Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
  • For a general ${\cal N}$ the R-symmetry group is $U({\cal N})$ but for the ${\cal N}=2$ case why is it $SU(2)$ ? I guess it is again different for ${\cal N}=4$. How does one understand this?

One denotes the generators of the R-symmetry group by $B^i$ and let $\alpha$ be the spinor index and let $a,b$ be the R-charge indices in a ${\cal N}=2$ theory. Then one writes the defining equations as,

$[Q_{\alpha a}, B^i] = -\frac{1}{2} (\tau ^i)_a ^b Q_{\alpha b}$ and $[\bar{Q}_{\dot{\alpha}}^a, B^i] = \frac{1}{2} \bar{Q}_{\dot{\alpha}}^b (\tau ^i)_b ^a$

  • But it is not clear to me as to why over and above the aforementioned equations there should be yet another charge $R$ (called the $U(1)_R$ charge) with the defining equations,

$[Q_{\alpha a},R] = Q_{\alpha a}$ and $[\bar{Q}_{\dot{\alpha} a}, R] = - \bar{Q}_{\dot{\alpha} a}$

I would like to know why the above charge should exist in ${\cal N}=2$ supersymetry separate from the R-symmetry.

Is there an analogue for this $R$ for other values of ${\cal N}$ ?

  • Typically this R-charge as defined above is anomalous. How does one see that? Also what is the analogous statement for R-symmetry?
share|cite|improve this question

(1) Classical $\mathcal{N}=2$ theory has R symmetry $SU(2)_R \times U(1)_R$.

(2) $[Q,B]\sim \tau Q$, for $SU(2)$ part, $\tau$ is pauli matrices. While for $[Q,R]\sim Q$, the right hand side can be seen as identity matrix. This is $U(1)_R$ part of R symmetry.

(3) The anomalous can be seen from correlation function from index theorem which says that in one instanton background, there is $2N_C$ zero mode for each left handed adjoint fermion and one zero mode for each for each fermion in fundemental and antifundamental representation. Generally the $U(1)_R$ will breaks down to $Z_{4N_c-2N_F}$ in $\mathcal{N}=2$ theory.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.