Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We continue our study of gaugings the maximal $$N=(2,2)$$ N = ( 2 , 2 ) supergravity in six dimensions with gauge groups obtained from decomposing the embedding tensor under R⁺× SO(4,4) R + × S O ( 4 , 4 ) subgroup of the global symmetry SO (5, 5). Supersymmetry requires the embedding tensor to transform in 144c 144 c representation of SO (5, 5). Under R⁺× SO(4,4) R + × S O ( 4 , 4 ) subgroup, this leads to the embedding tensor in (8± 3, ( 8 ± 3 , 8± 1,56± 1) 8 ± 1 , 56 ± 1 ) representations. Gaugings in 8± 3 8 ± 3 representations lead to a translational gauge group R⁸ R 8 while gaugings in 8± 1 8 ± 1 representations give rise to gauge groups related to the scaling symmetry R⁺. R + . On the other hand, the embedding tensor in 56± 1 56 ± 1 representations gives CSO(4-p,p,1)~ SO(4-p,p) < imes R⁴⊂ SO(4,4) C S O ( 4 - p , p , 1 ) ∼ S O ( 4 - p , p ) ⋉ R 4 ⊂ S O ( 4 , 4 ) gauge groups with $$p=0,1,2.$$ p = 0 , 1 , 2 . More interesting gauge groups can be obtained by turning on more than one representation of the embedding tensor subject to the quadratic constraints. In particular, we consider gaugings in both 56⁻¹ 56 - 1 and 8⁺³ 8 + 3 representations giving rise to larger $$SO(5-p,p)$$ S O ( 5 - p , p ) and $$SO(4-p,p+1)$$ S O ( 4 - p , p + 1 ) gauge groups for $$p=0,1,2.$$ p = 0 , 1 , 2 . In this case, we also give a number of half-supersymmetric domain wall solutions preserving different residual symmetries. The solutions for gaugings obtained only from 56⁻¹ 56 - 1 representation are also included in these results when the 8⁺³ 8 + 3 part is accordingly turned off.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nuchino et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: