebra of the algebra we have constructed means that, apart from the fact that we have introduced new generators (non-perturbative charges), we have also modified the action of the “old” generators (supercharges). A “lift” of existing supermultiplets of $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ can therefore not be just a simple embedding. Since the new generators of the extended algebra have non-trivial commutation relations with the supercharges, the various states in a supermultiplet will in principle transform non-trivially under the action of the new charges. Hence, a single state of the old algebra is generically lifted to a set of states with the same values of the old quantum numbers, yet with non-zero values of the new charges.

The graviton multiplet is a short multiplet: when constructing the multiplet by repeatedly acting on the lowest energy states with energy-raising supersymmetry operators, one encounters some states which have zero norm and are therefore absent from the multiplet. Consider now the eigenvalue problem

$$det\left(\varphi |\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}\lambda \delta _{\alpha \beta }|\varphi \right)=0$$
(27)
for a given state $`|\varphi `$. Because of the existence of null vectors some supercharges act trivially on $`|\varphi `$, and the polynomial on the left-hand side will have a number of zeroes at $`\lambda =0`$. Some of these are trivial: for e.g. a ground state, where we know that all energy-lowering operators should vanish identically, we find a factor $`\lambda ^{16}`$. The non-trivial factor(s) of this polynomial constitute the BPS equation(s) for the given state $`|\varphi `$.

The unitary irreducible representations of $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ are uniquely labeled  by representations of its maximal compact bosonic subalgebra $`\text{so}(2)\times \text{su}(4)\times \text{so}(5)`$.101010Note that each unitary irrep of the compact subgroup $`\text{so}(2)\times \text{su}(4)`$ gives rise to an *infinite-dimensional* representation of the full non-compact group $`\text{so}(6,2)`$. This reflects the general fact that there are no finite-dimensional unitary representations of non-compact groups. The BPS equations on a state are expressed in terms of the associated quantum numbers. By “lifted state” we now mean a state in a multiplet of the extended algebra which transforms in the same way under the bosonic generators inherited from the old algebra, and is annihilated by the same number of supercharges as before111111Lifting the representation of the diagonal subalgebra to the full one can be understood more easily by considering a toy example, for instance the lift of $`\text{su}(2)`$ representations to $`\text{su}(2)\times \text{su}(2)`$ in which it is embedded.. The BPS condition for the state in the extended algebra can be derived from

$$\varphi |\{Q,Q\}|\varphi =\varphi |\left(M^{(8)}2M^{(5)}+W^{(8)}+W^{(5)}+Z^{(2|1)}+Z^{(4|2)}\right)|\varphi .$$
(28)
The first two terms on the right-hand side are the same as in the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra, and hence vanish, when evaluated on any $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ BPS state. Using simple representation theory arguments one can show that the expectation values of *some* of the non-perturbative charges in *some* of the gravity multiplet states vanish. There are, for instance, several $`\text{AdS}_7`$ scalars in the graviton multiplet  (the “dilaton”) which carry the $`\text{so}(2)\times \text{su}(4)\times \text{so}(5)`$ quantum numbers $`[4,0,0,0,2,0]`$. The tensor product with $`Z^{(2|1)}`$ does not contain this dilaton representation, and the presence of $`\varphi |Z^{(2|1)}|\varphi `$ does therefore not modify the BPS equation for these particular states.

However, this simple argument cannot be used to deduce the absence of all non-perturbative charges from the BPS equation for all states. This is essentially due to the fact that there are charges which transform in the same way as either $`M^{(8)}`$ or $`M^{(5)}`$ under the action of the $`\text{so}(5)`$ group. This then implies that their expectation values in the supergraviton states are generically non-vanishing. The only way they could drop out from the BPS equations is if they accidentally vanish for the given representation, or if they conspire together to give zero. It seems unlikely that this will happen in general, but a definite conclusion will require the explicit construction of the representations of the full algebra, which we will not attempt here.

## 3 Discussion

We have constructed a maximal non-perturbative extension of the super-isometry algebra of the $`\text{AdS}_7\times S^4`$ vacuum of M-theory by adding new bosonic charges to the isometry algebra $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ (a similar construction is possible for the other supersymmetric vacua of M-theory and those of string theory). These additional charges are even less central than those that appear in the extension of the super-Poincaré algebra: just as in the supersymmetric extension of conformal algebras  they commute neither with the other bosonic charges nor with the supercharges. While our algebra satisfies a couple of physical consistency checks, we have also argued that the structure might lead to a representation theory which does not produce the expected “lifted” $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ multiplets.

The extension constructed here exhibits additional non-abelian charges, which is a generic feature of extensions of AdS algebras. This implies that a direct interpretation of the new generators in terms of brane charges becomes more complicated than in flat space-time. One particular situation in which the analysis may be simplified is in the Hpp-wave limit of the background discussed in this paper. Branes in this background have been studied using probe branes, boundary states and supergravity solutions, but a simple classification using representation theory of an extended algebra would be desirable; we intend to investigate this problem in the near future.

It is conceivable that our extension is still too conservative, and that the problems in finding a correct perturbative spectrum arise because an even larger algebra should be considered. Our analysis shows that one is then *forced* to introduce additional fermionic charges, which may perhaps lead to an $`\text{osp}(1|32)\text{osp}(1|32)`$ structure. Fermionic extensions actually seem to be suggested by an analysis of the superalgebra of the matrix model in a pp-wave background, and we will report on this issue elsewhere .

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Hermann Nicolai, Martin O’Loughlin, Tomás Ortín, Jan Plefka, Andrew Waldron and especially Stefano Kovacs for discussions.

## Appendix A Appendix

### A.1 Conventions and Clifford algebras

Our $`\text{so}(6,2)`$ spinors are taken to be anti-Weyl, so together with our conventions for the $`\text{so}(5)`$ part we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{A_1\mathrm{}A_8}=ϵ^{A_1\mathrm{}A_8},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_1\mathrm{}I_5}=ϵ^{I_1\mathrm{}I_5}.$$
(29)
This is consistent with our choice for anti-self-duality of the charge $`Z^{(4|2)}`$,

$$Z_{ABCD|IJ}^{}=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ_{ABCD}{}_{}{}^{EFGH}Z_{EFGH|IJ}^{}.$$
(30)
We use the notation $`C(t,s)`$ for the Clifford algebra for a Lorentz-like metric with signature $`(t,s)`$. The explicit representation of $`C(6,1)C(4,0)`$ by means of $`C(10,1)`$ is given by $`(a=0,\mathrm{},6;i=7,\mathrm{},10)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i`$ $`=\gamma ^i,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^a`$ $`=\gamma ^{}\gamma ^a,`$ (31)
$`\gamma ^{}`$ $`=\gamma ^{7\mathrm{}10},`$ $`C`$ $`=𝒞_{(11)}\gamma ^{},`$
while a representation of $`C(6,2)C(5,0)`$ by means of $`C(10,1)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$ $`=\gamma ^i1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^y`$ $`=i\gamma ^{}1,`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a`$ $`=\gamma ^{}\gamma ^a\sigma ^1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{1}}`$ $`=1\sigma ^2,`$
where, in the notation of footnote 7, the index ranges are $`(A=\underset{¯}{1},0,\mathrm{},6;I=7,\mathrm{},10,y)`$. The charge conjugation matrix of this 13-dimensional representation and the Weyl projector in the $`\text{so}(6,2)`$ factor are given by

$$𝒞_{(13)}=𝒞_{(11)}\gamma ^{}1,\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(9)}=1\sigma ^3.$$
(33)
### A.2 Solving the Jacobi identities

As explained in the main text, we have derived the non-perturbative extension of the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra by starting from a general Ansatz and solving the Jacobi identities. The key steps are presented below. The most important ingredient in our Ansatz is the bracket

$$\{Q,Q\}=aM^{(8)}+\stackrel{~}{a}W^{(8)}+bM^{(5)}+\stackrel{~}{b}W^{(5)}+cZ^{(2|1)}+dZ^{(4|2)}.$$
(34)
where we have suppressed all indices and gamma matrices for brevity. We will use the standard $`\text{so}(6,2)`$ and $`\text{so}(5)`$ brackets for the isometry generators. One may actually think of adding central charges to these $`[M,M]`$ commutators, but apart from the reasons against this which were given in the introduction, one also quickly finds out that in this case it is impossible to satisfy the $`(Q,Q,Z)`$ and $`(M,M,Z)`$ Jacobi identities at the same time. The most general form of the commutators involving the generators $`M^{(8)}`$, $`M^{(5)}`$ and the new charges $`W^{(8)}`$, $`W^{(5)}`$ is

$`[M^{(8)},W^{(8)}]`$ $`=\alpha M^{(8)}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }W^{(8)},`$ $`[W^{(8)},W^{(8)}]`$ $`=\beta M^{(8)}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }W^{(8)}`$ (35)
$`[M^{(5)},W^{(5)}]`$ $`=\gamma M^{(5)}+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }W^{(5)},`$ $`[W^{(5)},W^{(5)}]`$ $`=\delta M^{(5)}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }W^{(5)}.`$
These generators act on the fermionic charges as

$`[M^{(8)},Q]`$ $`=A\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ $`[M^{(5)},Q]`$ $`=B\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ (36)
$`[W^{(8)},Q]`$ $`=A_z\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ $`[W^{(5)},Q]`$ $`=B_z\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$
$`[Z^{(2|1)},Q]`$ $`=C\mathrm{\Gamma }Q,`$ $`[Z^{(4|2)},Q]`$ $`=D\mathrm{\Gamma }Q.`$
What remains is to fix the commutators with the $`Z^{(2|1)}`$ and $`Z^{(4|2)}`$ charges. These are parametrised as

$`[M^{(8)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=mZ^{(2|1)},`$ $`[W^{(8)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{m}[M^{(8)},Z^{(2|1)}],`$ (37)
$`[M^{(5)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=nZ^{(2|1)},`$ $`[W^{(5)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{n}[M^{(5)},Z^{(2|1)}],`$
and

$`[M^{(8)},Z^{(4|2)}]=\mu Z^{(4|2)},`$ $`[W^{(8)},Z^{(4|2)}]=\stackrel{~}{\mu }[M^{(8)},Z^{(4|2)}],`$ (38)
$`[M^{(5)},Z^{(4|2)}]=\nu Z^{(4|2)},`$ $`[W^{(5)},Z^{(4|2)}]=\stackrel{~}{\nu }[M^{(5)},Z^{(4|2)}].`$
The “standard” non-perturbative charges obey the commutators

$`[Z^{(2|1)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ $`=pM^{(8)}+\stackrel{~}{p}Z^{(8)}+qM^4+\stackrel{~}{q}W^{(5)}+rZ^{(4|2)},`$ (39)
$`[Z^{(2|1)},Z^{(4|2)}]`$ $`=\rho \left(Z^{(2|1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}ϵ_8Z^{(2|1)}\right)+\sigma ϵ_5Z^{(4|2)},`$
$`[Z^{(4|2)},Z^{(4|2)}]`$ $`=(\delta \frac{2}{4!}ϵ)(\lambda M^{(8)}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }W^{(8)})+(\delta \frac{1}{4!}ϵ)(\kappa M^{(5)}+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }W^{(5)})`$
$`+\chi (\delta \frac{1}{4!}ϵ)Z^{(2|1)}+\varphi Z^{(4|2)}.`$
The structure involving the $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ parts is determined by imposing self-duality on the tensors on the left-hand side; explicit indices can easily be inserted.

The parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ are fixed to be $`a=1`$ and $`b=2`$ because we want the structure of the $`\text{osp}^{}(8|4)`$ algebra to be manifestly present in the $`\{Q,Q\}`$ bracket. In order to determine the remaining parameters, we first scale the generators $`W^{(8)}`$, $`W^{(5)}`$ and $`Z^{(1|1)}`$ in such a way that

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }=1,\stackrel{~}{\delta }=1,p=\pm 1,$$
(40)
which is always possible. The $`(M,M,W)`$ Jacobi identities restrict the way in which the two-form charges act on each other; from $`(M^{(8)},M^{(8)},W^{(8)})`$ one finds

$$\{\alpha =0,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1\}\text{or}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0.$$
(41)
Similar conditions for $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ arise from $`(M^{(5)},M^{(5)},W^{(5)})`$. We discard the second option because it makes the interpretation of the $`M`$ charges as isometry generators troublesome. The action of these isometry generators on the “standard” non-perturbative charges $`Z^{(2|1)}`$ and $`Z^{(4|2)}`$ is fixed by imposing the following Jacobi identities:

$`(M^{(8)},M^{(8)},Z^{(2|1)})`$ $`m=1,`$ $`(M^{(5)},M^{(5)},Z^{(2|1)})`$ $`n=\frac{1}{2},`$ (42)
$`(M^{(8)},M^{(8)},Z^{(4|2)})`$ $`\mu =2,`$ $`(M^{(5)},M^{(5)},Z^{(4|2)})`$ $`\nu =1.`$
One now first fixes the action of all two-form charges on the fermions, using for instance the Jacobi identities

$`(M^{(8)},Q,Q)`$ $`A=\frac{1}{8},`$ $`(M^{(5)},Q,Q)`$ $`B=\frac{1}{8},`$ (43)
$`(W^{(8)},Q,Q)`$ $`A_z=\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{8}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{8},`$ $`(W^{(5)},Q,Q)`$ $`B_z=\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}}{8}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}{8}.`$
The structure of the algebra in the sector of the two-form charges is then fixed to a large extent from the Jacobi identities

$`(W^{(8)},W^{(8)},Q)`$ $`\beta =\stackrel{~}{m}(\stackrel{~}{m}1),`$ (44)
$`(W^{(5)},W^{(5)},Q)`$ $`\delta =\stackrel{~}{n}(\stackrel{~}{n}1),`$
and using a different part of the $`(Z,Q,Q)`$ identities,

$`(W^{(8)},Q,Q)`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{m}1}},`$ (45)
$`(W^{(5)},Q,Q)`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{n}1}}.`$
A key relation between the two remaining parameters $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is found from

$`(Z^{(2|1)},Q,Q)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{m}1}{\stackrel{~}{m}1}}=8cC=2{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{n}1}{\stackrel{~}{n}1}},`$ (46)
$`(Z^{(4|2)},Q,Q)`$ $`cC=24!dD.`$
This last line ensures that the triple-$`Q`$ identity is satisfied, since it leads to

$$(Q,Q,Q)2(aA+\stackrel{~}{a}A_z)+(bB+\stackrel{~}{b}B_z)+2cC104!dD.$$
(47)
Finally, one determines the way in which the $`W`$ charges appear in the $`[Z^{(2|1)},Z^{(2|1)}]`$ bracket by considering

$`(Z^{(2|1)},Z^{(2|1)},W^{(8)})`$ $`\stackrel{~}{p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{m}1}},`$ (48)
$`(Z^{(2|1)},Z^{(2|1)},W^{(5)})`$ $`\stackrel{~}{q}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{n}1}},`$
$`(Q,Q,Z^{(2|1)})`$ $`q=1,`$
(the sign in the last equation depending on the sign of $`p`$ in (40)). Analogously one determines similar coefficients in the $`[Z^{(4|2)},Z^{(4|2)}]`$ bracket from

$$(Q,Q,Z^{(4|2)})(\stackrel{~}{m}1)\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda ,(\stackrel{~}{n}1)\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\kappa .$$
(49)
The Jacobi identities not listed so far do not impose any further restrictions on the parameters. At this stage, one can now diagonalise the algebra in the two-form sector, as explained in the main text, and obtain the structure given in (14).


format: text

text:
# Higher cumulants of voltage fluctuations in current-biased diffusive contacts

## Abstract

The third and fourth cumulants of voltage in a current-biased diffusive metal contact of resistance $`R`$ are calculated for arbitrary temperatures and voltages using the semiclassical cascade approach. The third cumulant equals $`e^2R^3I/3`$ at high temperatures and $`4e^2R^3I/15`$ at low temperatures, whereas the fourth cumulant equals $`2e^2R^3T/3`$ at high temperatures and $`(34/105)e^3R^4I`$ at low temperatures.

PACS numbers: 73.50.Td, 05.40.Ca, 72.70.+m, 74.40+k

Recently, higher cumulants of current in mesoscopic conductors received a significant attention of theorists. This work was pioneered by Levitov and Lesovik, who found that the charge transmitted through a single-channel quantum contact at zero temperature is distributed according to a binomial law. Subsequently, these calculations were extended to conductors with a large number of quantum channels such as diffusive wires and chaotic cavities. More recently, the third cumulant of current was calculated for a tunnel contact with interacting quasiparticles. The third and fourth cumulants of current were also calculated for diffusive-metal contacts for arbitrary temperatures and voltages.

Common to al these papers was that they considered the fluctuations of current or charge transmitted through a contact at a constant voltage drop across it. This allowed the authors to treat independently the charge transmitted through different quantum channels and at different energies. The assumption of constant voltage is justified if the resistance of the external circuit is much smaller than that of the conductor. In actual experiments, the opposite relation is quite possible and in this case one can speak of fluctuations of the voltage drop across the conductor at a constant current. For a system with an Ohmic conduction the second cumulant of voltage is just the second cumulant of current in the voltage-biased regime times $`R^2`$, where $`R`$ is the resistance of the conductor. One might think that higher cumulants of voltage and current are related in a similar way, but this is not the case. Very recently Kindermann, Nazarov, and Beenakker showed that higher cumulants of voltage and current in the current- and voltage-biased conductors are not related in such a simple way. In particular, they calculated the low-temperature third and fourth cumulants of charge transmitted through a multichannel conductor connected in series with a macroscopic resistor to a voltage source and found that these cumulants present nonlinear functions of current cumulants of the same conductor in the voltage-biased mode.

The purpose of this paper is to calculate the third and fourth cumulants of voltage in a current-biased diffusive-metal contact for arbitrary temperatures and to show how the recently proposed semiclassical cascade approach

should be modified in that case. The key point for this approach is that the system is described by at least two distinct variables whose fluctuations are characterized by essentially different time scales. Fluctuations of the ”slow” variable modulate the intensity of noise sources for the ”fast” variable and result in additional higher-order correlations. Therefore the higher cumulants of the fast variable may be recursively expressed in terms of its lower-order cumulants. Originally, this method was proposed for diffusive metals. Later it was proved to be equivalent to the rigorous quantum-mechanical approach for chaotic cavities. More recently similar recursive relations were obtained as a saddle-point expansion of a stochastic path integral. The papers addressed the case of purely elastic scattering in the low-frequency limit at constant voltage bias where the fluctuations of the electric potential are inessential and the cascade expansions can be made with respect to only one parameter, the distribution function $`f(\epsilon )`$. For a current-biased conductor this is not the case any more and the electric potential explicitly enters into the expressions. Here we show how the cascade expansion should be generalized to the case where the system is described by two different slow variables.

Consider a quasi-one-dimensional diffusive contact of length $`L`$ and resistance $`R`$ connected in series with a resistor of larger cross section that has yet much larger resistance $`R_SR`$ (see Fig. 1). Because of a strong energy relaxation in the resistor the local distribution of electrons is Fermian with a temperature equal to that of the bath, yet the local electric potential may fluctuate. Assume that the resistor is connected to the left end of the contact and the right end of the contact is grounded. A large constant voltage is applied to the left end of the series resistor. Therefore the noise of the resistor may be considered as Gaussian. The fluctuations of current in the circuit are determined by the larger resistance, hence the spectral density of the current noise $`S_I=4T/R_S`$ is extremely small because of large $`R_S`$. Therefore the current through the contact may be considered as constant even at a nonzero temperature. We will be interested in fluctuations of the electric potential at the left end of the contact, which actually presents the voltage drop across it.

In what follows we consider only fluctuations in the zero-frequency limit and will neglect the pile-up of charge. It will be implied that all the subsequent equations contain only low-frequency Fourier transforms of the corresponding quantities. A fluctuation of current inside the contact is given by

$$\delta 𝐣=\sigma \delta \varphi +\delta 𝐣^{ext},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma `$ is the conductivity of the metal, $`\delta \varphi `$ is a fluctuation of the electric potential, and

$$\delta 𝐣^{ext}(𝐫)=eN_F𝑑\epsilon \delta 𝐅^{ext}.$$
(2)
The Fourier transform of the correlator of extraneous sources $`\delta 𝐅^{ext}`$ is expressed in terms of the average distribution function $`f`$ via a formula

$$\delta F_\alpha ^{ext}(\epsilon ,𝐫)\delta F_\beta ^{ext}(\epsilon ^{},𝐫^{})=2\frac{D}{N_F}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})$$

$$\times \delta (\epsilon \epsilon ^{})\delta _{\alpha \beta }f(\epsilon )[1f(\epsilon )].$$
(3)
Integrating Eq. (1) over the contact volume, one obtains

$$\delta I=\frac{eN_F}{L}d^3r𝑑\epsilon \delta F_x^{ext}+\frac{1}{R}\delta \varphi _0.$$
(4)
where $`\delta \varphi _0`$ is a fluctuation of electric potential at the left end of the contact and $`R`$ is the contact resistance. As the current fluctuations are negligibly small, one may set $`\delta I=0`$, so that at low frequencies

$$\delta \varphi _0=R\frac{eN_F}{L}d^3r𝑑\epsilon \delta F_x.$$
(5)
Hence the second cumulant of voltage $`\varphi _0`$ is related to the second cumulant of current in the voltage-biased contact in a trivial way

$$\varphi _0^2=R^2I^2|_{\varphi _0=const},$$

$$I^2=\frac{2}{RL}_0^L𝑑x𝑑\epsilon f(\epsilon ,x)[1f(\epsilon ,x)].$$
(6)
The characteristic time scale for $`\delta 𝐣^{ext}`$ and $`\delta 𝐅^{ext}`$ is the elastic scattering time. As this time is much shorter than the $`RC`$ time and the time of diffusion across the contact that describe the evolution of fluctuations of voltage $`\delta \varphi _0`$ and the distribution function $`\delta f(\epsilon ,𝐫)`$. Hence one may perform a cascade expansion of higher cumulants with respect to these slow variables.

Consider first the third cumulant of voltage $`\varphi _0^3`$. Since the third cumulant of extraneous currents is vanishingly small in the diffusive limit, the bare third cumulant of voltage fluctuations obtained by a direct multiplication of three equations (5) is also small. Hence the third cumulant of voltage should be given by a cascade correction

$$\varphi _0^3=3_0^L𝑑x𝑑\epsilon \frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}\delta f(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0,$$
(7)
where the functional derivative

$$\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}=2\frac{R}{L}[12f(\epsilon ,x)].$$
(8)
is easily calculated from Eq. (6). The key difference from the case of constant voltage is that the fluctuation $`\delta f`$ should be calculated now taking into account the feedback from the environment. The fluctuations of voltage $`\varphi _0`$ caused by random scattering in the contact result in fluctuations of the distribution function at the right end of the resistor, which presents the boundary condition for the distribution function in the contact. Hence the fluctuation of a distribution function is a sum

$$\delta f(\epsilon ,x)=\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)+\frac{f(\epsilon ,x)}{\varphi _0}\delta \varphi _0,$$
(9)
where $`\delta \varphi _0`$ is given by Eq. (5) and

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)=(D^2)^1\delta 𝐅^{ext}$$

is the “intrinsic” part of fluctuation directly caused by random scattering. The last term in Eq. (9) mixes together fluctuations at different energies so that they are not independent any more. In the case of purely elastic scattering in the contact, the average distribution function $`f(\epsilon ,x)`$ in the contact is given by

$$f(\epsilon ,x)=\psi (x)f_0(\epsilon e\varphi _0)+\overline{\psi }(x)f_0(\epsilon )$$
(10)
where $`\varphi _0=IR`$ is the voltage drop across the contact and $`\psi (x)=1x/L`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(x)=x/L`$ are the characteristic potentials of the left and right electrodes. Hence the derivative in Eq. (9) is just

$$\frac{f(\epsilon ,x)}{\varphi _0}=e\psi (x)\frac{f_0(\epsilon e\varphi _0)}{\epsilon }.$$
(11)
Multiplying Eqs. (9) and (5) and averaging the product with use of Eq. (3), one easily obtains that

$$\delta f(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0=2eRU(\epsilon ,x)+R^2\frac{f(\epsilon ,x)}{\varphi _0}I^2,$$
(12)
where

$$U(\epsilon ,x)=\frac{1}{L}(^2)^1\frac{}{x}[f(1f)].$$

A substitution of Eqs. (8) and (12) into Eq. (7) gives

$$\varphi _0^3=\frac{1}{30}eR^2[8T^2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{eIR}{T}\right)2eIRT$$

$$+4eIRT\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{eIR}{T}\right)5e^2I^2R^2\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{eIR}{2T}\right)]$$

$$/\left[T\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{eIR}{2T}\right)\right].$$
(13)
This expression reduces to

$$\varphi _0^3=\frac{1}{3}e^2R^3I$$

at low current or high temperature $`eIRT`$ and to

$$\varphi _0^3=\frac{4}{15}e^2R^3I$$

at high current or low temperature $`eIRT`$. In the former case $`\varphi _0^3`$ coincides with $`R^3I^3`$, but in the latter case it is four times larger. On the whole, the temperature dependence of $`\varphi _0^3`$ at a given current appears to be more flat than that of $`I^3`$ at a given voltage. Equation (13) is in an agreement with the temperature-dependent third cumulant of voltage obtained by Beenakker et al. One may also obtain its low-temperature limit from the formula for the third cumulant of current of Kindermann et al. using voltage-biased cumulants for a diffusive contact.

Unlike the third cumulant, the fourth cumulant cannot be expressed in terms of only functional derivatives with respect to $`\delta f`$. The point is that the correlator (12) explicitly depends on the voltage drop $`\varphi _0`$ through the derivative $`f_0(\epsilon e\varphi _0)/\epsilon `$. Therefore one has to perform the cascade expansion with respect to $`\delta \stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\delta \varphi _0`$ considering them as different stochastic variables. The rules for constructing the diagrams remain basically the same as for the case of a voltage-biased contact, but now a variation of any fluctuating quantity should be taken twice, i.e. with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }f(\epsilon ,x)`$ and $`\delta \varphi _0`$. Hence the number of terms significantly increases:

$$\varphi _0^4=6S_1+12S_2+6S_3+12(S_4+S_5+S_6+S_7)$$

$$+3S_8+6S_9+3S_{10},$$
(14)
where

$$S_1=𝑑\epsilon _1𝑑\epsilon _2𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\frac{\delta ^2\varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1,x_1)\delta f(\epsilon _2,x_2)}$$

$$\times \delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _1,x_1)\delta \varphi _0\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _2,x_2)\delta \varphi _0,$$
(15)
$$S_2=𝑑\epsilon 𝑑x\frac{\delta ^2\varphi _0^2}{\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0}\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _1,x_1)\delta \varphi _0\varphi _0^2,$$
(16)
$$S_3=\frac{^2\varphi _0^2}{\varphi _0^2}\varphi _0^2,$$
(17)
$$S_4=𝑑\epsilon _1𝑑\epsilon _2𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1,x_1)}$$

$$\times \frac{\delta \delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _1,x_1)\delta \varphi _0}{\delta f(\epsilon _2,x_2)}\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _2,x_2)\delta \varphi _0,$$
(18)
$$S_5=𝑑\epsilon 𝑑x\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}\frac{\delta \delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0}{\delta \varphi _0}\varphi _0^2,$$
(19)
$$S_6=\frac{\varphi _0^2}{\varphi _0}𝑑\epsilon 𝑑x\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0,$$
(20)
$$S_7=\left(\frac{\varphi _0^2}{\varphi _0}\right)^2\varphi _0^2,$$
(21)
$$S_8=𝑑\epsilon _1𝑑\epsilon _2𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1,x_1)}$$

$$\times \delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _1,x_1)\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon _2,x_2)\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _2,x2)},$$
(22)
$$S_9=𝑑\epsilon 𝑑x\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0\frac{\varphi _0^2}{\varphi _0},$$
(23)
and

$$S_{10}=\left(\frac{\varphi _0^2}{\varphi _0}\right)^2\varphi _0^2.$$
(24)
The numerical prefactors 6, 12, and 3 in Eq. (14) present the numbers of inequivalent permutations of $`\varphi _0`$ in the corresponding expressions. The functional derivative with respect to $`\varphi _0`$ is defined as

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta \varphi _0}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\varphi _0}+𝑑\epsilon 𝑑x\frac{\delta \mathrm{}}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}\frac{f(\epsilon ,x)}{\varphi _0}.$$

The sum $`6S_1+12S_4+3S_8`$ gives just $`R^4\stackrel{~}{I}^4`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{I}^4`$ is the fourth cumulant of current for a current-biased contact with a voltage drop $`\varphi _0`$. The sum $`12S_2+12S_5`$ is easily brought to a form

$$12𝑑\epsilon 𝑑x\frac{}{\varphi _0}\left(\frac{\delta \varphi _0^2}{\delta f(\epsilon ,x)}\delta \stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,x)\delta \varphi _0\right)\varphi _0^2$$

$$=4R^4\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}^3}{\varphi _0}\stackrel{~}{I}^2.$$

The integrals in $`S_6`$ and $`S_9`$ also present cumulants $`\stackrel{~}{I}^3`$ for a voltage-biased contact. The whole expression (14) assumes the form

$$\varphi _0^4=R^4\stackrel{~}{I}^4+6R^6\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{I}^2}{\varphi _0^2}\stackrel{~}{I}^2^2$$

$$+15R^6\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}^2}{\varphi _0}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{I}^26R^5\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}^2}{\varphi _0}\stackrel{~}{I}^3$$

$$4R^5\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}^3}{\varphi _0}\stackrel{~}{I}^2.$$
(25)
Substituting the cumulants of current for the voltage-biased contact, one easily obtains

$$\varphi _0^4=\frac{1}{2520}e^2R^3\{51eIRT^2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{5eIR}{2T}\right)$$

$$+72T^3\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{5eIR}{2T}\right)$$

$$(456T^3+224e^2I^2R^2T)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{3eIR}{2T}\right)$$

$$+(70e^3I^3R^3399eIRT^2)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{3eIR}{2T}\right)$$

$$+1008T^3\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{eIR}{2T}\right)$$

$$+(560e^3I^3R^3+348eIRT^2)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{eIR}{2T}\right)\}$$

$$/\left[T^2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{eIR}{2T}\right)\right]^5.$$
(26)
This expression reduces to

$$\varphi _0^4=\frac{2}{3}e^2R^3T$$

in the high-temperature limit, which differs from the corresponding cumulant of current in a voltage-biased contact just by a factor $`R^4`$. In the high-current limit,

$$\varphi _0^4=\frac{34}{105}e^3R^4I.$$

This value is in an agreement with the formula for the low-temperature fourth cumulant of transmitted charge of Kindermann et al. Unlike the fourth cumulant of current, the fourth cumulant of voltage is positive for all currents and temperatures and its numerical prefactor in the high-current limit is larger by more than an order of magnitude than that of the fourth cumulant of current at high voltages.

I am grateful to C. W. J. Beenakker for a discussion. I am also grateful to S. Pilgram and E. V. Sukhorukov for helping me to find a term missed in the previous version of the paper.

This work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant 01-02-17220, and by the INTAS Open grant 2001-1B-14.


text:
# Elliptic flow at large transverse momenta from quark coalescence

## Abstract

We show that hadronization via quark coalescence enhances hadron elliptic flow at large $`p_{}`$ relative to that of partons at the same transverse momentum. Therefore, compared to earlier results based on covariant parton transport theory, more moderate initial parton densities $`dN/d\eta (b=0)15003000`$ can explain the differential elliptic flow $`v_2(p_{})`$ data for $`Au+Au`$ reactions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ and $`200A`$ GeV from RHIC. In addition, $`v_2(p_{})`$ could saturate at about 50% higher values for baryons than for mesons. If strange quarks have weaker flow than light quarks, hadron $`v_2`$ at high $`p_{}`$ decreases with relative strangeness content.

Introduction. The goal of relativistic heavy ion collision experiments is to produce macroscopic amounts of deconfined partonic matter and study its collective behavior. One of the important experimental probes of collective dynamics in $`A+A`$ reactions is differential elliptic flowflow-review , $`v_2(p_{})\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )_p_{}`$, the second Fourier moment of the azimuthal momentum distribution for a given $`p_{}`$. Measurements of elliptic flow at high transverse momentum provide important constraints about the density and effective energy loss of partonspQCDv2 ; v2 .

Recent data from RHIC for Au+Au reactions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ and $`200`$ GeV show a remarkable saturation property of elliptic flow in the region $`2`$ GeV $`<p_{}<6`$ GeV with $`v_2`$ reaching up to 0.2 PHENIXv2 ; STARv2 ; KirillQM2002 ; PHENIXidentv2 . The saturation pattern, which corresponds to a factor of two azimuthal angle asymmetry of high-$`p_{}`$ particle production relative to the reaction plane, is still waiting for theoretical explanation.

The saturation and eventual decrease of $`v_2`$ at high $`p_{}`$ has been demonstrated as a consequence of finite inelastic parton energy losspQCDv2 . Though the qualitative features in the data were explained, for realistic diffuse nuclei the calculations show a rapid decrease of $`v_2`$ above $`p_{}>34`$ GeV contrary to the saturation out to $`p_{}6`$ GeV seen in the data.

Calculations of elliptic flow based on ideal (nondissipative) hydrodynamicsOllitrault:1992bk ; Heinzhydro ; Kolbhydro ; Teaneyhydro  can reproduce the low $`p_{}<2`$ GeV data at RHIC remarkably well, however overshoot the data above $`p_{}>2`$ GeV STARv2 ; Kolbhighptv2 . The lack of saturation is due to the assumption of zero mean free path and that local equilibrium can be maintained throughout the evolutionv2 ; Teaneyv2 .

Covariant parton transport theoryZPC ; ZPCv2 ; nonequil ; inelv2 ; v2 ; hbt  overcomes this problem via replacing the assumption of local equilibrium by that of a finite local mean free path $`\lambda (s,x)1/\sigma (s)n(x)`$. The theory then naturally interpolates between free streaming ($`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$) and ideal hydrodynamics ($`\lambda =0`$). Several studies confirm that initial parton densitiesEKRT  and elastic $`22`$ parton cross sections estimated from perturbative QCD, $`dN_g/d\eta (b=0)1000`$ and $`\sigma _{gggg}3`$ mb, generate too small collective effects at RHICZPCv2 ; inelv2 ; v2 ; hbt . Nevertheless, quantitative agreement with the $`v_2(p_{})`$ data is possible, provided initial parton densities and/or cross sections are enhanced by an order of magnitude to $`\sigma dN_g/d\eta (b=0)45000`$ mbv2 . A similar enhancement is indicated by the pion interferometry data as wellhbt . The origin of such an opaque parton environment is the RHIC “opacity puzzle”.

To compare to the experiments, parton transport models also have to incorporate the hadronization process. The studies mentioned above considered two simple schemes: $`1parton1\pi `$ hadronization, motivated by parton-hadron duality, and independent fragmentation. An alternative model of hadronization is quark coalescence, in which the relevant degrees of freedom are not free partons but massive (dressed) valence quarks. Gluons are assumed to have converted to quarks, therefore there are no dynamical gluons considered.

Quark coalescence has been applied successfully in the ALCORALCOR  and MICORMICOR  models to explain particle abundances and spectra in heavy-ion collisions. It was also suggested recently in Ref. Voloshincoal  as an explanation for the anomalous meson/baryon ratio and features of the elliptic flow data at RHIC. In this letter we show that hadronization via quark coalescence can resolve most of the “opacity puzzle” because it leads to an amplification of elliptic flow at high $`p_{}`$.

Quark coalescence. The usual starting point of coalescence models is the statement that the invariant spectrum of produced particles is proportional to the product of the invariant spectra of constituentscoal1 . This means that (assuming that different quark and anti-quark distributions are the same) the hadron spectra at midrapidity are given by those of partons via

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_B}{d^2p_{}}}(\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`C_B(p_{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dN_q}{d^2p_{}}}(\stackrel{}{p}_{}/3)\right]^3`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_M}{d^2p_{}}}(\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`C_M(p_{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dN_q}{d^2p_{}}}(\stackrel{}{p}_{}/2)\right]^2,`$ (1)
where the coefficients $`C_M`$ and $`C_B`$ are the probabilities for $`q\overline{q}meson`$ and $`qqqbaryon`$ coalescence. We allow for $`p_T`$ dependent coalescence factors because more careful treatment of the coalescence problemcoal2  shows that such a dependence may arise, e.g., due to kinematic (energy) factors or strong radial flow. This, however, does not influence elliptic flow because it is a ratio from which the coalescence factors drop out (see Eq. (3)).

These relations are only valid for rare processes. This is not the case at high constituent phase space densities, when most quarks recombine into hadrons and hence the number of hadrons is linearly proportional to that of quarks, $`dN_h(p_{})dN_q(p_{})`$.

At lower constituent densities, coalescence processes become relatively rare and therefore the usual coalescence formalism works. On the other hand, most quarks hadronize via fragmentation into hadrons. Nevertheless, depending on how quickly the parton phase space density drops with increasing $`p_{}`$, there can be a region of hadron transverse momenta that is populated dominantly via coalescence. The reason for this is that hadrons from coalescence have larger momenta than the average quark momentum, $`dN_h^{coal}(p_{})=C_h[dN_q(p_{}/n)]^n`$, $`(n=2,3)`$, whereas hadrons from fragmentation carry only a fraction $`z<1`$ of the initial quark momentum, $`dN_h^{frag}(p_{})dN_q(p_{}/z)`$.

At very low parton densities, e.g., at very high transverse momentum, the fragmentation process wins, in accordance with the QCD factorization theorem. For example, a power law parton spectrum $`dN_q/p_{}dp_{}Ap_{}^\alpha `$ implies $`dN_h^{coal}/dN_h^{frag}C_hA^{n1}p_{}^{(n1)\alpha }0`$ at high $`p_{}`$.

Therefore, in heavy-ion collisions there can be three qualitatively different phase space regions. At very large transverse momenta particle productions is dominated by independent parton fragmentation. At lower transverse momenta coalescence prevails, which region can itself be subdivided into two parts: a very low $`p_{}`$ (high phase space density) region where Eq. (1) is not applicable, and a moderate density (higher $`p_{})`$ region, where Eq. (1) is valid. Because the density of produced particles depends on the centrality of the collision, the “boundaries” of these regions depend on centrality. Only detailed quantitative studiesMullerMtoB ; LevaiMtoB  of the relative contributions of the various hadronization processes, which is beyond the scope of this letter, could determine where the exact bounds are. Alternatively, the limits can be deduced from comparison with the experimental data.

Anisotropic flow. For brevity we discuss only elliptic flow as the most important and interesting case. However, Eqs. (2), (4), and all conclusions below also apply (i) when azimuthal anisotropies $`v_k(p_{})\mathrm{cos}(k\varphi )_p_{}`$ of any order are present, and (ii) to any anisotropy coefficient $`v_k`$ instead of $`v_2`$, even in the former most general case.

In the coalescence region, meson and baryon elliptic flow are given by that of partons via

$$v_{2,M}(p_{})2v_{2,q}(\frac{p_{}}{2}),v_{2,B}(p_{})3v_{2,q}(\frac{p_{}}{3}),$$
(2)
as follows from Eq. (1) and $`v_21`$. For example, if partons have only elliptical anisotropy, i.e., $`dN_q/p_{}dp_{}d\mathrm{\Phi }=(1/2\pi )dN_q/p_{}dp_{}[1+2v_{2,q}\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })]`$, then

$`v_{2,B}(p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3v_{2,q}(p_{}/3)+3v_{2,q}^3(p_{}/3)}{1+6v_{2,q}^2(p_{}/3)}}`$
$`v_{2,M}(p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2v_{2,q}(p_{}/2)}{1+2v_{2,q}^2(p_{}/2)}}.`$ (3)
Fig. 1 illustrates the effect of quark coalescence on baryon and meson elliptic flow compared to parton elliptic flow. The latter is shown schematically by the solid line. At small transverse momenta, parton $`v_2(p_{})p_{}^2`$, as follows from general analyticity considerations. This region, before $`v_2`$ becomes approximately linear in $`p_{}`$ could be relatively small (depending on the effective mass of partons). At higher transverse momenta $`p_{}>12`$ GeV, parton elliptic flow saturates as predicted by parton transportv2 , and then, possibly already above $`p_{}\stackrel{>}{}4`$ GeV, decreases according to pQCD parton energy loss calculationspQCDv2 . The curve for baryon(meson) elliptic flow has been obtained by simply rescaling the parton curve by a factor three(two) both vertically and horizontally. As discussed above, for very low and very high $`p_{}`$, we boldly use Eq. (2) beyond its region of applicability but doing so does not affect the discussion.

There are three qualitatively different regimes in Fig. 1:

(i) In the small $`p_{}`$ region where $`v_2(p_{})`$ increases faster than linearly, $`v_{2,B}<v_{2,M}<v_{2,q}`$. It is not clear to what extent the coalescence picture is applicable in this region but it is interesting that the data does exhibit such a behavior. This ordering follows naturally from hydrodynamics, where flow decreases with increasing particle massHeinzhydro ; Kolbhydro ; Teaneyhydro . Similar mass dependence could also arise in a coalescence model because heavier hadrons can be formed by quarks with larger relative momentum (ignored in the current approach).

(ii) In the intermediate $`p_{}`$ region where $`v_2(p_{})`$ depends linearly on transverse momentum, $`v_{2,B}v_{2,M}`$.

(iii) At large $`p_{}`$, where parton $`v_2(p_{})`$ increases slower than linearly, baryon flow becomes larger than that of mesons, $`v_{2,B}>v_{2,M}>v_{2,q}`$, by as much as 50%. Parton collective flow saturation, predicted for $`p_{}>12`$ GeV by parton transportv2 , results in saturating meson/baryon flow at $`p_{}>24`$ GeV that is amplified two/three-fold compared to that of partons. Saturation sets in at $`50\%`$ higher $`p_{}`$ for baryons than for mesons. In addition, any eventual decrease of parton elliptic flow at very high $`p_{}`$, would happen at two to three times larger $`p_{}`$ for hadrons.

The high-$`p_{}`$ results above strongly differ from those obtained in Ref. LinKov2 . The reason is that, unlike Eq. (2), in Ref. LinKov2  the coalescence of quarks was considered to be independent of their relative momenta and therefore hadron elliptic flow at high $`p_{}`$ was similar to that of a high-$`p_{}`$ quark.

If not all quarks show the same elliptic flow, further differentiation occurs because in that case

$`v_{2,B=abc}(p_{})`$ $``$ $`v_{2,a}(p_{}/3)+v_{2,b}(p_{}/3)+v_{2,c}(p_{}/3)`$
$`v_{2,M=\overline{a}b}(p_{})`$ $``$ $`v_{2,\overline{a}}(p_{}/2)+v_{2,b}(p_{}/2).`$ (4)
For example, strange quarks may have a smaller $`v_2(p_{})`$ than light quarks, at high $`p_{}`$ because heavy quarks are expected to lose less energy in nuclear mediumheavyqEL , while at low $`p_{}`$ due to the mass dependence of hydrodynamic flow. If $`v_2^s<v_2^q`$, elliptic flow decreases with increasing relative strangeness content within the baryon and meson bands, i.e., $`v_2^p>v_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }v_2^\mathrm{\Sigma }>v_2^\mathrm{\Xi }>v_2^\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`v_2^\pi >v_2^K>v_2^\varphi `$.

Possible solution to the opacity puzzle. While hadronization via $`1parton1\pi `$ or independent fragmentation approximately preserves elliptic flow at high $`2<p_{}<6`$ GeV v2 , quark coalescence enhances $`v_2`$ two times for mesons and three times for baryons. Hence, the same hadron elliptic flow can be reached from $`23`$ times smaller parton $`v_2`$, which requires smaller parton opacities, i.e., initial parton densities and/or cross sections. The amplification also allows the RHIC $`v_2`$ data to exceed geometric upper bounds derived based on a nuclear absorption modelshuryaklimit  (the data are compatible with those constraints only for idealistic “sharp sphere” nuclear distributionsVoloshincoal ). Those bounds apply to the parton $`v_2`$ and thus are two/three times higher for mesons/baryons.

To determine the reduction of parton opacity quantitatively, we rely on the results of Ref. v2  that computed gluon elliptic flow as a function of the transport opacity, $`\chi dz\sigma _{tr}\rho (z)\sigma dN/d\eta /(940`$ mb$`)`$, from elastic parton transport theory for a minijet scenario of Au+Au at $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV at RHIC. Those results can be conveniently parameterized as $`v_2(p_{},\chi )=v_2^{max}(\chi )\mathrm{tanh}[p_{}/p_0(\chi )]`$, where $`v_2^{max}`$ is the saturation value of elliptic flow, while $`p_0`$ is the $`p_{}`$ scale above which saturation sets in. For the estimates here we assume that all gluons convert, e.g., via $`ggqq`$, to quarks of similar $`p_{}`$ and hence $`v_2^q(p_{})=v_2^g(p_{})`$.

As shown in Fig. 2, the increase of elliptic flow with opacity is weaker than linear, $`v_2^{max}\chi ^{0.61}`$. Therefore, a $`23`$ times smaller parton elliptic flow, which is needed to match the charged particle $`v_2`$ data from RHIC in our coalescence scenario, corresponds to $`36`$ times smaller parton opacities $`\sigma dN/d\eta (b=0)700015000`$ mb than those found in Ref. v2 . The lower(upper) value applies if high-$`p_{}`$ hadrons are mostly baryons(mesons). Based on preliminary PHENIX data PHENIXhighpt  showing $`\pi _0/h^\pm 0.5`$ between $`2<p_{}<9`$ GeV, one may expect $`mesons/baryons1`$, in which case $`\sigma dN/d\eta (b=0)10000`$ mb.

In Ref. v2  only collective flow was considered and the parton opacity at RHIC was extracted using elliptic flow data from the reaction plane analysis. Taking into account non-flow effects that contributed up to 15-20% cumulantv2  to the first elliptic flow measurements, parton opacities should be further reduced by $`25\%`$ to $`\sigma dN/d\eta (b=0)500010000`$ mb. For a typical elastic $`gggg`$ cross section of $`3`$ mb, this corresponds to an initial parton density $`dN/d\eta (b=0)15003000`$, only $`1.53`$ times above the EKRT perturbative estimateEKRT .

The remaining much smaller discrepancy is comparable to theoretical uncertainties. For example, perturbative cross section and parton density estimates may be too low. If most hadrons formed via coalescence, the observed hadron multiplicity $`dN_h/d\eta 1000`$ would imply much higher initial parton densities $`dN/d\eta 20003000`$. Constituent quark cross sections, $`\sigma _{qq}45`$ mb, also point above the $`3`$ mb perturbative estimate. One effect that estimate ignores is the enhancement of parton cross sections $`\sigma \alpha _s^2/\mu ^2`$ due to the decrease of the self-consistent Debye screening mass $`\mu gT_{eff}(\tau )`$ during the expansion. Finally, the contribution of inelastic processes, such as $`ggggg`$, to the opacity has also been neglected so far. A preliminary study showsinelv2  that this contribution can be similar to that of elastic processes.

Summary. In this letter we studied elliptic flow of hadrons formed from coalescence of quarks with similar momenta. At high $`p_{}>2`$ GeV we found an enhancement of elliptic flow compared to that of partons. With the enhancement, moderate initial parton densities $`dN_g/d\eta 15003000`$ are sufficient to account for the charged particle elliptic flow data from RHIC, providing a possible solution to the RHIC “opacity puzzle”. At low $`p_{}<1`$ GeV, on the other hand, hadron elliptic flow is suppressed.

Quark coalescence gives a weaker baryon flow than meson flow at low $`p_{}<0.51`$ GeV, while the opposite, $`v_2^B>v_2^M`$, at high $`p_{}>23`$ GeV. Assuming all partons have similar elliptic flow, $`v_2^B1.5v_2^M`$ at high $`p_{}`$. If on the other hand strange quarks show weaker flow than light quarks, elliptic flow at high $`p_{}`$ is ordered by relative strangeness content, such that $`v_2^p>v_2^\mathrm{\Lambda }v_2^\mathrm{\Sigma }>v_2^\pi >v_2^K>v_2^\varphi `$, $`v_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}>v_2^\mathrm{\Xi }>v_2^K`$, and $`v_2^\mathrm{\Xi }>v_2^\mathrm{\Omega }3v_2^\varphi /2`$. These predictions can be readily tested in current and future heavy-ion collision experiments.

We emphasize that the quark coalescence picture and therefore our flow ordering predictions strongly rely on the assumption that quark degrees of freedom are dominant at hadronization. Therefore, experimental support for our predictions may indicate the formation of deconfined nuclear matter in heavy ion collisions at RHIC energies.

We also note that at very high $`p_{}`$ one expects a transition from hadronization via quark coalescence to independent fragmentation. An experimental signature of this may be the reduction of baryon $`v_2`$ below meson $`v_2`$.

When this work was in its final stage, two preprints addressing baryon to meson ratio at high $`p_{}`$, MullerMtoB  and LevaiMtoB , were submitted to the arXiv.org e-print server. While these studies mainly focus on baryon and meson yields, the underlying physical arguments are very similar to those presented here.

Acknowledgments: Valuable comments by U. Heinz and M. Gyulassy are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by DOE grants DE-FG02-01ER41190 and DE-FG02-92ER40713.