D-brane in R-R Field Background

Show preview

Hide preview

ar X
iv :1
10 1.
40 54
v2 [
he p-
th] 8
Fe b 2
01 1
D-brane in R-R Field Background
Pei-Ming Ho†1, Chi-Hsien Yeh†2
† Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical Sciences,
National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to understand the low energy effective theory of a
Dp-brane in the background of a large constant R-R (p − 1)-form field. We start
with the M5-brane theory in large C-field background. The C-field background
defines a 3-dimensional volume form on an M5-brane, and it is known that the low
energy M5-brane theory can be described as a Nambu-Poisson gauge theory with
the volume-preserving diffeomorphism symmetry (VPD). Via a double dimensional
reduction we obtain a D4-brane in R-R 3-form field background. This theory has
both the usual U(1) gauge symmetry and the new symmetry of VPD. We find that
the gauge potential for VPD is electric-magnetic dual to the U(1) gauge potential,
sharing the same physical degrees of freedom. The result can be generalized to
Dp-branes.
1 e-mail address: pmho@phys.ntu.edu.tw 2 e-mail address: d95222008@ntu.edu.tw

1 Introduction and Motivation
Low energy effective descriptions of D-branes and M-branes have played a crucial role in
our understanding of string theory. They allow us to study a wide variety of subjects from
AdS/CFT duality to brane world models. The two basic descriptions of D-branes are
the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) theory [1] and the super Yang-Mills (YM) theory [2]. Later
it was realized that D-branes in large NS-NS B-field background should be described
by gauge theories on noncommutative space [3–5]. The description of M5-branes was
a challenging problem because of the self duality condition on gauge fields [6–8]. A
covariant DBI-like action for a single M5-brane was first given in [7]. More recently, as
an analogue of noncommutative D-branes in B-field background, the low energy effective
theory for a single M5-brane in large C-field background was also found [9,10]. The latter
was actually derived from the Bagger-Lamber-Gustavsson model [11,12] for multiple M2-
branes. The understanding of branes often also help us understanding other branes.
The purpose of this paper is to construct new models for D-branes in R-R field
backgrounds, to complete our understanding of D-branes in background fields. From the
viewpoint of DBI theory or the YM theory, one can describe an R-R field background
A(p+1−2n) simply by adding this term∫ A(p+1−2n)F n (1)
to the D-brane action, where F is the U(1) field strength. Why do we need to look
for other descriptions? The answer is similar to why we need noncommutative gauge
theories for D-branes in B-field background. The effect of a B-field can be incorporated
into a D-brane action by simply replacing the field strength F by B + F . However, in
the Seiberg-Witten limit [5], the noncommutative gauge theory is a better approximation
than the result of replacing F by B + F in the YM theory. Roughly speaking, when the
B-field is large enough, higher derivative terms that would normally be ignored in a low
energy effective theory can no longer be ignored if it is multiplied by a certain power of
B. We would like to understand analogous effects of R-R fields on D-branes.
This problem has been studied in various aspects via different approaches. In [13], it
was shown how R-R background potential influences D-brane dynamics in a way consis-
tent with S-duality, so that Moyal deformation can be induced by R-R potential as well as
the NS-NS B-field background. In [14], it was shown that the anti-commutation relation
of fermionic fields can be modified by a graviphoton background, and the result was gen-
eralized to generic R-R backgrounds in [15]. In this paper we take yet another approach
and find that a generalized Nambu-Poisson structure is induced by the R-R background,
1

characterizing a new gauge symmetry – the volume-preserving diffeomorphism – on the
D-brane.
The noncommutativity on a D-brane due to a B-field background can roughly be
understood as the effect due to the coupling of the B-field to an open string ending on the
D-brane. Similarly, an R-R (k + 1)-form gauge potential couples to a Dk-brane ending
on a Dp-brane, and interaction of excitations on a Dp-brane mediated by a Dk-brane
would be influenced by the R-R field background. Sufficiently strong R-R backgrounds
can thus turn on new interactions usually ignored in a low energy effective theory.
Instead of computing directly the dynamics of D-branes ending on D-branes, our
strategy is to fully utilize string dualities. The starting point is the above-mentioned new
M5-brane theory [9,10] in a large C-field background. The C-field background defines a 3-
dimensional volume form, and the M5-brane theory is a gauge theory of diffeomorphisms
preserving this volume form. We will refer to this theory as the Nambu-Poisson (NP)
M5-brane theory for the gauge algebra is defined through the Nambu-Poisson bracket
[16]. Various calculations [17] suggest that Nambu-Poisson bracket appears in a C-field
background for open membranes in the same fashion that Moyal bracket appears in a
B-field background for open strings.
An M5-brane is related to a D4-brane through double dimensional reduction (DDR),
which means the simultaneous compactification of a direction in the target space and a
direction on an M5-brane. The C-field in M theory leads to either a 3-form R-R gauge
potential and/or a 2-form NS-NS B-field in the type IIA theory after compactification,
depending on the direction of the compactified circle. In [10], the compactified circle is
chosen such that the C-field background reduces to a B-field background, and the NP
M5-brane theory reduces to the Poisson limit of the noncommutative gauge theory of
a D4-brane. 1 In particular, the Nambu-Poisson bracket in the NP M5-brane theory
reduces to the Poisson bracket. This can be viewed as an evidence for the validity of the
NP M5-brane theory. Another evidence was obtained by examining the self dual string
solutions corresponding to an M2-brane ending on an M5-brane [18]. A short review of
the NP M5-brane was given in [19].
In this article we will carry out DDR in another direction so that the C-field back-
ground is reinterpreted as a constant R-R 3-form gauge potential. We will use the same
symbol C to refer to both the M theory 3-form gauge potential and the 3-form R-R
potential in type IIA string theory. The first goal of this paper is to understand the
1 The Poisson limit of a noncommutative algebra refers to the approximation of the Moyal product
by the leading order correction to the commutative product. In this limit the commutator of Moyal
product reduces to the Poisson bracket.
2

D4-brane theory in a constant C-field background. It is expected that the geometry of
this theory is equipped with a 3-bracket structure [20, 21].
The DDR of the NP M5-brane to D4-brane is highly nontrivial. The gauge symmetry
of an NP M5-brane is the volume-preserving diffeomorphisms (VPD). Since the C-field
background is parallel to the D4-brane, it is natural to expect that the D4-brane inherits
the VPD symmetry. However, the massless spectrum of a D4-brane (a U(1) gauge po-
tential A, 5 scalars φ and their fermionic superpartners) does not include a 2-form gauge
potential for the VPD gauge symmetry. We will show in the following that, interestingly,
the 2-form gauge potential is dual to the 1-form U(1) potential A, sharing the same
physical degrees of freedom. While the VPD algebra is non-Abelian, the mathematical
description of this duality is not straightforward at all.
The electric-magnetic duality between U(1) gauge theory and VPD can be understood
physically as follows. The endpoint of a fundamental string is an electric charge on a
D4-brane, and the massless fluctuation of an open string in the longitudinal directions
of the D4-brane constitutes the U(1) gauge potential. From the M5-brane’s viewpoint,
the VPD gauge potential comes from the massless excitations of M2-branes ending on
an M5-brane. It is a 2-form potential because the boundary of an M2-brane is a string.
Therefore, from the D4-brane’s viewpoint, the VPD gauge potential is associated with
the boundary of a D2-brane, which is interpreted as the magnetic charge on the D4-brane,
and so we expect the electric-magnetic duality between the U(1) symmetry and VPD.
The interpretation above can be easily generalized to other Dp-branes. The endpoint
of a fundamental string is an electric charge on the Dp-brane. The magnetic charge is
then the boundary of a D(p-2)-brane ending on the Dp-brane. Massless fluctuations of
the D(p−2)-brane in the longitudinal directions give rise to the (p−2)-form potential for
the VPD of the (p− 1) dimensional volume defined by an R-R (p− 1)-form background.
The corresponding (p − 1)-form field strength is then dual to the 2-form field strength
of the U(1) symmetry. The second goal of this paper is to construct gauge theories
describing a single Dp-brane in constant R-R (p− 1)-form field background. The results
give us hints about Dp-brane theories in more general backgrounds of R-R fields. We
leave this topic for future study.
The plan of this paper is as follows. We give a brief review of the NP M5-brane
theory in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3 we derive the D4-brane action in large C-field background
from the NP M5-brane action via double dimensional reduction, and in Sec. 4 we define
2-form field strengths F such that they are not only invariant under the U(1) gauge
transformations but also covariant under the VPD. We study the 0-th order and 1st
order terms of the D4-brane action in the perturbative expansion in Sec. 5 to show how
3

the new action differs from Maxwell’s action. For simplicity, matter fields are ignored
in the calculation except in Sec. 6. We generalize the gauge field theory to multiple
Dp-branes for generic p in Sec. 7. Finally we conclude in Sec. 8.
2 Review of Nambu-Poisson M5-brane Theory
The worldvolume theory of the M5-brane has the field content of a self-dual 2-form
gauge potential (bµ˙ν˙ , bµ˙ν), 5 scalars (X i) and the dimensional reduction of an 11 di-
mensional Majorana fermion (Ψ). 2 The world volume coordinates will be denoted as
{xµ, yµ˙} = {x0, x1, x2, y1˙, y2˙, y3˙}. In a C-field background the M5-brane action should
respect the worldvolume translational symmetry, the global SO(2, 1) × SO(3) rotation
symmetry, the gauge symmetry of volume-preserving diffeomorphisms and the 6D N =
(2, 0) supersymmetry. In the limit ǫ→ 0 [24] with
ℓP ∼ ǫ1/3, gµν ∼ 1, gµ˙ν˙ ∼ ǫ, Cµ˙ν˙λ˙ ∼ 1, (2)
(µ, ν = 0, 1, 2 and µ˙, ν˙, λ˙ = 1˙, 2˙, 3˙)
a good approximation of the M5-brane in C-field background is given by the action [10] 3
S = SX + SΨ + Sgauge, Sgauge = SH2 + SCS, (3)
where 4
SX =
∫ d3xd3y
[ − 1
2 (DµX
i)2 − 1
2 (Dλ˙X
i)2
− 1
2g2 − g4
4 {X µ˙, X i, Xj}2 −
g4
12 {X i, Xj, Xk}2
] , (4)
SΨ =
∫ d3xd3y
[ i
2 ΨΓµDµΨ+
i
2 ΨΓρ˙Dρ˙Ψ
+ ig2
2 ΨΓµ˙i{X
µ˙, X i,Ψ} − ig2
4 ΨΓijΓ1˙2˙3˙{X
i, Xj,Ψ}
] , (5)
SH2 =
∫ d3xd3y
[ −
1
12 H2µ˙ν˙ρ˙ −
1
4 H2λµ˙ν˙
] , (6)
SCS =
∫ d3xd3y ǫµνλǫµ˙ν˙λ˙
[ − 1
2 ∂µ˙bµν˙∂νbλλ˙ +
g
6 ∂µ˙bνν˙ǫ
ρ˙σ˙τ˙∂σ˙bλρ˙(∂λ˙bµτ˙ − ∂τ˙bµλ˙)
] . (7)
2 The fermion Ψ is chiral, i.e., Γ7Ψ = −Ψ, where Γ7 is defined by Γ7 ≡ Γ012Γ1˙2˙3˙. 3 This action was first derived from the Bagger-Lambert action [11] with the Lie 3-algebra chosen to
be the Nambu-Poisson algebra [9, 10]. 4 Ψ here was denoted by Ψ′ in [10].
4

In the above we use the notation
X µ˙(y) ≡ yµ˙
g + 1
2 ǫµ˙κ˙λ˙bκ˙λ˙(y), (8)
{A,B,C} ≡ ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙∂µ˙A∂ν˙B∂ρ˙C. (9)
The overall coefficient of the action S has been scaled to 1 by rescaling the fields and
worldvolume coordinates.
For the matter fields X i,Ψ, the covariant derivatives are defined by 5
DµΦ ≡ ∂µΦ− g{bµν˙ , y ν˙,Φ}, (10)
Dµ˙Φ ≡ g2
2 ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙{X
ν˙ , X ρ˙,Φ}. (11)
The definition of the 3-form field strength as
Hλµ˙ν˙ = ∂λbµ˙ν˙ − ∂µ˙bλν˙ + ∂ν˙bλµ˙, (12)
Hλ˙µ˙ν˙ = ∂λ˙bµ˙ν˙ + ∂µ˙bν˙λ˙ + ∂ν˙bλ˙µ˙ (13)
is no longer covariant under the non-Abelian gauge transformations. The covariant 3-
form field strengths H should be defined as
Hλµ˙ν˙ = ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙DλX λ˙
= Hλµ˙ν˙ − gǫ σ˙τ˙ ρ˙(∂σ˙bλτ˙ )∂ρ˙bµ˙ν˙ , (14)
H1˙2˙3˙ = g 2{X 1˙, X 2˙, X 3˙} −
1
g
= H1˙2˙3˙ + g
2 (∂µ˙b
µ˙∂ν˙b ν˙ − ∂µ˙b
ν˙∂ν˙b µ˙) + g2{b1˙, b2˙, b3˙}. (15)
The fundamental fields transform under the gauge transformation as
δΛΦ = gκ ρ˙∂ρ˙Φ (Φ = X
i,Ψ), (16)
δΛbκ˙λ˙ = ∂κ˙Λλ˙ − ∂λ˙Λκ˙ + gκ ρ˙∂ρ˙bκ˙λ˙, (17)
δΛbλσ˙ = ∂λΛσ˙ − ∂σ˙Λλ + gκ τ˙∂τ˙ bλσ˙ + g(∂σ˙κ
τ˙ )bλτ˙ , (18)
where
κλ˙ ≡ ǫλ˙µ˙ν˙∂µ˙Λν˙(x, y). (19)
The field strengths H transform like Φ.
5 Here and below we use Φ to represent both matter fields X i,Ψ.
5

The gauge transformations can be more concisely expressed in terms of the new
variables bµ˙, Bµ µ˙
bµ˙ ≡ 1
2 ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙bν˙λ˙, (20)
Bµ µ˙ ≡ ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙∂ν˙bµλ˙ (21)
for the gauge fields as
δΛb µ˙ = κµ˙ + gκν˙∂ν˙b
µ˙, (22)
δΛBµ µ˙ = ∂µκ
µ˙ + gκν˙∂ν˙Bµ µ˙ − g(∂ν˙κ
µ˙)Bµ ν˙ . (23)
In terms of Bµ ν˙ , the covariant derivative Dµ acts as
DµΦ = ∂µΦ− gBµ µ˙∂µ˙Φ. (24)
Remarkably, the field bµµ˙ appears in the action only through the variable Bµ µ˙.
Another feature of the gauge transformations is that, in terms of X i,Ψ, bµ˙ and Bµ µ˙,
all gauge transformations can be expressed solely in terms of κµ˙, without referring to Λµ˙,
as long as one keeps in mind the constraint
∂µ˙κ µ˙ = 0. (25)
This gauge transformation can be naturally interpreted as volume-preserving diffeomor-
phism (VPD)
δyµ˙ = gκµ˙, with ∂µ˙κ µ˙ = 0. (26)
The field bµ˙ is then interpreted as the gauge potential for the VPD in the 3 dimensional
space picked by the C-field background.
The M5-brane theory is also invariant under the supersymmetry transformations δ (1) χ ,
δ (2) ǫ . We have
δ(1)χ Ψ = χ, δ (1) χ X
i = δ(1)χ bµ˙ν˙ = δ (1) χ bµν˙ = 0, (27)
and 6
δ(2)ǫ X i = iǫΓiΨ, (28)
δ(2)ǫ Ψ = DµX iΓµΓiǫ+Dµ˙X
iΓµ˙Γiǫ
− 1
2 Hµν˙ρ˙Γ
µΓν˙ρ˙ǫ− 1
g (1 + gH1˙2˙3˙) Γ1˙2˙3˙ǫ
− g2
2 {X µ˙, X i, Xj}Γµ˙Γijǫ+
g2
6 {X i, Xj, Xk}ΓijkΓ1˙2˙3˙ǫ, (29)
δ(2)ǫ bµ˙ν˙ = −i(ǫΓµ˙ν˙Ψ), (30)
δ(2)ǫ bµν˙ = −i (1 + gH1˙2˙3˙) ǫΓµΓν˙Ψ+ ig(ǫΓµΓ iΓ1˙2˙3˙Ψ)∂ν˙X
i. (31)
6 ǫ here was denoted by ǫ′ in [10].
6

The SUSY transformation parameters χ, ǫ can be conveniently denoted as an 11D Ma-
jorana spinor satisfying the 6D chirality condition
Γ7χ = χ, Γ7ǫ = ǫ. (32)
They are both nonlinear SUSY transformations, but a superposition of the two,
δ(1)χ + gδ (2) ǫ with χ = Γ
1˙2˙3˙ǫ, (33)
defines a linear SUSY transformation.
3 D4-Brane via Double Dimensional Reduction
To carry out the double dimensional reduction (DDR) for the M5-brane along the x2-
direction, we set
x2 ∼ x2 + 2πR, (34)
and let all other fields to be independent of x2. As a result we can set ∂2 to zero when it
acts on any field. Here R is the radius of the circle of compactification and we should take
R ≪ 1 such that the 6 dimensional field theory on M5 reduces to a 5 dimensional field
theory for D4. Since the NP M5-brane action (3) is a good low energy effective theory
in the limit (2), the 5 dimensional field theory is a good low energy effective description
of a D4-brane in the limit ǫ→ 0 for
ℓs ∼ ǫ 1/2, gs ∼ ǫ
−1/2, gαβ ∼ 1, gµ˙ν˙ ∼ ǫ, Cµ˙ν˙λ˙ ∼ 1, (35)
with
gsℓs ≪ 1, (36)
from the perspective of the type IIA theory. The indices α, β = 0, 1 are used to distinguish
from the M5-brane indices µ, ν = 0, 1, 2.
Note that in the limit (2) the C-field component C012 ∼ ǫ−1. As a result the B-field
component B01 ∼ ǫ−1 and the noncommutative parameter θ01 ∼ B−1 ∼ ǫ vanishes in
the limit ǫ → 0. However, the combination 2πα′B is finite in the limit, and thus the
D4-brane is not only in a C-field background but also in the B-field background. Using
the nonlinear self-dual relation derived in [6], we can express C012 in terms of C1˙2˙3˙, and
then the B-field background is given by
2πα′B01 = C1˙2˙3˙ 2π
. (37)
In the convention (normalization of the worldvolume coordinates) of [10], we have
C1˙2˙3˙ = 1
g2 ⇒ 2πα′B01 =
1
2πg2 . (38)
7

3.1 D4-brane Action for the Gauge Fields
For simplicity let us ignore the matter fields for the time being, and focus on the gauge
field part of the action Sgauge. We will give the full action including matter fields later
in Sec. 6. The result of DDR on Sgauge is
S(1)gauge[b µ˙, aµ˙, bαµ˙] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H21˙2˙3˙ −
1
4 H22µ˙ν˙ −
1
4 H2αµ˙ν˙
+ǫαβǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙∂βaρ˙∂µ˙bαν˙ + g
2 ǫαβǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙ǫ
µ˙δ˙τ˙ǫν˙σ˙λ˙ǫρ˙η˙ξ˙∂δ˙bατ˙∂σ˙bβλ˙∂η˙aξ˙
} ,(39)
where
aµ˙ ≡ bµ˙2. (40)
Apparently we should identify aµ˙ as components of the one-form potential on the D4-
brane. In terms of the field strength
Fµ˙ν˙ ≡ ∂µ˙aν˙ − ∂ν˙aµ˙, (41)
we can rewrite H2µ˙ν˙ as
H2µ˙ν˙ = Fµ˙ν˙ + g
2 ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙ǫ
σ˙ρ˙τ˙∂σ˙b λ˙Fρ˙τ˙ . (42)
In the above we see that part of the two-form potential b on the M5-brane transforms
into part of the one-form potential a on D4. However, in order to interpret this action
as a D4-brane action, we still need to identify the rest of the components aα of the
one-form gauge potential, and to re-interpret bαµ˙ and bµ˙ν˙ from the D4-brane viewpoint.
We expect that the U(1) gauge symmetry on the D4-brane has its origin in the gauge
transformations (17), (18) on the M5-brane. The gauge transformation parameter Λ2
shall be identified with the U(1) gauge transformation parameter. This is consistent
with the identification of aµ˙ with bµ˙2. The gauge symmetry parametrized by Λµ˙, i.e., the
VPD, is also still present on the D4-brane.
3.2 Duality Transformation
In order to understand the physical meaning of the action (39), we try to simplify the
action by integrating out the remaining components of the 2-form gauge field b as much as
possible, since there is no 2-form gauge potential in the usual description of a D4-brane.
First we note that the action (39) depends on bαµ˙ only through the variable Bα µ˙ (21).
In terms of Bα µ˙, we have
Hαµ˙ν˙ = ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙(∂αb λ˙ − Vσ˙
λ˙Bα σ˙), (43)
8

where
V µ˙ν˙ ≡ δ µ˙ ν˙ + g∂ν˙b
µ˙. (44)
Hence we can rewrite the action (39) as
S(2)[bµ˙, aµ˙, B µ˙ α ] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H2
1˙2˙3˙ −
1
4 H22µ˙ν˙
− 1
2 (∂αb
µ˙ − V µ˙σ˙ B σ˙ α )
2 +ǫαβ∂βaµ˙B µ˙ α +
g
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙B
µ˙ α B
ν˙ β
} . (45)
It turns out that it is possible to extract the components aα on the D4-brane by
dualizing the field B µ˙α . We can introduce the Lagrange multiplier fαµ˙ to rewrite the
action (45) as
S(3)[bµ˙, aµ˙, bαµ˙, B˘ µ˙ α , fβµ˙] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H21˙2˙3˙ −
1
4 H22µ˙ν˙ −
1
2 (∂αb
µ˙ − V µ˙σ˙ B˘ σ˙ α )
2
+ǫαβ∂βaµ˙B˘ µ˙ α +
g
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙B˘
µ˙ α B˘
ν˙ β − ǫ
αβfβµ˙[B˘ µ˙ α − ǫ
µ˙ν˙ρ˙∂ν˙bαρ˙] } ,
(46)
where we used the notation B˘ for a new variable independent of bαµ˙. If we integrate out
the Lagrange multiplier fβµ˙, we will get B˘ µ˙ α = B
µ˙ α , and the action above reduces back
to (45).
Instead, we can integrate out B˘ µ˙α and bαµ˙ to dualize the field B µ˙ α . First we integrate
out bαµ˙, and find the constraint on fαµ˙
ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙∂µ˙fαν˙ = 0. (47)
It implies that, locally
fαµ˙ = ∂µ˙aα (48)
for some potential aα. Hence, after integrating out bαµ˙, we get
S(4)[bµ˙, aµ˙, aα, B˘ µ˙ α ] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H21˙2˙3˙ −
1
4 H22µ˙ν˙ −
1
2 (∂αb
µ˙ − V µ˙σ˙ B˘ σ˙ α )
2
+ǫαβ∂βaµ˙B˘ µ˙ α +
g
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙B˘
µ˙ α B˘
ν˙ β −ǫ
αβ∂µ˙aβB˘ µ˙ α
} . (49)
The next step is to integrate out B˘ µ˙α to get the dual action. Since the action is at
most quadratic in B˘ µ˙α , the result of integrating out B˘ µ˙ α is the same as replacing B˘
µ˙ α by
the solution to its equation of motion, which is a constraint
V ν˙µ˙ (∂ αbν˙ − V
ρ˙ ν˙B˘
α ρ˙) + ǫ
αβFβµ˙ + gǫ αβFµ˙ν˙B˘
ν˙ β = 0. (50)
9

The solution of B˘ µ˙α , denoted as Bˆ µ˙ α , is given by
Bˆ µ˙α ≡ (M −1)αβ
µ˙ν˙(V σ˙ν˙ ∂ βbσ˙ + ǫ
βγFγν˙), (51)
where
Mµ˙ν˙ αβ ≡ Vµ˙ρ˙Vν˙
ρ˙δαβ − gǫαβFµ˙ν˙ , (52)
and M−1 is defined by
(M−1)γα λ˙µ˙Mµ˙ν˙
αβ = δλ˙ν˙δ β γ . (53)
After integrating out B˘ µ˙α , we get
S(5)[bµ˙, aµ˙, aα] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H21˙2˙3˙ −
1
4 (Fν˙ρ˙ +
g
2 ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙ǫ
σ˙δ˙τ˙∂σ˙b µ˙Fδ˙τ˙ )
2 − 1
2 ∂αb
µ˙∂αbµ˙
+ 1
2 (ǫαγFγµ˙ + V
σ˙ µ˙ ∂
αbσ˙)(M −1)αβ
µ˙ν˙(ǫβδFδν˙ + Vν˙ λ˙∂βbλ˙)
} . (54)
At the quantum level, there is a one-loop contribution to the action when we integrate
out B˘α µ˙. It is
∆S1−loop = − ~
2 Tr(Log(Mµ˙ν˙
αβ)). (55)
The action (54) is only remotely resembling the familiar Maxwell action for a U(1)
gauge theory we expect on the D4-brane. We can find terms resembling F 2µ˙ν˙ and F 2 αµ˙,
but the coefficients do not match. The term F 2αβ is missing. We still have the field b µ˙
which can not be easily integrated out because it has 2nd derivative terms in the action.
It appears that we need to keep the field bµ˙, which continues to play the role of the gauge
potential for the gauge transformation parametrized by Λµ˙, but we need to identify its
physical degrees of freedom in the D4-brane theory.
Having decided to keep the gauge transformations parametrized by Λµ˙ as a new gauge
symmetry in the D4-brane theory, we need to define covariant field strengths suitable for
the gauge transformations.
4 Covariant Variables
4.1 Gauge Transformation
The gauge transformations of bµ˙ and aµ˙ = bµ˙2 are inherited from the NP M5-brane theory
as
δΛb µ˙ = κµ˙ + gκν˙∂ν˙b
µ˙, (56)
δΛaµ˙ = ∂µ˙λ+ g(κ ν˙∂ν˙aµ˙ + aν˙∂µ˙κ
ν˙), (57)
10

where λ ≡ Λ2.
The field aα was introduced by hand and so its gauge transformation rule has to
be solved from the requirement that the action S(4) (49) be invariant. For a quick
derivation one needs to realize that the Chern-Simons term must be gauge invariant by
itself. Plugging in the gauge transformation of B˘ µ˙α 7 and bµ˙, the gauge transformation
of the CS term (after integration by part ) is
δΛ(ǫ αβ∂βaµ˙B˘
µ˙ α +
g
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙B˘
µ˙ α B˘
ν˙ β − ǫ
αβ∂µ˙aβB˘ µ˙ α )
= ∂µ˙B˘ µ˙ α ǫ
αβ [−∂βλ− g(κ σ˙∂σ˙aβ + aσ˙∂βκ
σ˙) + δaβ]. (58)
Hence we get
δΛaβ = ∂βλ+ g(κ σ˙∂σ˙aβ + aσ˙∂βκ
σ˙). (59)
In our formulation of the self dual gauge field b, the components bµν do not explicitly
show up in the action. Rather they appear when we solve the equations of motion for the
rest of the components bµ˙ν˙ and bµµ˙. In [22,23], the components bµν are used to explicitly
exhibit the self duality of the gauge field, and their gauge transformation laws are given
by
δΛbµν = ∂µΛν − ∂νΛµ + g[κ ρ˙(∂ρ˙bµν) + (∂νκ
ρ˙)bµρ˙ − (∂µκ ρ˙)bνρ˙]. (60)
Identifying bβ2 with aβ and setting ∂2 = 0 for DDR, we get exactly the same gauge
transformation rule as (59) with Λ2 = λ.
We find that the gauge transformation of aµ˙ (57) and that of aα (59) are of the same
form
δΛaA = ∂Aλ+ g(κ ν˙∂ν˙aA + aν˙∂Aκ
ν˙). (61)
For the convenience of the reader, let us also give here the gauge transformation of
Vν˙ µ˙, Mµ˙ν˙
αβ and Bˆ µ˙α :
δΛVν˙ µ˙ = gκλ˙∂λ˙Vν˙
µ˙ + g(∂ν˙κ λ˙)Vλ˙
µ˙, (62)
δΛMµ˙ν˙ αβ = g[κσ˙∂σ˙Mµ˙ν˙
αβ + (∂µ˙κ σ˙)Mσ˙ν˙
αβ + (∂ν˙κ σ˙)Mµ˙σ˙
αβ ], (63)
δΛBˆ µ˙ α = ∂ακ
µ˙ + g(κν˙∂ν˙Bˆ µ˙ α − Bˆ
ν˙ α ∂ν˙κ
µ˙). (64)
7 The gauge transformation of B˘ µ˙α should be the same as that of B µ˙ α .
11

4.2 Covariant Field Strengths
In the original NP M5-brane theory, we have the covariant field strengths 8
H1˙2˙3˙ = ∂µ˙b µ˙ +
1
2 g(∂ν˙b
ν˙∂ρ˙b ρ˙ − ∂ν˙b
ρ˙∂ρ˙b ν˙) + g2{b1˙, b2˙, b3˙}, (65)
Fµ˙ν˙ ≡ H2µ˙ν˙ = Fµ˙ν˙ + g[∂σ˙b σ˙Fµ˙ν˙ − ∂µ˙b
σ˙Fσ˙ν˙ − ∂ν˙b σ˙Fµ˙σ˙], (66)
which survive the DDR. Here we have also rewritten H2µ˙ν˙ , which was given above in
(42), in a different but equivalent form.
The covariant version of Fαµ˙ can be defined as
Fαµ˙ ≡ 1
2 ǫβαǫµ˙ν˙λ˙H
βν˙λ˙. (67)
This is motivated by the intuition that Fαµ˙ corresponds to Hαµ˙2 in the M5-brane theory,
and we used the self duality condition ofH to write down the expression above. Replacing
Bα µ˙ by the solution Bˆα
µ˙, we can rewrite Hβν˙λ˙ (43) as a function of FAB, ∂µ˙bν˙ and Bˆαµ˙.
(That is, we avoided using ∂αb µ˙ directly. The dependence on ∂αb
µ˙ only appears through
Bˆα µ˙.) As a result, we have
Fαµ˙ = V −1
µ˙ ν˙(Fαν˙ + gFν˙σ˙Bˆα
σ˙). (68)
This is also in agreement with the definition of Hµνµ˙ defined in [22, 23].
By inspection, we can guess the covariant form of Fαβ . Together with the rest of the
covariant field strengths of the U(1) gauge field, we have
Fµ˙ν˙ = Fµ˙ν˙ + g[∂σ˙b σ˙Fµ˙ν˙ − ∂µ˙b
σ˙Fσ˙ν˙ − ∂ν˙b σ˙Fµ˙σ˙]
= V ρ˙ρ˙ Fµ˙ν˙ + V ρ˙
µ˙ Fν˙ρ˙ + V ρ˙
ν˙ Fρ˙µ˙, (69)
Fαµ˙ = V −1 ν˙
µ˙ (Fαν˙ + gFν˙δ˙Bˆ δ˙ α ), (70)
Fαβ = Fαβ + g[−Fαµ˙Bˆ µ˙ β − Fµ˙βBˆ
µ˙ α + gFµ˙ν˙Bˆ
µ˙ α Bˆ
ν˙ β ], (71)
where
FAB ≡ ∂AaB − ∂BaA. (72)
Unlike Fµ˙ν˙ and Fαµ˙, the components Fαβ can not be directly matched with the field
Hαβ2 in the M5-brane theory, because the latter involves other fields that does not exist
in the D4-brane theory.
8 A field Φ is covariant if its gauge transformation is δΛΦ = gκ µ˙∂µ˙Φ.
12

4.3 D4-brane Action in Terms of Covariant Variables
Remarkably, in terms of the covariant field strengths, the action is simply
S ′gauge[b µ˙, aA] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H1˙2˙3˙H
1˙2˙3˙ − 1
4 Fν˙ρ˙F
ν˙ρ˙ + 1
2 Fβµ˙F
βµ˙ + 1
2g ǫαβFαβ
} . (73)
The last term in the Lagrangian resembles the Wess-Zumino term for the C-field.
It appears that we are missing the kinetic term FαβFαβ in the Lagrangian, and the
coefficient of the term Fαµ˙Fαµ˙ is wrong. However, in the next section we will see that
the missing kinetic term arises when we integrate out bµ˙.
5 D4-brane Action Expanded
5.1 Zeroth Order
In this subsection we show that at the lowest order of g, the D4-brane action (73) agrees
with the Maxwell action for a U(1) gauge field in the ordinary D4-brane action. First we
expand everything to the 1st order
H1˙2˙3˙ = ∂µ˙b µ˙ + g
1
2 (∂ν˙b
ν˙∂ρ˙b ρ˙ − ∂ν˙b
ρ˙∂ρ˙b ν˙) +O(g2), (74)
V −1 ν˙ µ˙ = δ
ν˙ µ˙ − g∂µ˙b
ν˙ +O(g2), (75)
(M−1)µ˙ν˙ αβ = δ µ˙ν˙δαβ − g[(∂
µ˙bν˙ + ∂ν˙bµ˙)δαβ − ǫαβF µ˙ν˙ ] +O(g2), (76)
Bˆ µ˙α = ∂αb µ˙ + ǫαβF
βµ˙ + g[−∂σ˙bµ˙∂αbσ˙ − ∂ µ˙bσ˙ǫαβF
βσ˙ − ∂σ˙b µ˙ǫαβF
βσ˙
+ǫαβ∂ βbσ˙F
µ˙σ˙ + Fασ˙F µ˙σ˙] +O(g2). (77)
Fβµ˙ = Fβµ˙ + g(∂µ˙b σ˙Fσ˙β + ∂βb
σ˙Fµ˙σ˙ + ǫβγFµ˙σ˙F γσ˙) +O(g2) (78)
Fαβ = Fαβ + g[−Fαµ˙(∂βb µ˙ + ǫβγF
γµ˙)− Fµ˙β(∂αb µ˙ + ǫαγF
γµ˙)] +O(g2). (79)
To the lowest order of g, the last term in the Lagrangian (73) is
1
2g ǫαβFαβ =
1
2g ǫαβFαβ +
1
2 ǫαβ [−Fαµ˙(∂βb
µ˙ + ǫβγF γµ˙)− Fµ˙β(∂αb
µ˙ + ǫαγF γµ˙)] +O(g)
≃ −ǫαβFαµ˙∂βb µ˙ − Fαµ˙F
αµ˙ +O(g)
≃ ǫαβ∂βaα∂µ˙b µ˙ − Fαµ˙F
αµ˙ +O(g), (80)
up to total derivatives. To the 0-th order of g, the action (73) can now be expressed as
S ′(0)gauge[b µ˙, aA] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 H21˙2˙3˙ −
1
2 ǫαβFαβH1˙2˙3˙ −
1
4 Fµ˙ν˙F
µ˙ν˙ − 1
2 Fαµ˙F
αµ˙
}
=
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 (H1˙2˙3˙ + F01)
2 − 1
4 FABF
AB
} , (81)
13

where H1˙2˙3˙ = ∂µ˙b µ˙ and A,B = (µ˙, α). Note that H1˙2˙3˙ is the only gauge invariant
degree of freedom in the gauge potential bµ˙ because there are two independent gauge
transformation parameters. 9 Furthermore there is no kinetic term for bµ˙ and so we can
integrate it out and then (81) becomes exactly the Maxwell action. Integrating out bµ˙ is
a duality transformation which imposes the identification
H1˙2˙3˙ = −F01. (82)
The physical degrees of freedom in bµ˙ is transformed into that of aα. Although b µ˙ appears
as new gauge potentials in the D4-brane theory, they share the same physical degrees of
freedom with aα.
5.2 First Order
The first order correction to the action (81) is
S ′(1)gauge[b µ˙, aA] = g
∫ d2xd3y
{ (−
1
2 H2
1˙2˙3˙ + 1
2 ∂µ˙b
ν˙∂ν˙b µ˙)(H1˙2˙3˙ + F01)
+H1˙2˙3˙
( − 1
2 Fµ˙ν˙F
µ˙ν˙ + ǫαβFαµ˙∂βb µ˙
) −
1
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙F
αµ˙F βν˙
+F µ˙ν˙Fλ˙ν˙∂µ˙b λ˙ + Fαµ˙F
α ν˙∂
µ˙bν˙ − Fαµ˙∂ αbν˙F
µ˙ν˙ } . (83)
In order to integrate out H1˙2˙3˙, note that we can impose the gauge fixing condition
ǫµ˙ν˙λ˙∂µ˙bν˙ = 0, (84)
so that
bµ˙ = ∂µ˙c (85)
for some function c. Solving c from
H1˙2˙3˙ = ∂µ˙b µ˙, (86)
we find
bµ˙ = ∂µ˙∂˙−2H1˙2˙3˙, (87)
where ∂˙−2 is the inverse operator of the Laplacian ∂˙2 ≡ ∂µ˙∂ µ˙. Denoting the Green’s
function of the Laplacian by G so that
∂˙2G(y − y′) = δ(3)(y − y′), (88)
9 Since the 3 gauge transformation parameters κµ˙ are subject to the condition ∂µ˙κ µ˙ = 0, there are
only 2 functionally independent degrees of freedom in κµ˙.
14

where y and y′ represent the coordinates in the directions y1˙, y2˙, y3˙. We have
∂˙−2φ(y) =
∫ d3y′ G(y − y′)φ(y). (89)
Plugging (87) into the action, we get an action as a functional of H1˙2˙3˙ and aA. To
the first order in g, we can integrate out H1˙2˙3˙ and the action becomes
S ′′gauge[aA] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
4 FABF
AB + g
[ −F01C −
1
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙F
αµ˙F βν˙
−F µ˙ν˙Fλ˙ν˙∂µ˙∂ λ˙∂˙−2F01 − Fαµ˙F
α ν˙∂
µ˙∂ν˙ ∂˙−2F01 + Fαµ˙F µ˙ν˙∂α∂ν˙ ∂˙
−2F01
]} ,(90)
where
C = − 1
2 Fµ˙ν˙F
µ˙ν˙ − ǫαβFαµ˙∂β∂ µ˙∂˙−2F01. (91)
Apparently the action becomes nonlocal at order O(g).
In principle, using (87) to rewrite the action as a functional of aA and H1˙2˙3˙, we can
integrate out H1˙2˙3˙ to an arbitrary order in g. The resulting action would be a functional
of FAB with higher derivatives and ∂˙ −2.
6 Matter Fields
In the above we have ignored the matter fields in the NP M5-brane theory. It is straight-
forward to repeat the derivations above with the matter fields included. Analogous to
(49), we get
S(4)[bµ˙, aA, B˘ µ˙ α , X
i,Ψ] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 Dµ˙X
iDµ˙X i − 1
2 ∂αX
i∂αX i + gB˘ µ˙α ∂µ˙X i∂αX i
− g2
2 B˘ µ˙α B˘
α ν˙∂µ˙X
i∂ν˙X i − g2
8 ǫµ˙ρ˙τ˙ǫν˙σ˙δ˙Fρ˙τ˙F
σ˙δ˙∂µ˙X i∂ν˙X i
− g4
4 {X µ˙, X i, Xj}2 −
g4
12 {X i, Xj, Xk}2
+ i
2 Ψ¯Γα∂αΨ+
i
2 Ψ¯Γρ˙Dρ˙Ψ+ g
i
4 Ψ¯Γ2ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙Fν˙ρ˙∂µ˙Ψ− g
i
2 Ψ¯ΓαB˘ µ˙α ∂µ˙Ψ
+g2 i
2 Ψ¯Γµ˙i{X
µ˙, X i,Ψ}+ g2 i
4 Ψ¯ΓijΓ1˙2˙3˙{X
i, Xj,Ψ}
− 1
2g2 −
1
2 (H1˙2˙3˙)
2 − 1
4 Fν˙ρ˙F
ν˙ρ˙ − 1
4 (ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙(∂αb
µ˙ − V µ˙σ˙ B˘ σ˙ α ))
2
+ǫαβFβµ˙B˘ µ˙ α +
g
2 ǫαβFµ˙ν˙B˘
µ˙ α B˘
ν˙ β
} . (92)
15

With the matter fields included, the action is still no more than quadratic in B˘ µ˙α and
so we can still integrate it out. This is equivalent to solving the equation of motion for
B˘ µ˙α and plugging it back into the action. The new equation of motion for B˘ µ˙ α is
V ν˙µ˙ (∂ αbν˙−V
ρ˙ ν˙B˘
α ρ˙)+ǫ
αβFβµ˙+gǫ αβFµ˙ν˙B˘
ν˙ β +g∂µ˙X
i∂αX i−g i
2 Ψ¯Γα∂µ˙Ψ−g
2B˘αν˙∂µ˙X i∂ν˙X i = 0.
(93)
Its solution is
Bˆ µ˙α = (M −1)µ˙ν˙ αβ(V
σ˙ ν˙ ∂
βbσ˙ + ǫ βγFγν˙ + g∂ν˙X
i∂βX i − g i
2 Ψ¯Γβ∂ν˙Ψ)
≡ (M−1)µ˙ν˙ αβW β ν˙ , (94)
where
M αβ
µ˙ν˙ ≡ (Vµ˙ρ˙V ρ˙
ν˙ + g 2∂µ˙X
i∂ν˙X i)δαβ − gǫαβFµ˙ν˙ , (95)
and (M−1)µ˙ν˙ αβ is defined by
(M−1)λ˙µ˙ γαM αβ
µ˙ν˙ = δ λ˙ ν˙δ
β γ . (96)
Finally, we get the action
S ′gauge[b µ˙, aA, X
i,Ψ] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 Dµ˙X
iDµ˙X i − 1
2 ∂αX
i∂αX i
− g2
8 ǫµ˙ρ˙τ˙ǫν˙σ˙δ˙Fρ˙τ˙F
σ˙δ˙∂µ˙X i∂ν˙X i
− g4
4 {X µ˙, X i, Xj}2 −
g4
12 {X i, Xj, Xk}2
+ i
2 Ψ¯Γα∂αΨ+
i
2 Ψ¯Γρ˙Dρ˙Ψ+ g
i
4 Ψ¯Γ2ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙Fν˙ρ˙∂µ˙Ψ
+g2 i
2 Ψ¯Γµ˙i{X
µ˙, X i,Ψ}+ g2 i
4 Ψ¯ΓijΓ1˙2˙3˙{X
i, Xj,Ψ}
− 1
2g2 −
1
2 (H1˙2˙3˙)
2 − 1
4 Fν˙ρ˙F
ν˙ρ˙ + 1
2 W αµ˙ (M
−1)µ˙ν˙αβW β ν˙
} . (97)
Here the fields F are defined by the same expressions as before but with the new definition
of Bˆ.
At the 0-th order of g, the action is just
S ′′(0)gauge[aA, X i,Ψ] ≃
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
4 FABF
AB − 1
2 ∂AX
i∂AX i + i
2 Ψ¯ΓA∂AΨ
} (98)
after we integrate out the VPD gauge fields. This defines a Maxwell’s theory with neutral
bosons X and fermions Ψ.
16

For completeness let us also give the expression of the action to the 1st order:
S ′gauge[b µ˙, aA, X
i,Ψ] ≃
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 ∂αX
i∂αX i − 1
2 ∂µ˙X
i∂µ˙X i + i
2 Ψ¯Γα∂αΨ+
i
2 Ψ¯Γµ˙∂µ˙Ψ
+gǫαβFβµ˙∂ µ˙X i∂αX
i + g∂µ˙X i∂αX i∂αbµ˙ − g
i
2 ǫαβFβµ˙Ψ¯Γα∂
µ˙Ψ
−g i
2 Ψ¯Γα∂
µ˙Ψ∂αbµ˙ − g∂µ˙X i∂µ˙X i∂ρ˙b
ρ˙ + g∂µ˙X i∂ρ˙X i∂µ˙b
ρ˙
+g i
2 Ψ¯Γρ˙∂ρ˙Ψ∂ν˙b
ν˙ − g i
2 Ψ¯Γρ˙∂ν˙Ψ∂ρ˙b
ν˙ + g i
4 Ψ¯Γ2ǫµ˙ν˙ρ˙Fν˙ρ˙∂µ˙Ψ
− 1
2 H1˙2˙3˙H
1˙2˙3˙ − 1
4 Fν˙ρ˙F
ν˙ρ˙ − 1
2 Fβµ˙F
βµ˙ − 1
2 ǫαβFαβ∂µ˙b
µ˙
−gǫαβFβµ˙∂αbν˙∂ ν˙bµ˙ +
1
2 gǫαβFµ˙ν˙∂αb
µ˙∂βb ν˙ + gFµ˙ν˙F
αν˙∂αb µ˙
+gF αν˙Fαµ˙∂ν˙b µ˙ +
1
2 gǫαβFβµ˙F
µ˙ν˙Fαν˙ +O(g 2)
} . (99)
The full action (97) inherits the full supersymmetry from the NP M5-brane theory
because DDR preserves global SUSY, and duality transformation is an equivalence re-
lation. Nevertheless it is not totally trivial to derive the explicit SUSY transformation
rules for all the variables, in particular those arise as Lagrange multipliers. We leave this
for future study.
7 Generalization to Multiple Dp-branes
To generalize the story about a single D4-brane to a system of multiple Dp-branes, we
notice first that the VPD for a volume (p− 1)-form is generated by a (p− 1)-bracket
{f1, f2, · · · , fp−1} ≡ ǫ µ˙1µ˙2···µ˙p−1∂µ˙1f1∂µ˙2f2 · · ·∂µ˙p−1fp−1. (100)
We define a (p− 2)-form gauge potential bµ˙1···µ˙p−2 and its dual
bµ˙1 = 1
(p− 2)! ǫµ˙1µ˙2···µ˙p−1bµ˙2···µ˙p−1 . (101)
Let
X µ˙ = yµ˙
g + bµ˙ (102)
and the field strength H can be defined as
Hµ˙1µ˙2···µ˙p−1 ≡ g p−2{X µ˙1, X µ˙2 , · · · , X µ˙p−1} −
1
g = ∂µ˙b
µ˙ +O(g). (103)
17

In terms of bµ˙ the gauge transformation is exactly of the same form as (56), and the
parameter κµ˙ is still divergenceless. The only change is that the range of the indices µ˙, ν˙
becomes 2, 3, · · · , p. 10
While we do not intend to promote the VPD gauge potential bµ˙ to a matrix mostly
because we do not know how to modify its gauge transformation law, we shall replace the
U(1) potential by a U(N) potential aA, which is now an N × N anti-Hermitian matrix
of 1-forms. The U(N) gauge transformation of aA should be defined by
δaA = [DA, λ] + g(κ µ˙∂µ˙aA + aµ˙∂Aκ
µ˙), (104)
where DA ≡ ∂A + aA. It modifies (61) only by replacing ∂Aλ by [DA, λ]. The gauge
transformation parameter λ is an N × N anti-Hermitian matrix but κµ˙ is 1 × 1. The
range of the index A is now A = 0, 1, 2, · · · , p. Decomposing the potential aA into the
U(1) part and the SU(N) part
aA = a U(1) A + a
SU(N) A , (105)
the gauge transformation of a U(1) A is exactly the same as before (61).
We can define Vµ˙ ν˙ and Bˆα
µ˙ using the same expressions (44)–(51) as before
V µ˙ν˙ ≡ δ µ˙ ν˙ + g∂ν˙b
µ˙, (106)
Mµ˙ν˙ αβ ≡ Vµ˙ρ˙Vν˙
ρ˙δαβ − gǫαβFU(1)µ˙ν˙ , (107)
Bˆ µ˙α ≡ (M −1)µ˙ν˙αβ(V
σ˙ ν˙ ∂
βbσ˙ + ǫ βγF
U(1) γν˙ ), (108)
but with the field strength F U(1) µ˙ν˙ being the U(1) part of the U(N) field strength, so that
their gauge transformations remain the same. The range of the indices α, β is still 0, 1.
The naive definition of field strength FAB ≡ [DA, DB] is not covariant. They transform
like
δFAB = [FAB, λ] + gκ µ˙∂µ˙FAB + g[(∂Aκ
µ˙)Fµ˙B − (∂Bκ µ˙)Fµ˙A]. (109)
It turns out that exactly the same expressions as (69)–(71) give the covariant field
strengths. For the convenience of the reader we reproduce them here
Fµ˙ν˙ = Fµ˙ν˙ + g[∂σ˙b σ˙Fµ˙ν˙ − ∂µ˙b
σ˙Fσ˙ν˙ − ∂ν˙b σ˙Fµ˙σ˙]
= V ρ˙ρ˙ Fµ˙ν˙ + V ρ˙
µ˙ Fν˙ρ˙ + V ρ˙
ν˙ Fρ˙µ˙, (110)
Fαµ˙ = V −1 ν˙
µ˙ (Fαν˙ + gFν˙δ˙Bˆ δ˙ α ), (111)
Fαβ = Fαβ + g[−Fαµ˙Bˆ µ˙ β − Fµ˙βBˆ
µ˙ α + gFµ˙ν˙Bˆ
µ˙ α Bˆ
ν˙ β ]. (112)
10 The indices 2, 3, · · · would be denoted as 1˙, 2˙, · · · in previous sections.
18

They transform like
δFAB = [FAB, λ− gκ µ˙∂µ˙]. (113)
From this expression it is easy to check that the gauge symmetry algebra is given by
[δ1, δ2] = δ3, (114)
where δi is the gauge transformation with parameters λi, κ µ˙ i and
λ3 = [λ1, λ2] + g(κ µ˙ 2∂µ˙λ1 − κ
µ˙ 1∂µ˙λ2), (115)
κµ˙3 = g(κ ν˙ 2∂ν˙κ
µ˙ 1 − κ
ν˙ 1∂ν˙κ
µ˙ 2 ). (116)
In view of the D4-brane action (73), it is now natural to define the action for the
gauge fields on multiple Dp-branes in R-R (p− 1)-form field background as
SDpgauge[b µ˙, aA] =
∫ d2xdp−1y
{ − 1
2
1
(p− 1)! Hµ˙1···µ˙p−1H
µ˙1···µ˙p−1 + 1
2g ǫαβFU(1)αβ
− 1
4 FU(1)ν˙ρ˙ F
ν˙ρ˙ U(1) +
1
2 FU(1)βµ˙ F
βµ˙ U(1) −
1
4 tr ( FSU(N)AB F
AB SU(N)
)} . (117)
If we focus our attention on the U(1) part of the 1-form gauge potential aA and the VPD
gauge potential bµ˙, everything is exactly the same as before. The VPD field strength H
is dual to only the U(1) part of F01. But since the SU(N) part of the field strength FAB
involves the VPD potential bµ˙, the U(1) part of aA couples to the SU(N) part indirectly
through bµ˙. This is different from the usual Yang-Mills theory of U(N) gauge symmetry,
for which the U(1) part decouples, but similar to the noncommutative U(N) YM theory.
To the 0-th order in g, the action is
S ′Dp(0)gauge[b µ˙, aA] =
∫ d2xd3y
{ − 1
2 (H23···p + F
U(1) 01 )
2 − 1
4 F U(1) AB F
AB U(1) −
1
4 tr ( F SU(N) AB F
AB SU(N)
)} ,
(118)
where H23···p = ∂µ˙b µ˙. Again, since H23···p is the only component of the field strength
for the gauge potential bµ˙, we can integrate it out and the action reduces to that of a
Yang-Mills theory in (p+ 1) dimensions.
In fact, the VPD symmetry allows us to impose the gauge fixing condition
∂µ˙1bµ˙1µ˙2···µ˙p−2 = 0 ⇔ ∂ µ˙bν˙ − ∂ν˙bµ˙ = 0. (119)
This condition allows us to solve bµ˙ in terms of H23···p as
bµ˙ = ∂µ˙∂˙−2H23···p, (120)
19

where ∂˙−2 is the inverse of the Laplace operator ∂˙2 ≡ ∂µ˙∂µ˙. Like what we did in Sec.
5.2, we can continue to integrate out H23···p at higher orders of g using the relation (120)
for every term involving bµ˙ in the action, although we would get a nonlocal action in the
end. In principle we can write down a nonlocal action of aA without any trace of b µ˙ or
H23···p as an expansion of g to an arbitrary order.
8 Conclusion and Discussion
In this paper, we showed that the C-field background induces a Nambu-Poisson structure
on the D4-brane which generates the gauge symmetry of volume-preserving diffeomor-
phisms. The potential bµ˙ for this new gauge symmetry is the electric-magnetic dual of
the U(1) gauge potential aα in the D4-brane theory. In the limit g → 0 the NP D4-brane
theory reduces to the usual Maxwell theory for a D4-brane. Our D4-brane action in
C-field background is a good approximation of the system in the limit (35) and (36).
It is possible that the NP M5-brane theory is good at low energy for a wider range
of limits than that given in (2). It may be possible that it is a good effective theory
when g22 ∼ ǫ2a for some positive real number a within a certain range, while all other
variables take the same limit as before. This would allow us to impose the condition
(36) simultaneously with (35). The compactification radius R in the double dimensional
reduction scales like
R ∼ ǫa, (121)
if g22 ∼ ǫ2a. The type IIA parameters then scale like
ℓs ∼ ǫ (1−a)/2, gs ∼ ǫ
(3a−1)/2, (122)
while 2πα′B01 is still finite when ǫ→ 0. If
1/3 < a < 1, (123)
we would have ℓs, gs, R/ℓs, R/ℓP → 0 at the same time.
In the previous section we have partially generalized the NP D4-brane theory to
theories for Dp-branes in constant (p − 1)-form background, although we have not yet
included matter fields. In the gauge field sector of the Dp-brane theory, there is a
(p−2)-form gauge potential b for the volume-preserving diffeomorphism symmetry in the
(p− 1) directions selected by the R-R (p− 1)-form background. The volume-preserving
diffeomorphism is generated by a generalization of the Nambu-Poisson bracket with (p−1)
20

slots. The field strength H of the potential bµ˙ is dual to the U(1) field strength in the
sense that, to the lowest order in g,
F 01 = 1
(p− 1)! ǫ01µ˙1···µ˙p−1Hµ˙1···µ˙p−1 , (124)
so there is no independent physical degrees of freedom in bµ˙ apart from those in the U(1)
gauge field a. The all-order relation between the covariant field strength H and F is
very complicated because the volume preserving diffeomorphism is non-Abelian. Both
the definitions of H and F are quite non-trivial. Apart from the advancement in our
understanding about D-branes in string theory, the novelty of the structure of gauge
symmetry is intriguing by itself. This is an efficient gauge theory in which the gauge
potentials for two gauge symmetries share the same physical degrees of freedom.
If we take T-duality along the x1-direction of the D4-brane considered in this paper,
we get a D3-brane in an R-R 4-form potential background. The background 4-form can
be decomposed as the wedge product of a 1-form in the direction x˜1 T-dual to x1 and the
3-form C along the D3-brane worldvolume. The 3-form C defines a volume-form and the
corresponding VPD is inherited from the D4-brane. We still need the gauge fields bµ˙ for
D3. The connection between F01 and H1˙2˙3˙ at the 0-th order for a D4-brane becomes the
connection between p˜1, the momentum in the direction of x˜ 1, and H1˙2˙3˙. Extending this
conclusion to Dp-branes, we claim that for a Dp-brane in the RR (p+ 1)-form potential
background
D(p+1) = V (1) ∧ C(p), (125)
where V (1) is transverse and C(p) is parallel to the Dp-brane, the VPD corresponding to
the volume-form C(p) shares the same gauge field degrees of freedom with the component
of the momentum p in the direction of V (1).
For future works, we would like to include matter fields for Dp-branes in large R-R
(p − 1)-form gauge potential background. It will also be important to find the explicit
expressions of SUSY transformation laws.
As a final goal of this line of research, one would like to generalize the results to the
ultimate generality of multiple Dp-branes and NS 5-branes in all combinations NS-NS
and R-R field background in various limits. An immediate challenging problem is to
define a deformation of VPD such that it is the electric magnetic dual of the noncommu-
tative and/or non-Abelian gauge symmetry. There are related No-Go theorems [24, 25]
suggesting that there will be brand new gauge symmetries yet to be discovered.
21

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Chien-Ho Chen, Wei-Ming Chen, Chong-Sun Chu, Kazuyuki Furu-
uchi, Petr Horˇava, Kuo-Wei Huang, Yu-tin Huang, Hirotaka Irie, Hiroshi Isono, Sheng-
Lan Ko, Yutaka Matsuo, Yu Nakayama, Hirosi Ooguri, Ryu Sasaki, John Schwarz, Tomo-
hisa Takimi, Wen-Yu Wen and Chen-Pin Yeh for helpful discussions. The final stage of
this work was completed during a visit of P.M.H. at CalTech. He thanks the hospitality
of the high energy theory group at CalTech. This work is supported in part by the Na-
tional Science Council, the NSC internship program, the National Center for Theoretical
Sciences, and the Center for Theoretical Sciences at National Taiwan University.
References
[1] R. G. Leigh, “Dirac-Born-Infeld Action from Dirichlet Sigma Model,” Mod. Phys.
Lett. A 4, 2767 (1989).
[2] E. Witten, “Bound states of strings and p-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 460, 335 (1996)
[arXiv:hep-th/9510135].
[3] C. S. Chu and P. M. Ho, “Noncommutative open string and D-brane,” Nucl. Phys.
B 550, 151 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9812219]. C. S. Chu and P. M. Ho, “Constrained
quantization of open string in background B field and noncommutative D-brane,”
Nucl. Phys. B 568, 447 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9906192].
[4] V. Schomerus, “D-branes and deformation quantization,” JHEP 9906, 030 (1999)
[arXiv:hep-th/9903205].
[5] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “String theory and noncommutative geometry,” JHEP
9909, 032 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9908142].
[6] P. S. Howe and E. Sezgin, “D = 11, p = 5,” Phys. Lett. B 394, 62 (1997) [arXiv:hep-
th/9611008]. P. S. Howe, E. Sezgin and P. C. West, “Covariant field equations of
the M-theory five-brane,” Phys. Lett. B 399, 49 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9702008].
[7] P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, “Covariant action for a D = 11 five-brane
with the chiral field,” Phys. Lett. B 398, 41 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9701037].
22

[8] I. A. Bandos, K. Lechner, A. Nurmagambetov, P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin,
“Covariant action for the super-five-brane of M-theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4332
(1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9701149]. M. Aganagic, J. Park, C. Popescu and J. H. Schwarz,
“World-volume action of the M-theory five-brane,” Nucl. Phys. B 496, 191 (1997)
[arXiv:hep-th/9701166]. I. A. Bandos, K. Lechner, A. Nurmagambetov, P. Pasti,
D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, “On the equivalence of different formulations of the M
theory five-brane,” Phys. Lett. B 408, 135 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9703127].
[9] P. M. Ho and Y. Matsuo, “M5 from M2,” JHEP 0806, 105 (2008) [arXiv:0804.3629
[hep-th]].
[10] P. M. Ho, Y. Imamura, Y. Matsuo and S. Shiba, “M5-brane in three-form flux and
multiple M2-branes,” JHEP 0808, 014 (2008) [arXiv:0805.2898 [hep-th]].
[11] J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Modeling multiple M2’s, Phys. Rev. D 75, 045020 (2007)
[arXiv:hep-th/0611108]; J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Gauge Symmetry and Super-
symmetry of Multiple M2-Branes,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 065008 (2008) [arXiv:0711.0955
[hep-th]]. J. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Comments On Multiple M2-branes,” JHEP
0802, 105 (2008) [arXiv:0712.3738 [hep-th]].
[12] A. Gustavsson, “Algebraic structures on parallel M2-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 811,
66 (2009) [arXiv:0709.1260 [hep-th]].
[13] L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa and R. Schiappa, “D-brane dynamics in constant Ramond-
Ramond potentials and noncommutative geometry,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 9, 355
(2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0209164].
[14] H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “The C-deformation of gluino and non-planar diagrams,”
Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, 53 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0302109].
[15] J. de Boer, P. A. Grassi and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Non-commutative superspace
from string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 574, 98 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0302078].
[16] Y. Nambu, “Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 7, 2405 (1973);
F. Bayen, M. Flato, “Remarks concerning Nambu’s generalized mechanics,” Phys.
23

Rev. D 11, 3049 (1975); N. Mukunda, E. Sudarshan, “Relations between Nambu
and Hamiltonian mechanics,” Phys. Rev. D 13, 2846 (1976); L. Takhtajan, “On
Foundation Of The Generalized Nambu Mechanics (Second Version),” Commun.
Math. Phys. 160, 295 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9301111]. For a review of the Nambu-
Poisson bracket, see: I. Vaisman, “A survey on Nambu-Poisson brackets,” Acta.
Math. Univ. Comenianae 2 (1999), 213.
[17] P. M. Ho and Y. Matsuo, “A toy model of open membrane field theory in constant
3-form flux,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 39, 913 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0701130].
[18] K. Furuuchi and T. Takimi, “String solitons in the M5-brane worldvolume action
with Nambu-Poisson structure and Seiberg-Witten map,” JHEP 0908, 050 (2009)
[arXiv:0906.3172 [hep-th]].
[19] P. M. Ho, “A Concise Review on M5-brane in Large C-Field Background,”
arXiv:0912.0445 [hep-th].
[20] C. S. Chu and D. J. Smith, “Towards the Quantum Geometry of the M5-
brane in a Constant C-Field from Multiple Membranes,” JHEP 0904, 097 (2009)
[arXiv:0901.1847 [hep-th]].
[21] J. Huddleston, “Relations between M-brane and D-brane quantum geometries,”
arXiv:1006.5375 [hep-th].
[22] P. Pasti, I. Samsonov, D. Sorokin and M. Tonin, “BLG-motivated Lagrangian for-
mulation for the chiral two-form gauge field in D=6 and M5-branes,” Phys. Rev. D
80, 086008 (2009) [arXiv:0907.4596 [hep-th]].
[23] K. Furuuchi, “Non-Linearly Extended Self-Dual Relations From The Nambu-Bracket
Description Of M5-Brane In A Constant C-Field Background,” JHEP 1003, 127
(2010) [arXiv:1001.2300 [hep-th]].
[24] C. H. Chen, K. Furuuchi, P. M. Ho and T. Takimi, “More on the Nambu-Poisson
M5-brane Theory: Scaling limit, background independence and an all order solution
to the Seiberg-Witten map,” arXiv:1006.5291 [hep-th].
24

[25] X. Bekaert, M. Henneaux and A. Sevrin, “Deformations of chiral two-forms in six
dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 468, 228 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9909094].
25