• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,075 questions , 2,226 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,749 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Conflicting definitions for Kazama-Suzuki models

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

In their original paper, Kazama and Suzuki treated the coset models $G/H$ such that this quotient is a special kind of Kahler manifold called hermitian symmetric space. They give a bunch of examples, including Grassmanian manifolds $\frac{SU(m+n)}{SU(m)\times SU(n)\times U(1)}$.

However, in another paper (by Behr and Fredenhagen) they say that the Kazama-Suzuki models are of the form $\frac{G_k\times SO(2d)_1}{H}$, and gave the example of the Grassmanian manifold, which they wrote as $\frac{SU(m+n)_1\times SO(2nk)_1}{SU(m)_{k+1}\times SU(n)_{n+1}\times U(1)}$. The subscripts just refer to the level of the representation of the loop algebras that they want to take when constructing the coset using the GKO method.

Why is it OK to add the $SO(2d)$? It should affect the coset, and we get a different representation of the $N=2$ super-CFT if we add it. How can these two definitions be compatible?

asked May 30, 2019 in Theoretical Physics by Soap (40 points) [ revision history ]

SO(2N) is for the free fermions to get the rest as the bosonic coset expression.
More details in Supersymmetric holography on AdS3 by Constantin Candu, Matthias R. Gaberdiel

@igael What do you mean by "the rest"? Also, is there another reference? Maybe more pedagogical? This one seems a bit over my head right now.

@igael Ok, so it is partially explained later in the Kazama-Suzuki original paper, section 4.3.

@Soap : all the linked doc is about the presence of the fermionic component. The goal was to use (3.16) because, as the authors state, "bosonic coset description ... contains implicitly the supersymmetry generators as long as we describe the so(2N)1 algebra in terms of 2N free Majorana fermions.". Finally, there is not a conflict.

@igael Thanks, that helped. However, it hinges on the fact that $\mathfrak{su}(N)^1_{k+N}\cong \mathfrak{su}(N)_k\oplus \mathfrak{so}(\dim \mathfrak{su}(N))$, which they do not justify. Do you know where I can find the justification for this? Also, this is for the specific case of $\mathfrak{su}(N)$, whicle I want this for the general case $G$.

@igael It seems that the appropriate generalization would be to say that $\hat{\mathfrak{g}}_k\oplus\widehat{\mathfrak{so}(\dim \mathfrak{g})}_1\cong\hat{\mathfrak{g}}^{N=1}_{k+\dim\mathfrak{g}}$. But I have no idea if this is correct (because, as I said, I do not know where the original result comes from).

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights