# Kahler potential for adjoint representation fields

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
167 views

In supersymmetric theories of fields in fundamental representation we write the Kahler interactions as

\Phi ^\dagger e ^{ 2 qV } \Phi

where $V$ is the vector superfield in the fundamental representation. This is necessary to keep the fields which transform as,
\begin{align}
& \Phi \rightarrow e ^{ i \Lambda } \Phi , \quad V \rightarrow V - \frac{ i }{ 2} \left( \Lambda - \Lambda ^\dagger \right)
\end{align}
gauge invariant.

I would naively think that this requirement would transfer over to fields in other representations. However recently I reading a paper where they introduce fields in the adjoint representation, $\Phi _a$, and I believe they didn't include the gauge contribution and just wrote,

\Phi _a ^\dagger \Phi _a

(though they don't state or write this explicitly so I'm not sure). This doesn't make sense to me since adjoint representation fields still transform. Is there a reason why this would be justified, or did I misunderstand the paper?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

You need to check if the chiralilty condition on the  superfield -- if it involves the gauge covariant derivative, then $\Phi^\dagger \Phi$ will be locally gauge invariant.

A chiral superfield is usually defined by $\bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0$. The gauge covariant version is given by first defining $$\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}}:= e^V \bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} e^{-V}\ ,$$ where $V$ is taken to be in a representation of the gauge group.Then, one defines a "covariant chiral super field" by $$\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0\ .$$ (see Wess & Bagger or section 2 of this paper).

(moving my comment into the answer)

answered May 17, 2014 by (1,545 points)
edited May 18, 2014 by suresh

By chirality condition do you mean to check that

$$(\partial_\alpha - (\sigma \theta)_\alpha ) \Phi_a = 0$$

for $\partial_\alpha$ or $D_\alpha$?

A chiral superfield is usually defined by $\bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0$. The gauge covariant version is given by first defining $\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}}:= e^V \bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}} e^{-V}$. Then, one defines a "covariant chiral super field" by $\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{\dot{\alpha}} \Phi=0$. (see Wess & Bagger or section 2 of this paper).

Thanks for your help. I think I misunderstood what they were doing in the paper. They had the correct Kahler term but were treating the $D$ terms of the gauge fields in a strange way. If you have time, I've added in a new related question here.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.