Imperial/TP/96–97/15

hep-th/9701088

∗
LECTURES ON SUPERGRAVITY p-BRANES

K.S. STELLE
The Blackett Laboratory,
Imperial College,
arXiv:hep-th/9701088v3 29 Jan 1997

Prince Consort Road,

London SW7 2BZ, UK

We review the properties of classical p-brane solutions to supergravity theories,

i.e. solutions that may be interpreted as Poincaré-invariant hyperplanes in space-
time. Topics covered include the distinction between elementary/electric and soli-
tonic/magnetic solutions, examples of singularity and global structure, relations
between mass densities, charge densities and the preservation of unbroken super-
symmetry, diagonal and vertical Kaluza-Klein reduction families, Scherk-Schwarz
reduction and domain walls, and the classification of multiplicities using duality
symmetries.

1 Introduction

Supergravity theories originally arose from the desire to include supersymme-

try into the framework of gravitational models, and this was in the hope that
the resulting models might solve some of the outstanding difficulties of quan-
tum gravity. One of these difficulties was the ultraviolet problem, on which
early enthusiasm for supergravity’s promise gave way to disenchantment when
it became clear that local supersymmetry is not in fact sufficient to tame the
notorious ultraviolet divergences.a Nonetheless, these theories won much admi-
ration for their beautiful mathematical structure, which is due to the stringent
constraints of their symmetries. These severely restrict the possible terms that
can occur in the Lagrangian. For the maximal supergravity theories, there is
simultaneously a great wealth of fields present and at the same time an impos-
sibility of coupling any independent external field-theoretic “matter.” It was
only occasionally noticed in this early period that this impossibility of coupling
to matter fields does not, however, rule out coupling to “relativistic objects”
such as black holes, strings and membranes.
Indeed, a striking fact that has now been clearly recognized about super-
gravity theories is the degree to which they tell us precisely what kinds of
external “matter” they will tolerate. The possibilities of such couplings may
be learned in a fashion similar to the traditional derivation of the Schwarzshild
solution in General Relativity, first searching for an isotropic solution in empty
space, then considering later how this may be matched onto an interior matter
∗ Lectures given at the ICTP Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cosmology,

Trieste, June 10–26, 1996.

a For a review of ultraviolet behavior in supergravity theories, see Ref.1

1
source. In the case of supergravity theories, imposing the requirement that
some part of the original theory’s supersymmetry be left unbroken leads to the
class of p-brane solutions that we shall review in this article.b It is one of the
marvels of the subject that this purely classical information from supergravity
theories is now thought to be capable of yielding nonperturbative informa-
tion on the superstring theories that we now see as the underlying quantum
formulations of supergravity.
First, let us recall the way in which long-wavelength limits of string theories
yield effective spacetime gravity theories. Consider, to begin with, the σ-model
action 11 that describes a bosonic string moving in a background “condensate”
of its own massless modes (gM N , AM N , φ):
Z
1 √
I= d2 z γ [γ ij ∂i xM ∂j xN gM N (x)
4πα′
+iǫij ∂i xM ∂j xN AM N (x) + α′ R(γ)φ(x)] . (1.1)

Every string theory contains a sector described by fields (gM N , AM N , φ); these
are the only fields that couple directly to the string worldsheet. In superstring
theories, this sector is called the Neveu-Schwarz/Neveu-Schwarz (NS-NS) sec-
tor.
The σ-model action (1.1) is classically invariant under the worldsheet Weyl
symmetry γij → Λ2 (z)γij . Requiring cancellation of the anomalies in this
symmetry at the quantum level gives differential-equation restrictions on the
background fields (gM N , AM N , φ) that may be viewed as effective equations of
motion for these massless modes.12 This system of effective equations may be
summarized by the corresponding field-theory effective action
Z h
√
Ieff = dD x −ge−2φ (D − 26) − 32 α′ (R + 4∇2 φ − 4(∇φ)2
i
1
− 12 FM N P F M N P + O(α′ )2 , (1.2)

where FM N P = ∂M AN P + ∂N AP M + ∂P AM N is the 3-form field strength for the

AM N gauge potential. The (D − 26) term reflects the critical dimension for the
bosonic string: flat space is a solution of the above effective theory only for
D = 26.
b The present review is based largely upon Refs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and focuses on classical solutions

to supergravity theories without special regard to the structure of source terms that would
reside in p-brane worldvolume actions. This restricted focus is made here for simplicity,
as the structure of such p-brane worldvolume actions is still incompletely known. Earlier
reviews of p-brane solutions including discussion of the worldvolume action sources may be
found in Refs.7, 8, 9 The occurrence of such solutions as D-brane backgrounds in string theory
has been recently reviewed in Ref.10

2
 The effective action for superstring theories contains a similar (NS-NS)
sector, but with the substitution of (D−26) by (D−10), reflecting the different
critical dimension for superstrings. In addition, superstring theories have a
Ramond-Ramond (R-R) sector of further bosonic fields. For example, the type
IIA theory 14 has R-R field strengths F[2] = dA[1] and F[4] = dA[3] + A[1] ∧ F[3] ,
where the [n] subscripts indicate the ranks of the forms. In the type IIB
theory,15 on the other hand, one has F[1] = dχ, where χ is a R-R zero-form
R
(i.e. a pseudoscalar field), F[3] = dAR
[2] , a second 3-form field strength making
NS
a pair together with F[3] from the NS-NS sector, and F[5] = dA[4] , which is a
self-dual 5-form in D = 10, F[5] = ∗ F[5] .
Thus one naturally encounters field strengths of ranks 1–5 in type II the-
ories. In addition, one may use ǫ[10] to dualize certain field strengths; e.g. the
original F[3] may be dualized to ∗ F[3] , which is a 7-form. The upshot is that, in
considering solutions to string-theory effective field equations, antisymmetric-
tensor gauge field strengths of diverse ranks need to be taken into account.
These field strengths will play an essential rôle in supporting the p-brane so-
lutions that we shall describe.
The effective action (1.2) is written in the form directly obtained from
string σ-model calculations. It is not written in the form generally preferred
by relativists, which has a clean Einstein-Hilbert term free from exponential
prefactors like e−2φ . One may rewrite the effective action in a different frame
by making a Weyl-rescaling field redefinition gM N → eλφ gM N . Ieff as written
in (1.2) is in the string frame; after an integration by parts, it takes the form
Z p h i
I string = d10 x −g (s) e−2φ R(g (s) ) + 4∇M φ∇M φ − 12 1
FM N P F M N P . (1.3)

(e) (s)
After making the transformation gM N = e−φ/2 gM N , one obtains the Einstein
frame action,
Z p h i
I Einstein = d10 x −g (e) R(g (e) ) − 21 ∇M φ∇M φ − 12
1 φ
e FM N P F M N P , (1.4)

(e)
where the indices are now raised and lowered with gM N . To understand how this
Weyl rescaling works, note that under x-independent rescalings, the connection
ΓM N P is invariant. This carries over also to terms with φ undifferentiated,
which emerge from the eλφ Weyl transformation. One then chooses λ so as to
eliminate the e−2φ factor. Terms with φ undifferentiated do change, however.
As one can see in (1.4), the Weyl transformation is just what is needed to
unmask the positive-energy sign of the kinetic term for the φ field, despite the
apparently negative sign of its kinetic term in I string .

3
2 The p-brane ansatz

2.1 General action and field equations

Motivated by the above summary of the effective field theories derived from
string theories, let us now consider a classical system in D dimensions compris-
ing the metric gM N , a scalar field φ and an (n − 1)-form gauge potential A[n−1]
with corresponding field strength F[n] , the whole described by the action
Z
√ h i
I= DD x −g R − 21 ∇M φ∇M φ − 1 aφ 2
2n! e F[n] . (2.1)

We shall consider later in more detail how (2.1) may be obtained by a consis-
tent truncation from a full supergravity theory in D dimensions. The value
of the parameter a controlling the interaction of the scalar field φ with the
field strength F[n] in (2.1) will vary according to the cases considered in the
following.
Varying the action (2.1) produces the following set of equations of motion:
1
RMN = 2 ∂M φ∂N φ + SM N (2.2a)
1 n−1
SMN = eaφ (FM ··· FN ··· − F 2 gM N ) (2.2b)
2(n − 1)! n(D − 2)
∇M 1 (eaφ F M 1 ···M n ) = 0 (2.2c)
a aφ 2
φ = e F . (2.2d)
2n!

2.2 Electric and magnetic ansätze

In order to solve the above equations, we shall make a simplifying ansatz. We
shall be looking for solutions preserving certain unbroken supersymmetries,
and these will in turn require unbroken translational symmetries as well. For
simplicity, we shall also require isotropic symmetry in the directions “trans-
verse” to the translationally-symmetric ones. These restrictions can subse-
quently be relaxed in generalizations of the basic class of p-brane solutions
that we shall discuss here. For this basic class of solutions, we make an ansatz
requiring (Poincaré)d × SO(D − d) symmetry. One may view the sought-for
solutions as flat d = p + 1 dimensional hyperplanes embedded in the ambi-
ent D-dimensional spacetime; these hyperplanes may in turn be viewed as the
histories, or worldvolumes, of p-dimensional spatial surfaces. Accordingly, let
the spacetime coordinates be split into two ranges: xM = (xµ , y m ), where xµ
(µ = 0, 1, · · · , p = d − 1) are coordinates adapted to the (Poincaré)d isometries

4
on the worldvolume and where y m (m = d, · · · , D − 1) are the coordinates
“transverse” to the worldvolume.
An ansatz for the spacetime metric that respects the (Poincaré)d ×SO(D−
d) symmetry is 13

ds2 = e2A(r) dxµ dxν ηµν + e2B(r) dy m dy n δmn , (2.3)

√
where r = y m y m is the isotropic radial coordinate in the transverse space.
Since the metric components depend only on r, translational invariance in
the worldvolume directions xµ and SO(D − d) symmetry in the transverse
directions y m is guaranteed.
The corresponding ansatz for the scalar field φ(xM ) is simply φ = φ(r).
For the antisymmetric tensor gauge field, we face a bifurcation of pos-
sibilities for the ansatz, the two possibilities being related by duality. The
first possibility is naturally expressed directly in terms of the gauge poten-
tial A[n−1] . Just as the Maxwell 1-form naturally couples to the worldline of
a charged particle, so does A[n−1] naturally couple to the worldvolume of a
p = d − 1 = (n − 1) − 1 dimensional “charged” extended object. The “charge”
here will be obtained from Gauss’-law surface integrals involving F[n] , as we
shall see later. Thus, the first possibility for A[n−1] is to support a del = n − 1
dimensional worldvolume. This is what we shall call the “elementary,” or
“electric” ansatz:

Aµ1 ···µn−1 = ǫµ1 ···µn−1 eC(r) , others zero. (2.4)

SO(D − d) isotropicity and (Poincaré)d symmetry are guaranteed here because

the function C(r) depends only on the transverse radial coordinate r. Instead
of the ansatz (2.4), expressed in terms of A[n−1] , we could equivalently have
given just the F[n] field strength:

(el)
Fmµ1 ···µn−1 = ǫµ1 ···µn−1 ∂m eC(r) , others zero. (2.5)

The worldvolume dimension for the elementary ansatz (2.4,2.5) is clearly del =
n − 1.
The second possible way to relate the rank n of F[n] to the worldvolume
dimension d of an extended object is suggested by considering the dualized
field strength ∗ F , which is a (D − n) form. If one were to find an underlying
gauge potential for ∗ F (locally possible by courtesy of a Bianchi identity), this
would naturally couple to a dso = D − n − 1 dimensional worldvolume. Since
such a dualized potential would be nonlocally related to the fields appearing
in the action (2.1), we shall not explicitly follow this construction, but shall

5
instead take this reference to the dualized theory as an easy way to identify
the worldvolume dimension for the second type of ansatz. This “solitonic”
or “magnetic” ansatz for the antisymmetric tensor field is most conveniently
expressed in terms of the field strength F[n] , which now has nonvanishing values
only for indices corresponding to the transverse directions:
(mag) yp
Fm1 ···mn = λǫm1 ···mn p , others zero, (2.6)
rn+1
where the magnetic-charge parameter λ is a constant of integration, the only
thing left undetermined by this ansatz. The power of r in the solitonic/mag-
netic ansatz is determined by requiring F[n] to satisfy the Bianchi identity.c
Note that the worldvolume dimensions of the elementary and solitonic cases
are related by dso = d˜el ≡ D−del −2; note also that this relation is idempotent,
f˜ = d.
i.e. (d)

2.3 Curvature components and p-brane equations

In order to write out the field equations after insertion of the above ansätze,
one needs to compute the Ricci tensor for the metric.2 This is most easily done
by introducing veilbeins, i.e., orthonormal frames,16 with tangent-space indices
denoted by underlined indices:
gM N = eM E eN F ηE F . (2.7)
Next, one constructs the corresponding 1-forms: eE = dxM eM E . Splitting up
the tangent-space indices E = (µ, m) similarly to the world indices M = (µ, m),
we have for our ansätze the veilbein 1-forms
eµ = eA(r) dxµ , em = eB(r) dy m . (2.8)
The corresponding spin connection 1-forms are determined by the condi-
tion that the torsion vanishes, deE + ω E F ∧ eF = 0, which yields

ωµ ν = 0, ω µ n = e−B(r) ∂n A(r)eµ
ωm n = e−B(r) ∂n B(r)em − e−B(r) ∂m B(r)en . (2.9)
The curvature 2-forms are then given by
EF
R[2] = dω E F + ω E D ∧ ωD F . (2.10)
c Specifically, one finds ∂ F −(n+1) ǫ p 2


q m1 ···mn = r m1 ···mn q − (n + 1)ǫm1 ···mn p y yq /r ;
upon taking the totally antisymmetrized combination [qm1 · · · mn ], the factor
P ofm(n + 1) 2is
evened out between the two terms and then one finds from cycling a factor m
y ym = r ,
thus obtaining cancellation.

6
From the curvature components so obtained, one finds the Ricci tensor com-
ponents
˜
Rµν = ˜ ′ B ′ + (d + 1) A′ )
−ηµν e2(A−B) (A′′ + d(A′ )2 + dA
r
˜
Rmn = −δmn (B ′′ + dA′ B ′ + d(B ˜ ′ )2 + (2d + 1) B ′ + d A′ ) (2.11)
r r
ymyn ˜
˜ ′ )2 − d B ′ − d A′ ) ,
− 2 (B̃ ′′ + dA′′ − 2dA′ B ′ + d(A′ )2 − d(B
r r r
˜
where again, d = D − d − 2, and the primes indicate ∂/∂r derivatives.
Substituting the above relations, one finds the set of equations that we
need to solve to obtain the metric and φ:
˜ ′ B ′ + (d̃+1) A′ = d˜
A′′ + d(A′ )2 + dA r 2(D−2) S
2
{µν}
˜
˜ ′ )2 + (2d+1)
B ′′ + dA′ B ′ + d(B B ′ + dr A′ = − 2(D−2)
d
S2 {δmn }
r
′′ ′′ ′ ′ ′ 2
B̃ + dA − 2dA B + d(A ) − d(B ) ˜ ′ 2
˜
− dr B ′ − dr A′ + 21 (φ′ )2 = 21 S 2 {ym yn }
φ + dA′ φ′ + dB
′′ ˜ ′ φ′ + (d̃+1) φ′ = − 1 ςaS 2 ,
r 2
(2.12)
where ς = ±1 for the elementary/solitonic cases and the source appearing on
the RHS of these equations is
( 1
(e 2 aφ−dA+C )C ′ elementary: d = n − 1, ς = +1
S= 1
aφ− d̃B − ˜
d−1
(2.13)
λ(e 2 )r solitonic: d = D − n − 1, ς = −1.

2.4 p-brane solutions

The p-brane equations (2.12,2.13) are still rather daunting. In order to proceed
further, we are going to take a hint from the requirements for supersymmetry
preservation, which shall be justified in more detail later on. Accordingly, we
shall now refine our ansätze by imposing the linearity condition
˜ ′=0.
dA′ + dB (2.14)
3
After eliminating B using (2.14), the independent equations become
∇2 φ = − 21 ςaS 2 (2.15a)
d˜
∇2 A = S2 (2.15b)
2(D − 2)
˜ ′ )2
d(D − 2)(A′ )2 + 21 d(φ = 1 ˜ 2
dS , (2.15c)
2

7
where, for spherically-symmetric (i.e. isotropic) functions in the transverse
(D − d) dimensions, the Laplacian is ∇2 φ = φ′′ + (d˜ + 1)r−1 φ′ .
Equations (2.15a,b) suggest that we now further refine the ansátze by
imposing another linearity condition:
−ςa(D − 2) ′
φ′ = A . (2.16)
d˜
At this stage, it is useful to introduce a new piece of notation, letting

2dd˜
a2 = ∆ − . (2.17)
(D − 2)
With this notation, equation (2.15c) gives
∆(φ′ )2
S2 = , (2.18)
a2
ς∆
so that the remaining equation for φ becomes ∇2 φ + ′ 2
2a (φ ) = 0, which can
be re-expressed as a Laplace equation,d
ς∆
∇2 e 2a φ = 0 . (2.19)

Solving this in the transverse (D − d) dimensions with our assumption of

transverse isotropicity (i.e. spherical symmetry) yields
ς∆ k
e 2a φ = H(y) = 1 + k>0, (2.20)
rd˜
where the constant of integration φ| has been set equal to zero here for
r→∞
simplicity: φ∞ = 0. The integration constant k in (2.20) sets the mass scale
of the solution; it has been taken to be positive in order to ensure the absence
of naked singularities at finite r. This positivity restriction is similar to the
usual restriction to a positive mass parameter M in the standard Schwarzshild
solution.
In the case of the elementary/electric ansatz, with ς = +1, it still remains
to find the function C(r) that determines the antisymmetric-tensor gauge field
potential. In this case, it follows from (2.13) that S 2 = eaφ−1dA (C ′ eC )2 .
Combining this with (2.15), one finds the relation
√
∂ C − ∆ − 1 aφ+dA ′
(e ) = e 2 φ (2.21)
∂r a
d Note that Eq. (2.19) can also be more generally derived; for example, it still holds if one
relaxes the assumption of isotropicity in the transverse space.

8
(where it should be remembered that a < 0). Finally, it is straightforward
to verify that the relation (2.21) is consistent with the equation of motion for
F[n] :
∇2 C + C ′ (C ′ + B̃ ′ − dA′ + aφ′ ) = 0 . (2.22)
In order to simplify the explicit form of the solution, we now pick values
of the integration constants to make A∞ = B∞ = 0, so that the solution tends
to flat empty space at transverse infinity. Assembling the result, starting from
the Laplace-equation solution H(y) (2.20), one finds 8, 2
−4d̃ 4d
ds2 = H ∆(D−2) dxµ dxν ηµν + H ∆(D−2) dy m dy m (2.23a)

2a +1, elementary/electric
eφ = H ς∆ ς= (2.23b)
−1, solitonic/magnetic
k
H(y) = 1+ ˜ , (2.23c)
rd
and in the elementary/electric case, C(r) is given by
2
eC = √ H −1 . (2.24)
∆
In the solitonic/magnetic case, the constant of integration is related to the
magnetic charge parameter λ in the ansatz (2.6) by
√
∆
k= λ. (2.25)
2d˜
In the elementary/electric case, this relation may be taken to define the pa-
rameter λ.

3 Examples

Consider now the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity, which has the action
Z n√ o
I11 = d11 x −g(R − 481 2
F[4] ) + 61 F[4] ∧ F[4] ∧ A[3] . (3.1)

There are two particular points to note about this action. The first is that no
scalar field is present. This follows from the supermultiplet structure of the
D = 11 theory, in which all fields are gauge fields. In lower dimensions, of
course, scalars do appear; e.g. the dilaton in D = 10 type IIA supergravity
emerges out of the D = 11 metric upon dimensional reduction from D = 11 to

9
D = 10. The absence of the scalar that we had in our general discussion may
be handled here simply by identifying the scalar coupling parameter a with
zero, so that the scalar may be consistently truncated from our general action
(2.1). Since a2 = ∆ − 2dd/(D ˜ − 2), we identify ∆ = 2 · 3 · 6/9 = 4 for the
D = 11 cases.
The second point to note is the presence of the F F A Chern-Simons term
in (3.1). This term is required by D = 11 local supersymmetry, with the
coefficient as given in (3.1). Under the bosonic antisymmetric-tensor gauge
transformation δA[3] = dΛ[2] , the F F A term in (3.1) is invariant (up to a total
derivative) separately from the kinetic term.
In our general discussion given above in Sec. 2, we did not take into account
the effects of such F F A terms. This omission, however, is not essential to the
basic class of p-brane solutions that we are studying. Note that for n = 4, the
F[4] antisymmetric tensor field strength supports either an elementary/electric
solution with d = n − 1 = 3 (i.e. a p = 2 membrane) or a solitonic/magnetic
solution with d˜ = 11 − 3 − 2 = 6 (i.e. a p = 5 brane). In both these elementary
and solitonic cases, the F F A term in the action (3.1) vanishes and hence this
term does not make any non-vanishing contribution to the metric field equa-
tions for our ansätze. For the antisymmetric tensor field equation, a further
check is necessary, since there one requires the variation of the F F A term to
vanish in order to consistently ignore it. The field equation for A[3] is
√
1
∂M −gF M U V W + ǫU V W x1 x2 x3 x4 y1 y2 y3 y4 Fx1 x2 x3 x4 Fy1 y2 y3 y4 = 0 . (3.2)
2(4!)2
By direct inspection, one sees that the second term in this equation vanishes
for both ansätze.
Next, we shall consider the elementary/electric and the solitonic/magnetic
D = 11 cases in detail. Subsequently, we shall explore how these particular
solutions fit into wider, “black,” families of p-branes.

3.1 D = 11 Elementary/electric 2-brane

From our general discussion in Sec. 2, we have the elementary-ansatz solution 17
2 1
ds2 = (1 + rk6 )− /3 dµ dxν ηµν + (1 + rk6 )− /3 dy m dy m
Aµνλ = ǫµνλ (1 + rk6 )−1 , other components zero. (3.3)
{electric 2-brane: isotropic coordinates}

At first glance, this solution looks like it might be singular at r = 0. However, if

one calculates the invariant components of the curvature tensor RM N P Q and of
the field strength Fmµ1 µ2 µ3 , subsequently referred to an orthonormal frame by

10
introducing vielbeins as in (2.8), one finds these invariants to be nonsingular.
Moreover, although the proper distance to the surface r = 0 along a t = x0 =
const. geodesic diverges, the surface r = 0 can be reached along null geodesics
in finite affine parameter.18
Thus, one may suspect that the metric as given in (3.3) does not in fact
cover the entire spacetime, and so one should look for an analytic extension of
it. Accordingly, one may consider a change to “Schwarzshild-type” coordinates
1
by setting r = (r̃6 − k) /6 . The solution then becomes:18
2
ds2 = (1 + rk6 ) /3 (−dt2 + dσ 2 + dρ2 ) + (1 + rk6 )−2 dr̃2 + r̃2 dΩ27
Aµνλ = ǫµνλ (1 + rk6 ) , other components zero, (3.4)
{electric 2-brane: Schwarzshild-type coordinates}

where we have supplied explicit worldvolume coordinates xµ = (t, σ, ρ) and

where dΩ27 is the line element on the unit 7-sphere, corresponding to the bound-
ary ∂M8T of the 11 − 3 = 8 dimensional transverse space.
1
The Schwarzshild-like coordinates make the surface r̃ = k /6 (correspond-
ing to r = 0) look like a horizon. One may indeed verify that the normal
1
to this surface is a null vector, confirming that r̃ = k /6 is in fact a horizon.
This horizon is degenerate, however. Owing to the 2/3 exponent in the g00
1
component, curves along the t axis for r̃ < k /6 remain timelike, so that light
cones do not “flip over” inside the horizon, unlike the situation for the classic
Schwarzshild solution.
In order to see the structure of the membrane spacetime more clearly,
1 1
let us change coordinates once again, setting r̃ = k /6 (1 − R3 )− /6 . Overall,
the transformation from the original isotropic coordinates to these new ones
1 1 1
is effected by setting r̃ = k /6 R /2 /(1 − R3 ) /6 . In these new coordinates, the
18
solution becomes
 1 1
ds2 = R2 (−dt2 + dσ 2 + dρ2 ) + 4k /3 R−2 dR2 + k /3 dΩ27 (a)
1/ 1
+k 3 [(1 − R3 )− /3 − 1][4R−2dR2 + dΩ27 ] (b)
Aµνλ = R3 ǫµνλ , other components zero.
{electric 2-brane: interpolating coordinates}
(3.5)
This form of the solution makes it clearer that the light-cones do not
“flip over” in the region inside the horizon (which is now at R = 0, with
R < 0 being the interior). The main usefulness of the third form (3.5) of the
membrane solution, however, is that it reveals how the solution interpolates
between other “vacuum” solutions of D = 11 supergravity.18 As R → 1, the
solution becomes flat, in the asymptotic exterior transverse region. As one
approaches the horizon at R = 0, line (b) of the metric in (3.5) vanishes

11
at least linearly in R. The residual metric, given in line (a), may then be
recognized as a standard form of the metric on (AdS)4 × S 7 , generalizing the
Robinson-Bertotti solution on (AdS)2 × S 2 in D = 4. Thus, the membrane
solution interpolates between flat space as R → 1 and (AdS)4 × S 7 as R → 0
at the horizon.
Continuing on inside the horizon, one eventually encounters a true singu-
larity at r̃ = 0 (R → −∞). Unlike the singularity in the classic Schwarzshild
solution, which is spacelike and hence unavoidable, the singularity in the mem-
brane spacetime is timelike. Generically, geodesics do not intersect the singu-
larity at a finite value of an affine parameter value. Radial null geodesics do
intersect the singularity at finite affine parameter, however, so the spacetime
is in fact genuinely singular. The timelike nature of this singularity, however,
invites one to consider coupling a δ-function source to the solution at r̃ = 0.
Indeed, the D = 11 supermembrane action,19 which generalizes the Nambu-
Goto action for the string, is the unique “matter” system that can consistently
couple to D = 11 supergravity.19, 20 Analysis of this coupling yields a rela-
tion between the parameter k in the solution (3.3) and the tension T of the
supermembrane action:17
κ2 T
k= , (3.6)
3Ω7
√
where 1/(2κ2 ) is the coefficient of −gR in the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian
and Ω7 is the volume of the unit 7-sphere S 7 , i.e. the solid angle subtended by
the boundary at transverse infinity.
The global structure of the membrane spacetime 18 is similar to the extreme
Reissner-Nordstrom solution of General Relativity.21 This global structure is
summarized by a Carter-Penrose diagram as shown in Figure 1, in which the
angular coordinates on S 7 and also two ignorable worldsheet coordinates have
been suppressed. As one can see, the region mapped by the isotropic coordi-
nates does not cover the whole spacetime. This region, shaded in the diagram,
is geodesically incomplete, since one may reach its boundaries H+ , H− along
radial null geodesics at a finite affine-parameter value. These boundary sur-
faces are not singular, but, instead, constitute future and past horizons (one
can see from the form (3.4) of the solution that the normals to these sur-
faces are null). The “throat” P in the diagram should be thought of as an
exceptional point at infinity, and not as a part of the central singularity.
The region exterior to the horizon interpolates between flat regions J ±
at future and past null infinities and a geometry that asymptotically tends
to (AdS)4 × S 7 on the horizon. This interpolating portion of the spacetime,
corresponding to the shaded region of Figure 1 which is covered by the isotropic
coordinates, may be sketched as shown in Figure 2.

12
 timelike singularity
at r~ = 0 (R → − ∞)
t = const. hypersurface
+

J
+
H

“throat” P i0 spatial infinity

H

J –
–

R = const. hypersurface

Only the shaded region is covered

by the isotropic coordinates

Figure 1: Carter-Penrose diagram for the D = 11 elementary/electric 2-brane solution.

13
 flat M 11

infinite “throat:”
7
(AdS)4 × S

Figure 2: The D = 11 elementary/electric 2-brane solution interpolates between flat space

at J ± and (AdS)4 × S 7 at the horizon.

3.2 D = 11 Solitonic/magnetic 5-brane

Now consider the 5-brane solution to the D = 11 theory given by the solitonic
ansatz for F[4] . In isotropic coordinates, this solution is a magnetic 5-brane:22
1 2
ds2 = (1+ rk3 )− /3 dxµ dxν ηµν +(1+ rk3 ) /3 dy m dy m µ, ν = 0, · · · , 5
p
Fm1 ···m4 = 3kǫm1 ···m4 p yr5 other components zero.
{magnetic 5-brane: isotropic coordinates}
(3.7)
As in the case of the elementary/electric membrane, this solution inter-
polates between two “vacua” of D = 11 supergravity. Now, however, these
asymptotic geometries consist of the flat region encountered as r → ∞ and of
(AdS)7 ×S 4 as one approaches r = 0, which once again is a degenerate horizon.
Combining two coordinate changes analogous to those of the elementary case,

14
 1/ 1/ 1/
r = (r̃3 − k) 3
and r̃ = k 3
(1 − R6 )− 3
, one has an overall transformation
1
k /3 R2
r= 1 . (3.8)
(1 − R6 ) /3
After these coordinate changes, the metric becomes
h −2 i
6 2
dΩ24
ds2 = R2 dxµ dxν ηµν + k /3 4R (1+R )
2
6 8/3
dR2 + 2 .
(1−R ) (1−R6 ) /3 (3.9)
{magnetic 5-brane: interpolating coordinates}

Once again, the surface r = 0 ↔ R = 0 may be seen from (3.9) to be a

nonsingular degenerate horizon. In this case, however, not only do the light
cones maintain their timelike orientation when crossing the horizon, as already
happened in the electric case (3.5), but now the magnetic solution (3.9) is in
fact fully symmetric 23 under a discrete isometry R → −R.
Given this isometry R → −R, one can identify the spacetime region R ≤ 0
with the region R ≥ 0. This identification is analogous to the identification
one naturally makes for flat space when written in polar coordinates, with the
metric ds2flat = −dt2 + dr2 + r2 d2 . Ostensibly, in these coordinates there ap-
pear to be separate regions of flat space with r >
< 0, but, owing to the existence
of the isometry r → −r, these regions may be identified. Accordingly, in the
solitonic/magnetic 5-brane spacetime, we identify the region −1 < R ≤ 0 with
the region 0 ≤ R < 1. In the asymptotic limit where R → −1, one finds an
asymptotically flat geometry that is indistinguishable from the region where
R → +1, i.e. where r → ∞. Thus, there is no singularity at all in the soli-
tonic/magnetic 5-brane geometry. There is still an infinite “throat,” however,
at the horizon, and the region covered by the isotropic coordinates might again
be sketched as in Figure 2, except now with the asymptotic geometry down
the “throat” being (AdS)7 × S 4 instead of (AdS)4 × S 7 as for the elemen-
tary/electric solution. The Carter-Penrose diagram for the solitonic/magnetic
5-brane solution is given in Figure 3, where the full diagram extends indefi-
nitely by “tiling” the section shown. Upon using the R → −R isometry to
make discrete identifications, however, the whole of the spacetime may be con-
sidered to consist of just region I, which is the region covered by the isotropic
coordinates (3.7).
After identification of the R > < 0 regions, the 5-brane spacetime (3.7) is
geodesically complete. Unlike the case of the elementary membrane solution
(3.3,3.5), one finds in the solitonic/magnetic case that the null geodesics pass-
ing through the horizon at R = 0 continue to evolve in their affine parameters
without bound as R → −1. Thus, the solitonic 5-brane solution is completely
non-singular.

15
 )
-1

R
=

=
(R

0
J' +

i0' identified with I

R<0

J
+
0)
=

(R
J
'
–

(R

=
+

1)
(R

H
=
-1
)

spatial infinity,
identified with i0 I
i0
R>0
)
-1

H
–
=

1)
(R

(R
J "+

spatial
(R
=
0)

infinity
J

identified with I
i0"
R<0
J
"
– (R

0
=
=
-1

R
)

Figure 3: Carter-Penrose diagram for the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane solution.

16
 The electric and magnetic D = 11 solutions discussed here and in the
previous subsection are special in that they do not involve a scalar field, since
the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity (3.1) does not even contain a scalar
field. Similar solutions occur in other situations where the parameter a (2.17)
for a field strength supporting a p-brane solution vanishes, in which cases the
scalar fields may consistently be set to zero; this happens for (D, d) = (11, 3),
(11,5), (10,4), (6,2), (5,1), (5,2) and (4,1). In these special cases, the solutions
are nonsingular at the horizon and so one may analytically continue through
to the other side of the horizon. When d is even for “scalarless” solutions of
this type, there exists a discrete isometry analogous to the R → −R isometry
of the D = 11 5-brane solution (3.9), allowing the outer and inner regions to
be identified.23 When d is odd in such cases, the analytically-extended metric
eventually reaches a timelike curvature singularity at r̃ = 0.
When a 6= 0 and the scalar field associated to the field strength supporting
a solution cannot be consistently set to zero, then the solution is singular at
the horizon, as can be seen directly in the scalar solution (2.20) itself (where
we recall that in isotropic coordinates, the horizon occurs at r = 0)

3.3 Black branes

In order to understand better the family of supergravity solutions that we have

been discussing, let us now consider a generalization that lifts the degenerate
nature of the horizon. Written in Schwarzshild-type coordinates, one finds the
generalized “black brane” solution 24, 25
4d̃
Σ+
ds2 = −  4d̃
dt2 + Σ−
∆(D−2)
dxi dxi
1−
∆(D−2)
Σ−
 2a2
−1
2a2
Σ− ∆d̃
(3.10)
+ Σ+ dr̃2 + r̃2 Σ−∆d̃ dΩ2D−d−1
ς∆
d˜
e 2a φ = Σ−1
− Σ± = 1 − rr̃± .
{black brane: Schwarzshild-type coordinates}

The antisymmetric tensor√field strength for this solution corresponds to a

charge parameter λ = 2d/ ˜ ∆(r= r− )d̃/2 , either electric or magnetic.
The characteristic feature of the above “blackened” p-branes is that they
have a nondegenerate, nonsingular outer horizon at r̃ = r+ , at which the light
cones “flip over.” At r̃ = r− , one encounters an inner horizon, which, however,
coincides in general with a curvature singularity. The singular nature of the
solution at r̃ = r− is apparent in the scalar φ in (3.10). For solutions with

17
p ≥ 1, the singularity at the inner horizon persists even in cases where the
scalar φ is absent.
The extremal limit of the black brane solution occurs for r+ = r− . When
a = 0 and scalars may consistently be set to zero, the singularity at the hori-
zon r+ = r− disappears and then one may analytically continue through the
horizon. In this case, the light cones do not “flip over” at the horizon because
one is really crossing two coalesced horizons, and the coincident “flips” of the
light cones cancel out.
The generally singular nature of the inner horizon of the non-extreme
solution (3.10) shows that the “location” of the p-brane in spacetime should
normally be thought to coincide with the inner horizon, or with the degenerate
horizon in the extremal case.

4 Masses, Charges and Supersymmetry

The p-brane solutions that we have been studying are supported by anti-
symmetric tensor gauge field strengths that fall off at transverse infinity like
˜
r−(d+1) , as one can see from (2.5,2.24,2.6). This asymptotic falloff is slow
enough to give a nonvanishing total charge density from a Gauss’ law flux in-
tegral at transverse infinity, and we shall see that, for the “extremal” class of
solutions that is our main focus, the mass density of the solution saturates a
“Bogomol’ny bound” with respect to the charge density. This relation between
densities is in turn connected to another feature of these solutions: although
purely bosonic, they preserve unbroken some portion of the original supersym-
metry of the corresponding supergravity theory.13

4.1 Masses

Let us begin with the mass density. Since the p-brane solutions have transla-
tional symmetry in their p spatial worldvolume directions, the total energy as
measured by a surface integral at spatial infinity diverges, owing to the infinite
extent. What is thus more appropriate to consider instead is the value of the
density, energy/(unit p-volume). Since we are considering solutions in their
rest frames, this will also give the value of mass/(unit p-volume), or tension of
the solution. Instead of the standard spatial dD−2 Σa surface integral, this will
be a d(D−d−1) Σm surface integral over the boundary ∂MT of the transverse
space.
The ADM formula for the energy density written as a Gauss’-law integral

18
(see, e.g., Ref.16 ) is, dropping the divergent spatial dΣµ=i integral,
Z
1
E= dD−d−1 Σm (∂ n hmn − ∂m hbb ) , (4.1)
4ΩD−d−1 ∂MT

written for gM N = ηM N +hM N tending asymptotically to flat space in Cartesian

coordinates, and with a, b spatial indices running over the values µ = i =
1, . . . , d − 1; m = d, . . . , D − 1. ΩD−d−1 is the volume of the S D−d−1 unit
sphere. For the general p-brane solution (2.23), one finds

4kd ˜
8k(d + 12 d)
hmn = δ
˜ mn
, hbb = , (4.2)
∆(D − 2)rd ∆(D − 2)rd˜
˜
and, since d(D−d−1) Σm = rd y m dΩ(D−d−1) , one finds

k d˜
E= , (4.3)
∆
√
and, recalling that k = ∆λ/(2d),˜ we consequently have a relation between
the mass per unit p volume and the charge parameter of the solution

λ
E= √ . (4.4)
2 ∆
√
By contrast, the black brane solution (3.10) has E > λ/(2 ∆), so the √ ex-
tremal p-brane solution (2.23) is seen to saturate the inequality E ≥ λ/(2 ∆).

4.2 Charges
As one can see from (4.3,4.4), the relation (2.25) between the integration con-
stant k in the solution (2.23) and the charge parameter λ implies a deep link
between the energy density and certain electric or magnetic charges. In the
electric case, this charge is a quantity conserved by virtue of the equations
of motion for the antisymmetric tensor gauge field A[n−1] , and has generally
become known as a “Page charge,” after its first discussion in Ref.26 To be
specific, if we once again consider the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity
theory (3.1), for which the antisymmetric tensor field equation was given in
(3.2), one finds the Gauss’-law form conserved quantity 26
Z
1
U= (∗ F[4] + 21 A[3] ∧ F[4] ) , {electric charge} (4.5)
4Ω7 ∂M8

19
where the integral of the 7-form integrand is over the boundary at infinity of an
arbitrary infinite 8-dimensional spacelike subspace of D = 11 spacetime. This
arbitrariness of choice in the 8-dimensional spacelike subspace means that (4.5)
in fact represents a whole set of conserved charges. A basis of these charges
may be obtained by taking the embedding of M8 into the 10-dimensional
spatial hypersurface to be specified by a volume-element 2-form. Accordingly,
the electric Page charge (4.5) should properlyR be denoted by UAB .
R∗ For the p-brane solutions (2.23), the A ∧ F term in (4.5) vanishes. The
F term does, however, give a contribution in the elementary/electric case,
provided one picks M8 to be the transverse space to the d = 3 membrane
worldvolume, M8T . The surface element for this transverse space is dΣm (7) , so
for the p = 2 elementary membrane solution (3.3), one finds
Z
1 λ
U= dΣm(7) Fm012 = . (4.6)
4Ω7 ∂M8T 4

Since the D = 11 F[4] field strength supporting this solution has ∆ = 4, the
mass/charge relation is
λ
E =U = . (4.7)
4
Thus, like the classic extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black-hole solution to which
it is strongly related (as can be seen from the Carter-Penrose diagram given in
Figure 1), the D = 11 membrane solution has equal mass and charge densities,
saturating the inequality E ≥ U .
Given the existence of an electric-type charge (4.5), one also expects to find
a magnetic-type charge, which, however, should be conserved topologically, i.e.
by virtue of the Bianchi identity dF[4] = 0. This magnetic-type charge, being
an integral over a four-form F[4] , necessarily again involves integration over a
submanifold of the spatial hypersurface of D = 11 spacetime:
Z
1
V = F[4] ; {magnetic charge} (4.8)
4Ω4 ∂M5

the surface integral now being taken over the boundary at infinity of a spacelike
5-dimensional subspace. As with the electric-type Page charge UAB , V really
represents a whole multiplet of charges, depending on the embedding of the
subsurface M5 into the 10-dimensional spatial hypersurface. This embedding
may be specified in terms a volume 5-form, so the magnetic charge should
properly be denoted by a 5-form VABCDE .
It is the magnetic form of charge (4.8) that is carried by the solitonic/mag-
netic 5-brane solution (3.7). Once again, there is only one orientation of the

20
subsurface M5 that gives a nonvanishing contribution, i.e. that with M5 =
M5T , the transverse space to the d = 6 worldvolume:
Z
1 λ
V = dΣm
(4) ǫmnpqr F
npqr
= . (4.9)
4Ω4 ∂M5T 4

Thus, in the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane case as well, we have a saturation of

the mass-charge inequality:
λ
E=V = . (4.10)
4

4.3 Supersymmetry
Since the bosonic solutions that we have been considering are consistent trun-
cations of D = 11 supergravity, they must also possess another conserved
quantity, the supercharge. Admittedly, since the supercharge is a Grassma-
nian (anticommuting) quantity, its value will clearly be zero for the class of
purely bosonic solutions that we have been discussing. However, the func-
tional form of the supercharge is still important, as it determines the form of
the asymptotic supersymmetry algebra. The Gauss’-law form of the super-
charge is given as an integral over the boundary of the spatial hypersurface.
For the D = 11 solutions, this surface of integration is the boundary at infinity
∂M10 of the D = 10 spatial hypersurface; the supercharge is then 27
Z
Q= Γ0bc ψc dΣ(9)b . (4.11)
∂M10

One can also rewrite this in fully Lorentz-covariant form, where dΣ(9)b =
dΣ(9)0b → dΣ(9)AB :
Z
Q= ΓABC ψC dΣ(9)AB . (4.12)
∂M10

After appropriate definitions of Poisson brackets, the D = 11 supersym-

metry algebra for the supercharge (4.11,4.12) is found to be 28

{Q, Q} = C(ΓA PA + ΓAB UAB + ΓABCDE VABCDE ) , (4.13)

where C is the charge conjugation matrix, PA is the energy-momentum 11-

vector and UAB and VABCDE are electric- and magnetic-type charges of precisely
the sorts discussed in the previous subsection. Thus, the supersymmetry al-
gebra wraps together all of the conserved Gauss’-law type quantities that we
have discussed.

21
 The positivity of the Q2 operator on the LHS of the algebra (4.13) is at
the root of the Bogomol’ny bounds 29, 23, 30
√
E ≥ (2/ ∆)U {electric} (4.14a)
√
E ≥ (2/ ∆)V {magnetic} (4.14b)

that are saturated by the p-brane solutions.

The saturation of the Bogomol’ny inequalities by the p-brane solutions
is an indication that they fit into special types of supermultiplets. All of
these bound-saturating solutions share the important property that they leave
some portion of the supersymmetry unbroken. Within the family of p-brane
solutions that we have been discussing, it turns out 30 that the ∆ values of
such “supersymmetric” p-branes are of the form ∆ = 4/N , where N is the
number of antisymmetric tensor field strengths participating in the solution
(distinct, but of the same rank). The different charge contributions to the
supersymmetry algebra occurring for different values of N (hence different ∆)
affect the Bogomol’ny bounds as shown in (4.14).
In order to see how a purely bosonic solution may leave some portion of the
supersymmetry unbroken, consider specifically again the membrane solution of
D = 11 supergravity.17 This theory 27 has just one spinor field, the gravitino ψM .
Checking for the consistency of setting ψM = 0 with the supposition of some
residual supersymmetry with parameter ǫ(x) requires solving the equation

δψA | = D̃A ǫ = 0 , (4.15)

ψ=0

where ψA = eA M ψM and
1
D̃A ǫ = DA ǫ − (ΓA BCDE − 8δA B ΓCDE ) FBCDE ǫ
288
DA ǫ = (∂A + 41 ωA BC ΓBC )ǫ . (4.16)

Solving the equation D̃A ǫ = 0 amounts to finding a Killing spinor field in the
presence of the bosonic background. Since the Killing spinor equation (4.15) is
linear in ǫ(x), the Grassmanian (anticommuting) character of this parameter
is irrelevant to the problem at hand, which thus reduces effectively to solving
(4.15) for a commuting quantity.
In order to solve the Killing spinor equation (4.15) in a p-brane background,
it is convenient to adopt an appropriate basis for the D = 11 Γ matrices. For
the d = 3 membrane background, one would like to preserve SO(2, 1) × SO(8)
covariance. An appropriate basis that does this is

ΓA = (γµ ⊗ Σ9 , 1l(2) ⊗ Σm ) , (4.17)

22
where γµ and 1l(2) are 2 × 2 SO(2, 1) matrices; Σ9 and Σm are 16 × 16 SO(8)
matrices, with Σ9 = Σ3 Σ4 . . . Σ10 , so Σ29 = 1l(16) . The most general spinor field
consistent with (Poincaré)3 × SO(8) invariance in this spinor basis is of the
form
ǫ(x, y) = ǫ2 ⊗ η(r) , (4.18)
where ǫ2 is a constant SO(2, 1) spinor and η(r) is an SO(8) spinor depending
only on the isotropic radial coordinate r; η may be further decomposed into
Σ9 eigenstates by the use of 21 (1l ± Σ9 ) projectors.
Analysis of the the Killing spinor condition (4.15) in the above spinor basis
leads to the following requirements on the background and on the spinor field
η(r):13, 17

1. The background must satisfy the conditions 3A′ + 6B ′ = 0 and C ′ eC =

3A′ e3A . The first of these conditions is, however, precisely the linearity-
condition refinement (2.14) that we made in the p-brane ansatz; the
second condition follows from the ansatz refinement (2.16) (considered
as a condition on φ′ /a) and from (2.21). Thus, what appeared previously
to be simplifying specializations in the derivation given in Section 2 turn
out in fact to be conditions required for supersymmetric solutions.

2. η(r) = e−C(r)/6 η0 , where η0 is a constant SO(8) spinor. Note that, after

imposing this requirement, at most a finite number of parameters can
remain unfixed in the product spinor ǫη0 ; i.e. the local supersymmetry of
the D = 11 theory is almost entirely broken by any particular solution.
The maximum number of rigid unbroken supersymmetry components is
achieved for D = 11 flat space, which has a full 32-component rigid
supersymmetry.

3. (1l − Σ9 )η0 = 0, so the constant SO(8) spinor η0 is also required to be

chiral.e This cuts the number of surviving parameters in the product ǫη0
by half: the total number of surviving rigid supersymmetries in ǫ(x, y)
is thus 2 · 8 = 16 (real spinor components). Since this is half of the
maximum possible number (i.e. half of that for flat space), one says that
the membrane solution “preserves half” of the supersymmetry.

Similar consideration of the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane solution 22 (3.7)

shows that it also preserves half the supersymmetry in the above sense. Half
preservation is the maximum that can be achieved short of an empty-space
e The specific chirality indicated here is correlated with the sign choice made in the ele-

mentary/electric form ansatz (2.4); one may accordingly observe from (3.1) that a D = 11
parity transformation requires a sign flip of A[3] .

23
solution, and when this happens, it corresponds to the existence of zero eigen-
values of the operator {Q, Q}. The positive semi-definiteness of this opera-
tor is the underlying principle in the derivation of the Bogomol’ny bounds
(4.14).29, 23, 30 A consequence of this positive semi-definiteness is that zero
eigenvalues correspond to solutions that saturate the Bogomol’ny inequalities
(4.14), and these solutions preserve one component of unbroken supersymme-
try for each such zero eigenvalue.

5 Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction

Let us return now to the arena of purely bosonic field theories, and consider
the relations between various bosonic-sector theories and the corresponding
relations between p-brane solutions. It is well-known that supergravity theories
are related by dimensional reduction from a set of basic theories, the largest
of which being D = 11 supergravity. The spinor sectors of the theories are
equally well related by dimensional reduction, but in the following, we shall
restrict our attention to the purely bosonic sector.
In order to set up the procedure, let us consider a theory in (D + 1)
dimensions, but break up the metric in D-dimensionally covariant pieces:

dŝ2 = e2αϕ ds2 + e2βφ (dz + AM dxM )2 (5.1)

where carets denote (D + 1)-dimensional quantities corresponding to the (D +

1)-dimensional coordinates xM̂ = (xM , z); ds2 is the line element in D di-
mensions and α and β are constants. The D-scalar ϕ emerges from (D + 1)
dimensions as (2β)−1 ln gzz . Adjustment of the constants α and β is necessary
to obtain desired structures in D dimensions. In particular, one should pick
β = −(D − 2)α in order to have the Einstein-frame form of the gravitational
action in (D + 1) dimensions go over to the Einstein-frame form of the action
in D dimensions.
The essential step in a Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction is a consistent
truncation of the field variables, generally made by choosing them to be inde-
pendent of the reduction coordinate z. By consistent truncation, we always
mean a restriction on the variables that commutes with variation of the ac-
tion to produce the field equations, i.e. a restriction such that solutions to the
equations for the restricted variables are also solutions to the equations for the
unrestricted variables. This ensures that the lower-dimensional solutions that
we shall obtain are also particular solutions to higher-dimensional supergravity
equations as well. Making the parameter choice β = −(D − 2)α to preserve

24
the Einstein-frame form of the action, one obtains
p  √ 
−ĝR ĝ) = −g(R(g)−(D−1)(D−2)α2 ∇M ϕ∇M ϕ− 14 e−2(D−1)αϕ FM N F M N
(5.2)
where F = dA. If one now chooses α2 = [2(D − 1)(D − 2)]−1 , the ϕ kinetic
term becomes conventionally normalized.
Next, one needs to establish the reduction ansatz for the (D + 1)-dimen-
sional antisymmetric tensor gauge field F̂[n] = dÂ[n−1] . Clearly, among the
n − 1 antisymmetrized indices of Â[n−1] at most one can take the value z, so
we have the decomposition

Â[n−1] = B[n−1] + B[n−2] ∧ dz . (5.3)

All of these reduced fields are to be taken to be functionally independent of z.

For the corresponding field strengths, first define

G[n] = dB[n−1] (5.4a)

G[n−1] = dB[n−2] . (5.4b)

However, these are not exactly the most convenient quantities to work with,
since a certain “Chern-Simons” structure appears upon dimensional reduction.
The metric in (D+1) dimensions couples to all fields, and, consequently, dimen-
sional reduction will produce some terms with undifferentiated Kaluza-Klein
vector fields AM coupling to D-dimensional antisymmetric tensors. Accord-
ingly, it is useful to introduce

G′[n] = G[n] − G[n−1] ∧ A , (5.5)

where the second term in (5.5) may be viewed as a Chern-Simons correction

from the reduced D-dimensional point of view.
At this stage, we are ready to perform the dimensional reduction of our
general action (2.1). We find
Z p h 1 âφ 2 i
Iˆ =: dD+1 x −ĝ R(ĝ) − 12 ∇M̂ φ∇M̂ φ − e F̂n] (5.6)
2n!
reduces to
Z
√ h
I = dD x −g R − 21 ∇M φ∇M φ − 12 ∇M ϕ∇M ϕ − 41 e−2(D−1)αϕ F[2]
2

1 −2(n−1)αϕ+α̂φ ′2 1 i
− e G[n] − e2(D−n)αϕ+âφ G2[n−1] . (5.7)
2n! 2(n − 1)!

25
Although the dimensional reduction (5.7) has produced a somewhat compli-
cated result, the important point to note is that each of the D-dimensional
antisymmetric-tensor field strength terms G′2 2
[n] and G[n−1] has an exponential
prefactor of the form ear φ̃r , where the φ̃r , r = (n, n − 1) are SO(2)-rotated
combinations of ϕ and φ. Now, keeping just one while setting to zero the other
two of the three gauge fields (A[1] , B[n−2] , Bn−1] ), but retaining at the same
time the scalar-field combination appearing in the corresponding exponential
prefactor, is a consistent truncation. Thus, any one of the three field strengths
(F[2] , G[n−1] , G′[n] ), retained alone together with its corresponding scalar-field
combination, can support p-brane solutions in D dimensions of the form that
we have been discussing.
An important point to note here is that in each of the ear φ̃ prefactors, the
coefficient ar satisfies

2dr d˜r 2(r − 1)(D − r − 1)

a2r = ∆ − =∆− (5.8)
(D − 2) (D − 2)

with the same value of ∆ as for the “parent” coupling parameter â, satisfying

2d(n) d˜(n) 2(n − 1)(D − n)

â2r = ∆ − =∆− (5.9)
((D + 1) − 2) (D − 1

in D + 1 dimensions. Thus, although the individual parameters ar are both D-

and r-dependent, the quantity ∆ is preserved under Kaluza-Klein reduction for
both of the “descendant” field-strength couplings (to G′2 2
[n] or to G[n−1] ) coming
from the original term eâφ F̂[n]
2
. The 2-form field strength F[2] = dA, on the
other hand, emerges out of the gravitational action in D + 1 dimensions; its
coupling parameter corresponds to ∆ = 4.
If one retains in the reduced theory only one of the field strengths (F[2] ,
G[n−1] , G′[n] ), together with its corresponding scalar-field combination, then
one finds oneself back in the situation described by our general action (2.1), and
then the p brane solutions obtained for the general case in Sec. 2 immediately
become applicable. Moreover, since retaining only one (field strength, scalar)
combination in this way effects a consistent truncation of the theory, solutions
to this simple truncated system are also solutions to the untruncated theory,
and indeed are also solutions to the original (D + 1)-dimensional theory, since
the Kaluza-klein dimensional reduction is also a consistent truncation.
The p-brane solutions are ideally structured for Kaluza-Klein reduction,
because they are independent of the “worldvolume” xµ coordinates. Accord-
ingly, one may let the reduction coordinate z be one of the xµ . Consequently,

26
the only thing that needs to be done to such a solution in order to reinterpret
it as a solution of the reduced system (5.7) is to perform a Weyl rescaling
on it in order to be in accordance with the form given in the Kaluza-Klein
ansatz, which was adjusted so as to maintain the Einstein-frame form of the
gravitational term in the action.
After making such a reinterpretation, elementary/solitonic p-branes in
(D + 1) dimensions give rise to elementary/solitonic (p− 1)-branes in D dimen-
sions, corresponding to the same value of ∆, as one can see from (5.8,5.9). Note
that in this process, the quantity d˜ is conserved, since both D and d reduce by
one. Reinterpretation of p brane solutions in this way, corresponding to stan-
dard Kaluza-Klein reduction on a worldvolume coordinate, proceeds diagonally
on a D versus d plot, and hence is referred to as diagonal dimensional reduc-
tion. This procedure is the analogue, for supergravity field-theory solutions,
of the procedure of double dimensional reduction 20 for p-brane worldvolume
actions, which can be taken to constitute the δ-function sources for singular
p-brane solutions, coupled in to resolve the singularities.

6 Multiple field-strength solutions

Upon Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction by repeated single steps down to D

dimensions, the bosonic sector of maximal supergravity (3.1) reduces to 30
Z
√ h ~ 2 − 1 e~a·φ~ F 2 − 1
X ~
ID = dD x −g R − 21 (∂ φ) 48 [4] 12
i 2
e~ai ·φ (F[3] )
i
X ~ ij 2
X ~bi ·φ
~
aij ·φ i 2
− 41 e (F[2] ) − 1
4 e (F[2] ) (6.1)
i<j i
X X i
~ ijk 2 ~ ij 2
− 21 e~aijk ·φ (F[1] ) − 1
2 ebij ·φ (F[1] ) + LF F A ,
i<j<k ij

where i, j = 1, . . . , 11 − D, and field strengths with multiple i, j indices may be

taken to be antisymmetric in those indices since these “internal” indices arise in
the stepwise reduction procedure, and two equal index values never occur in a
i ij ijk
multi-index sum. The “straight-backed” field strengths F[4] , F[3] , F[2] and F[1]
i
are descendants from F[4] in D = 11. The “calligraphic” field strengths F[2]
are the field strengths for Kaluza-Klein vectors like AM in (5.1) that emerge
from the higher-dimensional metric upon dimensional reduction. Once such
a Kaluza-Klein vector has appeared, subsequent dimensional reduction gives
ij
rise also to 1-form field strengths F[1] for zero-form gauge potentials Aij [0] as a
consequence of the usual one-step reduction (5.3) of a 1-form gauge potential.

27
 ~ that appear in the exponential prefactors in (6.1) form
The scalar fields φ
an (11 − D)-vector of fields that may be called “dilatonic” scalars. For each
field strength occurring in (6.1), there is a corresponding “dilaton vector” of co-
efficients determining the linear combination of the dilatonic scalars appearing
in its exponential prefactor. For the 4-, 3-, 2- and 1-form “straight-backed”
field strengths emerging from F[4] in D = 11, these coefficients are denoted
correspondingly ~a, ~ai , ~aij and ~aijk ; for the “calligraphic” field strengths cor-
responding to Kaluza-Klein vectors and zero-form gauge potentials emerging
out of the metric, these are denoted ~bi and ~bij correspondingly. Thankfully,
not all of these dilaton vectors are independent, and in fact, they may all be
expressed in terms of the 4-form and 3-form dilaton vectors ~a and ~aij :30

~aij = ~ai bi = −~ai + ~a

~bij = −~ai + ~aj . (6.2)
~aijk = ~ai + ~aj + ~ak − 2~a
Another important feature of the dilaton vectors is that they satisfy the fol-
lowing dot product relations:
2(11 − D)
~a · ~a =
D−2
2(8 − D)
~a · ~ai = (6.3)
D−2
2(6 − D)
~ai · ~aj = 2δij + .
D−2
Throughout this review, we have emphasized consistent truncations in
making simplifying restrictions of complicated systems of equations, so that
the solutions of a simplified system are nonetheless perfectly valid solutions of
the more complicated untruncated system. Once again, with the equations of
motion following from (6.1) we face a complicated system that calls for analysis
in simplified subsectors, so that we may use the solutions already found in our
general study of the action (2.1). Accordingly, we now seek a consistent trun-
cation to include just one dilatonic scalar combination φ and one rank-n field
strength combination F[n] , constructed out of a certain number N of “retained”
field strengths Fα [n] , α = 1, . . . , N , (possibly a straight-backed/calligraphic
mixture) selected from those appearing in (6.1), all the rest being set to zero.30
Thus, we let
~ = ~nφ + φ
φ ~⊥ , (6.4)
~ ⊥ = 0; in the truncation we seek to set consistently φ
where ~n · φ ~ ⊥ = 0.
Consistency for the field strengths Fα [n] requires them to be proportional.30
We shall let the dot product matrix for the retained field strengths be denoted

28
Mαβ =: ~aα · ~aβ . Consistency of the truncation requires that the φ⊥ field
equation be satisfied:
X
φ~⊥ − Π⊥ · ~aα (Fα [n] )2 = 0 , (6.5)
α

where Π⊥ is the projector into the dilaton-vector subspace orthogonal to the

~⊥ = 0 in (6.5) and letting the retained
retained dilaton direction ~n. Setting φ
Fα [n] be proportional, one sees that achieving consistency is hopeless unless
~
all the e~aα ·φ prefactors are the same, requiring
~aα · ~n = a ∀α = 1, . . . , N , (6.6)
where the constant a will play the role of the dilatonic scalar coefficient in the
reduced system (2.1). Given a set of dilaton vectors for retained field strengths
satisfying (6.6), consistency of (6.5) with setting φ ~ ⊥ = 0 requires
X
Π⊥ · ~aα (Fα [n] )2 = 0 . (6.7)
α

This
P equation2requires, for every point x in spacetime, that the combination
M

α~aα (Fα [n] ) be parallel to ~n in the dilaton-vector space. Combining this

with the requirement (6.6), one has
X X
~aα (Fα [n] )2 = a~n (Fα [n] )2 . (6.8)
α α

Taking then a dot product of this with ~aβ , one has

X X
Mβα (Fα [n] )2 = a2 (Fα [n] )2 . (6.9)
α α

Detailed analysis 30 shows it to be sufficient to consider the cases where Mαβ

−1
is invertible, so by applying Mαβ to (6.9), one finds
X X
−1
(Fα [n] )2 = a2 Mαβ (Fγ [n] )2 . (6.10)
β γ

Summing on α, one has X

−1 −1
a2 = ( Mαβ ) ; (6.11)
α,β

one then defines the retained field-strength combination F[n] so that

X
−1
(Fα [n] )2 = a2 Mαβ (F[n] )2 . (6.12)
β

29
 The only remaining requirement for consistency of the truncation to the
simplified (gM N , φ, F[n] ) system (2.1) arises from the necessity to ensure that
the variation of the LF F A term in (6.1) is not inconsistent with setting to zero
the discarded dilatonic scalars and gauge potentials. In general, this imposes
a somewhat complicated requirement. For the purposes of the present review,
however, we shall concentrate on either purely-electric solutions satisfying the
elementary ansatz (2.4) or purely-magnetic solutions satisfying the solitonic
ansatz (2.6). As one can see by inspection, for pure electric or magnetic solu-
tions of these sorts, the terms that are dangerous for consistency arising from
the variation of LF F A all vanish. Thus, for such solutions one may safely ig-
nore the complications of the LF F A term. This restriction to pure electric or
magnetic solutions does, however, leave out the very interesting cases of dyonic
solutions that exist in D = 8 and D = 4, upon which we shall comment briefly
later on.
After truncating to the system (2.1), the analysis proceeds as in Section 2.
It turns out 30 that supersymmetric p-brane solutions arise when the matrix
Mαβ for the retained Fα [n] satisfies

2dd˜
Mαβ = 4δαβ − , (6.13)
D−2
and the corresponding ∆ value for F[n] is

4
∆= , (6.14)
N
where we recall that N is the number of retained field strengths. A general-
ization of this analysis leads to a classification of solutions with more than one
independent retained scalar-field combination 30 , but to pursue that would go
beyond the focus of the present review, where we shall limit ourselves to the
“single-scalar” context.

7 Multi-center solutions and vertical dimensional reduction

As we saw above in Section 5, the translation Killing symmetries of p-brane

solutions allow a simultaneous interpretation of such solutions as belonging to
several different supergravity theories, related one to another by Kaluza-Klein
dimensional reduction. For the original single p-brane solutions (2.23), the only
available translational Killing symmetries are those in the worldvolume direc-
tions, which we exploited in describing diagonal dimensional reduction. One
may, however, generalize the basic solutions (2.23) by replacing the harmonic

30
function H(y) in (2.23c) by a different solution of the Laplace equation (2.19).
Thus, one can easily extend the family of p-brane solutions to multi-center
p-brane solutions by taking the harmonic function to be
X kα
H(y) = 1 + kα > 0 . (7.1)
α |~y − ~yα |d̃

Once again, the integration constant has been adjusted to make H | = 1 ↔

∞
φ| = 0. The generalized solution (7.1) corresponds to parallel and similarly-
∞ √
oriented p-branes, with all charges λα = 2dk ˜ α / ∆ required to be positive in
order to avoid naked singularities. The “centers” of the individual “leaves”
of this solution are at the points y = yα , where α ranges over any number of
centers. The metric and the electric-case antisymmetric tensor gauge potential
corresponding to (7.1) are given again in terms of H(y) by (2.23a,2.24). In the
solitonic case, the ansatz (2.6) needs to be modified so as to accommodate the
multi-center form of the solution:
X λα
Fm1 ...mn = −d˜−1 ǫm1 ...mn p ∂p , (7.2)
α |~y − ~yα |d̃

which ensures validity of the Bianchi identity just as well as (2.6) does. The
mass/(unit p-volume) density is now
1 X
E= √ αλα , (7.3)
2 ∆
P
while the total electric or magnetic charge is given by 14 λα , so the Bo-
gomol’ny bounds (4.14) are saturated just as they are for the single-center
solutions (2.23). Since the multi-center solutions given by (7.1) satisfy the
same supersymmetry-preservation conditions on the metric and antisymmetric
tensor as (2.23), the multi-center solutions leave the same amount of super-
symmetry unbroken as the single-center solution.
From a mathematical point of view, the multi-center solutions (7.1) exist
owing to the properties of the Laplace equation (2.19). From a physical point
of view, however, these static solutions exist as a result of cancellation between
attractive gravitational and scalar-field forces against repulsive antisymmetric-
tensor forces for the similarly-oriented p-brane “leaves.”
The multi-center solutions given by (7.1) can now be used to prepare so-
lutions adapted to dimensional reduction in the transverse directions. This
combination of modifying the solution followed by dimensional reduction on
a transverse coordinate is called vertical dimensional reduction 5 because it

31
relates solutions vertically on a D versus d plot.f In order to do this, we need
first to develop a translation invariance in the transverse reduction coordinate.
This can be done by “stacking” up identical p branes using (7.1) in a periodic
array, i.e. by letting the integration constants kα all be equal, and aligning
the “centers” yα along some axis, e.g. the ẑ axis. Singling out one “stacking
axis” in this way clearly destroys the overall isotropic symmetry of the solu-
tion, but, provided the centers are all in a line, the solution will nonetheless
remain isotropic in the D − d − 1 dimensions orthogonal to the stacking axis.
Taking the limit of a densely-packed infinite stack of this sort, one has
X Z +∞
kα kdz k̃
−→ = ˜
(7.4a)
α |~y − ~yα |d̃ −∞ (r̂2 + z 2 )d̃/2 r̃d−1
D−2
X
r̂2 = ymym (7.4b)
m=d
√
πkΓ(d˜ − 21 )
k̂ = , (7.4c)
˜
2Γ(d)

where r̂ in (7.4b) is the radial coordinate for the D − d − 1 residual isotropic

transverse coordinates. After a conformal rescaling to maintain the Einstein
frame for the solution, one can finally reduce on the coordinate z along the
stacking axis.
After stacking and reduction in this way, one obtains a p-brane solution
with the same worldvolume dimension as the original higher-dimensional so-
lution that was stacked up. Since the same antisymmetric tensors are used
here to support both the stacked and the unstacked solutions, and since ∆
is preserved under dimensional reduction, it follows that vertical dimensional
reduction from D to D − 1 spacetime dimensions preserves the value of ∆ just
like the diagonal reduction discussed in the previous section. Note that, under
vertical reduction, the worldvolume dimension d is preserved, but d˜ = D−d−2
is reduced by one with each reduction step.

f Similar procedures have been considered in a number of articles in the literature; see,
e.g. Refs.31

32
 D

4 4
11

4 4 4 4 4
10

9 2 2

6 4/3,1' 2 4/3,1'

}
elementary
5 4/3 4/3
solitonic "stainless"
1,4/5,2/3,4/7
1' 1,4/5,2/3,4/7 self-dual
4

Kaluza-Klein descendants
1/2 1/2
3
4 ∆ values

vertical reduction trajectories

2
diagonal reduction trajectories
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d
instanton particle string membrane 3-brane 4-brane 5-brane 6-brane

Figure 4: Brane-scan of supergravity p-brane solutions (p ≤ (D − 3))

33
 Combining the diagonal and vertical dimensional reduction trajectories of
“descendant” solutions, one finds the general picture given in the plot of Fig-
ure 4. In this plot of spacetime dimension D versus worldvolume dimension
d, reduction families emerge from certain basic solutions that cannot be “ox-
idized” to higher-dimensional solutions, and hence can be called “stainless”
p-branes.2 In Figure 4, these solutions are indicated by the large circles, with
the corresponding ∆ values shown adjacent. The indication of the elementary
or solitonic type of solution relates to solutions of supergravity theories in ver-
sions with the lowest possible choice of rank (n ≤ D/2) for the supporting field
strength, obtainable by appropriate dualization.

8 Beyond the (D − 3)-brane barrier: Scherk-Schwarz reduction and

domain walls

The process of vertical dimensional reduction described in the previous section

proceeds uneventfully until one makes the reduction from a (D, d = D − 3)
solution to a (D−1, d = D−3) solution.g In this step, the integral (7.4) contains
an additive divergence and needs to be renormalized. This is easily handled by
RL
putting finite limits ±L on the integral, which becomes −L dz̃(r2 + z̃ 2 )−1/2 ,
and then by subtracting a divergent term 2 ln L before taking the limit L → ∞.
Then the integral gives the expected ln r̂ harmonic function appropriate to two
transverse dimensions.
Continuing on down, one may similarly make one more step of reduction,
from the (D − 1, d = D − 3) solution obtained above, in an attempt to create
a solution with dimensions (D − 2, d = D − 3), i.e. a (D − 2)-brane, or domain
wall. In the process of vertical dimensional reduction, this step again gives
RL
rise to an additive divergence: the integral −L dz ln(y 2 + z 2 ) needs to be
renormalized by subtracting a divergent term 4L(ln L − 1). After subsequently
performing the integral, the resulting harmonic H(y) becomes linear in the one
remaining transverse coordinate.
While the above mathematical procedure of vertical dimensional reduction
to produce a (D − 2)-brane proceeds apparently without serious complication,
analyzing the physics of the situation needs some care.6 There are three things
about the reduction from a (D − 1, d = D − 3) solution (a (D − 3)-brane) to
a (D − 2, d = D − 3) solution (a (D − 2)-brane) that require special attention.
First, let us note that both the (D − 3) brane and its descendant (D − 2)-brane
have harmonic functions H(y) that blow up at infinity. For the (D − 3)-brane,
g Such solutions, with worldvolume dimension two less than the spacetime dimension, will

be referred to generally as (D − 3)-branes, irrespective of whether the spacetime dimension

is D or not.

34
however this is not in itself particularly remarkable, because, as one can see
by inspection of (2.23) for this case, the metric asymptotically tends to a
locally flat space as r → ∞, and also in this limit the dilatonic scalar φ and
antisymmetric-tensor one-form field strength

Fm = −ǫmn ∂n H (8.1)

tend asymptotically to zero. The expression (8.1) for the field strength, how-
ever, shows that the next reduction step to the (D − 2, d = D − 3) solution has
a significant new feature: in stacking up (D − 3)-branes prior to the vertical
reduction, producing a linear harmonic function in the transverse coordinate
y,
H(y) = const. + my , (8.2)
the field strength (8.1) has a constant component along the stacking axis ↔
reduction direction z,
Fz = −ǫzy ∂y H = m , (8.3)
that implies an unavoidable dependenceh of the corresponding zero-form gauge
potential on the reduction coordinate:

A[0] (x, y, z) = mz + χ(x, y) . (8.4)

From a Kaluza-Klein point of view, the unavoidable linear dependence of a

gauge potential on the reduction coordinate given in (8.4) appears to be prob-
lematic. Throughout this review, we have dealt only with consistent) Kaluza-
Klein reductions, for which solutions of the reduced theory are also solutions
of the unreduced theory. Generally, retaining any dependence on a reduction
coordinate will lead to an inconsistent truncation of the theory: attempting
to impose a z dependence of the form given in (8.4) prior to varying the La-
grangian will give a result different from that of imposing this dependence in
the field equations after variation.
Before showing how this consistency problem can sometimes be avoided,
let us consider two other facets of the problem with the vertical reduction
of (D − 3)-branes. Firstly, the asymptotic metric of a (D − 3)-brane is not
a globally flat space, but only a locally flat space. This distinction means
that there is in general a deficit solid angle at transverse infinity, which is
related to the total mass density of the (D − 3)-brane.32 This means that any
h Note that this vertical reduction from a (D − 3)-brane to a (D − 2)-brane is the first time

one is forced to accept a dependence on the reduction coordinate z; in all higher-dimensional

vertical reductions, z dependence can be removed by a gauge transformation. The zero-form
gauge potential in (8.4) does not have such a gauge symmetry, however.

35
attempt to stack up (D − 3)-branes within a standard supergravity theory will
soon consume the entire solid angle at transverse infinity, thus destroying the
asymptotic spacetime by such a construction.
The second facet of the problem with (D − 2)-branes in ordinary super-
gravity theories is simply stated: starting from the p-brane ansatz (2.3,2.6)
and searching for (D − 2) branes in ordinary massless supergravity theories,
one simply doesn’t find any such solutions.
The resolution of all these difficulties happens together, for in blindly per-
forming a Kaluza-Klein reduction with an ansatz like (8.4), one is in fact
making a departure from the set of standard massless supergravity theories.
In order to understand this, let us concentrate on the problem of consistency
of the Kaluza-Klein reduction. As we have seen, consistency of any restriction
on the field variables with respect to the equations of motion means that the
restriction may either be imposed on the field variables in the action prior to
variation to derive the equations of motion, or may be imposed on the field
variables in the equations of motion after variation, with an equal effect. In
that case, solutions obeying the restriction will also be solutions of the general
unrestricted equations of motion.
The most usual guarantee of consistency in Kaluza-Klein dimensional re-
duction is achieved by restricting the field variables to carry zero charge with
respect to some conserved current, e.g. momentum in the reduction dimen-
sion. But this is not the only way in which consistency may be achieved. In
the present case, retaining a linear dependence on the reduction coordinate
as in (8.4) clearly would produce an inconsistent truncation if the reduction
coordinate were to appear explicitly in any of the field equations. But this
does not imply that a truncation retaining some dependence on the reduction
coordinate is necessarily inconsistent just because a gauge potential contains
a term linear in that coordinate. Inconsistency of a Kaluza-Klein truncation
occurs when the original unrestricted field equations imply a condition that is
inconsistent with the reduction ansatz. If a particular gauge potential appears
in the action only through its derivative, i.e. through its field strength, then
a consistent truncation may also be achieved provided that the restriction on
the gauge field implies that the field strength is independent of the reduction
coordinate. A zero-form gauge potential on which such a reduction may be
carried out, occurring in the action only through its derivative, will be referred
to as an axion.
Requiring axionic field strengths to be independent of the reduction coor-
dinate amounts to extending the Kaluza-Klein reduction framework to allow
linear dependence of an axionic zero-form potential on the reduction coordi-
nate precisely of the form occurring in (8.4). So, provided A[0] is an axion,

36
the reduction (8.4) turns out to be consistent after all. This extension of the
Kaluza-Klein ansatz is in fact an instance of Scherk-Schwarz reduction.33, 34
The basic idea of Scherk-Schwarz reduction is to use an Abelian rigid sym-
metry of a system of equations, but then to generalize the reduction ansatz
by allowing a linear dependence on the reduction coordinate in the parameter
of this Abelian symmetry. Consistency is guaranteed by cancellations orches-
trated by this Abelian symmetry in field-equation terms where the parameter
does not get differentiated. When it does get differentiated, it contributes only
a term that is itself independent of the reduction coordinate. In the present
case, the Abelian symmetry guaranteeing consistency of (8.4) is a simple shift
symmetry A[0] → A[0] + const.
Unlike the original implementation of the Scherk-Schwarz reduction idea,33
which used an Abelian U (1) phase symmetry acting on spinors, the Abelian
shift symmetry used here commutes with supersymmetry, and hence the reduc-
tion does not spontaneously break supersymmetry. Instead, gauge symmetries
for some of the antisymmetric tensors will be broken, with a corresponding
appearance of mass terms. As with all examples of vertical dimensional re-
duction, the ∆ value corresponding to a given field strength is also preserved.
Thus, p-brane solutions related by vertical dimensional reduction, even in the
enlarged Scherk-Schwarz sense, preserve the same amount of unbroken super-
symmetry and have the same value of ∆.
It may be necessary to make several redefinitions and integrations by parts
in order to reveal the axionic property of a given zero-form, and thus to prepare
the theory for a reduction of the form (8.4). This is most easily explained by an
example, so let us consider the first possible Scherk-Schwarz reductioni in the
sequence of theories descending from (3.1), starting in D = 9 where the first
axion field appears.6 The Lagrangian for massless D = 9 maximal supergravity
is obtained by specializing the general dimensionally-reduced action (6.1) given
in Section 2 to this case:
√ h 3
φ1 + √ φ2 ~
L9 = −g R − 21 (∂φ1 )2 − 21 (∂φ2 )2 − 12 e 7 (∂χ)2 − 1 e~
48
a·φ
(F[4] )2
~ (1) ~ (2) ~ (12) ~ ~ (1)
− 21 e~a1 ·φ (F[3] )2 − 21 e~a2 ·φ (F[3] )2 − 41 e~a12 ·φ (F[2] )2 − 14 eb1 ·φ (F[2] )2
i
~ ~ (2) (12) (1) (2)
− 41 eb2 ·φ (F[2] )2 − 21 F̃[4] ∧ F̃[4] ∧ A[1] − F̃[3] ∧ F̃[3] ∧ A[3] , (8.5)

(12) ~ = (φ1 , φ2 ).
where χ = A[0] and φ
i A higher-dimensional Scherk-Schwarz reduction is possible 34 starting from type IIB

supergravity in D = 10, using the axion appearing in the SL(2, IR)/SO(2) scalar sector of
that theory.

37
 ~ χ) of (8.5), the dilaton coupling has been made
Within the scalar sector (φ,
explicit; in the rest of the Lagrangian, the dilaton vectors have the general
structure given in (6.2,6.4). The scalar sector of (8.5) forms a nonlinear σ-
model for the manifold GL(2, IR)/SO(2). This already makes it appear that one
may identify χ as an axion available for Scherk-Schwarz reduction. However,
account must still be taken of the Chern-Simons structure lurking inside the
field strengths in (8.5). In detail, the field strengths are given by

(1) (1) (2) (2)

F[4] = F̃[4] − F̃[3] ∧ A[1] − F̃[3] ∧ A[1]
(1) (2) (12) (1) (2)
+χF̃[3] ∧ A[1] − F̃[2] ∧ A[1] ∧ A[1] (8.6a)
(1) (1) (12) (2)
F[3] = F̃[3] − F̃[2] ∧ A[1] (8.6b)
(2) (2) (12) (1) (1)
F[3] = F̃[3] + F[2] ∧ A[1] − χF̃[3] (8.6c)
(12) (12) (1) (1) (2)
F[2] = F̃[2] F[2] = F[2] − dχ ∧ A[1] (8.6d)
(2) (2) (12)
F[2] = F̃[2] F[1] = dχ , (8.6e)

where the field strengths carrying tildes are the naı̈ve expressions without
Chern-Simons corrections, i.e. F̃n] = dA[n−1] . Now the appearance of undiffer-
entiated χ factors in (8.6a,c) makes it appear that Scherk-Schwarz reduction
would be inconsistent. However, one may eliminate these undifferentiated fac-
tors by making the field redefinition
(2) (2) (1)
A[2] −→ A[2] + χA[2] , (8.7)

after which the field strengths (8.6a,c) become

(1) (1) (2) (2)

F[4] = F̃[4] − F̃[3] ∧ A[1] − F̃[3] ∧ A[1]
(1) (2) (12) (1) (2)
−dχ ∧ A[2] ∧ A[1] − F̃[2] ∧ A[1] ∧ A[1] (8.8a)
(2) (2) (12) (1) (1)
F[3] = F̃[3] + F[2] ∧ A[1] + dχ ∧ A[2] , (8.8c)

the rest of (8.6) remaining unchanged.

(12)
After making the field redefinitions (8.7), the axion field χ = A[0] is ready
for application of the Scherk-Schwarz reduction ansatz (8.4). The coefficient
of the term linear in the reduction coordinate z has been denoted m because it
carries the dimensions of mass, and correspondingly its effect on the reduced
action is to cause the appearance of mass terms. Applying (8.4) to the D = 9

38
Lagrangian, one obtains the D = 8 reduced Lagrangian 6

L8 ss =
√ h ~ ~ (3)
−g R − 12 (∂φ1 )2 − 21 (∂φ2 )2 − 12 (∂φ3 )2 − 12 eb12 ·φ (∂χ − mA[1] )2
~ ~ (13) (2) ~ ~ (23) ~ (123) 2
− 21 eb13 ·φ (∂A[0] + mA[1] )2 − 12 eb23 ·φ (∂A[0] )2 − 12 e~a123 ·φ (∂A[0] )
1 ~ ~ (1) (2) (3) ~ (1)
− 48 ea·φ (F[4] − mA[2] ∧ A[1] ∧ A[1] )2 − 1 ~
12 e
a1 ·φ
(F[3] )2
1 ~ ~ (2) (1) (3) ~ (3) (1) (2)
− 12 ea2 ·φ (F[3] + mA[2] ∧ A[1] )2 − 1 ~
12 e
a3 ·φ
(F[3] + mA[2] ∧ A[1] )2
~ (12) ~ (13) ~ (23) (1)
− 41 e~a12 ·φ (F[2] )2 − 41 e~a13 ·φ (F[2] )2 − 14 e~a23 ·φ (F[2] + mA[2] )2
~ ~ (1) (2) (3) ~ ~ (2) ~ ~ (3)
− 41 eb1 ·φ (F[2] − mA[1] ∧ A[1] )2 − 41 eb2 ·φ (F[2] )2 − 41 eb3 ·φ (F[2] )2
i
~ ~
− 21 m2 eb123 ·φ + LF F A , (8.9)

where the dilaton vectors are now those appropriate for D = 8. It is apparent
(3) (2) (1)
from (8.9) that the fields A[1] , A[1] and A[2] have now become massive, ab-
(13) (23)
sorbing in the process χ, A[0] and A[1] . Specifically, these fields are absorbed
by making the following gauge transformations:

(3) 1 (3)
A[1] −→ A[1] + dχ
m
(2) (2) 1 (13)
A[1] −→ A[1] − dA[0] (8.10)
m
(1) (1) 1 (23)
A[2] −→ A[2] − dA[1] .
m
(3)
Note that A[1] is the Kaluza-Klein vector field corresponding to this D =
9 → D = 8 reduction, and that in becoming massive it consumes the axion
χ on which the Scherk-Schwarz reduction was performed; this is a general
feature of such reductions. Furthermore, the appearance of the derivative of
the reduction axion in Chern-Simons corrections to other field strengths gives
(2)
rise to further spontaneous breakings, in this case giving masses to A[1] and
(1)
A[2] .
As one descends through the available spacetime dimensions for super-
gravity theories, the number of axionic scalars available for a Scherk-Schwarz
reduction step increases. The numbers of axions are given in the following
table:

39
 Table 1: Supergravity axions versus spacetime dimension.

D 9 8 7 6 5 4
Naxions 1 4 10 20 36 63

Each of these axions gives rise to a distinct massive supergravity theory

upon Scherk-Schwarz reduction,6 and each of these reduced theories has its own
pattern of mass generation. In addition, once a Scherk-Schwarz reduction step
has been performed, the resulting theory can be further reduced using ordinary
Kaluza-Klein reduction. Moreover, the Scherk-Schwarz and ordinary Kaluza-
Klein processes do not commute, so the number of theories obtained by the
various combinations of Scherk-Schwarz and ordinary dimensional reduction is
cumulative. In addition, there are numerous possibilities of performing Scherk-
Schwarz reduction simultaneously on a number of axions. As one can see
from the D = 9 example, field redefinitions like (8.7) need to be made in
order to cover axions with derivatives prior to Scherk-Schwarz reduction, and
these redefinitions need to be consistent if one is to perform such reduction
on multiple axions. The set of axions that can be simultaneously covered
by derivatives always includes the full set of Ramond-Ramond (R-R) sector
(1a) (abc)
axions, i.e. those of the forms A[0] or A[0] , a, b = 2, . . . , 11 − D, which
are 29−D in number. There are additional possibilities involving NS-NS sector
axions; for example, in D = 8, three out of the four axions shown in Table 1
may be simultaneously covered by derivatives: the two R-R axions plus one
NS-NS axion. For further details on this panoply of Scherk-Schwarz reduction
possibilities, we refer the reader to Ref.6
For our present purposes, the important feature of theories obtained by
Scherk-Schwarz reduction is the appearance of cosmological potential terms
such as the penultimate term in Eq. (8.9). Such terms may be considered
within the context of our simplified action (2.1) by letting the rank n of the
field strength take the value zero. Accordingly, by consistent truncation of
(8.9) or of one of the many theories obtained by Scherk-Schwarz reduction in
lower dimensions, one may arrive at the simple Lagrangian
√ h i
L = −g R − 12 ∇M φ∇M φ − 12 m2 eaφ . (8.11)

Since the rank of the form here is n = 0, the elementary/electric type of solution
would have worldvolume dimension d = −1, which is not very sensible, but
the solitonic/magnetic solution has d˜ = D − 1, corresponding to a p = D − 2
brane, or domain wall, as expected. Relating the parameter a in (8.11) to the

40
reduction-invariant parameter ∆ by the standard formula (2.17) gives ∆ =
a2 − 2(D − 1)/(D − 2); taking the corresponding p = D − 2 brane solution from
(2.23), one findsj
4 4(D−1)
ds2 = H ∆(D−2) ηµν dxµ dxν + H ∆(D−2) dy 2 (8.12a)
φ 2a/∆
e = H , (8.12b)

where the harmonic function H(y) is now a linear function of the single trans-
verse coordinate, in accordance with (8.2). The curvature of the metric (8.12a)
tends to zero at large values of |y|, but it diverges if H tends to zero. This
latter singularity can be avoided by taking H to be

H = const. + M |y| (8.13)

√
where M = 12 m ∆. With the choice (8.13), there is just a delta-function
singularity at the location of the domain wall at y = 0, corresponding to the
discontinuity in the gradient of H.
The domain-wall solution (8.12,8.13) has the peculiarity of tending asymp-
totically to flat space as |y| → ∞, within a theory that does not itself admit
flat space as a vacuum solution. In fact, the theory (8.11) does not even admit
a maximally-symmetric solution, owing to the complication of the cosmological
potential. The domain-wall solution (8.12,8.13), however, manages to “cancel”
this potential at transverse infinity, allowing at least asymptotic flatness for
this solution. This brings us back to the other facets of the consistency problem
for vertical dimensional reduction to produce (D − 2)-branes as discussed at
the beginning of this section. There is no inconsistency between the existence
of domain-wall solutions like (8.12,8.13) and the inability to find such solutions
in standard supergravity theories, or with the conical spacetime character of
(D − 3)-branes because the domain walls exist in a quite different context of
massive supergravity theories like (8.9) with a vacuum structure different from
that of standard massless supergravities.

9 Duality symmetries and the classification of p-branes

9.1 Supergravity duality symmetries

As one can see from our discussion of Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction in
Section 5, progression down to lower dimensions D causes the number of dila-
~ and also the number of zero-form potentials of 1-form field
tonic scalars φ
j Domain walls solutions such as (8.12) in supergravity theories were found for the D = 4
case in Ref.35 and a recent review of them has been given in Ref.36

41
strengths to proliferate. When one reaches D = 4, for example, a total of 70
such spin-zero fields has accumulated. In D = 4, the maximal (N = 8) su-
pergravity equations of motion have a linearly-realized H = SU(8) symmetry;
this is also the automorphism symmetry of the D = 4, N = 8 supersymmetry
algebra relevant to the (self-conjugate) supergravity multiplet. In formulating
this symmetry, it is necessary to consider complex self-dual and anti-self-dual
combinations of the 2-form field strengths, which are the highest-rank field
strengths in D = 4, higher ranks having been eliminated by the reduction or
by dualization. Using two-component notation for the D = 4 spinors, these
[ij]
combinations transform as Fαβ and F̄α̇β̇ [ij] , i, j = 1, . . . , 8, i.e. as a complex
28-dimensional dimensional representation of SU(8). Since this complex repre-
sentation can be carried only by the complex field-strength combinations and
not by the 1-form gauge potentials, it cannot be locally formulated at the level
of the gauge potentials or of the action, where only an SO(8) symmetry is
apparent.
Taking all the spin-zero fields together, one finds that they form a rather
impressive nonlinear σ-model on a 70-dimensional manifold. Anticipating that
this manifold must be a coset space with H = SU(8) as the linearly-realized
denominator group, Cremmer and Julia 37 deduced that it had to be the man-
ifold E7(+7)/SU(8); since the dimension of E7 is 133 and that of SU(8) is 63,
this gives a 70-dimensional manifold. Correspondingly, a nonlinearly-realized
E7(+7) symmetry also appears as an invariance of the D = 4, N = 8 maximal
supergravity equations of motion. Such nonlinearly-realized symmetries of su-
pergravity theories have always had a somewhat mysterious character. They
arise in part out of general covariance in the higher dimensions, from which
supergravities arise by dimensional reduction, but this is not enough: such
symmetries act transitively on the σ-model manifolds, mixing fields arising
both from the metric and from the reduction of the D = 11 3-form potential
A[3] in (3.1).
In dimensions 4 ≤ D ≤ 9, maximal supergravity has the sets of σ-model
nonlinear G and linear H symmetries shown in Table 2. In all cases, the spin-
zero fields take their values in “target” manifolds G/H . Just as the asymptotic
value at infinity of the metric defines the reference, or “vacuum” spacetime with
respect to which integrated charges and energy/momentum are defined, so do
the asymptotic values of the spin-zero fields define the “scalar vacuum.” These
asymptotic values are referred to as the moduli of the solution. In string theory,
these moduli acquire interpretations as the coupling constants and vacuum θ-
angles of the theory. Once these are determined for a given “vacuum,” the
classification symmetry that organizes the distinct solutions of the theory into
families with the same energy must be a subgroup of the little group, or isotropy

42
group, of the vacuum. In ordinary General Relativity with asymptotically flat
spacetimes, the analogous group is the spacetime Poincaré group times the
appropriate classifying symmetry for internal symmetries, such as the group
of rigid (i.e. constant-parameter) Yang-Mills gauge transformations.
The isotropy group of any point on a coset manifold G/H is just H, so
this is the classical “internal” classifying symmetry for supergravity.

Table 2: Supergravity σ-model symmetries.

D G H
9 GL(2, IR) SO(2)
8 SL(3, IR) × SL(2, IR) SO(3) × SO(2)
7 SL(5, IR) SO(5)
6 SO(5, 5) SO(5) × SO(5)
5 E6(+6) USP(8)
4 E7(+7) SU(8)

9.2 An example of duality symmetry: D = 8 supergravity

In maximal D = 8 supergravity, one sees from Table 2 that G = SL(3, IR) ×

SL(2, IR) and the isotropy group is H = SO(3) × SO(2). We have an (11 −
ijk ij
3 = 8) vector of dilatonic scalars as well as a singlet F[1] and a triplet F[1]
(i, j, k = 1, 2, 3) of 1-form field strengths for zero-form potentials. Taken all
together, we have a manifold of dimension 7, which fits in precisely with the
dimension of the (SL(3, IR) × SL(2, IR))/(SO(3) × SO(2)) coset-space manifold:
8 + 3 − (3 + 1) = 7.
Owing to the direct-product structure, we may for the time being eliminate
the 5-dimensional SL(3, IR)/SO(3) sector and consider for simplicity just the
2-dimensional SL(2, IR)/SO(2) sector. Here is the relevant part of the action:38
Z
SL(2) √ h
I8 = d8 x −g R − 21 ∇M σ∇M σ − 12 e−2σ ∇M χ∇M χ
1 σ 1 i
− e (F[4] )2 − χF[4] ∗ F[4] (9.1)
2 · 4! 2 · 4!
√
where ∗ F M N P Q = 1/(4! −g)ǫM N P Qx1 x2 x3 x4 Fx1 x2 x3 x4 (the ǫ[8] is a density, so
purely numerical).

43
 On the scalar fields (σ, χ), the SL(2, IR) symmetry acts as follows: let
λ = χ + ieσ ; then
 
a b
Λ= (9.2)
c d
with ab−cd = 1 is an element of SL(2, IR) and acts on λ by the fractional-linear
transformation
aλ + b
λ −→ . (9.3)
cλ + d
The action of the SL(2, IR) symmetry on the 4-form field strength gives us
an example of a symmetry of the equations of motion that is not a symmetry
of the action. The field strength F[4] forms an SL(2, IR) doublet together with

G[4] = eσ ∗ F[4] − χF[4] , (9.4)

i.e.,
   
F[4] F[4]
−→ (ΛT )−1 . (9.5)
G[4] G[4]
One may check that these transform the F[4] field equation

∇M (eσ F M N P Q + χ∗ F M N P Q ) = 0 (9.6)

into the corresponding Bianchi identity,

∇M ∗ F M N P Q = 0 . (9.7)

Since the field equations may be expressed purely in terms of F[4] , we have
a genuine symmetry of the field equations in the transformation (9.5), but
since this transformation cannot be expressed locally in terms of the gauge
potential A[3] , this is not a local symmetry of the action. The transformation
(9.3,9.5) is a D = 8 analogue of an ordinary Maxwell duality transformation
in the presence of scalar fields. Accordingly, we shall refer to the supergravity
σ-model symmetries generally as duality symmetries.
The F[4] field strength of the D = 8 theory supports elementary/electric
p-brane solutions with p = 4 − 2 = 2, i.e. membranes, which have a d = 3
dimensional worldvolume. The corresponding solitonic/magnetic solutions in
D = 8 have worldvolume dimension d˜ = 8 − 3 − 2 = 3 also. So in this case, F[4]
supports both electric and magnetic membranes. It is also possible in this case
to have solutions generalizing the purely electric or magnetic solutions that
we have considered to solutions that carry both types of charge, i.e. dyons.38

44
This possibility is also reflected in the combined Bogomol’ny bound for this
situation, which generalizes the single-charge bounds (4.14):

E 2 ≥ e−σ∞ (U + χ∞ V )2 + eσ∞ V 2 , (9.8)

where U and V are the electric and magnetic charges and σ∞ and χ∞ are the
moduli, i.e. the constant asymptotic values of the scalar fields σ(x) and χ(x).k
The bound (9.8) is itself SL(2, IR) invariant, provided that one transforms in
general the moduli (σ∞ , χ∞ ) (according to (9.3)) as well as the charges (U, V ).
For the simple case with σ∞ = χ∞ = 0 that we have mainly considered, the
bound (9.8) reduces to E 2 ≥ U 2 + V 2 , which is invariant under an obvious
isotropy group H = SO(2).

9.3 Charge quantization

So far, we have discussed the structure of p-brane solutions at a purely classical
level. At this level, a given supergravity theory can have a continuous spectrum
of electrically and magnetically charged solutions with respect to any one of
the n-form field strengths that can support such solutions. At the quantum
level, however, an important restriction on this spectrum of solutions enters
into force. The Dirac-Schwinger-Zwanziger (DSZ) quantization conditions for
particles with electric or magnetic charges or for the charges of dyonic particles
generalize to p-branes as well.39 For the simplest case of vanishing moduli, e.g.
σ∞ = χ∞ = 0 for our D = 8 example, and after suitable normalization,l the
electric and magnetic charge density numbers (q, p) with respect to a given
field strength F[n] are required to satisfy the relation

(qp′ − q ′ p) ∈ ZZ , (9.9)

where (q, p) and (q ′ , p′ ) are the charge density numbers of any two solutions
in the spectrum. If, in addition, one assumes the existence of a singly-charged
purely electric solution with charge density numbers (1, 0), then the allowed
charge density numbers are constrained to lie on an integer charge lattice:
q, p ∈ ZZ.
The quantum-level restriction of allowed charges to a charge lattice has an
impact on the allowed symmetry transformations, since electric and magnetic
charges are acted upon by supergravity duality symmetries; c.f. (9.5). For the
simple case of vanishing scalar moduli, this restricts the transformations to
k In comparing (9.8) to the single-charge bounds (4.14), one should take note that for F[4]
√
in (9.1) we have ∆ = 4, so 2/ ∆ = 1. R R
l For the case at hand,38 one has q = 1 G, p = Ω1 F.
Ω4 ∂M5T 4 ∂M5T

45
those respecting an integer charge lattice. In the D = 8 example, this restricts
the allowed SL(2, IR) matrices to be integer-valued, thus restricting SL(2, IR)
to SL(2, ZZ). In the general case, the supergravity duality group (σ-model
symmetry group) G given in Table 2 is restricted to G(ZZ) in an analogous
fashion. In the case of the Cremmer-Julia duality groups in lower dimensions,
there is an appropriate definition 40 of discretized duality groups like E7(+7) (ZZ)
as the set of SP(56, ZZ) matrices that preserve the E7 quadratic invariant.

9.4 Counting p-branes

As we have seen at the classical level, the classifying symmetry for solutions
in a given scalar vacuum, specified by the values of the scalar moduli, is the
linearly-realized isotropy symmetry H given in Table 2. When one takes into
account the DSZ quantization condition, this classifying symmetry also be-
comes restricted to a discrete group, which clearly must be a subgroup of the
corresponding G(ZZ), so in general one seeks to identify the group G(ZZ) ∩ H.
The value of this intersection is modulus-dependent, showing that the homo-
geneity of the G/H coset space is broken at the quantum level by the quan-
tization condition. Classically, of course, the particular point on the vacuum
manifold G/H corresponding to the scalar moduli can be changed by applica-
tion of a transitively-acting G transformation, for example with group element
g. Correspondingly, the isotropy subgroup H moves by conjugation with g,

H −→ gHg −1 . (9.10)

The discretized duality group G(ZZ) also moves by conjugation, but in the
opposite way,
G(ZZ) −→ g −1 G(ZZ)g , (9.11)
so the intersection G(ZZ) ∩ H takes different values depending on the moduli.
For comparison, in ordinary Maxwell theory, one only has a true duality sym-
metry when the electric charge takes the value unity (in appropriate units),
since the duality transformation maps e → e−1 . Thus, the value e = 1 is a
distinguished value.
The distinguished point on the scalar vacuum manifold for general super-
gravity theories is the one where all scalar moduli vanish. This is the point
where G(ZZ) ∩ H takes its maximal value. Let us return to our D = 8 example
to identify what this group is. In that case, for the scalars (σ, χ), we may write
out the transformation in detail using (9.3):

e−σ −→ (d + cχ)2 e−σ + c2 eσ

−σ
χe −→ (d + cχ)(b + aχ)e−σ + aceσ . (9.12)

46
Requiring a, b, c, d ∈ ZZ and also that the point σ∞ = χ∞ = 0 be left invariant,
we find only two transformations: the identity and a = d = 0, b = −1, c = 1,
which maps
e−σ −→ eσ + χ2 e−σ
χe−σ −→ −χe−σ . (9.13)
Thus, for our truncated system, we find just an S2 discrete symmetry as the
quantum isotropy subgroup of SL(2, ZZ) at the distinguished point on the vac-
uum manifold. This S2 is the natural analogue of the S2 symmetry that
appears in Maxwell theory when e = 1.
In order to aid in identifying the pattern behind the above D = 8 example,
suppose that the zero-form gauge potential χ is small, and consider the S2
transformation to lowest order in χ. To this order, the transformation just
flips the signs of σ and χ. Acting on the field strengths (F[4] , G[4] ), one finds
(F[4] , G[4] ) −→ (−G[4] , F[4] ) . (9.14)
One may again check (in fact to all orders, not just to lowest order in χ) that
(9.14) maps the field equation for F[4] into the corresponding Bianchi identity:
∇M (eσ F M N P Q + χ∗ F M N P Q ) −→ −∇M ∗ F M N P Q . (9.15)
Considering the S2 transformation to lowest order in the zero-form χ has the
advantage that the sign-flip of φ may be “impressed” upon the ~a dilaton vector
for F[4] : ~a → −~a. The general structure of such G(ZZ) ∩ H transformations
will be found by considering the impressed action of this group on the dilaton
vectors.
Now consider the SL(3, IR)/SO(3) sector of the D = 8 scalar manifold,
again with the moduli set to the distinguished point on the σ-model manifold.
To lowest order in zero-form gauge potentials, the action of SL(3, ZZ) ∩ H may
similarly by impressed upon the 3-form dilaton vectors, causing in this case a
permutation of the ~ai , generating for the D = 8 case overall the discrete group
S3 × S2 . Now that we have a bit more structure to contemplate, we can notice
that the G(ZZ) ∩ H transformations leave the (~a, ~ai ) dot products invariant.4
The invariance of the dilaton vectors’ dot products prompts one to return
to the algebra (6.4) of these dot products and see what else we may recognize
in it. Noting that the duality groups given in Table 2 for the higher dimen-
sions D involve SL(N, IR) groups, we recall that the weight vectors ~hi of the
fundamental representation of SL(N, IR) satisfy
N
X
~hi · ~hj = δij − 1 , ~hi = 0 . (9.16)
N i=1

47
 ±1
These relations are precisely those satisfied by √ 2
~a and √12 ~ai , corresponding
to the cases N = 2 and N = 3. This suggests that the action of the maximal
G(ZZ) ∩ H group (i.e. that for scalar moduli set to the distinguished point on
the σ-model manifold) may be identified in general with the symmetry group
of the set of fundamental weights for the corresponding supergravity duality
group G as given in Table 2. The symmetry group of the fundamental weights
is the Weyl group 4 of G, so the action of the maximal G(ZZ) ∩ H p-brane
classifying symmetry becomes identified with that of the Weyl group of G.
As one proceeds through the lower-dimensional cases, where the super-
gravity symmetry groups shown in Table 2 grow in complexity, the above
pattern persists:4 in all cases, the action of the maximal classifying symmetry
G(ZZ) ∩ H may be identified with the Weyl group of G. This is then the group
that counts the distinct p-brane solutionsm of a given mass density (4.1), sub-
ject to the DSZ quantization condition and referred to the distinguished point
on the manifold of scalar moduli. For example, in D = 7, where from Table
2 one sees that G = SL(5, IR) and H = SO(5), one finds that the action of
G(ZZ) ∩ H is equivalent to that of the discrete group S5 , which is the Weyl
group of SL(5, IR). In the lower-dimensional cases shown in Table 2, the dis-
crete group G(ZZ) ∩ H becomes less familiar, and is most simply described as
the Weyl group of G.

Table 3: Examples of p-brane Weyl-group multiplicities

D
F[n] ∆ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
F[4] 4 1 1 2
F[3] 4 1 2 3 5 10
4 1 1+2 6 10 16 27 56
F[2] 2 2 6 15 40 135 756
4/3 45 2520
4 2 8 20 40 72 126
F[1] 2 12 60 280 1080 3780
4/3 480 4320 30240+2520

From the above analysis of the Weyl-group duality multiplets, one may
tabulate 4 the multiplicities of p-branes residing at each point of the plot given
in Figure 4. For supersymmetric p-branes arising from a set of N participat-
m Of course, these solutions must also fall into supermultiplets with respect to the unbroken
supersymmetry; the corresponding supermultiplet structures have been discussed in Ref.41

48
ing field strengths F[n] , corresponding to ∆ = 4/N for the dilatonic scalar
coupling, one finds the multiplicities shown in Table 3. By combining these
duality multiplets together with the diagonal and vertical dimensional reduc-
tion families discussed in Sections 5 and 7, the full set of p ≤ (D − 3) branes
shown in Figure 4 becomes “welded” together into one overall symmetrical
structure.

10 Concluding remarks

In this review, we have focused on the basic structure of p-brane solutions to

supergravity theories. Many aspects of this story invite further elaboration.
For simplicity, we have concentrated on solutions involving just one indepen-
dent dilatonic-scalar combination corresponding to the decomposition (6.4);
this can, however, be generalized to multi-scalar solutions as shown in Ref.42
We have also concentrated on fully-isotropic solutions to the transverse-space
Laplace equation (2.19); these may be interpreted as single p-brane hyperplanes
embedded into the ambient D-dimensional spacetime. This construction also
can be generalized, by allowing the harmonic function H(y) to have less than
full isotropicity, giving “intersecting p-brane” solutions 43 for which the sep-
aration into “worldvolume” and “transverse” directions varies as one moves
about at infinity, with only a subset of these directions being “overall world-
volume” or “overall transverse,” the rest having a “relative” worldvolume or
transverse character. Another aspect of the p-brane story that we have not
covered here is the sense in which ∆ = 4/N solutions for N ≥ 2 may be con-
sidered to be “bound states” of ∆ = 4 solutions at threshold, i.e. with zero
binding energy.44, 41 A further generalization of this story is to multiple p-brane
solutions linked by branes of lesser dimensionality,45 a construction which has
been termed “brane surgery.”
At the classical level that we have confined ourselves to in this review,
the singularity structures of p-brane supergravity solutions vary significantly
as one moves around the brane-scan of Figure 4. Solutions involving scalar
fields are singular at the horizon; extremal solutions without scalars can be
continued inside the horizon, either yielding an overall non-singular spacetime
such as the D = 11 five-brane shown in Figure 3, or leading to timelike inte-
rior singularities such as that for the D = 11 membrane shown in Figure 1.
The fact that all of the non-extremal “black-brane” solutions for p ≥ 1 are
singular at their inner horizons makes a curious contrast with the non-singular
horizons of the extremal cases. Clearly, much remains to be understood about
this subject, which may shed further light on the sense in which the extremal
BPS p-branes may be considered to be fundamental excitations of the under-

49
lying quantum theory, an interpretation that would not seem appropriate for
the non-extremal cases. If the analogy to the standard Reissner-Nordstrom
solution is instructive, it would appear that most of the details of a solution
inside the horizon would not have an effect visible in the exterior solution; this
may be expected to be encoded in generalizations of the standard “no-hair”
theorems for black holes.
When there are timelike singularities in p-brane solutions, one is clearly
invited to try to couple in a source. In the present review, we have not en-
gaged in this discussion for reasons of simplicity, but, of course, a considerable
amount is known about the structure of such p-brane worldvolume actions.8, 9
The worldvolume actions have been known for some time for those p-branes
supported by NS-NS sector field strengths with ∆ = 4; these constructions
follow the pattern of the original D = 11 supermembrane action.19 The main
difficulty is to square the p-brane’s partial supersymmetry breaking with the
original full supersymmetry and Lorentz symmetry of its parent supergrav-
ity theory, by the construction of a “κ-symmetric” worldvolume action. The
κ symmetry achieves an embedding of a partially-nonlinear realisation of su-
persymmetry into a fully-linear realisation, by the introduction of redundant
fermionic gauge degrees of freedom. There is currently much effort being de-
voted to finding κ-symmetric worldvolume actions for the remaining unsolved
cases involving R-R sector antisymmetric-tensor fields.46
Of course, the real fascination of this whole subject lies in its connection
to emerging understandings in string theory/quantum gravity, and in the pos-
sibility of determining some of the structure of that theory by knowledge of
its fundamental/solitonic state spectrum, perhaps via an “inverse scattering”
analogy to methods that have been very powerful in the study of integrable
models.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge helpful conversations with Marcus Bre-
mer, François Englert, Hong Lü, George Papadopoulos, Chris Pope, Paul
Townsend, Walter Troost and Antoine Van Proeyen. The author would like to
thank the Institute for Theoretical Physics at K.U. Leuven, the I.C.T.P. and
S.I.S.S.A. in Trieste, and the Yukawa Institute of the University of Kyoto for
hospitality at various times during the preparation of this review. This work
was supported in part by the Commission of the European Communities under
contracts SCI*-CT92-0789 and ERBFMRX-CT96-0045.

50
References

[1] P.S. Howe and K.S. Stelle, “The Ultraviolet Properties of

Supersymmetric Field Theories,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4, 1871 (1989).
[2] H. Lü, C.N. Pope, E. Sezgin and K.S. Stelle, “Stainless Super
p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 456, 669 (1996).
[3] H. Lü, C.N. Pope, E. Sezgin and K.S. Stelle, “Dilatonic p-brane
solitons,” Nucl. Phys. B 371, 46 (1996).
[4] H. Lü, C.N. Pope and K.S. Stelle, “Weyl Group Invariance and p-brane
Multiplets,” Nucl. Phys. B 476, 89 (1996).
[5] H. Lü, C.N. Pope and K.S. Stelle, “Vertical Versus Diagonal
Dimensional Reduction for p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 481, 313 (1996).
[6] P.M. Cowdall, H. Lü, C.N. Pope, K.S. Stelle and P.K. Townsend,
“Domain Walls in Massive Supergravities,” preprint hep-th/9608173.
[7] P.K. Townsend, in Recent Problems in Mathematical Physics, Proc.
13th GIFT Seminar on Theoretical Physics, Salamanca, Spain, 15-27
June, 1992.
[8] M.J. Duff, R.R. Khuri and J.X. Lu, “String solitons,” preprint
hep-th/9412184;
[9] M.J. Duff, “Supermembranes,” preprint hep-th/9611203.
[10] J. Polchinski, “Tasi Lectures on D-branes,” preprint hep-th/9611050.
[11] E.S. Fradkin and A.A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B 158, 316 (1985); Nucl.
Phys. B 261, 1 (1985).
[12] C. Callan, D. Friedan, E. Martinec and M. Perry, Nucl. Phys. B 262,
593 (1985).
[13] A. Dabholkar, G. Gibbons, J.A. Harvey and F. Ruiz Ruiz,
“Superstrings and Solitons,” Nucl. Phys. B 340, 33 (1990).
[14] I.C. Campbell and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 243, 112 (1984);
F. Giani and M. Pernici, Phys. Rev. D 30, 325 (1984);
M. Huq and M.A. Namazie, Class. Quantum Grav. 2, 293 (1985); ibid.
2, 597 (1985).
[15] M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 122, 143 (1983);
J.H. Schwarz and P.C. West, Phys. Lett. B 126, 301 (1983);
J.H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 269 (1983);
P.S. Howe and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 181 (1984).
[16] C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W.H.
Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1973), Box 14.5.
[17] M.J. Duff and K.S. Stelle, “Multi-membrane solutions of D = 11
Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B 253, 113 (1991).

51
[18] G.W. Gibbons and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3754 (1993);
M.J. Duff, G.W. Gibbons and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 332, 321
(1994).
[19] E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 189, 75
(1987).
[20] M.J. Duff, P.S. Howe, T. Inami and K.S. Stelle, “Superstrings in
D = 10 from Supermembranes in D = 11,” Phys. Lett. B 191, 70
(1987).
[21] S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, The Large-Scale Structure of
Space-Time, (Cambridge University Press, 1973).
[22] R. Güven, Phys. Lett. B 276, 49 (1992); Phys. Lett. B 277, 1988 (.)
[23] G.W. Gibbons, G.T. Horowitz and P.K. Townsend, Class. Quantum
Grav. 12, 297 (1995).
[24] G. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 197 (1991);
M.J. Duff and J.X. Lu, Nucl. Phys. B 416, 301 (1994).
[25] M.J. Duff, H. Lü and C.N. Pope, “The Black Branes of M -theory,”
preprint hep-th 9604052.
[26] D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2976 (1983).
[27] E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. B 76, 409 (1978).
[28] J.A. de Azcarraga, J.P. Gauntlett, J.M. Izquierdo and P.K. Townsend,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2443 (1989).
[29] G.W. Gibbons and C.M. Hull, Phys. Lett. B 109, 190 (1982).
[30] H. Lü and C.N. Pope, “An approach to the classification of p-brane
solitons,” preprint hep-th/9601089.
[31] R. Khuri, Nucl. Phys. B 387, 315 (1992);
J.P. Gauntlett, J.A. Harvey and J.T. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B 409, 363
(1993).
[32] B.R. Greene, A. Shapere, C. Vafa and S-T. Yau, Nucl. Phys. B 337, 1
(1990);
G.W. Gibbons, M.B. Green and M.J. Perry, Phys. Lett. B 370, 37
(1996).
[33] J. Scherk and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 82, 60 (1979).
[34] E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M.B. Green, G. Papadopoulos and P.K.
Townsend, “Duality of Type II 7-branes and 8-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B
470, 113 (1996).
[35] M. Cvetic, “Extreme domain wall — black hole complementarity in
N = 1 supergravity with a general dilaton coupling,” Phys. Lett. B
341, 160 (1994).
[36] M. Cvetic and H.H. Soleng, “Supergravity domain walls,” preprint
hep-th/9604090.

52
[37] E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 141 (1979).
[38] J.M. Izquierdo, N.D. Lambert, G. Papadopoulos and P.K. Townsend,
“Dyonic Membranes,” Nucl. Phys. B 460, 560 (1996).
[39] R. Nepomechie, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1921 (1985);
C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 67, 63, 69 (1986).
[40] C.M. Hull and P.K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 438, 109 (1995).
[41] M.J. Duff and J. Rahmfeld, “Bound States of Black Holes and Other
p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 481, 332 (1996).
[42] H. Lü and C.N. Pope, “Multi-scalar p-brane solitons,” preprint
hep-th/9512153.
[43] G. Papadopoulos and P.K. Townsend, “Intersecting M-branes,” Phys.
Lett. B 380, 273 (1996);
A. Tseytlin, “Harmonic superpositions of M-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B
475, 149 (1996);
I.R. Klebanov and A.A. Tseytlin, “Intersecting M-branes as
four-dimensional black holes,” Nucl. Phys. B 475, 179 (1996);
K. Berndt, E. Bergshoeff and B. Janssen, “Intersecting D-branes in ten
and six dimensions,” preprint hep-th/9604168;
J. Gauntlett, D. Kastor and J. Traschen, “Overlapping branes in
M-theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 478, 544 (1996).
[44] N. Khviengia, Z. Khviengia, H. Lü and C.N. Pope, “Intersecting
M-branes and bound states,” Phys. Lett. B 388, 21 (1996).
[45] E. Witten, “Bound states of strings and p-branes,” JournalNucl. Phys.
B 460 335 1996;
M.R. Douglas, “Branes within branes,” preprint hep-th/9512077;
P.K. Townsend, “Brane Surgery,” preprint hep-th/9609217.
[46] P.S. Howe and E. Sezgin, “Superbranes,” preprint hep-th/9607227;
P.S. Howe and E. Sezgin, “D = 11, p = 5,” preprint hep-th/9611008;
M. Cederwall, A. von Gussich, B.E.W. Nilsson and A. Westerberg,
“The Dirichlet Super Three Brane in Tex-Dimensional Type IIB
Supergravity,” preprint hep-th/9610148;
M. Aganagic, C. Popescu and J.H. Schwarz, “D-brane actions with
local kappa-symmetry,” preprint hep-th/9610249;
M. Cederwall, A. von Gussich, B.E.W. Nilsson, P. Sundell and A.
Westerberg, “The dirichlet super p-branes in ten-dimensional Type IIA
and IIB supergravity,” preprint hep-th/9611159;
E. Bergshoeff and P.K. Townsend, “Super D-branes,” preprint
hep-th/9611173;
I. Bandos, D. Sorokin and M. Tonin, “Generalized Action Principle and
Superfield Equations of Motion for d = 10 D-p-branes,” preprint

53
hep-th/9701127.

54