1: \newif\iffigs\figstrue

2: %  Uncomment the next line if you don't want the figures:

3: %\figsfalse

4: 

5: \documentclass[paper, 12pt, letterpaper, epsf]{JHEP}

6: \input{epsf.tex}

7: \usepackage{graphics}

8: \def\Bbb{\bf}

9: \def\C{{\Bbb C}}

10: \def\R{{\Bbb R}}

11: \def\Z{{\Bbb Z}}

12: \def\H{{\Bbb H}}

13: 

14: 

15: \def\Hom{\operatorname{Hom}}

16: \def\Tors{\operatorname{Tors}}

17: \def\Ker{\operatorname{Ker}}

18: \def\Spec{\operatorname{Spec}}

19: \def\Area{\operatorname{Area}}

20: \def\Vol{\operatorname{Vol}}

21: \def\ad{\operatorname{ad}}

22: \def\tr{\operatorname{tr}}

23: \def\Pic{\operatorname{Pic}}

24: \def\disc{\operatorname{disc}}

25: \def\cpl{\operatorname{cpl}}

26: \def\Img{\operatorname{Im}}

27: \def\Rea{\operatorname{Re}}

28: \def\Gr{\operatorname{Gr}}

29: \def\SO{\operatorname{SO}}

30: \def\Sl{\operatorname{SL}}

31: \def\GO{\operatorname{O{}}}

32: \def\SU{\operatorname{SU}}

33: \def\GU{\operatorname{U{}}}

34: \def\Sp{\operatorname{Sp}}

35: \def\Spin{\operatorname{Spin}}

36: \def\rank{\operatorname{rank}}

37: \def\bearray{\begin{eqnarray}}

38: \def\eearray{\end{eqnarray}}

39: \def\bearraynn{\begin{eqnarray*}}

40: \def\eearraynn{\end{eqnarray*}}

41: \def\bfig{\begin{figure}}

42: \def\efig{\end{figure}}

43: \def\Aff{\operatorname{Aff}}

44: \def\diag{\operatorname{diag}}

45: \def\opeq#1{\advance\lineskip#1 \advance\baselineskip#1

46:         \advance\lineskiplimit#1}

47: \def\eqalignsq#1{\null\,\vcenter{\opeq{2.5\jot}\mathsurround=0pt

48:         \everycr={}\tabskip=0pt\offinterlineskip

49:         \halign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil

50:         \crcr#1\crcr}}\,\null}

51: \def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\opeq{2.5\jot}\mathsurround=0pt

52:         \everycr={}\tabskip=0pt

53:         \halign{\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil

54:         \crcr#1\crcr}}\,\null}

55: 

56: \def\sm{$\sigma$-model}

57: \def\nlsm{non-linear \sm}

58: \def\smm{\sm\ measure}

59: \def\CY{Calabi--Yau}

60: \def\LG{Landau-Ginzburg}

61: \def\cR{{\Scr R}}

62: \def\cM{{\Scr M}}

63: \def\cA{{\Scr A}}

64: \def\cB{{\Scr B}}

65: \def\cK{{\Scr K}}

66: \def\cD{{\Scr D}}

67: \def\cH{{\Scr H}}

68: \def\cT{{\Scr T}}

69: \def\cL{{\Scr L}}

70: \def\cF{{\Scr F}}

71: 

72: 

73: \def\spnh{\Spin(32)/\Z_2}

74: 

75: \def\Pf{{\em Proof: }}

76: 

77: \def\ker{{\rm ker}}

78: \def\coker{{\rm coker}}

79: \def\rank{{\rm rank}}

80: \def\im{{\rm im}}

81: \def\dim{{\rm dim}}

82: \def\codim{{\rm codim}}

83: \def\Card{{\rm Card}}

84: \def\li{{\rm linearly independent}}

85: \def\ld{{\rm linearly dependent}}

86: \def\deg{{\rm deg}}

87: \def\det{{\rm det}}

88: \def\Div{{\rm Div}}

89: \def\supp{{\rm supp}}

90: \def\Gr{{\rm Gr}}

91: \def\End{{\rm End}}

92: \def\Aut{{\rm Aut}}

93: 

94: 

95: \newtheorem{Proposition}{Proposition}[section]

96: \newtheorem{Definition}{Definition}[section]

97: \newtheorem{Theorem}{Theorem}[section]

98: \newtheorem{Lemma}{Lemma}[section]

99: \newtheorem{Corrolary}{Corrolary}[section]

100: 

101: 

102: 

103: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

104: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

105: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

106: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

107: 

108: \newcommand{\bp}{\begin{Proposition}}

109: \newcommand{\ep}{\end{Proposition}}

110: \newcommand{\bt}{\begin{Theorem}}

111: \newcommand{\et}{\end{Theorem}}

112: \newcommand{\bl}{\begin{Lemma}}

113: \newcommand{\el}{\end{Lemma}}

114: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{Corrolary}}

115: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{Corrolary}}

116: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

117: 

118: 

119: 

120: \font\mybbb=msbm10 at 8pt

121: \font\mybb=msbm10 at 12pt

122: \def\bbb#1{\hbox{\mybbb#1}}

123: \def\bb#1{\hbox{\mybb#1}}

124: \def\pRe{\bbb{R}}

125: \def\Re {\bb{R}}

126: \def\P{\bb{P}}

127: \def\Z {\bb{Z}}

128: \def\q{\bb{a}}

129: \def\id{\protect{{1 \kern-.28em {\rm l}}}}

130: \def\cn{{\cal N}}

131: 

132: \def\p#1{{\phi{}^{(#1)}}}

133: \def\hp#1{{{\phi'}{}^{(#1)}}}

134: \def\tp#1{{{\tilde\phi}{}^{(#1)}}}

135: \def\c#1{{c{}^{(#1)}}}

136: \def\hc#1{{{c'}{}^{(#1)}}}

137: \def\tc#1{{{\tilde c}{}^{(#1)}}}

138: 

139: %\def\boldphi{{\phi\hspace{-6.62pt}\phi\hspace{-6.62pt}\phi}}

140: \def\boldphi{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

141: \def\boldpsi{\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}}

142: 

143: %%\boldwe is used in the definition of \bwe. It can also be used separately. 

144: \def\boldwe{\mbox{\boldmath $\wedge$}}

145: \def\bwe{{{{\boldwe\hspace{-8.9pt}\boldwe}\hspace{-8.8pt}\boldwe}

146: \hspace{-8.8pt}\boldwe}}

147: \def\bweft{{{{\boldwe\hspace{-8.1pt}\boldwe}\hspace{-8pt}\boldwe}

148: \hspace{-8pt}\boldwe}}

149: 

150: 

151: \def\pb#1{{{\boldphi}{}^{(#1)}}}

152: \def\hpb#1{{{\bf\boldphi'}{}^{(#1)}}}

153: \def\tpb#1{{{\bf\tilde\boldphi}{}^{(#1)}}}

154: \def\cb#1{{{\bf c}{}^{(#1)}}}

155: \def\hcb#1{{{\bf c'}{}^{(#1)}}}

156: \def\tcb#1{{{\bf\tilde c}{}^{(#1)}}}

157: 

158: 

159: \font\gothics=ygoth at 10pt

160: \font\gothicl=ygoth at 12pt

161: \def\gg#1{\hbox{\gothics#1}}

162: 

163: \def\gG{\hbox{\gothicl G}}

164: 

165: \font\frakl=yfrak at 12pt

166: \font\fraks=yfrak at 10pt

167: 

168: \def\fG{\hbox{\frakl G}}

169: 

170: 

171: 

172: 

173: %EOF

174: 

175: 

176: 

177: 

178: \newcommand{\rf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

179: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

180: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

181: 

182: %\def\appendix#1{

183:  % \addtocounter{section}{1} \setcounter{equation}{0}

184:   %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}} \section*{Appendix}

185:   %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendix \thesection\ \ \ #1} }

186: 

187: \newcommand{\newsection}{    % Numeration of eqs. is automatic

188: \setcounter{equation}{0}

189: \section}

190: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber \\*}

191: 

192: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

193: \newcommand{\nonu}{\nonumber}

194: \def \ov {\over }

195: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

196: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

197: \def \ci {\cite}

198: \def \de{\partial}

199: \def \x{{\bf x}}

200: \def\y{{\bf y}}

201: \def\k{{\bf k}}

202: \def\LB{\left(}

203: \def\RB{\right)}

204: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

205: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

206: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

207: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

208: \def\la{\label}

209: \def \bi{\bibitem}

210: \def \Tr {{\rm tr}}

211: \def\O{{\cal O}}

212: \def\LA{\langle}

213: \def\RA{\rangle}

214: \def\X{{\bar X}}

215: \def\a{\alpha}

216: \def\b{\beta}

217: \def\e{\epsilon}

218: \def\A{{\cal A}}

219: \def\n{{\nabla}}

220: \def\G{{\Gamma}}

221: \def\1{{{(1)}}}\def\2{{{(2)}}}\def\3{{{(3)}}}  

222: 

223: 

224: 

225: \font\mybbb=msbm10 at 8pt

226: \font\mybb=msbm10 at 12pt

227: \def\bbb#1{\hbox{\mybbb#1}}

228: \def\bb#1{\hbox{\mybb#1}}

229: \def\pRe{\bbb{R}}

230: \def\Re {\bb{R}}

231: \def\Z {\bb{Z}}

232: \def\q{\bb{a}}

233: \def\id{\protect{{1 \kern-.28em {\rm l}}}}

234: \def\cn{{\cal N}}

235: 

236: \def\p#1{{\phi{}^{(#1)}}}

237: \def\hp#1{{{\phi'}{}^{(#1)}}}

238: \def\tp#1{{{\tilde\phi}{}^{(#1)}}}

239: \def\c#1{{c{}^{(#1)}}}

240: \def\hc#1{{{c'}{}^{(#1)}}}

241: \def\tc#1{{{\tilde c}{}^{(#1)}}}

242: 

243: %\def\boldphi{{\phi\hspace{-6.62pt}\phi\hspace{-6.62pt}\phi}}

244: \def\boldphi{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

245: 

246: 

247: %%\boldwe is used in the definition of \bwe. It can also be used separately. 

248: \def\boldwe{\mbox{\boldmath $\wedge$}}

249: \def\bwe{{{{\boldwe\hspace{-8.9pt}\boldwe}\hspace{-8.8pt}\boldwe}

250: \hspace{-8.8pt}\boldwe}}

251: \def\bweft{{{{\boldwe\hspace{-8.1pt}\boldwe}\hspace{-8pt}\boldwe}

252: \hspace{-8pt}\boldwe}}

253: 

254: 

255: \def\pb#1{{{\boldphi}{}^{(#1)}}}

256: \def\hpb#1{{{\bf\boldphi'}{}^{(#1)}}}

257: \def\tpb#1{{{\bf\tilde\boldphi}{}^{(#1)}}}

258: \def\cb#1{{{\bf c}{}^{(#1)}}}

259: \def\hcb#1{{{\bf c'}{}^{(#1)}}}

260: \def\tcb#1{{{\bf\tilde c}{}^{(#1)}}}

261: 

262: 

263: \def \bs{\star^\dagger}

264: 

265: 

266: 

267: \usepackage{graphics}

268: 

269: 

270: \title{An analytic torsion for graded D-branes}

271: 

272: \author{C.~I.~Lazaroiu

273: \\C.~N.~Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics\\

274: SUNY at Stony BrookNY11794-3840,

275: U.S.A.\\calin@insti.physics.sunysb.edu}

276: 

277: 

278: \abstract{I consider the semiclassical approximation of the 

279: graded Chern-Simons field theories describing certain systems of topological A

280: type branes in the large radius limit of Calabi-Yau compactifications.

281: I show that the semiclassical 

282: partition function can be expressed in terms of a 

283: certain (differential) numerical invariant which is 

284: a version of the analytic torsion of Ray and Singer, 

285: but associated with flat graded superbundles. I also discuss a `twisted' version 

286: of the Ray-Singer norm, and show its independence of metric data.

287: As illustration, I consider

288: graded D-brane pairs of unit relative grade with a scalar condensate in the 

289: boundary condition changing sector. 

290: For the particularly simple case when the reference flat connections

291: are trivial, I show that the generalized torsion reduces to a 

292: power of the classical Ray-Singer invariant of the base 3-manifold. }

293: 

294: \preprint{YITP-SB 01-62}

295: 

296: \begin{document}

297: 

298: 

299: \tableofcontents

300: 

301: \pagebreak

302: \vskip .6in

303: 

304: 

305: \section{Introduction}

306: 

307: D-brane composite formation is a subject of central importance for 

308: a deeper understanding of open string theory dynamics. Of particular 

309: interest is the incarnation of such processes for the case of superstring 

310: compactifications on Calabi-Yau backgrounds, which provide a rich source 

311: of potential phenomenological applications. 

312: 

313: A systematic study of D-brane composites 

314: is best performed with the tools of string field theory. Indeed, such 

315: processes involve {\em off-shell} string dynamics, which is best captured

316: in string field language. 

317: Given the complexity superstring models, 

318: a satisfactory formulation of superstring field theory is 

319: lacking Calabi-Yau backgrounds. However, part of the dynamics of 

320: spacetime fields originating from the chiral primary sector allows for an 

321: explicit  description in terms of topological strings\cite{Witten_nlsm,

322: Witten_mirror, Witten_CS}. 

323: 

324: A fundamental observation made in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}(see also 

325: \cite{Zaslow_Polishchuk} and \cite{Seidel}) is that 

326: D-branes in Calabi-Yau backgrounds are graded objects. In our context,

327: this means that topological D-branes will 

328: carry certain integral data which specify a branch of their 

329: `BPS grade', which was discussed at length in \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich}.

330: It was recently proposed \cite{com1, com3, Diaconescu, sc, bv} that the 

331: dynamics of graded topological D-branes is described

332: by certain target space theories which have the form of  

333: `graded Chern-Simons models'\footnote{For the A-model, these 

334: theories do not take into account worldsheet instanton corrections

335: (which can be formally 

336: incorporated along the lines of \cite{Fukaya, Fukaya2}).

337: In the present paper, we always work in the large radius limit

338: of a given Calabi-Yau compactification, where such corrections 

339: can be neglected.}. These are versions of Chern-Simons field 

340: theories associated with graded superbundles, and whose fields assemble into a 

341: `graded superconnection of total degree one'.

342: This approach, which is intimately connected with the derived category 

343: program of \cite{Kontsevich} and \cite{Douglas_Kontsevich, Aspinwall, 

344: Douglas_Aspinwall}, allows  for 

345: a description of topological D-brane physics in standard field theoretic terms.

346: It also leads to a physical representation of the extended moduli space of 

347: open strings \cite{bv, gauge}. 

348: 

349: One benefit of this description is that the formal analogy between graded 

350: and ungraded Chern-Simons theories suggests a wealth of generalizations 

351: of classical connections between physics and certain mathematical invariants. 

352: In this note, we take a first step in this direction for the graded 

353: Chern-Simons theory of A-type branes.

354: 

355: It is well-known that the semiclassical approximation of 

356: usual Chern-Simons theory (which forms the string 

357: field theory of single, ungraded topological A-branes) is 

358: related to the analytic torsion of Ray and Singer. 

359: In fact, the Chern -Simons approach 

360: allows one to `discover' the torsion from physical considerations. 

361: It is natural to ask what is the analogue of this relation for 

362: graded Chern-Simons models. Proceeding in physical manner, we  

363: consider the semiclassical approximation of graded Chern-Simons theories, 

364: from which we extract a generalized version of Ray-Singer torsion, 

365: which should prove useful for a topological characterization of 

366: D-brane composites in Calabi-Yau backgrounds.

367: 

368: 

369: The note is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a short review 

370: of the graded Chern-Simons theory of \cite{sc, bv} and 

371: recall the D-brane interpretation of its vacuum configurations. 

372: In Section 3, we consider the semiclassical approximation 

373: to these models around a general background. 

374: Upon using the methods of \cite{ST, Schwarz_resolvent, Adams_Sen} and 

375: related work, we evaluate the partition function in this limit 

376: up to a real prefactor related to the isotropy subgroup 

377: of the background. This allows us to express the result in terms of 

378: a certain generalization of the analytic torsion of Ray and Singer 

379: \cite{Ray, RS1, RS_symp}. This numerical invariant 

380: is related to (but does not seem to coincide with) 

381: a quantity considered in \cite{Bismut_Lott}. Upon writing the semiclassical 

382: partition function in terms of a `twisted Ray-Singer metric', 

383: we use general results of \cite{Schwarz_resolvent, Adams_Sen}, 

384: in order to show that the extended Ray-Singer norm 

385: is independent of the metric data employed in the gauge-fixing 

386: procedure.

387: We also discuss the argument of the semiclassical partition function, 

388: which displays a metric dependence reminiscent of that 

389: known from usual Chern-Simons theory. 

390: Section 4 considers the generalized 

391: torsion of  graded D-brane pairs

392: (of unit relative grade) in the presence of a scalar condensate. 

393: For the case of trivial underlying flat connections, we show that 

394: the generalized torsion reduces to a power of the classical 

395: Ray-Singer invariant of the three-cycle. 

396: 

397: \

398: 

399: \noindent{\bf Conventions} There exist a few different conventions 

400: for the Ray-Singer torsion in the literature. In this note, we

401: define the Ray-Singer torsion

402: of a closed three-manifold $L$ (with respect to the trivial flat line bundle) 

403: by:

404: \be

405: \label{conventions}

406: T(L)=\prod_q{det^{',reg}(\Delta_q)^{\frac{q(-1)^q}{2}}}~~,

407: \ee

408: where $\Delta_q$ is the $q$-form Laplacian and $det^{',reg}(\Delta_q)$ is 

409: the regularized determinant of the restriction to the orthocomplement of its 

410: kernel.

411: Other papers define the Ray-Singer torsion to be $T(L)^{-1}, T(L)^{2}$ or 

412: $T(L)^{-2}$, where $T(L)$ is the quantity in (\ref{conventions}).

413: Our conventions for the generalized torsion will be an extension 

414: of (\ref{conventions}). 

415: 

416: 

417: 

418: \section{Graded Chern-Simons theories and topological D-branes}

419: 

420: \subsection{The string field theory of graded topological A-branes}

421: 

422: Consider a special Lagrangian 3-cycle $L$ in a a Calabi-Yau threefold $X$, 

423: endowed with the `fundamental' orientation discussed in \cite{sc, gauge}. 

424: Given a collection of graded topological branes 

425: (of different grades $n$) wrapping $L$, 

426: we form the total bundle ${\bf E}=\oplus_{n}{E_n}$, endowed with the 

427: $\Z$-grading induced by $n$. Here $E_n$ are flat bundles which describe the 

428: worldvolume backgrounds of the various topological D-branes. 

429: Throughout this paper, we shall assume that the system contains a finite 

430: number of graded D-branes, i.e. $n$ takes values in a finite set of integers.

431: We also make the convention that a form on $L$ of rank lying outside 

432: the interval $0..3$ is defined to be zero. Note that we consider 

433: {\em complex} flat vector bundles $E_n$, which are not required to be unitary 

434: (i.e. there need not exist metrics on $E_n$ which are covariantly-constant 

435: with respect to the flat connections).

436: 

437: The graded Chern-Simons theory of \cite{sc, bv} describes sections  

438: $u$ of the bundle:

439: \be

440: {\cal V}=\Lambda^*(T^*L)\otimes End({\bf E})~~,~~

441: \ee

442: which we endow with the total grading 

443: ${\cal V}=\oplus_{t}{{\cal V}^t}$, where:

444: \be

445: {\cal V}^t=\oplus_{\tiny \begin{array}{c}k, m, n\\k+n-m=t\end{array}}

446: {\Lambda^k(T^*L)\otimes Hom(E_m, E_n)}~~.

447: \ee

448: The degree of $u$ with respect to this grading is:

449: \be

450: |u|=rk u + \Delta(u)~~,

451: \ee

452: where $\Delta(u)=n-m$ if $u\in \Omega^*(L, Hom(E_m,E_n))$. The grading $|.|$ 

453: is related (after localization) 

454: to the worldsheet $U(1)$ charge of topological string states.

455: The space ${\cal H}=\Gamma({\cal V})$ of sections of ${\cal V}$ is

456: {\em total boundary space} of \cite{sc}, and can be viewed as the 

457: collection of open string states of the system. 

458: It is endowed with the grading ${\cal H}^k=\Gamma({\cal V}^k)$.

459: 

460: Triple string interactions are described by the so-called 

461: {\em total boundary product}, which is defined through:

462: \be

463: \label{bullet}

464: u\bullet v= (-1)^{\Delta(u)rk v}u\wedge v~~,

465: \ee

466: where the wedge product on the right hand side includes composition 

467: of morphisms in $End({\bf E})$. This associative product is compatible 

468: with the grading and admits the identity endomorphism of 

469: ${\bf E}$ as a neutral element:

470: \be

471: \label{bullet_props}

472: |u\bullet v|=|u|+|v|~~, ~~1\bullet u=u\bullet 1=u~~.

473: \ee

474: (note that $|1|=0$). 

475: 

476: The direct sum $A^{(0)}=\oplus_n{A_n}$ of the flat connections on $E_n$

477: induces a flat structure on $End({\bf E})$. If $d^{(0)}$ 

478: is de Rham differential twisted by this flat connection,  

479: then it acts as a degree one derivation of the boundary product

480: (since the connection induced on $End({\bf E})$ 

481: is in the `adjoint representation').

482: To allow for more general backgrounds, we shift by elements 

483: $\phi\in {\cal H}^1$, which allows us to build the object 

484: $d=d^{(0)}+[\phi,.]_\bullet$, where $[.,.]_\bullet$ stands for the graded 

485: commutator\footnote{This is given by

486: $[u,v]_\bullet:=u\bullet v -(-1)^{|u||v|}v\bullet u$.}

487:  in the associative algebra $({\cal H}, \bullet)$. 

488: It is clear that $d$ is a degree one derivation of $({\cal H},\bullet)$

489: (since so are both terms in its definition): 

490: \be

491: \label{d_props}

492: |du|=|u|+1~~,~~d(u\bullet v)=(du)\bullet v+(-1)^{|u|}u\bullet (dv)~~.

493: \ee

494: In the language of 

495: \cite{Bismut_Lott}, $d$ is a `graded superconnection of total degree one'.

496: We refer the reader to \cite{Quillen} for basic facts regarding 

497: superconnections. 

498: For what follows, we shall pick a reference {\em flat}\footnote{Flatness

499: means that $d^2=0$, and will be required by the equations of motion.} 

500: graded superconnection $d$ (of degree one)

501: which need not coincide with the original flat connection $A^{(0)}$; 

502: the formalism is independent of this choice.

503: 

504: One also has a graded trace on $\Omega^*(L, End({\bf E}))$, which is defined through:

505: \be

506: \label{str}

507: str(u)=\sum_{n}{(-1)^n tr(u_{nn})}~~,~~{\rm for}~~u=\oplus_{m,n}{u_{mn}}~~,

508: \ee

509: with $u_{mn}\in \Omega^*(L, Hom(E_m, E_n))$. 

510: The bilinear form:

511: \be

512: \label{bf_A}

513: \langle u, v \rangle:=\int_{L}{str(u\bullet v)}~~ 

514: \ee

515: is non-degenerate and has the properties:

516: \bea

517: \label{form_invariance}

518: \langle u, v\rangle =(-1)^{|u||v|}\langle v, u \rangle~~,~~

519: \langle du, v\rangle +(-1)^{|u|}\langle u, dv\rangle=0~~,~~

520: \langle u\bullet v, w\rangle =\langle u, v\bullet w\rangle~~ 

521: \eea

522: It also obeys the selection rule $\langle u, v\rangle=0$ unless $|u|+|v|=3$,

523: so that the sign prefactor 

524: in the first equation of (\ref{form_invariance}) is always 

525: one (though it is more convenient to write it out explicitly, as we did). 

526: 

527: 

528: The string field theory of \cite{sc,bv} is described by the action

529: \footnote{This is the real part of the complex action considered in 

530: \cite{gauge}. In that paper, we were interested in the moduli space, 

531: which can be understood without worrying about the real and imaginary parts.

532: In the present note, we shall consider the path integral, which requires that 

533: we work with the physical action, an object which must always be real.}:

534: \be

535: \label{action}

536: S(\phi)=\int_{L}{str\left[\frac{1}{2}\phi\bullet d\phi+\frac{1}{3}

537:     \phi\bullet\phi\bullet\phi\right]} +cc=

538: \frac{1}{2}\langle \phi, d\phi\rangle +\frac{1}{3}\langle

539: \phi,\phi\bullet \phi\rangle +cc~~~~,  

540: \ee which is defined on the degree one

541: component 

542: \be

543: {\cal H}^1=\{\phi\in {\cal H}||\phi|=1\}=

544: \Gamma(\oplus_{k+n-m=1}{\Lambda^k(T^*L)\otimes Hom(E_m,E_n)})

545: \ee 

546: of the total boundary space. 

547: This defines a `graded Chern-Simons field theory', which governs the 

548: dynamics of background shifts $\phi$. The equations of motion:

549: \be

550: \label{mc}

551: d\phi+\frac{1}{2}[\phi,\phi]_\bullet =0 \Leftrightarrow d\phi+

552: \phi\bullet \phi=0~~(\phi\in {\cal H}^1)~~

553: \ee

554: are equivalent with the requirement that the shifted 

555: superconnection $d_\phi=d+[\phi,.]_\bullet$ satisfies $(d_\phi)^2=0$. 

556: Hence the extrema of (\ref{action}) describe flat superconnections 

557: of total degree one. 

558: 

559: The equations of motion (\ref{mc}) are invariant

560: \footnote{One has 

561: $d(\phi^g)+\phi^g\bullet \phi^g=g\bullet(d\phi+\phi\bullet \phi)\bullet 

562: g^{-1}$. The object $d\phi+\phi\bullet \phi$ is the curvature of the 

563: associated superconnection.} 

564: with respect to gauge transformations of the form: 

565: \be

566: \label{Gauge}

567: \phi\rightarrow \phi^g=g\bullet \phi \bullet g^{-1}+g\bullet dg^{-1}~~,

568: \ee

569: where $g$ is an invertible element of the subalgebra $({\cal H}^0, \bullet)$.

570: This means that $g$ belongs to the group of units:

571: \be

572: \label{Gauge_group}

573: {\cal G}=\{g\in {\cal H}^0|{\rm~exists~}~g^{-1}\in {\cal H}^0~{\rm~such~that~}

574: ~g\bullet g^{-1}=g^{-1}\bullet g=1\}~~.

575: \ee

576: One has the standard transformation rule for the `covariant differential'

577: $d_\phi$:

578: \be

579: d_\phi(g^{-1}\bullet u\bullet g)=g^{-1}\bullet d_{\phi^g}\bullet g

580: \Leftrightarrow d_\phi(Ad_{g^-1}u)=Ad_{g^{-1}}(d_{\phi^g}u)~~,

581: \ee

582: for $u\in {\cal H}$, where $Ad_{g}(u):=g\bullet u \bullet g^{-1}$.

583: The moduli space results upon dividing the space ${\cal S}$ of solutions to 

584: (\ref{mc}) through the gauge symmetries (\ref{Gauge}). 

585: This is a standard Maurer-Cartan problem. 

586: 

587: 

588: In general, the 

589: the action (\ref{action}) is invariant only under `small' gauge 

590: transformations \cite{gauge}, i.e. those transformations for which 

591: $g$ can be written in the form:

592: \be

593: \label{exp}

594: g=e^\alpha_\bullet :=\sum_{k\geq 0}{\frac{1}{k!}\alpha^{\bullet k}}~~,

595: \ee

596: where $\alpha^{\bullet k}$ stands for $k$-th iteration of 

597: the $\bullet$-product of $\alpha$ with itself (and we define 

598: $\alpha^{\bullet 0}:=1$). 

599: 

600: 

601: 

602: For infinitesimal $\alpha$, the gauge 

603: transformations (\ref{Gauge}) become:

604: \be

605: \label{gauge}

606: \phi\rightarrow\phi+\delta_\alpha\phi~~, 

607: \ee 

608: with $\delta_\alpha\phi=-d\alpha-[\phi,\alpha]_\bullet$. 

609: For small $\phi$ and $\alpha$, 

610: the moduli problem  reduces to its linearized version:

611: \be

612: \label{mc_lin}

613: d\phi=0~~,~~\phi\equiv \phi-d\alpha~~,

614: \ee

615: which describes infinitesimal deformations of the background. 

616: 

617: 

618: 

619: \paragraph{Observation} Since graded Chern-Simons theories contain higher rank 

620: forms, a complete analysis of their gauge symmetries (with a view toward 

621: quantization) requires the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism. The classical part 

622: of this analysis was carried out in \cite{bv}, while gauge fixing and 

623: propagators are discussed in \cite{gbv}. In the present paper, we 

624: will be able to avoid the BV formalism by employing the 

625: `resolvent method' of \cite{Schwarz_resolvent, Schwarz_resolvent2}. 

626: The BV analysis gives the same results (as expected 

627: from the general observations of \cite{Blau_Thompson}). 

628: 

629: \subsection{D-brane interpretation of the background}

630: 

631: Our string field theory is formulated around a specific 

632: background described by certain collections of graded D-branes. 

633: A shift of the background (which can be achieved by use of a solution $\phi$ 

634: to (\ref{mc})) deforms the differential $d$ into $d_\phi u=du+[\phi,u]$. 

635: It is easy to check (see \cite{com1, com3, gauge}) 

636: that such shifts preserve the relevant  properties of $d$. 

637: When expanded around the shifted background, the 

638: string field action has the same form (\ref{action}) up to the addition 

639: of an irrelevant constant \cite{com1}.  

640: 

641: As explained in \cite{com1, com3}, a general background admits a D-brane 

642: interpretation which allows for a systematic description in the language of 

643: category theory. This is related to the basic fact \cite{Bismut_Lott} 

644: that degree one superconnections can be decomposed as the sum of 

645: a usual connection and a collection of bundle-valued forms, which can be 

646: interpreted as condensates of spacetime fields associated with 

647: boundary condition changing operators. The decomposition properties of 

648: the boundary product and bilinear form with respect to these fields

649: can then be used to extract the D-brane content of the background

650: \cite{com1, com3}. The D-brane interpretation is different at various 

651: points in the moduli space. This identifies our moduli space of vacua 

652: with the moduli space of topological D-brane composites \cite{com1, com3}.

653: We refer the reader to the papers just cited for a detailed 

654: presentation of this analysis. It was shown on general grounds in \cite{com1}

655: (and, for the models discussed here, in \cite{sc}) that the collection of 

656: D-brane composites describing a background $\phi$ defines a `differential 

657: graded category', part of 

658: which can be related to certain enhanced triangulated 

659: categories \cite{BK}\footnote{We warn the reader that the description 

660: of `D-brane category dynamics' in \cite{com1,com3} is only local, 

661: i.e. based on the linearized version (\ref{mc_lin}) of the equations 

662: of motion; similar limitations apply to the triangulated category picture, 

663: which is a consequence of this. This is related to 

664: the issue of finding a good global definition for the 

665: `moduli space of a triangulated category', which seems to be best approached 

666: at the string field theory level.}. For the B-model

667: version of the theory (which was considered in \cite{Diaconescu}), 

668: the relevant triangulated category essentially coincides with 

669: the derived category of coherent sheaves. 

670: 

671: From many points of view, the string field theory description must come 

672: {\em before} any discussion in terms of triangulated categories. For example, 

673: a proper definition of deformations seems to require 

674: string field data, and possesses a standard (i.e. Maurer-Cartan) 

675: formulation only at the string field level \cite{gauge}. 

676: 

677: 

678: 

679: \section{The semiclassical approximation and generalized Ray-Singer torsion}

680: 

681: We are interested in the partition function $Z$ of (\ref{action}). 

682: Fixing a flat superconnection $A$, this can be determined by performing a 

683: background perturbation expansion around $A$. It is a standard 

684: fact that the semiclassical contribution to this expansion is given (up to the 

685: trivial factor $e^{-i\lambda S(A)}$, which we shall ignore) by certain

686: functional determinants, which encode the contribution of the kinetic term.

687: The purpose of this section is to evaluate this approximation in order 

688: to extract a certain numerical invariant associated 

689: with our models. 

690: 

691: \subsection{Hermitian structure}

692: 

693: Our gauge-fixing procedure will require that we pick a Riemannian 

694: metric $g$ on $L$ and Hermitian metrics on the bundles

695: $E_n$. The last determine a Hermitian metric $g_{\bf E}$ on ${\bf E}$, 

696: and thus a Hermitian metric on $End({\bf E})$, given by:

697: \be

698: (\alpha,\beta)=tr(\alpha^\dagger\circ \beta)~~{\rm~for~}~~\alpha,\beta\in 

699: End({\bf E}_p)~~,p\in L~~,

700: \ee

701: where $\alpha^\dagger$ is the Hermitian conjugate of $\alpha$ with respect to 

702: $g_{\bf E}$. On the other hand, $g$ induces a Hermitian 

703: metric $(.,.)$ on $\Lambda^*(T^*L)$

704: in the standard fashion. This is given by: 

705: \be

706: (*{\overline \omega})\wedge \eta=(\omega, \eta)vol_g~~,{\rm~for~}~~

707: \omega, \eta\in \Lambda^*(T^*_pL)~~,

708: \ee

709: where $vol_g$ is the volume form induced by $g$ on $L$ (with respect to the 

710: fundamental orientation on $L$), while 

711: $*$ is the {\em complex linear} Hodge operator, 

712: which is involutive and satisfies:

713: \be

714: rk(*\omega)=3-rk\omega~~.

715: \ee

716: Combining these, we obtain a Hermitian metric $(.,.)_{\cal V}$ on the bundle 

717: ${\cal V}=\Lambda^*(T^*L)\otimes End({\bf E})$, which can be described through

718: the relation:

719: \be

720: \label{Vmetric}

721: tr(*u^\dagger\wedge v)=(u,v)_{\cal V}

722: vol_g~~{\rm~for~}u,v\in {\cal V}_p~~,~~p\in L~~.

723: \ee

724: It is clear that $(u,v)_{\cal V}$ vanishes (on bi-homogeneous elements) 

725: unless $\Delta(u)=\Delta(v)$ and $rk u= rk v$ (and thus unless $|u|=|v|$). 

726: In particular, we have induced scalar products on each of the subbundles 

727: ${\cal V}^k$, which are mutually orthogonal with respect to (\ref{Vmetric}).

728: Integration over $L$ gives a Hermitian scalar product on the 

729: space ${\cal H}=\Gamma({\cal V})$:

730: \be

731: \label{hmetric}

732: h(u,v)=\int_{L}{(u,v)vol_g}=

733: \int_{L}{tr(*u^\dagger\wedge v)}~~,~~{\rm for}~~u,v\in {\cal H}~~.

734: \ee

735: 

736: 

737: 

738: \subsubsection{The conjugation operator} 

739: 

740: This was discussed in detail \cite{gauge}, so I will be short. 

741: Since the bilinear form (\ref{bf_A}) is non-degenerate, there exists a unique 

742: antilinear operator $c$ on ${\cal H}$ with the property:

743: \be

744: \label{h}

745: h(u,v)=\langle cu,v\rangle=\int_{L}{str[(cu)\bullet v]}~~.

746: \ee

747: This has the following form on decomposable elements:

748: \be

749: \label{c_A}

750: c(\omega\otimes f)=(-1)^{n+\Delta(f)(1+rk \omega)}

751: (*{\overline \omega})\otimes f^\dagger~~,~~{\rm~for~}~~\omega\in \Omega^*(L)~~

752: {\rm~and~}~~f\in Hom(E_m,E_n)~~.

753: \ee

754: The conjugation operator satisfies:

755: \be

756: \label{c_props}

757: |cu|=3-|u|~~, ~~c^2=id~~,

758: \ee

759: and thus obeys the axiomatic framework of \cite{superpot}.

760: Note that $c$ is anti-unitary:

761: \be

762: h(u,v)=h(cv,cu)~~.

763: \ee

764: In the ungraded case (${\bf E}=E_0$), 

765: $c$ reduces to the {\em antilinear} Hodge operator 

766: ${\overline *}$, coupled to the bundle $End(E)$.

767: 

768: 

769: \subsubsection{The adjoint of $d$ and the Laplacian}

770: 

771: As mentioned above, the 

772: scalar product $h$ satisfies the selection rule:

773: \be

774: \label{h_sel}

775: h(u,v)=0 ~~,~~{\rm~unless~}~~|u|=|v|~~.

776: \ee

777: Considering the Hermitian conjugate $d^\dagger$ of $d$ (with respect to $h$), we have:

778: \be

779: d^\dagger u= (-1)^{|u|}cdcu~~,~~|d^\dagger u|=|u|-1~~,~~(d^\dagger)^2=0~~.

780: \ee

781: Using this operator, one constructs the `deformed Laplacian' 

782: $\Delta=dd^\dagger+d^\dagger d$, which is an order two elliptic operator

783: on ${\cal H}$. We also note the relations:

784: \bea

785: \label{cdd}

786: cd^\dagger u= (-1)^{|u|}dcu~~&,&~~d^\dagger cu=(-1)^{|u|+1}cdu~~\nn\\

787: d^\dagger dc=cdd^\dagger~~&,&~~dd^\dagger c=cd^\dagger d~~.

788: \eea

789: 

790: \subsection{The spacetime ghost grading}

791: 

792: According to (\ref{h_sel}), we have induced 

793: Hermitian scalar products on each of 

794: the subspaces ${\cal H}^k$, which are mutually orthogonal with respect 

795: to $h$. For what follows, it will be convenient to use the grading 

796: $s(u)=1-|u|$, which in the BV formalism corresponds to the ghost number 

797: of the string field theory \cite{bv}. 

798: We shall use the notation ${\cal H}(\sigma)={\cal H}^{1-\sigma}$ 

799: for the homogeneous subspaces of ${\cal H}$ with respect to this grading, 

800: and the notation $H_\sigma({\cal H})=H^{1-\sigma}({\cal H})$ for the 

801: associated components of $H^*({\cal H})$ (since the ghost grading 

802: is decreased by $d$, this takes the original cochain complex $({\cal H},d)$ 

803: into a chain complex, which is why we use homological notation).

804: With this convention, the string field lies in the subspace ${\cal H}(0)$ 

805: of vanishing ghost number. 

806: Note that:

807: \be

808: \label{s_props}

809: s(du)=s(u)-1~~,~~s(cu)=-1-s(u)~~,~~s(cdu)=-s(u)~~.

810: \ee

811: In particular, $cd$ induces a well-defined antilinear operator on the 

812: physical subspace ${\cal H}(0)$. 

813: 

814: It is clear from the definition of $c$ that a nonzero element $u\in {\cal H}$ 

815: always has a nonzero conjugate partner $cu$. Since the number of graded 

816: components $E_n$ is assumed to be finite, there exists 

817: a maximal value of the degree $s$, which we shall denote by $N$.

818: The second relation in (\ref{s_props}) then shows that the minimal value of 

819: $s$ is $-1-N$. Accordingly, the degree $|.|=1-s(.)$ lies in the interval

820: $1-N\dots 2+N$. 

821: 

822: We also recall the standard decompositions:

823: \be

824: {\cal H}=K\oplus im d \oplus im d^\dagger~~,~~ker d=imd \oplus K~~,~~ker d^\dagger= im d^\dagger \oplus K~~,

825: \ee

826: where $K=ker \Delta=ker d\cap ker d^\dagger$. Hodge theory leads 

827: to the identification $K\approx H_d^*({\cal H})$.

828: 

829: \subsection{Complex and real determinants and induced Euclidean scalar 

830: products}

831: 

832: In the next subsection, it will be convenient to `decompose our fields

833: into real components' when performing the path integral. For that purpose, 

834: we collect some useful facts and definitions. This is entirely trivial and 

835: well-known, but I shall state it explicitly nonetheless. 

836: 

837: The complex vector space ${\cal H}$ 

838: can be viewed as a real vector space upon restriction 

839: of the field of scalars. Then the Hermitian product $h$

840: induces an Euclidean scalar product $(.,.):=Re h$ on ${\cal H}$. 

841: Given a complex vector subspace $W$ of ${\cal H}$, it is easy to check 

842: that for any vector $u$ in ${\cal H}$, one has the equivalence:

843: \be

844: \label{EH}

845: (u,v)=0{\rm ~for~all~}v\in W\Leftrightarrow <u,v>=0{\rm~for~all~}v\in W.

846: \ee

847: Indeed, if $W$ contains a vector $v$, then it also contains the vector 

848: $iv$, and 

849: one has $(u,iv)=Reh(u,iv)=Re [ih(u,v)]= -Im h(u,v)$. Relation (\ref{EH}) 

850: shows that the orthogonal complements of $W$ with respect to $h$ and 

851: $(.,.)$ coincide, so we shall use the symbol $W^\perp$ to denote either.

852: 

853: A complex-linear operator $O$ on a complex vector space $V$ 

854: can also be viewed as a real-linear operator on the underlying 

855: real vector space. 

856: Therefore, one has two notions for the determinant of $O$, namely the

857: complex and real determinant.

858: The first is the determinant of $O$ viewed as a complex-linear map, 

859: i.e. the determinant of its matrix in a complex-linear basis

860: $e_\alpha$ of $V$:

861: \be

862: \label{real_matrix}

863: Oe_\alpha=a_{\beta\alpha}e_\beta\Rightarrow det O=det (a_{\alpha\beta})~~.

864: \ee

865: It can be described more geometrically by considering the maximal exterior 

866: power $\Lambda^d V$ of $V$ viewed as a complex vector space

867: (here $d$ is the complex dimension of $V$). Indeed, $O$ induces a linear 

868: endomorphism of $\Lambda^d V$. Since the latter space is complex 

869: one-dimensional, this endomorphism is canonically identified with a complex 

870: number, which is the determinant of $O$. In fact, $\Lambda^d V$

871: has a basis given by $e_1\wedge\dots \wedge e_d$, and 

872: $O(e_1)\wedge\dots \wedge O(e_d)=det O e_1\wedge\dots \wedge e_d$.

873: 

874: The real determinant arises from a similar construction, where one views 

875: $O$ as a real linear operator on the real vector space $V$ (whose 

876: real dimension is $2d$). The latter admits the basis 

877: $e_1\dots e_d, ie_1\dots ie_d$, which gives:

878: \bea

879: Oe_\alpha&=&x_{\beta\alpha}e_\alpha+y_{\beta\alpha}(ie_\alpha)~~\nn\\

880: O(ie_\alpha)&=&-y_{\beta\alpha}e_\alpha+x_{\beta\alpha}(ie_\alpha)~~,

881: \eea

882: where $x_{\alpha\beta}=Re a_{\alpha\beta}$ and 

883: $y_{\alpha\beta}=Im a_{\alpha\beta}$. The real determinant $det_\R O$ 

884: is the determinant of the resulting real $2d\times 2d$ matrix. This can again be 

885: identified with the operator induced by $O$ on the real one-dimensional 

886: vector space $\Lambda_\R^{2d} V$, where $\Lambda_\R$ denotes the real 

887: exterior product. One has $O(e_1)\wedge_\R\dots \wedge_\R O(e_d)

888: \wedge_\R O(ie_1)\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_\R O(ie_d)=det_R(O) 

889: e_1\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_\R e_d\wedge (ie_1)\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_\R(ie_d)$.

890: One can show that:

891: \be

892: det_\R O= |det O|^2~~,

893: \ee

894: a formula which will be used repeatedly in later subsections. 

895: 

896: 

897: 

898: \subsection{The semiclassical partition function in the 

899: resolvent formalism}

900: 

901: \subsubsection{The computation} 

902: 

903: To compute the semiclassical partition function, 

904: we use the resolvent formalism of \cite{Schwarz_resolvent,Schwarz_resolvent2}, 

905: in its generalized version discussed in \cite{Adams_Sen0, Adams_Sen}\footnote{

906: A streamlined presentation of this material can be found in the thesis of 

907: D. H. Adams. The author thanks him for bringing this thesis to his attention.}

908: (see \cite{Adams_scl, Adams_FP, Adams_cpct} and 

909: \cite{GK, NC} for related issues). For this, we focus on the kinetic term: 

910: \be

911: \label{Skin}

912: S_{kin}(\phi)=Re \langle \phi, d\phi\rangle=

913: Re \int_{L}{str(\phi \bullet d\phi)}~~,

914: \ee

915: where $d:=d_A$ is the differential on ${\cal H}$ associated with the

916: background $A$. The semiclassical partition function is formally given by:

917: \be

918: \label{Zformal}

919: Z_{scl}=\int{{\cal D}[\phi]e^{-i\lambda S_{kin}(\phi)}}~~,

920: \ee

921: where $\lambda>0$ is the coupling constant.

922: This path integral is of course ill-defined. The most severe problem 

923: is the presence of zero modes, which are related to the gauge invariance 

924: $\phi\rightarrow \phi+d\omega$, with $\omega$ an element of 

925: ${\cal H}(1)={\cal H}^0=

926: \oplus_{m,n}{\Omega^{m-n}(L, Hom(E_m,E_n))}$. A precise 

927: characterization of zero modes is as follows. Using the metric 

928: induced on ${\cal H}(0)$, we write $S_{kin}$ in the form:

929: \be

930: S_{kin}(\phi)=Re~h(\phi, cd\phi)=(\phi, cd\phi)~~,

931: \ee

932: where $(.,):=Reh(.,.)$ is the Euclidean scalar product induced by 

933: $h$, if we view ${\cal H}^1={\cal H}(0)$ as a real vector 

934: space. 

935: The zero modes lie in the kernel of this quadratic functional.

936: Since $(.,.)$ is nondegenerate, this coincides with the kernel of the 

937: antilinear operator $T_0:=cd:{\cal H}(0)\rightarrow {\cal H}(0)$. 

938: In fact, $T_0$ becomes a (real-linear) 

939: self-adjoint operator, as can be checked by using invariance of 

940: $\langle.,.\rangle$ with respect to $d$:

941: \be

942: (T_0u, v)=(u,T_0v)~~{~~\rm~for~~}~u, v \in {\cal H}(0)\Rightarrow 

943: T_0^t=T_0~~,

944: \ee

945: where $^t$ stands for the adjoint with respect to $(.,.)$.

946: It is also easy to check that:

947: \be

948: (\phi, T_0\phi)=(\phi_M, T_0\phi_M)~~,

949: \ee 

950: where we decomposed $\phi:=\phi_M\oplus \phi_K$ with 

951: $\phi_K\in ker d=ker T_0$ and $\phi_M \in (ker d)^\perp=(ker T_0)^\perp$. 

952: If we let $T_0'$ denote the restriction of $T_0$ to the orthogonal 

953: complement of its kernel, then formal integration in (\ref{Zformal}) leads to:

954: \be

955: \label{Zformal1}

956: Z_{scl}=vol(ker(T_0))\int{{\cal D}[\phi_M]e^{-i\lambda (\phi_M, T_0'\phi_M)}}~~.

957: \ee

958: 

959: Both factors in (\ref{Zformal1}) are ill-defined, 

960: since the first involves the `volume' of a vector space

961: while the second is a Gaussian integral for a generally indefinite 

962: quadratic form. The second problem is solved in standard manner by 

963: replacing $T_0 '$ with the strictly positive operator 

964: $|T_0'|=\sqrt{T_0'T_0'}=

965: \sqrt{(d^\dagger d)'_{s=0}}$, 

966: where the subscript $s=0$ indicates that 

967: $d^\dagger d$ is restricted to the subspace ${\cal H}(0)$.

968: This leads to the expression:

969: \be

970: \int{{\cal D}[\phi_M]e^{-i\lambda (\phi_M, T_0'\phi_M)}}=

971: ct\times (det_\R|T_0'|)^{-1/2}~~

972: \ee

973: where $det_\R|T_0'|$ denotes the real determinant of $|T_0'|$. 

974: Using $det_\R |T'_0|^{-1/2}=det |T_0'|^{-1}= (det'_{s=0}(d^\dagger d))^{-1/2}$,

975: we obtain:

976: \be

977: \label{Zformal2}

978: Z_{scl}=ct\times vol(ker(T_0)) (det'_{s=0}d^\dagger d)^{-1/2}~~,

979: \ee

980: where, for a Hermitian operator $O$, 

981: $det' O$ denotes the complex determinant of $O|_{(ker O)^\perp}$.

982: 

983: The last factor of (\ref{Zformal2}) is still ill-defined, since it involves 

984: an infinite product of eigenvalues. This is a standard problem, which 

985: is solved by zeta-function regularization.

986: We remind the reader that, given a positive elliptic operator $O$, 

987: acting on sections of a vector bundle over $L$, 

988: its zeta function $\zeta_O(z)$ $(z\in \C)$ is defined as follows.

989: For sufficiently large $Rez$, $\zeta_O(z)$ is given by the expansion:

990: \be

991: \zeta_O(z)=\sum_{\lambda}{\frac{n_\lambda}{\lambda^z}}~~,

992: \ee

993: where the sum is over the (strictly positive) 

994: eigenvalues $\lambda$ of $O$, whose multiplicities we denote by 

995: $n_\lambda$. 

996: The analytic continuation of this series to the 

997: complex plane is meromorphic and regular at the origin. 

998: This allows one to define the regularized determinant through the expression:

999: $det^{reg}(O):= e^{-\zeta'_{O}(0)}$, where 

1000: $\zeta'_{O}(z):=\frac{d}{dz}\zeta_{O}(z)$. 

1001: Applying this to the operator $|T_0'|^2$, we obtain:

1002: \be

1003: \label{detprime}

1004: det'^{,reg}_{s=0}(d^\dagger d)= e^{-\zeta'_{(d^\dagger d)'_{s=0}}(0)}~~.

1005: \ee 

1006: 

1007: 

1008: To regularize the volume factor in (\ref{Zformal2}), 

1009: we use the so-called {\em method of resolvents} 

1010: \cite{Schwarz_resolvent, Adams_Sen0, Adams_Sen},

1011: which proceeds as follows\footnote{Since we work with complex fields, 

1012: (i.e. $\phi$ varies in a complex vector space)

1013: we will have to make some minor modifications in order to adapt the work of 

1014: \cite{Adams_Sen}.}. First, we notice that the kinetic 

1015: operator $T_0=cd$ admits an {\em elliptic resolvent}.

1016: More precisely, one has the complex of {\em real} vector spaces:

1017: \be

1018: \label{res}

1019: ({\cal R})~~:~~0\rightarrow{\cal H}(N)

1020: \stackrel{T_N=d}{\longrightarrow}\dots 

1021: \stackrel{T_2=d}{\longrightarrow} 

1022: {\cal H}(1)\stackrel{T_1=d}{\longrightarrow}{\cal H}(0) 

1023: \stackrel{T_0=cd}{\longrightarrow}{\cal H}(0)~~,

1024: \ee

1025: (where $N$ denotes the maximal value of the spacetime ghost degree, 

1026: as discussed in Subsection 3.2), and the associated Laplace operators:

1027: \be

1028: \label{Laplacians}

1029: \Delta_\sigma:=T_\sigma^t T_\sigma+

1030: T_{\sigma+1} T_{\sigma+1}^t

1031: = d^\dagger d+dd^\dagger:{\cal H}(\sigma)\rightarrow {\cal H}(\sigma)

1032: \ee

1033: (with $T_{N+1}:=0$) are elliptic for all $\sigma=0\dots N$. 

1034: To arrive at (\ref{Laplacians}), 

1035: we used the fact that $T_\sigma^t=T_\sigma^\dagger$ for 

1036: $\sigma>0$ and $T_0^t T_0=d^\dagger d$ for $\sigma=0$.

1037: Notice that ${\cal H}(\sigma)={\cal H}^{1-\sigma}=\Gamma({\cal V}^{1-\sigma})$

1038: are in fact complex vector spaces, but the last map in (\ref{res}) 

1039: is complex antilinear, rather than complex linear.  This is why we 

1040: can only view (\ref{res}) as a complex of real-linear maps. 

1041: 

1042: To regularize 

1043: $vol(ker T_0)$, one picks auxiliary Hermitian metrics 

1044: $h_\sigma^H$ on the homology spaces 

1045: $H_\sigma({\cal R})=ker T_\sigma/im T_{\sigma+1}=H^{1-\sigma}_d({\cal H})$

1046: of the resolvent, and considers the Hodge isomorphisms:

1047: \be

1048: \label{fsigma}

1049: f_\sigma:K(\sigma)=K^{1-\sigma}=

1050: ker T_\sigma\cap ker T_\sigma^t

1051: \stackrel{\approx}{\longrightarrow} 

1052: H_\sigma({\cal R})=H^{1-\sigma}_d({\cal H})~~

1053: \ee 

1054: induced by the obvious 

1055: projections $ker T_\sigma\rightarrow H_\sigma({\cal R})$. 

1056: Given this data, one can formally compute \cite{Adams_Sen}:

1057: \bea

1058: \label{vol_formal0}

1059: vol(ker T_0)=\prod_{\sigma=0}^N{

1060: \left[\left(\frac{det'_\R(T_{\sigma+1}^t T_{\sigma+1})}

1061: {det_\R(f_\sigma^t f_\sigma)}\right)^{1/2}vol(H_\sigma({\cal R}))

1062: vol({\cal H}(\sigma+1))\right]^{(-1)^{\sigma}}}~~,

1063: \eea

1064: where $det_\R$ denotes the determinant of real-linear maps and

1065: we defined $det'_\R(T_{N+1}^t T_{N+1}):=1$ and $vol({\cal H}(N+1)):=1$. 

1066: Relation (\ref{vol_formal0}) gives:

1067: \bea

1068: \label{vol_formal}

1069: vol(ker T_0)=\prod_{\sigma=0}^N{

1070: \left[\frac{det'_{s=\sigma+1}(d^\dagger d)}

1071: {det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)}vol(H_\sigma({\cal R}))vol({\cal H}(\sigma+1))

1072: \right]^{(-1)^{\sigma}}}~~

1073: \eea

1074: (where again we define $det'_{s=N+1}(d^\dagger d):=1$).

1075: This expression is given a meaning by dropping 

1076: the ill-defined factors

1077: $vol(H_\sigma({\cal R}))$ and $vol({\cal H}(\sigma))$ 

1078: and using zeta-function regularization for

1079: the determinants of the positive operators 

1080: $(d^\dagger d)'_{s=\sigma}=

1081: [(d^\dagger d)|_{ker (d)^\perp}]_{s=\sigma}$: 

1082: \be

1083: vol^{reg}(ker T_0)=\prod_{\sigma=0}^N{

1084: \left[\frac{det^{',reg}_{s=\sigma+1}(d^\dagger d)}

1085: {det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)}\right]^{(-1)^{\sigma}}}~~.

1086: \ee

1087: Combining with (\ref{Zformal2}), we conclude:

1088: \bea

1089: \label{Zf}

1090: Z_{scl}=Cdet'^{,reg}_{s=0}(d^\dagger d)^{-1/2}

1091: \prod_{\sigma=0}^N{

1092: \left[\frac{det'^{,reg}_{s=\sigma+1}(d^\dagger d)}

1093: {det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)}\right]^{(-1)^{\sigma}}}=\\

1094: C e^{\frac{1}{2}\zeta'_{(d^\dagger d)'_{s=0}}(0)

1095: +\sum_{\sigma=1}^N{(-1)^\sigma \zeta'_{(d^\dagger d)'_{s=\sigma}}(0)}}

1096: \prod_{\sigma=0}^N{

1097: \left[det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)^{(-1)^{\sigma+1}}\right]}~~,\nn

1098: \eea

1099: where $C$ is a complex constant. If one uses the normalization conventions

1100: of \cite{Adams_Sen}, then $C$ can be written as:

1101: \be

1102: \label{C}

1103: C=\left(\frac{\pi}{\lambda}\right)^{\zeta_{|T_0|}(0)/2}e^{-\frac{i\pi}{4}

1104: \eta_{T_0}(0)}~~,

1105: \ee

1106: where $\zeta_{|T_0|}:=\zeta_{|T_0'|}$

1107: is the zeta-function of the positive operator $|T_0'|$ and 

1108: $\eta_{T_0}:=\eta_{cd_{s=0}}$ is the eta-function of $T_0$. 

1109: The latter is defined through analytic continuation of 

1110: the following expression\footnote{Remember that $T_0$ is 

1111: self-adjoint only as a real-linear operator. To find its eigenvalues, 

1112: one must of course consider the complexification $W$ of the underlying

1113: real vector space of ${\cal H}(0)$. The complex dimension of $W$ 

1114: equals $2dim_\C {\cal H}(0)$. 

1115: The selfadjoint operator $T_0$ induces a 

1116: {\em complex-linear} Hermitian operator $T_0^\C$

1117: on $W$. It is the real 

1118: eigenvalues of this operator which appear in (\ref{eta})  

1119: for our case.}

1120: (which is valid for $Re z>>0$):

1121: \be

1122: \label{eta}

1123: \eta_{T_0}(z)=\sum_{\lambda>0}{\frac{n_\lambda}{\lambda^z}}-

1124: \sum_{\lambda<0}{\frac{n_\lambda}{|\lambda|^z}}~~,

1125: \ee

1126: the sums being over the strictly positive and strictly negative 

1127: eigenvalues of $T_0$ $(n_\lambda$ are the multiplicities). We refer the reader 

1128: to \cite{Adams_Sen} for the justification of (\ref{C}) (in particular, 

1129: it is shown there that $\eta_{T_0}(0)$ is well-defined). Here we only note 

1130: that the absolute value of $C$ produced by a putative non-perturbative 

1131: solution of the full graded Chern-Simons theory 

1132: need not strictly agree with (\ref{C}), 

1133: due to corrections from a possibly nontrivial gauge stabilizer

1134: of the background superconnection $A$ (this is 

1135: similar to what happens for the ungraded case 

1136: \cite{Adams_Sen, Adams_FP, Adams_scl, Adams_cpct}).

1137: Therefore, the modulus of expression (\ref{C}) should {\em not} 

1138: be taken at face value.

1139: 

1140: \subsubsection{Generalized Ray-Singer torsion}

1141: 

1142: Let us write the partition function (\ref{Zf}) in an alternate form. 

1143: First we introduce the notation 

1144: $\zeta_{\sigma}(z):=\zeta_{(d^\dagger d)'_{s=\sigma}}(z)$.

1145: Lemma 3.1 of \cite{Adams_Sen} establishes the relation:

1146: \be

1147: \label{zeta_rel}

1148: \zeta_\sigma(z)+\zeta_{\sigma+1}(z)=\zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}(z)

1149: ~~(\sigma \geq 0)~~.

1150: \ee

1151: where $\zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}$ is a shorthand for $\zeta_{\Delta'_\sigma}$.

1152: This follows from the fact that 

1153: $\Delta'_\sigma=(dd^\dagger)'\oplus (d^\dagger d)'$ (since 

1154: $(ker \Delta)^\perp=im d^\dagger \oplus im d=(ker d)^\perp\oplus 

1155: (ker d^\dagger)^\perp=ker (d^\dagger d)^\perp\oplus (ker d d^\dagger)^\perp$),

1156: which implies

1157: $\zeta_{\Delta'_\sigma}(z)=\zeta_{(d^\dagger d)'_\sigma}(z)+

1158: \zeta_{(dd^\dagger)'_\sigma}(z)$.

1159: Then one notices that $d$ gives an isomorphism between 

1160: $ker(d^\dagger d)^\perp=ker (d)^\perp$ and 

1161: $ker(dd^\dagger)^\perp=ker(d^\dagger)^\perp=im(d)$, thereby inducing 

1162: a bijection between the nonzero eigenvalues of $(d^\dagger d)_{\sigma+1}$ and 

1163: $(dd^\dagger)_\sigma$ (if $d^\dagger du =\lambda u$ then 

1164: $dd^\dagger du=\lambda du$ etc.). Therefore, 

1165: $\zeta_{(dd^\dagger)'_\sigma}(z)=\zeta_{\sigma+1}(z)$, which leads to

1166: (\ref{zeta_rel}).

1167: 

1168: Equation (\ref{zeta_rel}) implies:

1169: \be

1170: \label{s1}

1171: \zeta_0+2\sum_{\sigma=1}^N{(-1)^\sigma\zeta_\sigma}=

1172: \sum_{\sigma=0}^N{(-1)^\sigma(1+2\sigma)\zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}}~~.

1173: \ee

1174: The next step is to notice that the last two equations in 

1175: (\ref{cdd}) imply $\Delta c=c\Delta$ and thus:

1176: \be

1177: c\Delta_\sigma=\Delta_{-1-\sigma}c~~,~~\Delta_\sigma c=c\Delta_{-1-\sigma}~~,

1178: \ee

1179: because $s(cu)=-1-s(u)$. 

1180: Since $c$ is a bijection, this shows that the operators

1181: $\Delta_\sigma$ and $\Delta_{-1-\sigma}$ are iso-spectral (i.e. have the 

1182: same eigenvalues, with the same multiplicities). Therefore:

1183: \be

1184: \zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}(z)=\zeta_{\Delta_{-1-\sigma}}(z)~~{\rm~~for~~}

1185: \sigma\in \{ -1-N \dots N\}~~.

1186: \ee

1187: Thus:

1188: \be

1189: \label{s2}

1190: \sum_{\sigma=0}^N{(-1)^\sigma(1+2\sigma)\zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}}=

1191: \sum_{\sigma=-N-1}^N{(-1)^\sigma\sigma\zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}}=

1192: \sum_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{(-1)^q q\zeta_{\Delta^{(q)}}}~~,

1193: \ee

1194: where $\Delta^{(q)}=\Delta_{1-q}$ is the Laplacian on the space 

1195: ${\cal H}^q={\cal H}(1-q)$. 

1196: Combining (\ref{s1}) and (\ref{s2}), we obtain:

1197: \be

1198: \label{sums_final}

1199: \frac{1}{2}\zeta_0+\sum_{\sigma=1}^N{(-1)^\sigma\zeta_\sigma}=

1200: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma=-N-1}^{N}{(-1)^\sigma\sigma\zeta_{\Delta_\sigma}}=

1201: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{(-1)^q q\zeta_{\Delta^{(q)}}}~~,

1202: \ee

1203: where $\sigma$ and $q$ in the right hand side 

1204: run over their maximal domains of definition 

1205: $\{-1-N\dots N\}$ and $\{1-N\dots N+2\}$. 

1206: Let us define the quantity:

1207: \be

1208: \label{T}

1209: T(L, A):=\prod_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{[det^{',reg}\Delta^{(q)}]^{\frac{(-1)^qq}{2}}}=

1210: e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{(-1)^q q\zeta'_{\Delta^{(q)}}(0)}}=

1211: e^{-\frac{1}{2}

1212: \sum_{\sigma=-N-1}^N{(-1)^\sigma\sigma \zeta'_{\Delta_\sigma}(0)}}~~,

1213: \ee

1214: which is a generalized version of the analytic 

1215: torsion of Ray and Singer 

1216: \cite{Ray, RS1, RS_symp}. Then:

1217: \be

1218: Z_{scl}=C T(L, A)^{-1}

1219: \prod_{\sigma\geq 0}{

1220: \left[det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)^{(-1)^{\sigma+1}}\right]}~~.

1221: \ee

1222: It is convenient to write $Z_{scl}=C{\tilde Z}_{scl}$, where:

1223: \be

1224: {\tilde Z}_{scl}=T(L, A)^{-1}

1225: \prod_{\sigma\geq 0}{

1226: \left[det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)^{(-1)^{\sigma+1}}\right]}~~.

1227: \ee

1228: 

1229: {\bf Observation} Relations (\ref{cdd}) also imply that the 

1230: operators $(d^\dagger d)_\sigma|_{ker(d)^\perp}$ and 

1231: $(dd^\dagger)_{-1-\sigma}|_{ker (d^\dagger)^\perp}$ are iso-spectral.

1232: Since the latter is iso-spectral with 

1233: $(d^\dagger d)_{-\sigma}|_{(ker d)^\perp}$, this gives the relation:

1234: \be

1235: \zeta_\sigma(z)=\zeta_{-\sigma}(z)~~,

1236: \ee

1237: which implies $\frac{1}{2}\zeta_0+\sum_{\sigma=1}^N{(-1)^\sigma\zeta_\sigma}=

1238: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma=-N}^N{(-1)^\sigma\zeta_\sigma}$.

1239: Together with (\ref{sums_final}), this gives:

1240: \be

1241: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{(-1)^q q\zeta_{\Delta^{(q)}}}=

1242: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma=-N}^N{(-1)^\sigma\zeta_\sigma}~~

1243: \ee

1244: and leads to the following expression for the torsion:

1245: \be

1246: T(L,A)=e^{-\frac{1}{2}

1247: \sum_{\sigma=-N}^N{(-1)^\sigma\zeta'_{\sigma}(0)}}~~.

1248: \ee

1249: Note that the sum in the exponent does not contain a term with 

1250: $\sigma=-N-1$.

1251: 

1252: 

1253: \subsubsection{A Hermitian analogue of the Ray-Singer metric}

1254: 

1255: The factor $J:=\prod_{\sigma\geq 0}{

1256: \left[det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)^{(-1)^{\sigma+1}}\right]}$

1257: can be described geometrically as follows. 

1258: We first notice that there exists a unique antilinear involution

1259: $c_*:H_{\sigma}({\cal R})\rightarrow H_{-1-\sigma}({\cal R})$ with the 

1260: property:

1261: \be

1262: f_\sigma c=c_*f_{-1-\sigma}~~,

1263: \ee

1264: where we consider the Hodge isomorphisms 

1265: (\ref{fsigma}) for all $\sigma=-N-1\dots N$. Given this involution, we 

1266: use the metrics $h^H_\sigma$ for $\sigma \geq 0$ to introduce

1267: metrics on the spaces $H_\sigma({\cal R})=

1268: H^{1-\sigma}({\cal H})$ with $\sigma<0$ through the relations:

1269: \be

1270: h^H_\sigma(\alpha,\beta)=h^H_{-1-\sigma}(c_*\beta,c_*\alpha)

1271: ~~{\rm~for~all~}~~\sigma=-N-1 \dots -1~~.

1272: \ee

1273: With respect to these metrics, the operators $c_*$ are anti-unitary.

1274: Use of particular extension of the auxiliary data $h^H_\sigma (\sigma\geq 0)$ 

1275: to the entire cohomology $H^*_d({\cal H})$ is crucial for the validity 

1276: of certain arguments below. 

1277: 

1278: We have $f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma=cf_{-1-\sigma}^\dagger f_{-1-\sigma} c$, 

1279: which implies:

1280: \be

1281: det(f^\dagger_\sigma f_\sigma)=det (f^\dagger_{-1-\sigma}f_{-1-\sigma})~~{\rm~for~all~}\sigma~~,

1282: \ee 

1283: where we used $c^2=id$.

1284: This allows us to write:

1285: \be

1286: \label{J}

1287: J=\prod_{\sigma\geq 0}{

1288: \left[det(f_\sigma^\dagger f_\sigma)^{(-1)^{1-\sigma}}\right]}=

1289: \prod_{\sigma=-N-1}^{N}{(detf^\dagger_\sigma f_\sigma)^{\frac{(-1)^{1-\sigma}}{2}}}=

1290: \prod_{q=1-N}^{2+N}{

1291: det(f^{(q)\dagger} f^{(q)})^{\frac{(-1)^{q}}{2}}}~~,

1292: \ee

1293: where we defined $f^{(q)}:=f_{1-q}:K^q\rightarrow H^{q}_d({\cal H})$.

1294: 

1295: Defining $b_\sigma:=dim_\C H_\sigma({\cal R})$ 

1296: and $b^q:=dim_\C H^{q}({\cal H})$ (so that $b_\sigma:=b^{1-\sigma}$), let

1297: us consider the `complex determinant line': 

1298: \be

1299: {\cal L}=det H^*_d({\cal H})=

1300: \otimes_{\sigma=-N-1}^N{

1301: \Lambda^{b_\sigma}[H_\sigma({\cal R})^{*(1-\sigma)}]}=\otimes_{q=1-N}^{2+N}

1302: {\Lambda^{b^q}[H^q_d({\cal H})^{*q}]}~~,

1303: \ee

1304: which is a one-dimensional 

1305: complex vector space. This space carries two Hermitian metrics. 

1306: The first metric is induced by $g$ and $g_{\bf E}$ 

1307: and arises upon transporting

1308: the restriction of $h$ to the harmonic subspaces $K(\sigma)$ to metrics 

1309: $h_\sigma=h^{(1-\sigma)}$ on $H_\sigma({\cal H})=H_d^{1-\sigma}({\cal H})$ 

1310: through the Hodge isomorphisms 

1311: $f_\sigma:K(\sigma)\rightarrow H_d^{1-\sigma}({\cal H})$: 

1312: \be

1313: \label{hsigma}

1314: h_\sigma(u,v)=h(f_\sigma^{-1}u,f_\sigma^{-1}v)

1315: =h^H_\sigma((f_\sigma^{-1})^\dagger f_\sigma^{-1}u,v)=

1316: h^H_\sigma((f_\sigma f_\sigma^\dagger)^{-1}u, v) {\rm~~for~~} u,v\in 

1317: H_d^{1-\sigma}({\cal H})~~.

1318: \ee

1319: The metrics (\ref{hsigma}) 

1320: induce a metric $h_{\cal L}$ 

1321: on ${\cal L}$ known as the {\em Hermitian} $L_2$-{\em metric}.

1322: If $e^{(q)}_\alpha$ are bases for the complex vector spaces $H^q_d({\cal H})$, 

1323: then $e:=\otimes_{q}{(e^{(q)}_1\wedge \dots \wedge e^{(q)}_{b^q})^{*q}}$ 

1324: is a complex basis of ${\cal L}$, 

1325: whose squared norm in the metric $h_{\cal L}$ is given by:

1326: \be

1327: ||e||^2_{\cal L}=h_{\cal L}(e,e)=\prod_{q}{[detG^{(q)}]^{(-1)^q}}~~,

1328: \ee

1329: where $G^{(q)}_{\alpha\beta}=h^{(q)}(e^{(q)}_\alpha, e^{(q)}_\beta)$ are the (positive-definite) 

1330: Hermitian Gramm matrices.

1331: On the other hand, the auxiliary metrics $h_\sigma^H=h^{(1-\sigma)}_H$ on 

1332: $H_\sigma({\cal H})=H{1-\sigma}_d({\cal H})$ 

1333: induce a metric $h^H_{\cal L}$ on ${\cal L}$, for which:

1334: \be

1335: (||e||^H_{\cal L})^2=h^H_{\cal L}(e,e)=\prod_{q}{[detG_H^{(q)}]^{(-1)^q}}~~,

1336: \ee

1337: with $(G_H^{(q)})_{\alpha\beta}=h_H^{(q)}(e^{(q)}_\alpha, e^{(q)}_\beta)$.

1338: It is clear from this description and from (\ref{J}), (\ref{hsigma}) that the two norms  

1339: on ${\cal L}$ are related through:

1340: \be

1341: \label{norm_relation}

1342: ||.||^H_{\cal L}=J||.||_{\cal L}~~.

1343: \ee

1344: Let us consider the quantity:

1345: \be

1346: ||.||_{RS}=T(L,A)||.||_{\cal L}~~,

1347: \ee

1348: which is a norm on ${\cal L}$ generalizing the standard Ray-Singer norm

1349: \cite{BZ}. This norm is independent of $h^H_\sigma$.

1350: With this definition, one can write ${\tilde Z}_{scl}$ as:

1351: \be

1352: {\tilde Z}_{scl}=\frac{||.||^H_{\cal L}}{~||.||_{RS}}~~,

1353: \ee

1354: which displays the dependence of ${\tilde Z}_{scl}$ on 

1355: the auxiliary data $h^H_\sigma$.

1356: 

1357: \subsubsection{Metric induced on the real determinant line}

1358: 

1359: The traditional formulation of Ray-Singer torsion in the ungraded case involves connections 

1360: defined on {\em real} vector bundles. As a consequence, 

1361: one obtains a norm defined not on the complex determinant line

1362: but on its real analogue. Since we work with complex vector bundles

1363: and connections, it is more natural in our case 

1364: to use the metric of the previous subsection, which 

1365: is defined on the complex determinant line.  Here we explain 

1366: the relation between this formulation and the traditional description.

1367: 

1368: Let us define the {\em real determinant line}: 

1369: \be

1370: \Lambda:=\otimes_{\sigma=-N-1}^N{

1371: \Lambda^{2b_\sigma}_\R[H_\sigma({\cal R})^{*(1-\sigma)}]}=\otimes_{q=1-N}^{2+N}

1372: {\Lambda_\R^{2b^q}[H^q_d({\cal H})^{*q}]}~~,

1373: \ee

1374: where all antisymmetrized and tensor products are now taken over the 

1375: field of real numbers. 

1376: There exists a natural isomorphism between $\Lambda$ and the 

1377: second exterior power $\Lambda^2_\R {\cal L}$ of the complex line, 

1378: where ${\cal L}$ is viewed as a real two-dimensional vector space 

1379: by restriction of the field of scalars.

1380: This isomorphism can be described as follows. Given bases 

1381: $e^{(q)}_1\dots e^{(q)}_{b^q}$ of the complex vector spaces $H^q({\cal H})$, 

1382: consider the bases $e^{(q)}_1\dots e^{(q)}_{b^q}, ie^{(q)}_1\dots ie^{(q)}_{b^q}$ of the 

1383: underlying real vector spaces, as well as the associated bases 

1384: $e:=\otimes_{q}{(e_1\wedge \dots\wedge e_{b^q})^{*q}}$ and 

1385: $\epsilon:=\otimes_{q}{(e_1\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_\R e_{b^q}

1386: \wedge_\R (ie_1)\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_\R (ie_{b^q}))^{*q}}$ of ${\cal L}$ and

1387: $\Lambda$. Under a change $e^{(q)}_i\rightarrow e'^{(q)}_i=M_qe_i$ 

1388: of the bases $e^{(q)}_1\dots e^{(q)}_{b^q}$ (where $M_q$ are invertible complex-

1389: linear operators in $H^q({\cal H})$), we have:

1390: \bea

1391: e'&:=&\otimes_{q}{(e'_q\wedge \dots \wedge e'_q)^{*q}} =\prod_{q}{(det M_q)^{(-1)^q}}e~~\nn\\

1392: \epsilon'&:=&\otimes_{q}{(e'_1\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_R e'_{b^q}

1393: \wedge'_\R (ie'_1)\wedge_\R \dots \wedge_\R (ie'_{b^q}))^{*q}}=

1394: |\prod_q{det M_q^{(-1)^q}}|^2\epsilon~~.

1395: \eea

1396: Considering the basis $e,ie$ of the real vector space ${\cal L}$, 

1397: we obtain a basis $\epsilon_0:=e\wedge_\R (ie)$ of $\Lambda^2_\R{\cal L}$, 

1398: which transforms as follows:

1399: \be

1400: \epsilon'_0:=e'\wedge_\R (ie')=|\prod_{q}{(det M_q)^{(-1)^q}}|^2 \epsilon_0~~.

1401: \ee

1402: The isomorphism $\phi:\Lambda^2_\R{\cal L}\rightarrow \Lambda$ 

1403: is obtained by taking $\epsilon_0$ into $\epsilon$.

1404: This is well-defined because $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_0$ have the same 

1405: transformation rules. Note that both of the real lines $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^2_\R{\cal L}$ 

1406: are equipped with orientations induced from the complex structure of 

1407: $H^q({\cal H})$, and the vectors $\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon$ always agree 

1408: with these orientations.

1409: 

1410: Given the metrics $g$ on $L$ and $g_{\bf E}$ on 

1411: ${\bf E}$, we consider these constructions for 

1412: bases $e_1\dots e_{b^q}$  which are orthonormal 

1413: with respect to the Hermitian metrics $h^q=h_{1-q}$ which induced (through $f_\sigma$) on 

1414: $H^q({\cal H})$.

1415: In this case, only unitary transformations $M_q$ are allowed, hence 

1416: $\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon$ are uniquely determined by the metric data (since $|det M_q|=1$), 

1417: while $e$ is determined up to multiplication by the phase factor $\prod_{q}{detM_q^{(-1)^q}}$. 

1418: By construction, the Hermitian $L_2$ metric on ${\cal L}$ is uniquely determined by the 

1419: constraint\footnote{Indeed, any element $v$ of ${\cal L}$ has the form 

1420: $u=\alpha e$ with $\alpha$ a complex constant, so relation (\ref{norm0}) 

1421: determines $||v||=|\alpha|$. Knowledge of the norm on ${\cal L}$ then 

1422: determines the metric in standard fashion.}:

1423: \be

1424: \label{norm0}

1425: ||e||_{\cal L}=1~~.

1426: \ee

1427: This induces a Euclidean metric $(.,.)_{\cal L}:=Re h_{\cal L}( .,.)$ on 

1428: the underlying real vector space, which makes $(e, ie)$ into a real 

1429: orthonormal basis of ${\cal L}$. Upon taking the second exterior power, 

1430: we have an induced Euclidean metric $(.,.)$ on $\Lambda_\R^2{\cal L}$, 

1431: which is uniquely determined by the constraint:

1432: \be

1433: \label{norm1}

1434: ||\epsilon_0||=1~~.

1435: \ee

1436: In fact, given $u=\alpha e$ and $v=\beta e$ in ${\cal L}$, 

1437: with $\alpha, \beta$ some complex constants, we have 

1438: $u\wedge_\R v=Im({\overline \alpha}\beta) \epsilon_0$ and 

1439: $||u\wedge_R v||=|Im({\overline \alpha}\beta)|$.

1440: 

1441: 

1442: On the other hand, one has an {\em Euclidean $L_2$-metric} $(.,.)_\Lambda$

1443: on $\Lambda$, which is uniquely determined by the condition:

1444: \be

1445: \label{norm2}

1446: ||\epsilon||_\Lambda=1~~.

1447: \ee

1448: This is the metric induced by the Euclidean scalar products

1449: $(.,.)_\sigma:=Re h_\sigma(.,.)$ 

1450: associated with the Hermitian metrics

1451: $h_\sigma$ on $H_\sigma({\cal H})$. Since $\phi$ maps $\epsilon_0$ into 

1452: $\epsilon$, it is clear from (\ref{norm1}) and (\ref{norm2}) that 

1453: $||\phi(v)||=||v||_\Lambda$. Hence the Euclidean $L_2$ metric is naturally 

1454: induced by the Hermitian $L_2$ metric via the (metric-independent) 

1455: isomorphism $\phi$. 

1456: 

1457: Conversely, the Euclidean $L_2$ metric determines the 

1458: vector $\epsilon$ (and thus the vector $\epsilon_0$), via relation 

1459: (\ref{norm2}). (The apparent sign ambiguity is fixed by 

1460: the condition that $\epsilon$ must agree with the orientation of $\Lambda$).

1461: Then $e$ is determined up to a phase factor by the relation 

1462: $e\wedge_\R (ie)=\epsilon_0$. Since multiplying $e$ by a 

1463: phase factor does not 

1464: affect the metric determined by relation (\ref{norm0}), it follows 

1465: that $||.||_{\cal L}$ is uniquely determined by the 

1466: Euclidean $L_2$ metric.

1467: 

1468: We conclude that the Hermitian and Euclidean $L_2$ metrics completely 

1469: determine each other. Which one we use is simply a matter of convention. 

1470: In this note, we use the metric $||.||_{\cal L}$, which is better adapted to 

1471: our complex formalism. In the ungraded case $({\bf E}=E_0$), 

1472: the Euclidean $L_2$ metric arises when considering the complex bundle

1473: as a real bundle by forgetting its complex structure. 

1474: 

1475: 

1476: 

1477: \subsubsection{Metric-independence of the Ray-Singer norm}

1478: 

1479: It turns out that the generalized Ray-Singer norm is {\em independent} 

1480: of $g$ and $g_{\bf E}$, and therefore completely independent of metric

1481: data. This statement, which parallels a well-known result for the ungraded 

1482: case due to Ray and Singer,  follows from the general discussion given in 

1483: \cite{Schwarz_resolvent} and \cite{Adams_Sen}. 

1484: The results of \cite{Adams_Sen} assure independence of $||.||_{RS}$

1485: of all metric data due to the following facts:

1486: 

1487: \

1488: 

1489: (1) The resolvent (\ref{res}) is {\em topological}, i.e. the complex 

1490: \be

1491: ~~0\rightarrow{\cal H}(N)

1492: \stackrel{T_N=d}{\longrightarrow}\dots 

1493: \stackrel{T_2=d}{\longrightarrow} 

1494: {\cal H}(1)\stackrel{T_1=d}{\longrightarrow}ker(d_{s=0})=ker(T_0)~~

1495: \ee

1496: is defined without reference to any metric.

1497: 

1498: 

1499: \

1500: 

1501: (2) The resolvent is also {\em elliptic}, i.e. the deformed Laplacians

1502: $\Delta_\sigma=T^t_\sigma T_\sigma+T_{\sigma+1}T_{\sigma +1}^t=

1503: (dd^\dagger +d^\dagger d)_{s=\sigma}$

1504: are elliptic operators for all $\sigma=0\dots N$.

1505: 

1506: \

1507: 

1508: (3) The base manifold $L$ is odd dimensional. 

1509: 

1510: \

1511: 

1512: The proof (which can be found in \cite{Adams_Sen}) 

1513: involves a combination of results in elliptic 

1514: operator theory with arguments in linear algebra.

1515: 

1516: 

1517: A particularly simple case arises when the background superconnection $A$

1518: is {\em acyclic}, i.e. the cohomology $H_d^*({\cal H})$ 

1519: vanishes in all degrees. In this situation, the quantity 

1520: ${\tilde Z}_{scl}$ coincides with $T(L, A)^{-1}$ and

1521:  is independent of all metric data. Examples of acyclic backgrounds are 

1522: provided by condensation of scalars in boundary condition changing sectors 

1523: of `topological brane-antibrane pairs', as discussed in detail in 

1524: \cite{bv} and \cite{gauge}. 

1525: 

1526: \subsubsection{The complex prefactor}

1527: 

1528: Let us turn to the complex prefactor $C$ given in (\ref{C}).

1529: A result of \cite{Adams_Sen} implies that:

1530: \be

1531: \zeta_{|T_0|}(0)=-\sum_{\sigma=0}^N{(-1)^\sigma dim H_\sigma({\cal R})}=

1532: \sum_{q=1-N}^1{(-1)^q dim H^q_d({\cal H})}~~,

1533: \ee

1534: which shows that the absolute value of $C$ is independent of metric data. \

1535: This shows that $|Z_{scl}|$ depends only on the metrics $h^H_\sigma$.

1536: 

1537: On the other hand, the value $\eta_{T_0}(0)$ may depend on $g$ and 

1538: $g_{\bf E}$, 

1539: which means that the phase factor of the semiclassical partition function 

1540: will generally carry a metric dependence. This parallels well-known results 

1541: valid for the ungraded case (standard Chern-Simons field theory)

1542: \cite{Witten_tcs}.

1543: 

1544: 

1545: \section{Example: D-brane pairs of unit relative grade 

1546: in a scalar background}

1547: 

1548: Consider a D-brane pair $(a,b)$ such that $grade(a)=0$ and $grade(b)=1$. 

1549: In this case, the underlying graded bundle is ${\bf E}=E_a\oplus E_b$, where 

1550: $E_a$ and $E_b$ are the flat bundles describing the reference 

1551: D-brane background. We let $A_a$ and $A_b$ be associated flat connections.

1552: The space ${\cal H}^q$ consists of sections of the bundle

1553: ${\cal V}^q=\Lambda^q(T^*L)\otimes End(E_a)\oplus \Lambda^q(T^*L)

1554: \otimes End(E_b)\oplus \Lambda^{q-1}(T^*L)

1555: \otimes Hom(E_a, E_b)\oplus \Lambda^{q+1}(T^*L)\otimes Hom(E_b, E_a)$. 

1556: Such elements can be viewed as matrices of bundle-valued forms:

1557: \be

1558: \label{u}

1559: u=\left[\begin{array}{cc}

1560: u_q&u_{q+1}\\

1561: u_{q-1}&{\hat u}_q

1562: \end{array}\right]~~,~~{\rm for}~~|u|=q~~,

1563: \ee

1564: where the subscript denotes form rank and the bundle 

1565: components of $u_q=u_{aa}, {\hat u}_q=u_{bb}, u_{q+1}=u_{ba}$ and 

1566: $u_{q-1}=u_{ab}$ satisfy $u_{\alpha\beta}\in 

1567: \Omega^{q+grade(\alpha)-grade(\beta)}(L, Hom(E_\alpha, E_\beta))$. 

1568: This corresponds to presenting $u$ as the direct sum:

1569: \be

1570: u=\oplus_{\alpha,\beta\in \{a,b\}}{u_{\alpha\beta}}~~.

1571: \ee

1572: 

1573: We shall consider backgrounds of the form:

1574: \be

1575: \label{phi}

1576: \phi=\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0&0\\\phi_0&0\end{array}\right]~~,~~|\phi|=1~~,

1577: \ee

1578: where $\phi_0$ is a

1579: zero-form valued in the bundle $Hom(E_a, E_b)$. In this case, the 

1580: equations of motion $d\phi+\phi\bullet \phi=0$ reduce to $d\phi_0=0$, which 

1581: means that $\phi_0$ is a covariantly-constant section of $Hom(E_a,E_b)$. 

1582: The shifted background is the flat superconnection 

1583: $A=(A_a\oplus A_b)+\phi$. We shall assume that $\phi_0$ is a 

1584: bundle morphism in the restricted sense, i.e. we require\footnote{This assumption 

1585: allows us to treat the kernel and cokernel of $\phi_0$ as subbundles of 

1586: $E_a$ and $E_b$. Allowing maps $\phi_0$ of non-constant rank leads to situations

1587: which are better described in terms of sheaf theory. This is very similar to the case of holomorphic 

1588: bundles vs. holomorphic sheaves. Note that constancy of $rk \phi_0(p)$ 

1589: is a purely technical assumption -- there is no {\em physical} 

1590: reason to restrict to scalar backgrounds of constant rank.} that

1591: the rank of the fiber maps $\phi_0(p):(E_a)_p\rightarrow (E_b)_p$ 

1592: is independent of the point $p\in L$. 

1593: 

1594: Let us assume that the reference flat bundles $(E_a, A_a)$ and $(E_b, A_b)$ 

1595: are unitary, i.e. they admit covariantly-constant Hermitian metrics

1596: \footnote{In 

1597: physical language, this means that we are dealing with unitary connections, 

1598: i.e. connections whose matrices are anti-Hermitian in appropriate 

1599: local frames.}.

1600: We shall pick the metric $g_{\bf E}$

1601: on ${\bf E}$ to be induced by two such metrics. 

1602: With this hypothesis, 

1603: it was showed in \cite{gauge} that the deformed Laplacian 

1604: $\Delta_\phi=d_\phi d_\phi^\dagger+

1605: d_\phi^\dagger d_\phi$ in the  background $\phi_0$ has the form:

1606: \be

1607: \label{DD}

1608: \Delta_\phi u=

1609: \left[\begin{array}{cc}

1610: \Delta_\phi^{(aa)}u_q&\Delta_\phi^{(ba)}u_{q+1}\\

1611: \Delta_\phi^{(ab)}u_{q-1}&\Delta_\phi^{(bb)}{\hat u}_q

1612: \end{array}\right]~~,

1613: \ee

1614: with:

1615: \bea

1616: \Delta_\phi^{(\alpha\beta)}u_{\alpha\beta}&=&\Delta u_{\alpha\beta} +

1617: u_{\alpha\beta}\circ t^{(\alpha)}+

1618: t^{(\beta)}\circ u_{\alpha\beta}~~,

1619: \eea

1620: where we defined:

1621: \be

1622: t^{(a)}=\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0\in End(E_a)~~{\rm~and~}~~t^{(b)}=\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger \in End(E_b)~~

1623: \ee

1624: and where $\Delta u_{\alpha\beta}$ stands for the form 

1625: Laplacian coupled to the flat connection induced by $A_\alpha$ and $A_\beta$ 

1626: on the bundle $Hom(E_\alpha,E_\beta)$. In direct sum notation, we have:

1627: \be

1628: \Delta_\phi=\oplus_{\alpha\beta}{\Delta_\phi^{(\alpha\beta)}}~~.

1629: \ee

1630: The fact that the deformed Laplacian decomposes in this manner is a characteristic of 

1631: scalar background of the particular form (\ref{phi}).

1632: 

1633: 

1634: Since the subspaces $\Omega^*(L, Hom(E_\alpha,E_\beta))\subset {\cal H}$  

1635: are mutually orthogonal with respect to the scalar product $h$, we have:

1636: \be

1637: p_q:=det^{',reg}_{|.|=q}\Delta_\phi=

1638: det^{',reg}_{rk =q}\Delta_\phi^{(aa)}

1639: det^{',reg}_{rk =q}\Delta_\phi^{(bb)}

1640: det^{',reg}_{rk =q-1}\Delta_\phi^{(ab)}

1641: det^{',reg}_{rk =q+1}\Delta_\phi^{(ba)}~~

1642: \ee

1643: and:

1644: \be

1645: T(L,A)^2=\prod_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{(det^{',reg}_{|.|=q}\Delta_\phi)^{q(-1)^q}}=

1646: \prod_{q=1-N}^{N+2}{p_q^{q (-1)^q}}~~.

1647: \ee

1648: 

1649: It was showed in \cite{gauge} that the kernel $K$ of $\Delta_\phi$ 

1650: coincides (up to a twist of gradings) 

1651: with the space of harmonic forms valued in the 

1652: flat bundle $End(R\oplus I^\perp)$, where $R=ker \phi$ and 

1653: $I=im \phi$ are (flat) subbundles of $E_a$ and $E_b$:

1654: {\scriptsize \be

1655: K^q=\Omega^q_{harm}(L, End(R))\oplus \Omega^q_{harm}(L, End(I^\perp))\oplus 

1656: \Omega^{q-1}_{harm}(L, Hom (R, I^\perp))\oplus \Omega^{q+1}_{harm}

1657: (L, Hom(I^\perp, K))~~.

1658: \ee}

1659: Using the covariantly-constant metrics 

1660: on $E_a$ and $E_b$, we identify $I^\perp$ with 

1661: the cokernel $Q$ of the flat bundle map $\phi_0:E_a\rightarrow E_b$:

1662: \be

1663: I^\perp\approx Q:=coker \phi_0=E_b/im \phi_0~~.

1664: \ee

1665: Hodge theory leads to identifications $H^q_{d_\phi}({\cal H})=K^q$ and 

1666: $\Omega^k_{harm}(V)\approx H^k(V)$, where $V$ is any of the 

1667: flat bundles $End(R)$, $End(I^\perp)$, $Hom(R, I^\perp)$ and 

1668: $Hom(I^\perp, R)$, while $H^*(V)$ stands for the usual cohomology with 

1669: coefficients in the local system determined by $V$. Combining everything, 

1670: we obtain:

1671: {\scriptsize \bea

1672: \label{Hd}

1673: H^q_{d_\phi}({\cal H})=H^q(L, End(R))\oplus H^q(L, End(Q))\oplus 

1674: H^{q-1}(L, Hom (R, Q))\oplus H^{q+1}(L, Hom(Q, R))~~.

1675: \eea}

1676: Using (\ref{Hd}), we find that the 

1677: Ray-Singer metric is defined on the determinant line:

1678: {\footnotesize \bea

1679: {\cal L}&=&det H^*_{d_\phi}({\cal H})=

1680: \otimes_q{\Lambda^{max}H^q_{d_\phi}({\cal H})^{* q}}=\\

1681: &=&det H^*(L, End(R))\otimes det H^*(L,End(Q))

1682: \otimes [det H^*(L,Hom(R, Q))]^*\otimes [det H^*(L, Hom(Q, R))]^*~~.\nn

1683: \eea}

1684: 

1685: \subsection{The case of trivial flat bundles}

1686: 

1687: Let us consider the particularly simple 

1688: case when $E_a$ and $E_b$ (of ranks $r_a$ and $r_b$) 

1689: are trivial as flat vector 

1690: bundles, so that all components $u_k, {\hat u}_k, u_{k+1}, u_{k-1}$ can be 

1691: viewed as operator-valued forms, and $d$ coincides with the de Rham 

1692: differential acting on such forms. In this situation, the condition 

1693: $d\phi_0=0$ means that $\phi_0$ is a {\em constant} linear operator from 

1694: $\C^{r_a}$ to $\C^{r_b}$. Since the flat bundle structure is trivial, we 

1695: expect to obtain a particularly simple expression for $T(L,A)$. 

1696: We show below that this expectation is fulfilled. 

1697: 

1698: For this, we first notice that the non-negative operators

1699: $t^{(a)}=\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0\in End(\C^{r_a})$ 

1700: and $t^{(b)}=\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger\in End(\C^{r_b})$ have the same nonzero eigenvalues. 

1701: This follows form the following variant of the argument used in Subsection 

1702: 3.4.2. Noting that $ker (\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0)^\perp=ker (\phi_0)^\perp$ 

1703: and $ker (\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger)^\perp=ker (\phi_0^\dagger)^\perp

1704: =im(\phi_0) $, the restriction of $\phi_0$ gives an isomorphism:

1705: \be

1706: \phi_0:ker(\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0)^\perp\stackrel{\approx}{\rightarrow}

1707: ker (\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger)^\perp~~.

1708: \ee

1709: This induces a bijection between the non vanishing eigenvalues of 

1710: $\phi_0^\dagger\phi_0$ and $\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger$, since 

1711: $\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0 v=\lambda v$ for some $\lambda\in \R_+^*$ 

1712: and $v\in  \C^{r_a}$

1713: implies $\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger(\phi v)=\lambda \phi_0 v$. 

1714: In particular, the ranks of the two operators coincide:

1715: \be

1716: rk(\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0)=rk(\phi_0 \phi_0^\dagger):=\rho~~,

1717: \ee

1718: while their defects are given by:

1719: \be

1720: dim~ker (\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0)=rk R=r_a-\rho~~,~~

1721: dim~ker (\phi_0 \phi_0^\dagger)=rk Q=r_b-\rho~~.

1722: \ee

1723: 

1724: 

1725: Consider unitary transformations $S_a$ and $S_b$ of $\C^{r_a}$ and $\C^{r_b}$ 

1726: which diagonalize $\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0$ and $\phi_0\phi_0^\dagger$:

1727: \bea

1728: \label{S_tf}

1729: &&S_a\phi_0^\dagger \phi_0 S_a^{-1}=D^{(a)}:=diag(\lambda_1^{(a)}\dots 

1730: \lambda^{(a)}_{r_a})~~\nn\\

1731: &&S_b\phi_0 \phi_0^\dagger S_b^{-1}=D^{(b)}:=

1732: diag(\lambda^{(b)}_1\dots \lambda^{(b)}_{r_b})~~,

1733: \eea

1734: with $\lambda_i^{(a)}, \lambda^{(b)}_j\geq 0$.

1735: In view of the above, we can always pick $S_a$ and $S_b$ such that:

1736: \bea

1737: \lambda^{(a)}_i&=&\lambda^{(b)}_i:=\lambda_i~{\rm~for~}~i=1\dots 

1738: \rho~~{\rm and}\nn\\

1739: \lambda^{(a)}_i&=&0~{\rm~for~}~i=\rho+1 \dots r_a~~\\

1740: \lambda^{(b)}_j&=&0~{\rm~for~}~j=\rho+1 \dots r_b~~.\nn

1741: \eea

1742: 

1743: It is easy to see that the unitary transformation 

1744: $S=S_a\oplus S_b\equiv \left[\begin{array}{cc}S_a&0\\0&S_b\end{array}\right]$

1745: preserves the decomposition (\ref{DD}) of $\Delta_\phi$ 

1746: while bringing $\Delta_\phi^{(\alpha\beta)}$ to the form:

1747: \be

1748: \Delta_\phi^{(\alpha\beta)}u_{\alpha\beta} = 

1749: \Delta u_{\alpha\beta}+D^{(\beta)}\circ u_{\alpha\beta} +

1750: u_{\alpha\beta} \circ D^{(\alpha)}~~,

1751: \ee

1752: which act on the matrix components\footnote{Picking orthonormal 

1753: bases $e_i^{(a)}$ and $e_j^{(b)}$ of $\C^{r_a}$ and $\C^{r_b}$, we

1754: define $u_{\alpha\beta}^{ji}$ through $u_{\alpha\beta}(e_i^{(\alpha)})=

1755: u_{\alpha\beta}^{ji}e_j^{(\beta)}$.} of $u_{\alpha\beta}$ as:

1756: \be

1757: \Delta_\phi^{(\alpha\beta)}u^{ji}_{\alpha\beta} = \Delta u^{ji}_{\alpha\beta}+

1758: (\lambda^{(\alpha)}_i+\lambda^{(\beta)}_j)u^{ji}_{\alpha\beta}~~.

1759: \ee

1760: This leads to the expression:

1761: \be

1762: p_q=p_q^{(1)}p_q^{(2)}p_q^{(3)}~~,

1763: \ee

1764: where:

1765: \bea

1766: p_q^{(1)}&=&det^{',reg}_{rk=q}(\Delta)^{(r_a-\rho)^2+(r_b-\rho)^2}

1767: \left[det^{',reg}_{rk=q-1}(\Delta)

1768: det^{',reg}_{rk=q+1}(\Delta)\right]^{(r_a-\rho)(r_b-\rho)}~~\\

1769: p_q^{(2)}&=&

1770: \prod_{i,j=1}^\rho{\left[

1771: det^{',reg}_{rk=q}(\Delta +\lambda_i+\lambda_j)\right]^2

1772: det^{',reg}_{rk=q-1}(\Delta +\lambda_i+\lambda_j)

1773: det^{',reg}_{rk=q+1}(\Delta +\lambda_i+\lambda_j)}~~\nn\\

1774: p_q^{(3)}&=&\prod_{i=1}^{\rho}{

1775: det^{',reg}_{rk=q}(\Delta +\lambda_i)^{2(r_a+r_b-2\rho)}

1776: \left[det^{',reg}_{rk=q-1}(\Delta +\lambda_i)

1777: det^{',reg}_{rk=q+1}(\Delta +\lambda_i)\right]^{r_a+r_b-2\rho}}~~.\nn

1778: \eea

1779: It is easy to check that: 

1780: \be

1781: \prod_q{\left[det^{',reg}_{rk=q-1}(\Delta +\mu)

1782: det^{',reg}_{rk=q+1}(\Delta +\mu)\right]^{q(-1)^q}}=

1783: \left(\prod_q{\left[det^{',reg}_{rk=q}(\Delta +\mu)\right]^{q(-1)^q}}\right)

1784: ^{-2}~~.

1785: \ee

1786: Therefore, one has

1787: $\prod_{q}{(p_q^{(2)})^{q(-1)^q}}=

1788: \prod_{q}{(p_q^{(3)})^{q(-1)^q}}=1$ and we obtain:

1789: \be

1790: \label{final}

1791: T(L,A)=\left[\prod_q{(p_q)^{q(-1)^q}}\right]^{1/2}=

1792: \left[\prod_q{(p_q^{(1)})^{q(-1)^q}}\right]^{1/2}=

1793: T(L)^{(r_a-r_b)^2}

1794: ~~.

1795: \ee

1796: where $T(L)$ is the usual Ray-Singer torsion of $L$

1797: (i.e. the standard analytic torsion for the trivial flat complex line bundle 

1798: ${\cal O}_L$ over $L$):

1799: \be

1800: T(L)=\prod_q{det^{',reg}_{rk=q}(\Delta)^{\frac{q(-1)^q}{2}}}=

1801: e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{q=0}^3{(-1)^{q} q \zeta'_{\Delta_q'}(0)}}~~,

1802: \ee

1803: with $\Delta_q$ the Laplacian on $\Omega^q(L)$.  

1804: The determinant line can be found by noticing that 

1805: $R={\cal O}_L^{\oplus (r_a-\rho)}$ and $Q={\cal O}_L^{\oplus (r_b-\rho)}$,

1806: where ${\cal O}_L$ is the trivial complex flat line bundle over $L$. 

1807: This implies 

1808: $End(R)={\cal O}_L^{\oplus (r_a-\rho)^2}$, 

1809: $End(Q)={\cal O}_L^{\oplus (r_b-\rho)^2}$

1810: and 

1811: $Hom(R,Q)=Hom(Q,R)={\cal O}_L^{\oplus (r_a-\rho)(r_b-\rho)}$

1812: (as flat line bundles), thereby giving the determinant line:

1813: \be

1814: {\cal L}=det H^*(L, {\cal O}_L)^{\otimes (r_a-r_b)^2}=

1815: det H^*(L)^{\otimes (r_a-r_b)^2}~~.

1816: \ee

1817: Combining with (\ref{final}), we see that $T(L,A)$ is the norm induced 

1818: on $det H^*(L, {\cal O}_L)^{\otimes (r_a-r_b)^2}$ by the 

1819: usual Ray-Singer norm on $det H^*(L, {\cal O}_L)=det H^*(L)$ (considered

1820: in the `complex' formalism discussed in Subsection 3.4.3).

1821: 

1822: 

1823: {\bf Observation} 

1824: If $r_a=r_b$, then it was showed in 

1825: \cite{bv, gauge} that a background $\phi_0$ which is a flat isomorphism 

1826: leads to an acyclic composite, i.e. the complex 

1827: of the shifted differential $d_\phi$ is acyclic in all degrees. 

1828: In this case (and with trivial flat connections $A_a$ and $A_b$), 

1829: the generalized Ray-Singer torsion is equal to one. 

1830: 

1831: \acknowledgments{I thank R. Roiban for comments on the manuscript and 

1832: Martin Rocek for interest and support.

1833: The present work was supported by the Research Foundation under NSF 

1834: grant PHY-9722101.}

1835: 

1836: \

1837: 

1838: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

1839: \bibitem{BZ}{J.~M.~Bismut, W.~Zhang, {\em An extension of a theorem of 

1840: Cheeger and Muller}, Asterisque {\bf 205} (1992).}

1841: \bibitem{gauge}{ C. I. Lazaroiu, R. Roiban, {\em 

1842: Holomorphic potentials for graded D-branes},  hep-th/0110288.} 

1843: \bibitem{gbv}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, R.~Roiban, {\em 

1844: Holomorphic potentials for graded D-branes}, 

1845: JHEP 02(2002) 038, hep-th/0110288. }

1846: \bibitem{Witten_tcs}{E.~Witten, {\em Quantum field theory and the 

1847: Jones polynomial}, Commun Math Phys {\bf 121} (1989) 351.}

1848: \bibitem{Ray}{D.~B.~Ray, {\em Reidemeister torsion and the Laplacian 

1849: on lens spaces}, Adv. in Math. {\bf 4} (1970), 109--126.}

1850: \bibitem{RS1}{D.~B.~Ray, I.~M.~Singer, 

1851: {\em R-torsion and the Laplacian on Riemannian manifolds}, 

1852: Adv. Math {\bf 7} (1971), 145-210.}

1853: \bibitem{RS_symp}{D.~B.~Ray, I.~M.~Singer, {\em Analytic torsion}, 

1854: Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. {\bf 23}, p 167, 

1855: American Mathematical Society 1973.}

1856: \bibitem{ST}{A. S. Schwarz, I.S. Tyupkin, {\em Quantization of antisymmetric

1857:       tensors and Ray-Singer Torsion}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 242} (1984) 436.}

1858: \bibitem{Schwarz_resolvent}{A.~Schwarz, 

1859: {\em The partition function of a degenerate quadratic functional

1860: and Ray-Singer invariants}, Lett. Math. Phys, {\bf 2} (1978), 247--252.} 

1861: \bibitem{Schwarz_resolvent2}{A.~Schwarz, 

1862: {\em The partition function of a degenerate functional}, 

1863: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 67} (1979), 1--16.} 

1864: \bibitem{Adams_Sen0}{D.~H. Adams, S.~Sen, 

1865: {\em Phase and scaling properties of determinants

1866: arising in topological field theories},

1867: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 353} (1995) no. 4, 495--500, hep-th/9506079.}

1868: \bibitem{Adams_Sen}{D.~H. Adams, S.~Sen, 

1869: {\em Partition Function of a Quadratic Functional and Semiclassical 

1870: Approximation for Witten's 3-Manifold Invariant}, hep-th/9503095.}

1871: \bibitem{Adams_FP}{D.~H.~Adams, {\em 

1872: A note on the Faddeev-Popov determinant and Chern-Simons perturbation theory},

1873: Lett.Math.Phys. {\bf 42} (1997) 205-214, hep-th/9704159.} 

1874: \bibitem{Adams_scl}{D.~H.~Adams, 

1875: {\em The semiclassical approximation for the Chern-Simons partition function}, 

1876: Phys.Lett. B417 (1998) 53-60, hep-th/9709147.}

1877: \bibitem{Adams_cpct}{D.~H.~Adams, 

1878: {\em Perturbative expansion in gauge theories on compact manifolds}, 

1879: hep-th/9602078.} 

1880: \bibitem{NC}{C.~Nash, D.~O' Connor, 

1881: {\em BRST Quantization and the Product Formula for the Ray-Singer Torsion},

1882: Int.J.Mod.Phys. {\bf A10} (1995) 1779-1806, hep-th/9310038.}

1883: \bibitem{GK}{ J.~Gegenberg, G.~Kunstatter, 

1884: {\em The Partition Function for Topological Field Theories}, 

1885: Ann. Phys. {\bf 231} (1994) 270-289, hep-th/9304016.}

1886: \bibitem{Blau_Thompson}{M.~Blau, G.~Thompson, 

1887: Ann. Phys {\bf 205}(1991) 130.}

1888: \bibitem{bv}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, R.~Roiban and D.~Vaman, 

1889: {\em Graded Chern-Simons field theory and graded topological

1890: D-branes}, hep-th/0107063.}

1891: \bibitem{BK}{A.~Bondal, M.~M. Kapranov, {\em Enhanced triangulated categories},

1892: Math. USSR Sbornik, vol 70 (1991) no 1, 93.}

1893: \bibitem{Douglas_Diaconescu}{D.~E.~Diaconescu, M.~Douglas, 

1894: {\em D-branes on Stringy Calabi-Yau Manifolds}, hep-th/0006224.}

1895: \bibitem{Douglas_Kontsevich}{M.~R.~Douglas, {\em D-branes, Categories

1896:       and N=1 Supersymmetry}, hep-th/0011017.}  

1897: \bibitem{com1}{

1898:     C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em Generalized complexes and string field

1899:     theory}, JHEP 06 (2001) 052.}  

1900: \bibitem{com3}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em

1901:     Unitarity, D-brane dynamics and D-brane categories},

1902:     hep-th/0102183. } 

1903: \bibitem{Aspinwall}{P.~S.~Aspinwall,

1904:     A.~Lawrence, {\em Derived Categories and Zero-Brane Stability},

1905:     hep-th/0104147.}  

1906: \bibitem{Diaconescu}{D.~E.~Diaconescu, {\em

1907:     Enhanced D-Brane Categories from String Field Theory},

1908:     hep-th/0104200.}  

1909: \bibitem{Douglas_Aspinwall}{P.~S.~Aspinwall, M.~R.~Douglas, 

1910: {\em D-Brane Stability and Monodromy}, hep-th/0110071.}

1911: \bibitem{Fukaya}{K.~Fukaya, {\em Morse homotopy,

1912:     $A^\infty$-category and Floer homologies}, in {\em Proceedings of

1913:     the GARC Workshop on Geometry and Topology}, ed. by H.~J.~Kim,

1914:     Seoul national University (1994), 1-102; {\em Floer homology,

1915:     $A^\infty$-categories and topological field theory}, in {\em

1916:     Geometry and Physics}, Lecture notes in pure and applied

1917:     mathematics, {\bf 184}, pp 9-32, Dekker, New York, 1997; {\em

1918:     Floer homology and Mirror symmetry, I}, preprint available at

1919:     $http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~\tilde{}~fukaya/fukaya.html.$}

1920: \bibitem{Fukaya2}{K. Fukaya, Y.-G. Oh, H.~Ohta, K.~Ono, {\em

1921:       Lagrangian intersection Floer theory - anomaly and obstruction},

1922:     preprint available at

1923:     $http://www.kusm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~\tilde{}~fukaya/fukaya.html.$}

1924: \bibitem{Zaslow_Polishchuk}{A.~Polishchuk, E.~Zaslow, 

1925: {\em Categorical mirror symmetry: the elliptic curve}, 

1926: math.AG/9801119.}

1927: \bibitem{Kontsevich}{M.~Kontsevich,

1928:     {\em Homological algebra of mirror symmetry}, Proceedings of the

1929:     International Congress of Mathematicians, (Zurich, 1994),

1930:     120--139, Birkhauser, alg-geom/9411018.}

1931: \bibitem{Witten_CS}{ E.~Witten,{\em

1932:     Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory}, The Floer memorial

1933:     volume, 637--678, Progr. Math., 133, Birkhauser, Basel, 1995,

1934:     hep-th/9207094.}  

1935: \bibitem{Seidel}{P.~Seidel, {\em Graded

1936:     Lagrangian submanifolds}, Bull. Soc. Math. France {\bf 128}

1937:     (2000), 103-149, math.SG/9903049.}

1938: \bibitem{Bismut_Lott}{J.~M.~Bismut and J.~Lott, {\em Flat vector

1939:       bundles, direct images and higher analytic torsion}, J. Amer.

1940:     Math Soc {\bf 8} (1992) 291.}  

1941: \bibitem{Quillen}{D.~Quillen, {\em

1942:     Superconnections and the Chern character}, Topology, {\bf 24},

1943:     No.1.(1085), 89-95.}  

1944: \bibitem{superpot}{C. I. Lazaroiu, {\em String field theory and brane 

1945: superpotentials}, hep-th/0107162.}

1946: \bibitem{Witten_nlsm}{ E.~Witten, {\em Topological sigma models},

1947:     Commun. Math. Phys.  {\bf 118} (1988),411.}

1948: \bibitem{Witten_mirror}{E.~Witten, {\em Mirror manifolds and

1949:       topological field theory}, Essays on mirror manifolds, 120--158,

1950:     Internat. Press, Hong Kong, 1992, hep-th/9112056.}

1951: \bibitem{sc}{C.~I.~Lazaroiu, {\em Graded

1952:     Lagrangians, exotic topological D-branes and enhanced triangulated

1953:     categories}, JHEP 0106 (2001) 064.}

1954: \end{thebibliography}

1955: \end{document}

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{Camporesi}{R.~Camporesi, 

1958: {\em Harmonic analysis and propagators on homogeneous spaces}, 

1959: Phys. Rept. {\bf 196} (1990):1-134.}

1960: \bibitem{BCVZ}{A.~A.~Bytsenko, G.~Cognola, L.~Vanzo, S.~Zerbini, 

1961: {\em Quantum fields and extended objects in Space-Times with constant 

1962: curvature spatial section}, Phys.Rept. {\bf 266} 

1963: (1996) 1--126, hep-th/9905061.}

1964: 

1965: 

1966: 

1967: 

1968: 

1969: 

1970: 

1971: 

1972: 

1973: 

1974: 

1975: 

1976: 

1977: 

1978: 

1979: