Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2018 Mar 10;78(3):202. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5672-9

Hypermultiplet gaugings and supersymmetric solutions from 11D and massive IIA supergravity on H(p,q) spaces

Adolfo Guarino 1,
PMCID: PMC6560465  PMID: 31258402

Abstract

Supersymmetric AdS4, AdS2×Σ2 and asymptotically AdS4 black hole solutions are studied in the context of non-minimal N=2 supergravity models involving three vector multiplets (STU-model) and Abelian gaugings of the universal hypermultiplet moduli space. Such models correspond to consistent subsectors of the SO(p,q) and ISO(p,q) gauged maximal supergravities that arise from the reduction of 11D and massive IIA supergravity on H(p,q) spaces down to four dimensions. A unified description of all the models is provided in terms of a square-root prepotential and the gauging of a duality-hidden symmetry pair of the universal hypermultiplet. Some aspects of M-theory and massive IIA holography are mentioned in passing.

Motivation

Asymptotically anti-de Sitter (AdS4) black holes in minimal N=2 gauged supergravity have recently been connected to a universal renormalisation group (RG) flow for a large class of three-dimensional N=2 superconformal field theories (SCFTs) using holography [1]. The relevant (universal) AdS4 black hole is static, extremal (thus T=0) and of Reissner–Nordström (R–N) type with zero mass and a hyperbolic horizon Σ2=H2 [2]. The space-time metric takes the form

ds2=-e2Udt2+e-2Udr2+r2dΩΣ2, 1

with

e2U=rLAdS4-LAdS42r2, 2

and dΩΣ2=dθ2+sinh2(θ)dϕ2 being the Riemann surface element on Σ2=H2. The metric asymptotes an AdS4 geometry with radius LAdS4 when r, and conforms to AdS2×H2 in the near-horizon region rrh=LAdS4/2 after a shift of the radial coordinate rr+rh and the identification LAdS22=14LAdS42. This black hole is a solution of the equations of motion that follow from the cosmological Einstein–Maxwell Lagrangian

L=12R-V1-12HH. 3

Endowing the Lagrangian (3) with N=2 local supersymmetry requires the cosmological constant to be negative and also a mass term for the gravitini fields in the theory [3]. Furthermore, supersymmetry fixes the cosmological constant to V=-3LAdS4-2=-3|μ|2 in terms of the mass μ of a (single) complex gravitino, and renders the black hole magnetically charged [2] (see also [4]), i.e. H=psinh(θ)dθdϕ, with the constant flux p being also set by supersymmetry.

The AdS4 black hole described above is gauge/gravity dual to a universal RG flow in field theory [1]. This is an RG flow across dimensions1 from a three-dimensional N=2 SCFT (dual to the asymptotic AdS4 geometry) placed on H2 and with a topological twist along the exact superconformal R-symmetry, to a one-dimensional superconformal quantum mechanics (dual to the AdS2 factor of the black hole near-horizon geometry). Such a universal RG flow admits various holographic embeddings in eleven-dimensional (11D) supergravity [6, 7], the low-energy limit of M-theory, and ten-dimensional massive IIA supergravity [8]. Specific examples have been studied in the context of ABJM theory [9] and GJV/SYM-CS duality [10] (and its generalisation of [11]) involving reductions of M-theory and massive IIA strings on various compact spaces [1]. More concretely, when placing the SCFTs on S1×Σ2, a counting of supersymmetric ground states using the topologically twisted index of [12] at large N was shown to exactly reproduce the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy associated with the AdS4 black hole in (1), (2).

Extensions to non-minimal N=2 supergravity coupled to matter multiplets, namely, nv vector multiplets and nh hypermultiplets, have also been investigated in the context of M-theory [1315] and massive IIA strings [16, 17]. In the M-theory case, the relevant gauged supergravity is the so-called STU-model with (nv,nh)=(3,0) and Fayet-Iliopoulos gaugings with equal gauging parameters gΛ=g. This model arises from 11D supergravity when reduced on a compact seven-sphere H(8,0)S7 [18] down to a four-dimensional SO(8) gauged maximal supergravity [19], and further truncated to its U(1)4 invariant subsector [20, 21]. The gauging parameter g is then identified with the inverse radius of S7. In the massive IIA case, the relevant gauged supergravity has (nv,nh)=(3,1) and involves Abelian gaugings of the universal hypermultiplet moduli space with gauging parameters g and m. This model arises from ten-dimensional massive IIA supergravity when reduced on a compact six-sphere H(7,0)S6 [22] down to a four-dimensional ISO(7) gauged maximal supergravity [23, 24] of dyonic type [25], and further truncated to its U(1)2 invariant subsector [26]. The gauging parameter g is again identified with the inverse radius of S6 whereas m corresponds to the Romans mass parameter. Supersymmetric AdS4 black holes generalising the one in (1), (2) have been constructed in such M-theory [27] and massive IIA [26, 28] non-minimal N=2 supergravity models.

In this note we build upon the above results and study non-minimal N=2 supergravity models that arise from 11D and massive IIA supergravity when reduced on H(p,q)=SO(p,q)/SO(p-1,q) homogeneous spaces with various (p,q) signatures. In the case of 11D supergravity, the zero-mass sector recovers an electrically-gauged maximal supergravity in four dimensions with SO(p,q) gauge group and p+q=8 [29]. In the case of ten-dimensional massive IIA supergravity, the reduction on H(p,q) spaces down to four dimensions yields a dyonically-gauged maximal supergravity with ISO(p,q)=CSO(p,q,1) gauge group and p+q=7 [3032]. We provide a systematic characterisation and a unified description of the U(1)2 invariant sectors associated with such M-theory and massive IIA reductions.2 The resulting models describe non-minimal N=2 supergravity with (nv,nh)=(3,1) and involve Abelian gaugings of the universal hypermultiplet moduli space. Supersymmetric AdS4, AdS2×Σ2 and universal AdS4 black hole solutions are systematically studied which, upon uplifting to eleven- or ten-dimensional backgrounds, are of interest for M-theory and massive IIA holography.

N=2 supergravity models

The bosonic sector of N=2 supergravity coupled to nv vector multiplets and nh hypermultiplets is described by a Lagrangian of the form [33]

L=R2-V1-Kij¯DziDz¯j¯-huvDquDqv+12IΛΣHΛHΣ+12RΛΣHΛHΣ+12ΘΛαBαdA~Λ+18ΘΛαΘΛβBαBβ. 4

In this note we focus on models with three vector multiplets and the universal hypermultiplet [34], namely, (nv,nh)=(3,1).

The three complex scalars zi=-χi+ie-φi in the vector multiplets (i=1,2,3) serve as coordinates in the special Kähler (SK) manifold MSK=[SU(1,1)/U(1)]3. The metric on this manifold is given by

dsSK2=Kij¯dzidz¯j¯=14idzidz¯i¯(Imzi)2, 5

where Kij¯=ziz¯j¯K and K=-log(iX,X¯) is the real Kähler potential. The latter is expressed in terms of an Sp(8) symplectic product X,X¯=XMΩMNX¯N=XΛX¯Λ-XΛX¯Λ of holomorphic sections XM(zi)=(XΛ,FΛ) that satisfy FΛ=F/XΛ (Λ=0,1,2,3) for a homogeneous prepotential of degree-two F(XΛ). Our choice of sections

XM=(-z1z2z3,-z1,-z2,-z3,1,z2z3,z3z1,z1z2), 6

is compatible with a square-root prepotential

F=-2X0X1X2X3, 7

and restricts the range of the zi scalars to the Kähler cone

iX,X¯=8Imz1Imz2Imz3>0. 8

The condition in (8) leaves two different domains: either the three Imzi are positive, or two of them are negative and the third one is positive.

The kinetic terms and the generalised theta angles for the vector fields in (4) are given by RΛΣ=Re(NΛΣ) and IΛΣ=Im(NΛΣ) in terms of a complex matrix

NΛΣ=F¯ΛΣ+2iIm(FΛΓ)XΓIm(FΣΔ)XΔIm(FΩΦ)XΩXΦ, 9

with FΛΣ=ΛΣF. They can be used to define a symmetric, real and negative-definite scalar matrix

M(zi)=I+RI-1R-RI-1-I-1RI-1, 10

that will appear later on in Sec. 4.2. The vector field strengths are given by

HΛ=dAΛ-12ΘΛαBα, 11

and incorporate a set of tensor fields Bα where α is a collective index running over the isometries of the scalar manifold that are gauged. Importantly, the tensor fields enter the Lagrangian in (4) provided that the couplings ΘΛα0, namely, if magnetic charges (see Eq. (13) below) are present in the theory [33]. Tensor fields will play a role in the case of massive IIA reductions on H(p,q) spaces as magnetic charges are induced by the Romans mass parameter.

The quaternionic Kähler (QK) manifold spanned by the four real scalars qu=(ϕ,σ,ζ,ζ~) in the universal hypermultiplet is MQK=SU(2,1)/SU(2)×U(1). The metric on this QK space reads

dsQK2=dϕdϕ+14e4ϕdσ+12ζCdζdσ+12ζCdζ+14e2ϕdζdζ, 12

with C=01-10 and ζ=(ζ,ζ~). In this note we are exclusively interested in gauging Abelian isometries of MQK as dictated by an embedding tensor ΘMα [33]. They have associated Killing vectors kαu and yield covariant derivatives in (4) of the form

Dzi=dziandDqu=dqu-AMΘMαkαu. 13

Lastly it turns also convenient to introduce symplectic Killing vectors KMΘMαkα and moment maps PMxΘMαPαx in order to maintain symplectic covariance [35]. The scalar potential in (4) can then be expressed as [33, 36]

V=4VMV¯NKMuhuvKNv+PMxPNxKij¯DiVMDj¯V¯N-3VMV¯N, 14

in terms of rescaled sections VMeK/2XM and their Kähler derivatives DiVM=ziVM+12(ziK)VM.

Abelian hypermultiplet gaugings from reductions on H(p,q)

The metric (12) on the special QK manifold associated with the universal hypermultiplet lies in the image of a c-map [3739] with a trivial special Kähler base. There are three isometries kα={kσ,k^σ,kU} of (12) that play a role in our reductions of 11D and massive IIA supergravity on H(p,q) spaces. The isometry kσ corresponds to a model-independent (axion shift) duality symmetry. On the contrary, the isometry k^σ corresponds to a hidden symmetry. Together, they form a duality-hidden symmetry pair (conjugate roots of the global symmetry algebra) given by

kσ=-σ,k^σ=σϕ-(σ2-e-4ϕ-U)σ-σζ-C(ζU)Tζ, 15

with

U=116|ζ|4+12e-2ϕ|ζ|2. 16

The remaining isometry kU corresponds to a model-dependent duality symmetry and, for the M-theory and massive IIA models studied in this note, it is given by

kU=ζ~ζ-ζζ~. 17

Note that, while k^σ+kσ and kU are compact Abelian isometries of (12), the combination k^σ-kσ turns to be non-compact.

The triplet of moment maps Pαx associated to the Killing vectors in (15) and (17) can be obtained from the general construction of [40]. The Killing vectors in (15) have associated moment maps of the form

Pσx=00-12e2ϕ, 18

and

P^σx=-e-ϕζ~+eϕ-σζ+14|ζ|2ζ~e-ϕζ+eϕ-σζ~-14|ζ|2ζ-12e-2ϕ-12e2ϕσ2-132e2ϕ|ζ|4+34|ζ|2, 19

whereas the moment maps for the isometry in (17) take the simpler form

PUx=eϕζ~-eϕζ1-14e2ϕ|ζ|2. 20

In order to fully determine the N=2 supergravity model, one must still specify the gauge connection entering the covariant derivatives in (13). This is done by an embedding tensor ΘMα of the form

ΘMα=ΘΛαΘΛα=g000g10g20g3m000m10m20m3, 21

where the various electric gΛ and magnetic mΛ charges are displayed in Table 1. The covariant derivatives in (13) reduce to

Dzi=dzi,Dqu=dqu-(g0A0+m0A~0)k1u-Ak2u 22

with A=igiAi+imiA~i. However, the specific isometries k1 and k2 to be gauged in (22) depend on the M-theory or massive IIA origin of the models:

M-theory:k1=k^σ+(-1)pqkσk2=kU,Massive IIA:k1=kσ,k2=kU. 23

The (-1)pq sign in k1 for the M-theory models depends on the signature of the H(p,q) space employed in the reduction. Moreover, as a consequence of (23), only duality symmetries kσ and kU appear upon reductions of massive IIA supergravity whereas also the hidden symmetry k^σ does it in the reductions of M-theory. Note also that, in the massive IIA case, the resulting gaugings are of dyonic type: they involve both electric and magnetic charges.

Table 1.

Embedding tensor (21) and gauged isometries. For the sake of definiteness, and without loss of generality, we are taking pq as well as g>0 and m>0

Gauging g0 g1 g2 g3 m0 mi k1 k2
SO(8) g g g g 0 0 k^σ+kσ kU
SO(7,1) -g g g g 0 0 k^σ-kσ kU
SO(6,2)a -g g g g 0 0 k^σ+kσ kU
SO(6,2)b g g g -g 0 0 k^σ+kσ kU
SO(5,3) -g g g -g 0 0 k^σ-kσ kU
SO(4,4) -g g g -g 0 0 k^σ+kσ kU
ISO(7) g g g g m 0 kσ kU
ISO(6,1) -g g g g m 0 kσ kU
ISO(5,2) g g g -g m 0 kσ kU
ISO(4,3) -g g g -g m 0 kσ kU

Supersymmetric solutions

The M-theory and massive IIA non-minimal N=2 supergravity models presented in the previous section possess various types of supersymmetric solutions.

AdS4 solutions

An AdS4 vacuum solution with radius LAdS4 is describing a space-time geometry of the form

ds2=-r2LAdS42dt2+LAdS42r2dr2+r2dΩΣ2, 24

where dΩΣ2=dθ2+sinκθκ2dϕ2 is the surface element of Σ2=S2(κ=+1),H2(κ=-1). Being a maximally symmetric solution, only scalars are allowed to acquire a non-trivial and constant vacuum expectation value that extremises the potential in (14). In addition, preserving N=2 supersymmetry requires the vanishing of all fermionic supersymmetry variations. This translates into the conditions [41]:

XMKM=0,ziXM+(ziK)XMPMx=0,SABϵB=12μϵA, 25

where SAB=12eK/2XMPMx(σx)AB is the gravitino mass matrix, (σx)AB are the Pauli matrices and |μ|=LAdS4-1.

M-theory

In the SO(p,q) theories with k1=k^σ+(-1)pqkσ the first condition in (25) yields

σ=0ande-2ϕ+14|ζ|22=(-1)pq. 26

The last equation in (26) excludes theories with pqodd, namely, the SO(7,1) and SO(5,3) theories. For those theories with pqeven, the first condition in (25) additionally gives

igizi+g0iziζ=0. 27

Extremising the scalar potential in (14) subject to the conditions in (25) imposed by supersymmetry yields two AdS4 solutions that preserve a different residual (unbroken) gauge symmetry.

The first solution fixes the scalars zi in the vector multiplets as

zi=±i(g0g1g2g3)12g0gi, 28

and involves a trivial configuration of the scalars in the universal hypermultiplet

eϕ=1and|ζ|2=0. 29

This solution possesses a realisation in two theories:

SO(8):z1=z2=z3=i, 30
SO(4,4):z1=z2=-z3=-i. 31

In both cases

LAdS42=12g2, 32

and the two vectors g0A0 and A remain massless (k1=k2=0), thus preserving the full U(1)1×U(1)2 gauge symmetry of the models. In the compact SO(8) case, this solution uplifts to the maximally supersymmetric Freund-Rubin vacuum of 11D supergravity [42], and the dual SCFT is identified with ABJM theory [9] at low (k=1,2) Chern–Simons levels k and -k.

The second solution fixes the scalars zi at the values

zi=±i3(g0g1g2g3)12g0gi, 33

and involves a non-trivial configuration of the universal hypermultiplet independent of the gauging parameters

eϕ=32and|ζ|2=43. 34

This solution has a realisation in the same theories as before:

SO(8):z1=z2=z3=i3, 35
SO(4,4):z1=z2=-z3=-i3. 36

In both cases

LAdS42=233g2, 37

and only the linear combination of vectors -3g0A0+A remains massless (k1=k2) in the SO(8) and SO(4,4) theories. The associated U(1) gauge symmetry is thus preserved and to be identified with the R-symmetry of the dual field theory. In the compact SO(8) case, this solution was studied in [43, 44] and uplifted to a background of 11D supergravity in [45, 46]. Its dual SCFT was identified in [47] as the infrared fixed point of an RG flow from ABJM theory triggered by an SU(3) invariant mass term in the superpotential.

The fixing of the scalars zi in the vector multiplets to the values in (30), (31) and (35), (36) is compatible with the Kähler cone condition (8) for a physically acceptable solution in four dimensions.

Massive IIA

In the ISO(p,q) theories the first condition in (25) yields

igiziζ=0andizi=m0g0. 38

The extremisation of the scalar potential in (14) subject to the supersymmetry conditions in (25) yields this time a unique AdS4 solution. It has

χi3=18g1g2g3gi3m0g0,e-3φi=±338g1g2g3gi3m0g0, 39

for the zi scalars in the vector multiplets, together with |ζ|2=0 and a non-trivial dilaton

e6ϕ=8g1g2g3g0m02, 40

in the universal hypermultiplet. Note that (40) requires g0g1g2g3>0 which is satisfied only by the ISO(7) and ISO(4,3) theories (see Table 1). The corresponding solutions are given by

ISO(7):z1=z2=z3=mg13ei2π3, 41
ISO(4,3):z1=z2=-z3=mg13e-i2π3, 42

together with

eϕ=2gm13. 43

Both configurations (41), (42) satisfy the Kähler cone condition (8) and yield

LAdS42=13g-73m13. 44

The vector A remains massless (k2=0) and so the U(1)2 gauge symmetry is preserved. This symmetry is holographically identified with the R-symmetry of the dual field theory. In the ISO(7) case, this solution was presented in [10, 24]3 and uplifted to a background of massive IIA supergravity in [10, 22]. The dual three-dimensional SCFT was also identified in [10] as a super Chern–Simons-matter theory with simple gauge group SU(N) and level k given by the Romans mass parameter.

AdS2×Σ2 solutions

Let us focus on AdS2×Σ2 vacuum solutions with radii LAdS2 and LΣ2. The corresponding space-time geometry is specified by a metric of the form

ds2=-r2LAdS22dt2+LAdS22r2dr2+LΣ22dΩΣ2. 45

The metric in (45) also describes the horizon of a static and extremal black hole, like the one in (1), (2), so these solutions are sometimes referred to as black hole horizon solutions.

An ansatz for the fields in the vector–tensor sector of the Lagrangian (4) that is compatible with the space-time symmetries takes the form [26] (see [35] for a tensor gauge-equivalent choice):

AΛ=AtΛ(r)dt-pΛcosκθκdϕ,A~Λ=A~tΛ(r)dt-eΛcosκθκdϕ,Bα=bα(r)sinκθκdθdϕ. 46

As a consequence of (11) and (46), this sector of the theory is encoded in a vector of charges Q of the form QM=pΛ,eΛT with

pΛ=pΛ-12ΘΛαbαandeΛ=eΛ+12ΘΛαbα, 47

which generically depends on vector charges (pΛ,eΛ) as well as on the θ-φ components bα of the tensor fields in (46). The latter play a role only in the massive IIA models where the gaugings are of dyonic type.

In the presence of hypermultiplets, quarter-BPS black hole horizon solutions with constant scalars require the set of algebraic equations [35] (see also [48])

Q=κLΣ22ΩMQxPx-4Im(Z¯V),LΣ22LAdS2=-2Ze-iβ,Ku,V=0, 48

defined in terms of a central charge Z(zi)=Q,V, the scalar matrix M(zi) in (10) and Qx=Px,Q. The phase β is associated with the complex function

W=eU(Z+iκLΣ22L)=|W|eiβ, 49

which depends on the central charge Z(zi) and a superpotential L(zi,qu)=QxPx,V.

With the aim of constructing later on asymptotically AdS4 black holes of the universal type in (1), (2), we are concentrating on the configurations of the zi scalars found in the previous section to be compatible with AdS4 solutions preserving N=2 supersymmetry.

M-theory

As for the case of AdS4 solutions, the third condition in (48) automatically discards AdS2×Σ2 solutions in the SO(7,1) and SO(5,2) theories. Nevertheless, black hole horizon solutions with non-zero magnetic charges pΛ exist in all the remaining SO(p,q) theories.

In the case of a trivial configuration of the universal hypermultiplet, various solutions are found for the SO(8), SO(4,4) and SO(6,2)a,b theories. Of special interest will be those of the SO(8) and SO(4,4) theories with the scalars zi being fixed at the values in (30) and (31), respectively. These solutions are supported by charges of the form

SO(8):p0=-p1=-p2=-p3=14g, 50
SO(4,4):p0=p1=p2=-p3=-14g, 51

and both have a hyperbolic horizon Σ2=H2 (κ=-1), a phase β=0 in (49) and radii given by

LAdS22=18g-2,LH22=14g-2. 52

For the SO(6,2)a theory there are solutions with the scalars zi being also fixed as in (30) and (31). They are respectively supported by charges of the form

SO(6,2)a:p0=1g,p1=p2=p3=0, 53
SO(6,2)a:p0=p1=p2=0,p3=1g, 54

and both have a spherical horizon Σ2=S2 (κ=1), a phase β=0 in (49) and radii given by

LAdS22=12g-2,LS22=12g-2. 55

Analogue solutions can also be found in the SO(6,2)b theory.

In the case of requiring a non-trivial configuration of the universal hypermultiplet, only the SO(8) and SO(4,4) theories turn out to accommodate black hole horizon solutions. These have the scalars zi fixed as in (35) and (36) and the universal hypermultiplet set as in (34). The solutions are supported by charges of the form

SO(8):p0=-3p1=-3p2=-3p3=12g, 56
SO(4,4):p0=3p1=3p2=-3p3=-12g, 57

and both have a hyperbolic horizon Σ2=H2 (κ=-1), a phase β=0 in (49) and radii given by

LAdS22=163g-2,LH22=133g-2. 58

Lastly, additional AdS2×Σ2 solutions equivalent to the ones presented above are obtained upon replacing Q-Q and ββ+π.

Massive IIA

Quarter-BPS AdS2×Σ2 solutions exist in all the ISO(p,q) theories for different values of the vector of charges Q (see Table 2). The solutions have non-zero magnetic pΛ and electric eΛ charges in (47), and require |ζ|2=0 and a non-trivial value of the dilaton eϕ in the universal hypermultiplet.

Table 2.

Vector charges supporting supersymmetric AdS2×Σ2 solutions in the massive IIA models

Q ISO(7) ISO(6,1) ISO(5,2) ISO(4,3)
m-2/3g5/3p0 16 114 -114 -16
gp1 -13 -17 -17 -13
gp2 -13 -17 -17 -13
gp3 -13 -57 57 13
m1/3g2/3e0 -16 114 114 -16
m-1/3g4/3e1 -16 -314 314 16
m-1/3g4/3e2 -16 -314 314 16
m-1/3g4/3e3 -16 -314 -314 -16
β π6 -π6 -5π6 5π6

For the ISO(7) and ISO(4,3) theories the scalars zi are fixed at the values in (41) and (42), respectively, whereas the dilaton takes the value in (43). In both cases the solution has a hyperbolic horizon Σ2=H2 (κ=-1) and radii given by

LAdS22=143g-73m13,LH22=123g-73m13. 59

For the ISO(5,2) and ISO(6,1) theories the scalars zi are also fixed at the values in (41) and (42), respectively. However the dilaton in the universal hypermultiplet is fixed at the value

eϕ=23gm13. 60

The solutions have a spherical horizon Σ2=S2 (κ=+1) and radii given by

LAdS22=334g-73m13,LS22=3314g-73m13. 61

Once again, a set of equivalent solutions is obtained upon replacing Q-Q and ββ+π.

AdS4 black hole solutions

Extremal R–N black holes interpolating between the (charged version [49] of) AdS4 and AdS2×Σ2 solutions previously found can be constructed. These black holes have constant scalars and can be viewed as non-minimal M-theory and massive IIA incarnations of the universal black hole in (1), (2) with a hyperbolic horizon.

In the context of M-theory reduced on H(p,q) spaces, two versions of such a black hole occur in each of the SO(8) and SO(4,4) theories. The first one involves a trivial configuration of the universal hypermultiplet and interpolates between an AdS4 geometry with radius (32) in the ultraviolet (UV at r) and an AdS2×H2 geometry with radii (52) in the infrared (IR at rrh). The case of the SO(8) theory arising from H(8,0)=S7 has been extensively studied in the literature, see e.g. [2, 27, 50], also from a holographic perspective [1, 1315]. The second version involves a non-trivial configuration of the universal hypermultiplet (34) and interpolates between an AdS4 geometry with radius (37) in the UV and an AdS2×H2 geometry with radii (58) in the IR.4 For the SO(8) theory, it would be interesting to perform a holographic counting of AdS4 black hole microstates in the field theory context of [47].

In the context of massive IIA reduced on H(p,q) spaces, there exists a universal black hole both in the ISO(7) and ISO(4,3) theories. It involves a non-trivial value of the dilaton field in the universal hypermultiplet (43) and interpolates between an AdS4 geometry with radius (44) in the UV and an AdS2×H2 geometry with radii (59) in the IR. In the case of the ISO(7) theory arising from H(7,0)=S6, such a black hole has recently been constructed in [26, 28] and connected to a universal RG flow across dimensions in [1] (see [16, 17]) using holography.

Summary and final remarks

In this note we have investigated supersymmetric AdS4, AdS2×Σ2 and universal AdS4 black hole solutions in non-minimal N=2 supergravity models with three vector multiplets (STU-model) and Abelian gaugings of the universal hypermultiplet. We have performed a systematic characterisation of N=2 models that arise from 11D and massive IIA supergravity when reduced on H(p,q) spaces down to four dimension. More concretely, the models correspond to the U(1)2 invariant sector of the SO(p,q) (M-theory) and ISO(p,q) (massive IIA) gauged maximal supergravities resulting upon reduction of the higher-dimensional theories. In M-theory models, the gaugings involve a duality-hidden symmetry pair of the universal hypermultiplet. In contrast, only duality symmetries of the universal hypermultiplet are gauged in massive IIA models. Supersymmetric solutions turn to populate different domains of the Kähler cone both in the M-theory and massive IIA cases.

Future lines to explore are immediately envisaged. The first one is the higher-dimensional description of the solutions based on non-compact H(p,q) reductions. Such solutions often lie in a different domain of the Kähler cone than their counterparts in sphere reductions. In addition, for the case of sphere reductions, it would also be interesting to have a higher-dimensional picture of the AdS4 black holes involving a non-trivial universal hypermultiplet as the gravitational backreaction of bound states of M-/D-branes wrapping a Riemann surface [52, 53]. To this end, connecting the four-dimensional fields and charges to higher-dimensional backgrounds of 11D and massive IIA supergravity is required. A suitable framework to obtain such uplifts is provided by the duality-covariant formulation of 11D [54] and massive IIA supergravity [55] in terms of an exceptional field theory. Using this framework, general uplifting formulae have been systematically derived for the consistent truncation of M-theory and massive IIA on spheres5 and hyperboloids [32, 57] down to a gauged maximal supergravity in four dimensions. It would then be interesting to uplift the N=2 supergravity models constructed in this note, and therefore any of their solutions, to backgrounds of 11D and massive IIA supergravity on H(p,q).

Lastly the N=2 formulation of M-theory models presented in this note can be straightforwardly used to describe SO(p,q) models with dyonic gaugings, the prototypical example being the ω-deformed version of the SO(8) theory [58]. In this theory, and unlike for the original STU-model with only vector multiplets [59], the presence of the universal hypermultiplet makes the Lagrangian in (4) sensitive to the electric-magnetic deformation parameter ω and affects the structure of supersymmetric solutions. For instance, two inequivalent N=2 AdS4 solutions preserving an SU(3)×U(1) symmetry in the full theory appear at generic values of ω [60]. It is therefore interesting to understand the structure of AdS4 black hole solutions in this setup [61] for which a higher-dimensional description remains elusive [62]. We hope to come back to these and related issues in the near future.

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by the ERC Advanced Grant “High-Spin-Grav” and by F.R.S.-FNRS through the conventions PDRT.1025.14 and IISN-4.4503.15.

Appendix: Embedding in maximal supergravity

In this appendix we provide the embedding of the non-minimal N=2 supergravity models analysed in this note into N=8 (maximal) supergravity [63]. In its ungauged version, maximal supergravity possesses an E7(7) global symmetry group. This group plays a central role in systematically constructing the gauged versions of the theory using the embedding tensor formalism [64]: in a gauged maximal supergravity, a specific subgroup of E7(7) is promoted from global to local in what is known as the gauging procedure. In this note we focus on SO(p,q) and ISO(p,q) subgroups of SL(8)E7(7). These gauged supergravities appear upon reduction of 11D and massive IIA supergravity on H(p,q) spaces.

Let us start by introducing a fundamental SL(8) index A=1,...8. In the SL(8) basis, the E7(7) generators tα=1,...,133 have a decomposition 13363+70. These are the 63 generators tAB of SL(8), with vanishing trace tAA=0, together with 70 generators tABCD=t[ABCD]. The fundamental representation of E7(7) decomposes as 5628+28, which translates into a splitting of the E7(7) fundamental index of the form M[AB][AB]. The entries of the 56×56 matrices [tα]MN are given by

[tAB][CD][EF]=4δ[CBδD]AEF+18δABδCDEF,[tAB][EF][CD]=-[tAB][CD][EF], 62

for the SL(8) generators tAB. The generators tABCD completing SL(8) to E7(7) take the form

[tABCD][EF][GH]=24!ϵABCDEFGH,[tABCD][EF][GH]=2δABCDEFGH. 63

The electric SO(p,q) and dyonic ISO(p,q) gaugings of maximal supergravity belong to SL(8)E7(7) and are specified by an embedding tensor [64] of the form

ΘABCD=2δ[ACηB]D,ΘABCD=2δD[Aη~B]C. 64

The matrices ηAB and η~AB associated with the different gaugings are collected in Table 3.

Table 3.

Matrices ηAB and η~AB specifying the SO(p,q) and ISO(p,q) gaugings of maximal supergravity

gauging ηAB η~AB
SO(8) diag(+1,I2,I2,I2,+1) 0
SO(7,1) diag(+1,I2,I2,I2,-1) 0
SO(6,2)a diag(-1,I2,I2,I2,-1) 0
SO(6,2)b diag(+1,I2,I2,-I2,+1) 0
SO(5,3) diag(+1,I2,I2,-I2,-1) 0
SO(4,4) diag(-1,I2,I2,-I2,-1) 0
ISO(7) diag(+1,I2,I2,I2,0) diag(07,-m)
ISO(6,1) diag(-1,I2,I2,I2,0) diag(07,-m)
ISO(5,2) diag(+1,I2,I2,-I2,0) diag(07,-m)
ISO(4,3) diag(-1,I2,I2,-I2,0) diag(07,-m)

The scalar sector of maximal supergravity consists of 70 fields spanning a coset space E7(7)/SU(8). However, in this note we concentrate on non-minimal N=2 supergravity models associated with the U(1)2 invariant sector of the theory. The scalars in this sector span an [SL(2)/SO(2)]3×SU(2,1)/(SU(2)×U(1)) coset space associated with the following E7(7) generators. The [SL(2)/SO(2)]3 factor is associated with

Hφ1=t44+t55+t66+t77-t11-t88-t22-t33,Hφ2=t22+t33+t66+t77-t11-t88-t44-t55,Hφ3=t22+t33+t44+t55-t11-t88-t66-t77,gχ1=t1238,gχ2=t1458,gχ3=t1678. 65

The SU(2,1)/(SU(2)×U(1)) factor is associated with

Hϕ=12(t88-t11),gσ=t81,gζ=t8357-t8346-t8256-t8247,gζ~=t8246-t8257-t8347-t8356. 66

Using the above generators, the coset representative V=VSK×VQK is obtained upon the exponentiations

VSK=ie-12χigχie14φiHφi,VQK=eσgσe-6(ζgζ+ζ~gζ~)e-2ϕHϕ. 67

Starting from the representative VE7(7)/SU(8), the scalar matrix MMN entering the Lagrangian of N=8 supergravity [64] is obtained as M=VVt. Plugging this matrix M into the kinetic terms of the maximal theory, e-1Lkin=196Tr[DμMDμM-1], we obtain the kinetic terms for the N=2 models in (5) and (12). The scalar potential and covariant derivatives of the N=2 models can be obtained from the ones of the maximal theory upon identifying the electric vectors AAB=A[AB] in the maximal theory as {A0,A1,A2,A3}{A18,A23,A45,A67} (and similarly for the magnetic vectors A~AB), and then truncating away the non-singlet fields. We have verified that the N=8 results precisely match the N=2 results obtained from (14) and (22).

Footnotes

1

See [5] for a generalisation to asymptotically AdS black branes in various dimensions.

2

Einstein-scalar systems associated with Z2×SO(3) and SU(3) invariant sectors of such H(p,q) reductions were presented in [30].

3

Note that zherei=eiπ3z[10]i as a consequence of the sign choice mhere=-m[10].

4

See [48] for a similar model based on the Q111 truncation of M-theory [51].

5

See [56] for a recent derivation of the complete D=11 embedding of SO(8) gauged maximal supergravity using the method introduced in [22] for the D=10 embedding of the ISO(7) theory.

References

  • 1.F. Azzurli, N. Bobev, P.M. Crichigno, V.S. Min, A. Zaffaroni, arXiv:1707.04257 [hep-th] (2017)
  • 2.Caldarelli MM, Klemm D. Nucl. Phys. B. 1999;545:434. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00846-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Freedman DZ, Das AK. Nucl. Phys. B. 1977;120:221. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(77)90041-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Romans LJ. Nucl. Phys. B. 1992;383:395. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(92)90684-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bobev N, Crichigno PM. JHEP. 2017;12:065. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2017)065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cremmer E, Julia B, Scherk J. Phys. Lett. B. 1978;76:409. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90894-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gauntlett JP, Varela O. Phys. Rev. D. 2007;76:126007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.126007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Romans L. Phys. Lett. B. 1986;169:374. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)90375-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Aharony O, Bergman O, Jafferis DL, Maldacena J. JHEP. 2008;10:091. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/091. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Guarino A, Jafferis DL, Varela O. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015;115:091601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.091601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.M. Fluder, J. Sparks, arXiv:1507.05817 [hep-th] (2015)
  • 12.Benini F, Zaffaroni A. JHEP. 2015;07:127. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2015)127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Benini F, Hristov K, Zaffaroni A. JHEP. 2016;05:054. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2016)054. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.F. Benini, K. Hristov, A. Zaffaroni, arXiv:1608.07294 [hep-th] (2016)
  • 15.A. Cabo-Bizet, V.I. Giraldo-Rivera, L.A. Pando Zayas, arXiv:1701.07893 [hep-th] (2017)
  • 16.Hosseini SM, Hristov K, Passias A. JHEP. 2017;10:190. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.F. Benini, H. Khachatryan, P. Milan, arXiv:1707.06886 [hep-th] (2017)
  • 18.de Wit B, Nicolai H. Nucl. Phys. B. 1987;281:211. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(87)90253-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.de Wit B, Nicolai H. Nucl. Phys. B. 1982;208:323. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(82)90120-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Duff MJ, Liu JT. Nucl. Phys. B. 1999;554:237. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00299-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cvetic M, Duff MJ, Hoxha P, Liu JT, Lu H, Lu JX, Martinez-Acosta R, Pope CN, Sati H, Tran TA. Nucl. Phys. B. 1999;558:96. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00419-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Guarino A, Varela O. JHEP. 2015;12:020. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hull C. Phys. Rev. D. 1984;30:760. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.760. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Guarino A, Varela O. JHEP. 2016;02:079. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dall’Agata G, Inverso G, Marrani A. JHEP. 2014;1407:133. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guarino A, Tarrio J. JHEP. 2017;09:141. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2017)141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cacciatori SL, Klemm D. JHEP. 2010;01:085. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2010)085. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Guarino A. JHEP. 2017;08:100. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)100. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hull C, Warner N. Class. Quantum Gravity. 1988;5:1517. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/5/12/005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Guarino A. Nucl. Phys. B. 2015;900:501. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.09.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cassani D, de Felice O, Petrini M, Strickland- Constable C, Waldram D. JHEP. 2016;08:074. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Inverso G, Samtleben H, Trigiante M. Phys. Rev. D. 2017;95:066020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.066020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.de Wit B, Samtleben H, Trigiante M. JHEP. 2005;0509:016. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cecotti S, Ferrara S, Girardello L. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A. 1989;4:2475. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X89000972. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Klemm D, Petri N, Rabbiosi M. JHEP. 2016;04:008. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Michelson J. Nucl. Phys. B. 1997;495:127. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00184-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.de Wit B, Van Proeyen A. Phys. Lett. B. 1990;252:221. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(90)90864-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.de Wit B, Vanderseypen F, Van Proeyen A. Nucl. Phys. B. 1993;400:463. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90413-J. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.de Wit B, Van Proeyen A. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D. 1994;3:31. doi: 10.1142/S0218271894000058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Erbin H, Halmagyi N. JHEP. 2015;05:122. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2015)122. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Louis J, Smyth P, Triendl H. JHEP. 2012;1208:039. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2012)039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Freund PG, Rubin MA. Phys. Lett. B. 1980;97:233. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90590-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Warner N. Phys. Lett. B. 1983;128:169. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(83)90383-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nicolai H, Warner NP. Nucl. Phys. B. 1985;259:412. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(85)90643-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Corrado R, Pilch K, Warner NP. Nucl. Phys. B. 2002;629:74. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00134-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ahn C-H, Itoh T. Nucl. Phys. B. 2002;646:257. doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00871-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Benna M, Klebanov I, Klose T, Smedback M. JHEP. 2008;09:072. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/09/072. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Halmagyi N, Petrini M, Zaffaroni A. JHEP. 2013;08:124. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2013)124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hristov K, Toldo C, Vandoren S. JHEP. 2011;12:014. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2011)014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dall’Agata G, Gnecchi A. JHEP. 2011;03:037. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2011)037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cassani D, Koerber P, Varela O. JHEP. 2012;1211:173. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2012)173. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.J.M. Maldacena, C. Nunez, Superstrings. Proceedings, International Conference, Strings 2000, Ann Arbor, USA, July 10–15, 2000. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 822 (2001). arXiv:hep-th/0007018 [182 (2000)]
  • 53.Gauntlett JP, Kim N, Pakis S, Waldram D. Phys. Rev. D. 2002;65:026003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.026003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hohm O, Samtleben H. Phys. Rev. D. 2014;89:066017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.066017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ciceri F, Guarino A, Inverso G. JHEP. 2016;08:154. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.O. Varela, arXiv:1512.04943 [hep-th] (2015)
  • 57.Hohm O, Samtleben H. JHEP. 2015;1501:131. doi: 10.1007/JHEP01(2015)131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dall’Agata G, Inverso G, Trigiante M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;109:201301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.201301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Inverso G. JHEP. 2016;03:138. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2016)138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Borghese A, Dibitetto G, Guarino A, Roest D, Varela O. JHEP. 2013;1303:082. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2013)082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Work in progress
  • 62.K. Lee, C. Strickland-Constable, D. Waldram, arXiv:1506.03457 [hep-th] (2015)
  • 63.Cremmer E, Julia B. Nucl. Phys. B. 1979;159:141. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90331-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.de Wit B, Samtleben H, Trigiante M. JHEP. 2007;0706:049. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The European Physical Journal. C, Particles and Fields are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES