4.4 Article

Consistency of supersymmetric 't Hooft anomalies

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2021)225

关键词

Anomalies in Field and String Theories; Conformal Field Theory; Superspaces; Supersymmetric Gauge Theory

资金

  1. Advanced ERC grant SM-grav [669288]
  2. ERC under the STG grant [639220]
  3. Vetenskapsradet [2018-05572]
  4. ERC STG grant [639220]
  5. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation [113410212]
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [669288] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  7. Swedish Research Council [2018-05572] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The passage discusses how to remove the anomaly in supersymmetry in the presence of an R-symmetry anomaly and enlarging the corresponding current multiplet. It also explores the additional effects on Ward identities for other existing anomalies when the supersymmetry anomaly is removed. Finally, it validates the modified consistency conditions through explicit computation using Pauli-Villars regulators.
We consider recent claims that supersymmetry is anomalous in the presence of a R-symmetry anomaly. We revisit arguments that such an anomaly in supersymmetry can be removed and write down an explicit counterterm that accomplishes it. Removal of the supersymmetry anomaly requires enlarging the corresponding current multiplet. As a consequence the Ward identities for other symmetries that are already anomalous acquire extra terms. This procedure can only be impeded when the choice of current multiplet is forced. We show how Wess-Zumino consistency conditions are modified when the anomaly is removed. Finally we check that the modified Wess-Zumino consistency conditions are satisfied, and supersymmetry unbroken, in an explicit one loop computation using Pauli-Villars regulators. To this end we comment on how to use Pauli-Villars to regulate correlators of components of (super)current multiplets in a manifestly supersymmetric way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据