\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction6d}

Probably the most attractive feature of string theory is that it
incorporates both quantum gravity and gauge interactions in a
consistent framework. A consistent string model should therefore have
the appropriate particle content and interactions such that all
apparent field-theoretic gauge and/or gravitational anomalies are
absent.  In four dimensional string models, there can be $U(1)_A$
gauge symmetries which are pseudo-anomalous. However, the
Green-Schwarz mechanism \cite{gs} ensures that counterterms are
generated from the exchange of pseudoscalar fields and any
field-theoretic $U(1)_A$ triangle anomaly is canceled by the
corresponding non-trivial $U(1)_A$ transformation of the
pseudoscalars.

The analysis of anomalous $U(1)$ have mainly be focused on
perturbative heterotic string theory \cite{hetgs} where many
semi-realistic string models can be easily constructed.  In recent
years, however, tremendous progress has been made in constructing
four-dimensional ${\cal N}=1$ Type I string models \cite{typeI}.
Moreover, it was recently suggested that if the Standard Model
particles are localized on a set of $p$-branes where $3<p<9$ whereas
gravity lives in higher dimensional spacetime, then the string scale
can be as low as a few TeV \cite{lyk,TeV,ST} .  Type I string theory
provides a natural framework to realize this ``brane world'' scenario
\cite{TeV,ST,BW}.  In view of these developments, it is therefore
important to carry out similar analysis for Type I string vacua.

Anomaly cancelations in some four-dimensional ${\cal N}=1$ Type I
string models were studied in some recent papers \cite{iru9808}.
Anomaly cancelations in $D=6$ Type IIB $\mbz_N$ orientifolds without
the B-flux background were studied in \cite{sagnotti,6authors,ss99}.
The analysis involves techniques in computing couplings of the
twisted moduli with the gauge fields which were also recently studied in \cite{dudas}.
These
simple examples illustrate some new features in Type I string vacua
that are distinct from that of the perturbative heterotic string.
First, the R-R scalars which participate in the Green-Schwarz
mechanism come from the twisted sectors which can couple differently
to different gauge factors. Therefore, in contrast to perturbative
heterotic string, there can be more than one anomalous $U(1)$ in these
Type I vacua. Moreover, the Fayet-Iliopoulos term already appears at
tree-level and is dependent on the blowing-up modes of the orbifolds.

In this paper, we consider orientifold models with a non-vanishing
NS-NS sector B-field background \cite{Bij,w9712,kst9803}.  Although
the fluctuations of the NS-NS B-field are projected out of the
orientifold spectrum (since it is odd under worldsheet parity
reversal), a quantized vacuum expectation value of this B-field is
allowed.  Furthermore, the presence of this B-field gives rise to some
novel features.  In particular, the rank of the gauge group is reduced
by $2^{b/2}$ \cite{Bij,w9712,kst9803} where $b$ is the rank of the
background B-field.  Moreover, in models where there are both $D9$ and
$D5$-branes, the $59$ sector states come with a multiplicity of
$2^{b/2}$ \cite{kst9803}.  These reduced rank orientifold models are
dual to the CHL strings \cite{CHL} in heterotic string theory.  For
models with both $D9$ and $D5$-branes, the corresponding heterotic
duals contain NS fivebranes. Therefore, the analysis of these
orientifolds may shed some lights on the non-perturbative properties
of the CHL strings.

Following the work of Sen \cite{sen}, we also expect a close relation
between orientifolds and F theory vacua. In Ref \cite{bershad}, some
eight-dimensional F theory vacua with non-zero background B-flux were
studied.  Naively, the presence of this NS-NS sector B-field
background is incompatible with the $SL(2,\mbz)$ symmetry (the
S-duality) of Type IIB theory.  However, the presence of this B-flux
freezes 8 of the moduli of the elliptic $K3$, leaving only a
10-dimensional subspace.  The monodromy group on this subspace is
reduced from $SL(2,\mbz)$ to the congruence group $\Gamma_0(2)$ which
is the largest subgroup of $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ that keeps the B-flux
invariant.  In this paper, we consider models with both $D9$ and
$D5$-branes. They can be viewed as generalizations of F theory
compactifications of this kind to lower dimensions when there are more
than one type of 7-branes.

On the other hand, this class of models is closely related to the
setup considered in
\cite{ncg}.  According to \cite{ncg}, the positions of the branes
cease to commute in the presence of a B-field background. It is
possible that our results here can be understood from the point of
view of noncommutative geometry.

Type IIB orientifolds with quantized background B-field are also
interesting from the phenomenological point of view.  In the absence
of B-field, the residual gauge symmetries are typically too large for
the models to be phenomenologically interesting.  Since the rank of
the gauge group is reduced by $2^{b/2}$ in the presence of B-field, it
is possible to construct string models containing the Standard Model
with fewer additional gauge symmetries.  In fact, the three-family
Pati-Salam like model in Ref. \cite{ST} was constructed by turning on
a non-zero background B-field with $b=2$ in a $\mbz_6$ orientifold.
There are both $D9$ and $D5$-branes in this model. Under T-duality,
they become 2 sets of $D5$-branes: $D5_1$ and $D5_2$ whose
intersection is our four-dimensional non-compact spacetime.  The
Standard Model $SU(3)$ lives on the $D5_1$-branes and the three chiral
families of fermions in the Standard Model come from open strings with
at least one end attached to the $D5_1$-branes.  One of the families
comes from $5_15_1$ open strings whereas the other two families are
$5_15_2$ open string states.  The fact that there are two families in
the $5_15_2$ sector depends crucially on the multiplicity of
$2^{b/2}=2$ in the $5_15_2$ sector.

Since the main new features in models with non-zero B-field that we
discuss here already appear in six dimensions, we will focus our
attention to six-dimensional models in this paper.  Moreover, as we
will see, anomaly cancelations in six dimensions provide rather
stringent constraints on the consistencies of these models.  In
particular, we will show that the multiplicity of $2^{b/2}$ in the
$59$ sector is crucial for the cancelation of the leading anomalies
({\em i.e.}, the $\tr F^4$ and $\tr R^4$ terms). Moreover, the
remaining anomalies are properly factorized which can then be canceled
by the Green-Schwarz mechanism.  The analysis of four-dimensional
${\cal N}=1$ orientifold models with background B-field will appear in
a separate publication \cite{bst}.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{6d}, we describe
in detail the construction of some six-dimensional orientifold models
with non-zero background B-field considered in Ref.\cite{kst9803}.  In
Section \ref{anomaly}, we discuss anomaly cancelations in these
models. We end with some discussion in Section \ref{discussion}. Some
of the technical details are relegated to the appendices.

\section{Six Dimensional Examples}
\label{6d}

In this section, we discuss in detail the construction of
six-dimensional Type IIB orientifolds with background B-flux
\cite{kst9803}.  In particular, we consider the orbifold limits of K3:
$T^4/\mbz_N$ where $N=2,3,4,6$.\footnote{These orientifolds without
background B-flux have been constructed in \cite{gp,gj9606}.}  Since
we are interested in models with both $D9$ and $D5$-branes, we only
consider the cases $N=2,4,6$.  However, turning on the NS-NS
antisymmetric two-form background seems to render the $T^4/\mbz_6$
Type IIB perturbative orientifold inconsistent\footnote{$T^4/\mbz_6$
Type IIB orientifold with rank two B-flux does not contain states $\bf
(4,4;1,1)$ and $\bf (1,1;4,4)$ given in Table II of \cite{kst9803}.
As a result, the $\tr R^4$ and $\tr F^4$ anomalies do not
cancel. However, it is consistent \cite{bst} to turn on B-field in the
$T^6/\mbz_6$ orientifold in Ref.\cite{ST} since the corresponding
$\mbz_3$ twist is different.}, so we will concentrate on the $\mbz_2$
and $\mbz_4$ models.  Type I vacua on smooth K3 with non-zero
$B$-field have been studied in \cite{SS}.

Toroidal compactification of Type IIB string theory on a four
dimensional torus $T^4$ gives rise to a six dimensional model with
$\cn=4$ supersymmetry. By gauging the world-sheet parity $\Om$
$(X_L\leftrightarrow X_R)$ of Type IIB strings reduces by half the
number of supersymmetries. One can further reduce the number of
supersymmetries to $\cn=1$ by orbifolding. Specifically, the $\mbz_N$
orbifold action is realized by powers of the twist generator $\theta $
($\theta^N=1$) which can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
\theta= \exp (2i\pi (v_1J_{67}+v_2J_{89})),
\label{twist}
\end{equation}
where $J_{mn}$ are $SO(4)$ Cartan generators and
$v\equiv(v_1,v_2)={\frac{1}N }(1,-1)$ represents the twist.  In terms
of the complex bosonic coordinates $Y_1 = X_6+iX_7$, $Y_2 = X_8+iX_9$
that parametrize the torus, $\th$ acts diagonally as
\begin{equation}
\theta^k Y_i  = {\rm e}^{2i\pi kv_i}Y_i.
\label{thdi}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we define complex fermionic fields $\psi^i$ as
$\psi^1= \psi^6+i\psi^7$ and $\psi^2= \psi^8+i\psi^9$.

To derive the massless spectra of the orientifolds, we will work in
light-cone gauge. For example, in the closed untwisted sector the NS
massless states are $\psi_{-\oh}^\mu \vac$ which are invariant under
$\th$, and $\psi_{-\oh}^i \vac$ which transforms as
\beq
\th^k  \psi_{-\oh}^i \vac =  {\rm e}^{2i\pi kv_i} \psi_{-\oh}^i \vac.
\label{thpsi}
\eeq
Complex conjugates $\psi_{-\oh}^{\bar{i}}$ transform with a phase
${\rm e}^{-2i\pi kv_i}$.
The untwisted massless Ramond states are of the form
$| s_0 s_1 s_2 s_3 \rangle$
with $s_0, s_i = \pm \oh$. To implement the GSO projection
we retain only the states with $s_0+s_1+s_2+s_3=0,\ {\rm mod\ 2}$.
These states transform as
\beq
\theta^k |s_0 s_1 s_2 s_3 \rangle = {\rm e}^{2i\pi kv\cdot s}
|s_0 s_1 s_2 s_3 \rangle.
\label{twistR}
\eeq

The close string spectrum is obtained by retaining only those states
in the untwisted sector which are invariant under the orientifold
group action and by including twisted sector states. This will be
discussed in more detail in Sec.~\ref{closedsector}.

Although Type IIB theory is a theory of closed strings, the
orientifold projection requires both closed and open string sectors
for consistency.  The Klein bottle amplitude (which is present due to
the orientifold projection) in the closed string sector generically
gives rise to tadpole divergences. These divergences are canceled by
the new contributions from the open string sector \cite{pcai}.
Alternatively, orientifold fixed planes are sources for the
Ramond-Ramond (R-R) $(p+1)$-forms.  Charge cancelation can be
generically achieved by including the right number of D$p$-branes,
carrying opposite charge with respect to these forms \cite{polchin}.
The endpoints of an open string are labeled by $a$ and $b$ which lie
on a $D_p$ and $D_q$-brane respectively (the corresponding excitations
are $pq$ sector states).  The models we discuss here have both D9 and
D5-branes.  The open string sector of the models will be discussed in
Sec.~\ref{opensector}.

\subsection{Open String Sector}
\label{opensector}

The open string spectrum of Type IIB orientifolds on $T^4/\mbz_N$ are
determined by the type and the number of D-branes necessary to cancel
the tadpole divergences in the closed string Klein bottle amplitude.
The worldsheet parity element $\Omega$ of the orientifold group
produces the tadpole which must be canceled by the 9-branes.  For even
$N$, the closed string sector tadpole from $\Omega \th^{N/2}$
orientifold element is canceled by introducing $5$-branes, whose
worldvolume spans the uncompactified $D=6$ space-time.

Let $\Psi$ be a world-sheet excitation and $a,b$ represent Chan-Paton
indices associated with the string endpoints on D$p$-brane and
D$q$-brane ($p,q=\{5,9\}$).  These Chan-Paton indices must be
contracted with a hermitian matrix $\lambda_{ab}$.  The action of the
group elements on the open string state $|\Psi, ab \rangle $ is given
by \cite{gp}
\beqa
\th^k:&&\ |\Psi, ab \rangle \rightarrow
(\gamma _{k,p})_{aa'} |\th^k.\Psi,a'b'
\rangle (\gamma _{k,q})_{b'b}^{-1},\cr
\Omega\th^k:&&\ |\Psi, ab \rangle \rightarrow
(\gamma _{\Omega_k,p})_{aa'} |\Omega\th^k.\Psi,b'a'
\rangle (\gamma _{\Omega_k,q})_{b'b}^{-1},
\label{groupaction}
\eeqa
where $\g_{k,p}$ and $\g_{\Om_k,p}$ are unitary matrices associated
with $\th^k$.  In order to be consistent with group multiplication
(\ref{groupaction}), we can choose
\beq
\g_{\Om_k,p} = \g_{k,p}\cdot \g_{\Om,p},
\label{gamom}
\eeq
and
\beq
\g_{k,p}=\g_{1,p}^k.
\label{gamk}
\eeq
The absence of pure gauge twists requires $\g_{0,p} = 1$  \cite{gp}.
Because $\th^N=1$,
\beq
\gamma_{1,p}^N=\pm1.
\label{gton}
\eeq
Otherwise $\g_{N,p}$ would be a pure gauge twist.
Similarly, from $(\Omega \th^k)^2=\th^{2k}$,
\beq
\g_{\Om_k,p}=\pm \g_{2k,p} \, \g^T_{\Om_k,p}.
\label{orcon1}
\eeq
Finally, using eqs.~(\ref{gamom}), (\ref{gamk}), (\ref{orcon1}) and the
unitarity of the $\g$ matrices we obtain
\beq
\g_{k,p}^* = \pm \g_{\Om,p}^* \, \g_{k,p} \g_{\Om,p}.
\label{afam}
\eeq
Since different types of branes are present it is also necessary to
consider the action of $(\Omega \th^k)^2$ on $pq$ states.  In
Ref.\cite{gp}, it was argued that $\Om^2 =-1$ on $95$ states. This
implies that in eq.~(\ref{orcon1}) there are opposite signs for 9 and
5-branes.  Since a simultaneous $T$-duality on $X_{6,7,8,9}$
interchanges 9 and 5- branes along with $\Om_0$ and $\Om_{N/2}$,
\beq
\g_{\Om_0,p}=\pm\g^T_{\Om_0,p}\qquad \Rightarrow\qquad
\g_{\Om_{N/2},p}=\mp\g^T_{\Om_{N/2},p},
\label{tduality}
\eeq
where the various signs are now correlated. From
eqs.~(\ref{orcon1})-(\ref{tduality}) it further follows that
\beq
\g_{1,p}^N=-1.
\label{gton1}
\eeq
for both 9 and 5- branes.

Consider first the 99 open string states. The massless NS states
include gauge bosons
$\psi_{-\oh}^\mu|0,ab\rangle \, \lambda_{ab}^{(0)}$
and matter scalars $\psi_{-\oh}^i |0,ab \rangle \, \lambda_{ab}^{(i)}$.
The Chan-Paton matrices must be such that the full states are
invariant under the action of the orientifold group. Hence,
\beqa
\lambda^{(0)} & = & \gamma_{1,9}\lambda^{(0)}{\gamma^{-1}_{1,9}}  \
\quad\quad\quad ; \quad \quad
\lambda^{(0)} = -\gamma_{\Omega,9} {\lambda^{(0)}}^T {\gamma^{-1}_{\Omega,9}},
\nonumber \\[0.3ex]
\lambda^{(i)} & = & {\rm e}^{2\pi i v_i}\g_{1,9}\lambda^{(i)}\g^{-1}_{1,9}
\quad\quad ; \quad \quad
\lambda ^{(i)}  =  -\g_{\Omega,9}{\lambda^{(i)}}^T\g^{-1}_{\Omega,9}.
\label{cons99}
\eeqa

The massless NS states of the 55 open strings also include gauge bosons
$\psi_{-\oh}^\mu|0,ab\rangle \, \lambda_{ab}^{(0)}$
and scalars $\psi_{-\oh}^i |0,ab \rangle \, \lambda_{ab}^{(i)}$.
We consider  models where all $5$-branes sit at the origin
of the orientifold. The Chan-Paton matrices then satisfy
\beqa
\lambda^{(0)} & = & \gamma_{1,5}\lambda^{(0)}{\gamma^{-1}_{1,5}} \
\quad\quad\quad ; \quad \quad
\lambda^{(0)} = -\gamma_{\Omega,5} {\lambda^{(0)}}^T
{\gamma^{-1}_{\Omega,5}},
\nonumber \\[0.3ex]
\lambda^{(i)}  & = &e^{2\pi i v_i}\g_{1,5} \lambda^{(i)} {\g^{-1}_{1,5}}
\quad\quad ; \quad \quad
\lambda^{(i)}  =  \g_{\Omega,5} {\lambda^{(i)}}^T \g^{-1}_{\Omega,5}.
\label{cons55}
\eeqa
The sign change in the $\Om$ projection is due to the DD boundary
conditions on the  directions transverse to the $5$-branes.

Finally, consider $59$ open string states.  For $5$-branes, the
compact coordinates obey mixed DN boundary conditions and have
expansions with half-integer modded creation operators. By world-sheet
supersymmetry their fermionic partners in the NS sector are integer
modded. Their zero modes form a representation of a Clifford algebra
and can be labeled as $|s_i, s_j\rangle$, $i,j= \{2,3\}$, with $s_i,
s_j = \pm \oh$. The GSO projection further imposes $s_i=s_j$. Since
$|s_i, s_j\rangle$ are invariant under $\theta$, the orientifold
projection on these states implies
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \g_{1,5} \lambda  {\g^{-1}_{1,9}}.
\label{cons59}
\end{equation}
Notice that here the index $a$ ($b$) lies on a 5-brane (9-brane).
$\Omega $ relates $59$  with $95$ sectors and does not impose extra
constraints on $\lambda$.

The perturbative spectrum of Type IIB theory contains two massless
antisymmetric tensor fields: one coming from the NS-NS sector, and
another coming from the R-R sector. Under the world-sheet parity
reversal, the NS-NS two-form $B_{\mu \nu}$ is projected out, while the
R-R two-form $B_{\mu \nu}^{\prime}$ is kept.  Although the
fluctuations of $B_{ij}$ (the components of $B_{\mu \nu}$ in the
compactified dimensions) are projected out of the perturbative
unoriented closed string spectrum, a quantized vacuum expectation
value of $B_{ij}$ is allowed. To see this, consider the left- and
right-moving momenta in the $4$ dimensions compactified on a torus
$T^{4}$:
\begin{equation}\label{momenta}
P_{L,R}={\tilde{e}^i \over R_i} (n_i - b_{ij}m^j)
\pm  {e_i m^i R_i\over \a^\prime}~,
\label{bmomentum}
\end{equation}
where $m_i$ and $n^i$ are integers, $e_i$ are constant vielbeins such
that $e_i \cdot e_j=G_{ij}$ is the constant background metric on
$T^{4}$, $R_i$ are compactification radii of the $T^4$, and $e_i \cdot
\tilde{e}^{j}={\delta_i}^j$. In (\ref{bmomentum}) $b_{ij}=B_{ij} R_i
R_j/\a^\prime$.  Note that the components of $b_{ij}$ are defined up
to a shift $b_{ij} \rightarrow b_{ij} + 1$ (which can be absorbed by
redefining $n_i$). With this normalization, only the values $b_{ij}=0$
and $1/2$ are invariant under $\Omega$, and hence the vacuum
expectation values of $b_{ij}$ are quantized.  Let $b=rank(B_{ij})$
($i,j\in \{6,7,8,9\}$) be the rank of NS-NS antisymmetric tensor, it
is clear that $b\in 2\mbz$.

The unitary matrices $\g_{k,p}$ and $\g_{\Omega_k,p}$ must be chosen
so that NS-NS tadpoles from the M\"obius strip (MS) and the cylinder
(C) of the open string sector cancel the NS-NS tadpole of the closed
string sector coming from the Klein bottle (KB).  The specific form of
$\g_{k,p}$ and $\g_{\Omega_k,p}$, and so the massless open string
sector of the orientifold, is sensitive to the NS-NS antisymmetric
tensor background.

Consider first the case of zero B-flux, $b=0$.  The 1-loop vacuum
amplitudes of the models are given in Appendix~\ref{1loopb0}.  The
$t\to 0$ divergences of the KB, C and MS (c.f.,
Eqs.(\ref{kamp}),(\ref{camp}) and (\ref{mamp})) produce tadpoles for
the untwisted sector R-R 6- and 10-form as well as the twisted sector
R-R 6-form.  Relating the tree channel modulus $\ell$ to the KB, MS
and C loop moduli through
\beq
{\rm KB:}\ t_{\ck}={1\over 4\ell},\qquad  {\rm MS:}\ t_{\cam}={1\over 8\ell},
\qquad  {\rm C:}\ t_{\cc}={1\over 2\ell},
\label{tvsl}
\eeq
all the tadpoles vanish provided\footnote{We consider models
with all 5-branes at the origin.}
\beqa
T^4/\mbz_2:\qquad &&\Tr\g_{0,9}=\Tr\g_{0,5}=32,\cr
&&\g_{\Om_0,9}=\g^T_{\Om_0,9}\ ,\qquad
\g_{\Om_0,5}=-\g^T_{\Om_0,5},\cr
&&\Tr\g_{1,9}=\Tr\g_{1,5}=0,\cr
\cr
T^4/\mbz_4:\qquad &&\Tr\g_{0,9}=\Tr\g_{0,5}=32,\cr
&&\g_{\Om_0,9}=\g^T_{\Om_0,9}\ ,\qquad
\g_{\Om_0,5}=-\g^T_{\Om_0,5},\cr
&&\Tr\g_{1,9}=\Tr\g_{2,9}=\Tr\g_{1,5}=\Tr\g_{2,5}=0.
\label{bzero}
\eeqa
The solutions are given by
\beqa
T^4/\mbz_2:\qquad &&\g_{1,9}=\g_{1,5}=\biggl(i I_{16},-i I_{16}\biggr),\cr
\cr
T^4/\mbz_4:\qquad &&\g_{1,9}=\g_{1,5}=\biggl(\b I_{8},\b^3 I_{8},
\overline{\b} I_8,\overline{\b}^3 I_8\biggr),\qquad \b=e^{\pi i/4}.
\label{bzerosolv}
\eeqa
where $I_n$ denotes an identity matrix of rank $n$.
Furthermore, we can choose  $\g_{\Om_0,9}$ to be purely
real and $\g_{\Om_0,5}$ purely imaginary. Eqs.~(\ref{bzero})
then imply
\beq
\g_{\Om_0,9}=\pmatrix{0_{16}&I_{16}\cr
I_{16}&0_{16}\cr},\qquad \g_{\Om_0,5}=\pmatrix{0_{16}&i I_{16}\cr
-i I_{16}&0_{16}\cr}.
\label{omegasol}
\eeq
The tadpole cancelation (\ref{bzero}) requires the introduction of 32
9-branes and 32 $5$-branes.  In principle, one can directly solve the
constraints (\ref{cons99})-(\ref{cons59}) on the $32\times 32$
hermitian Chan Paton matrices to determine the open string spectrum of
the model.  Alternatively, when the $\lambda$ matrices are written in
a Cartan-Weyl basis, the constraints on the Chan Paton matrices become
restrictions on the weight vectors. In this formalism \cite{ibanez},
the 99-sector gauge bosons correspond to both the Cartan generators
which trivially satisfy the $\lambda ^{(0)}$ constraint, together with
charged generators belonging to a subset of $SO(32)$ root vectors
selected by
\begin{equation} \rho^a \cdot V_{(99)}= 0 {\rm \, mod \,} \mbz,
\label{v9p}
\end{equation}
where $V_{(99)}$ is the ``shift'' vector of the gauge twist $\g_{1,9}$
\beq
\gamma _{1,9}= e^{-2i\pi V_{(99)} \cdot H },
\label{Vdef}
\eeq
and $\rho^a=\underline{(\pm1,\pm1,0,\cdots,0)},\ a=1,\cdots,480$
are $SO(32)$ roots. (Here, underlining indicates that
all permutations must be considered).
In eq.~(\ref{Vdef}) $H$ is a vector of $SO(32)$ Cartan generators
$\{H_I\},\ I=1,\cdots, 16$ and $V_{(99)}$ is determined from
(\ref{bzerosolv}) to be
\beqa
T^4/\mbz_2:\qquad &&V_{(99)}={1\over 4}(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1),\cr
\cr
T^4/\mbz_4:\qquad &&V_{(99)}={1\over 8}(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3).
\label{99shift}
\eeqa
Similarly, from the equation for $\lambda ^{(i)}$ in (\ref{cons99}) it
follows that matter states correspond to charged generators with
\begin{equation} \rho^a \cdot V_{(99)}= v_i {\rm \, mod \,} \mbz.
\label{m9p}
\end{equation}
Since $\g_{\Omega_0,5}$ is antisymmetric,
$\Omega$ projection in the 55-sector constraints
gauge bosons to both the Cartan generators plus charged generators of
$Sp(32)$ satisfying
\beq
\tilde{\rho}^a \cdot V_{(55)}= 0 {\rm \, mod \,} \mbz,
\label{v5p}
\eeq
where $\tilde{\rho}^a$ include all the $SO(32)$ roots plus
long roots $(\pm2,0,\cdots,0)$ and $V_{(55)}=V_{(99)}$.
Matter fields in the 55-sector correspond to charged generators
with
\beqa
{\rho}^a \cdot V_{(55)}&=& v_i {\rm \, mod \,} \mbz.
\label{m5p}
\eeqa
Note that only a subset of short roots is used in determining
the matter content of the 55-sector.
This  is due to the
extra minus sign in (\ref{cons55}) compare to the corresponding
projection in (\ref{cons99}).
Finally, the 95 sector is handled using an auxiliary $SO(64)\supset
SO(32)_{(99)}\otimes SO(32)_{(55)}$ algebra.
Since we have generators acting simultaneously on both 9-branes and
5-branes,  only roots of the form
\beq
W _{(95)}= W_{(9)}\otimes W_{(5)}=
({\underline {\pm 1, 0,  \cdots, 0}};{ \underline {\pm 1, 0, \cdots, 0}})
\label{w95def}
\eeq
must be considered. Here the first (second) $16$ components transform
 under $SO(32)_{(99)}$ ($SO(32)_{(55)}$).  The shift in this sector is
 defined to be $V_{95}= V_{(99)}\otimes V_{(55)}$.  From
 (\ref{cons59}) we learn that massless states correspond to $W_{(95)}$
 roots satisfying
\begin{equation}
W _{(95)} \cdot V _{(95)}=0 {\rm \, mod \,} \mbz.
\label{95sh}
\end{equation}
The open string spectrum of the $T^4/\mbz_N$ orientifolds
for $b=0$ is included in  Table \ref{6dtable1}.
Our convention for the  $U(1)$ charges,
as  explained in Appendix~\ref{lambdatraces}, differs from that
in \cite{gp,gj9606}.

Consider now the tadpoles of $T^4/\mbz_N$ orientifolds with non-zero
B-flux, $b\ne 0$.  Tadpoles with a volume factor $V_6 V_{T^4}$,
correspond to the untwisted R-R 10-form exchange in the closed string
tree channel.  All three surfaces KB, MS and C contribute to the
tadpole.  The KB contribution comes from the $k=0$ untwisted closed
string sector.  Since the parity projection $\Omega$ in this sector
requires all the windings to be zero, from (\ref{bmomentum}) we
conclude that the compact momentum sum does not change, and the
overall tadpole is the same as in the absence of the $B_{ij}$:
\beq
\ck^{\rm 10-form}_u=(1-1)i\int_0^{\infty}\ {dt\over t^2}\ \biggl(
{32\over N} {V_6 V_{T^4}\over {(4\pi^2\a')}^5}\biggr).
\label{bklien}
\eeq
The C contribution comes from the $k=0$ 99-string
sector. The partition function in this sector involves
the summation over the 99-string  momentum modes. Upon
Poisson resummation, which is necessary in order to extract
the tadpole, the momentum sum in the open string loop channel is
reinterpreted as a sum over the closed string
winding modes in the  tree channel. Unlike the momentum
states which remain unaffected by the $B_{ij}$ background,
only  winding states with even winding numbers are allowed
along the compact directions with $B_{ij}\ne 0$.
Indeed, closed string winding states satisfy
\beq
P_{L}=-P_{R},
\label{winding}
\eeq
which with the quantization (\ref{bmomentum}) and for a generic
choice of metric on $T^4$ implies
\beq
n_i-b_{ij}m^j=0.
\label{windingquant}
\eeq
Eq.~(\ref{windingquant}) requires $m^j\in 2\mbz$ for compact directions
$j$ such that $b_{ij}\ne 0$. Even winding numbers in the
closed tree channel further imply an effective reduction by half
the basis momentum lattice vectors along these directions compare
to the $b=0$ case \cite{Bij,w9712}.
In the nontrivial  $B_{ij}$ background, the C tadpole is thus
increased by $2^b$
\beq
\cc^{\rm 10-form}_u=i(1-1)\int_0^{\infty}\ {dt\over t^2}\
\biggl({2^b\over 16N}
{V_6 V_{T^4}\over {(4\pi^2\a')}^5}\ {(\Tr\g_{0,9})}^2\biggr).
\label{bc}
\eeq
Alternatively, the $2^b$ factor of the C tadpole can be interpreted
as a sum over $2^b$ different sub-lattices within the $b=0$ case
unit volume, shifted with respect to each other by half the
generating vectors. A priori, the MS tadpole can have a
different $\Omega$ projection $\g_{\Om_0,9}=\pm\g^T_{\Om_0,9}$,
depending on a specific sub-lattice.
In fact, the tadpole factorization requires
that the MS contribution  increases by $2^{b/2}$, which
is achieved by choosing the same $\Omega$ projection
for $(2^{b-1}+2^{b/2-1})$ sub-lattices and the opposite projection
for the other $(2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$ sub-lattices
\beq
\cam^{\rm 10-form}_u=i(1-1)\int_0^{\infty}\ {dt\over t^2}\ \biggl(
\mp{2^{b/2}\over N} {V_6 V_{T^4}\over {(4\pi^2\a')}^5}\
(\Tr\g_{0,9})\biggr),
\label{bm}
\eeq
where a choice of the sign correlates with the choice of sign in $\Om$
projection  for the larger set of momentum sub-lattices.
Using the loop/tree channel moduli translation (\ref{tvsl}),
the full tadpole of the untwisted  10-form  becomes
\beqa
[\ck+\cc+\cam]^{\rm 10-form}_u=i(1-1)\int_0^{\infty} d\ell
{1\over 8N}{V_6 V_{T^4}\over {(4\pi^2\a')}^5}\
\biggl[&&32^2\mp 2\cdot 2^{b/2}\cdot 32\ \Tr\g_{0,9}\cr
&&+2^b\cdot
{(\Tr\g_{0,9})}^2\biggr].
\label{full10}
\eeqa
Tadpoles with a volume factor $V_6/V_{T_4}$ represent the
untwisted R-R 6-form exchange in the closed string tree channel.
The KB contribution comes from the $k=N/2$ untwisted closed
string sector. In this sector the parity projection requires all
the momenta to be zero and the NS-NS background
allows only even windings along the compact directions with
$b_{ij}\ne 0$. The net effect of the nontrivial background
is thus a reduction of the corresponding $b=0$ tadpole
by $2^b$
\beq
\ck^{\rm 6-form}_u=(1-1)i\int_0^{\infty}\ {dt\over t^2}\ \biggl(
{32\over N\cdot 2^b}\ {V_6\over 4\pi^2\a' V_{T^4}}\biggr).
\label{bklien6}
\eeq
Since $\ck^{\rm 6-form}_u$ tadpole measures the square of the total
R-R charge of the sixteen orientifold 5-planes, its reduction
compare to the zero NS-NS background tadpole implies that
$2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}+2^{b/2-1})$ $O_5$-planes have the same charge
as in the $b=0$ case while the other $2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$
$O_5$-planes turn into $\tilde{O}_5$-planes which carry R-R charge
opposite to that of the $O_5$-plane \cite{w9712}.
The C contribution comes from the $k=0$ 55-string sector. Here,
the partition function sums over the 55-string winding modes.
The 55-string winding modes in the open string loop channel
are reinterpreted upon the Poisson resummation as momentum
modes in the closed string tree channel. Since the latter
are insensitive to the NS-NS tensor background, the
C tadpole is unchanged
\beq
\cc^{\rm 6-form}_u=i(1-1)\int_0^{\infty}\ {dt\over t^2}\ \biggl({1\over 16N}
\ {V_6\over 4\pi^2\a' V_{T^4}}\ {(\Tr\g_{0,5})}^2\biggr).
\label{bc6}
\eeq
The MS amplitude relevant to the 6-form exchange in the  tree channel is
interpreted as a closed string exchange between  5-branes and sixteen
orientifold 5-planes, and so is proportional to the total R-R charge
of the orientifold 5-planes. It is suggested by (\ref{bklien6}) that
the absolute value of the R-R charge of
the orientifold 5-planes is reduced by $2^{b/2}$, so
\beq
\cam^{\rm 6-form}_u=i(1-1)\int_0^{\infty}\ {dt\over t^2}\ \biggl(
\mp{1\over N\cdot 2^{b/2}}\  {V_6\over 4\pi^2\a' V_{T^4}}\
(\Tr\g_{0,5})\biggr).
\label{bm6}
\eeq
where a choice of a sign correlates with the choice of a sign in
$\Om$ projection in the 55-open string sector.
The full tadpole of the untwisted  6-form in terms of
the tree channel cylinder  modulus $\ell$ (\ref{tvsl}) becomes
\beq
[\ck+\cc+\cam]^{\rm 6-form}_u=i(1-1)\int_0^{\infty} d\ell
{1\over 8N}\ {V_6\over 4\pi^2\a' V_{T^4}}\
\biggl[{32^2\over 2^b}\mp {2\cdot 32\over 2^{b/2}}\ \Tr\g_{0,5}+
{(\Tr\g_{0,5})}^2\biggr].
\label{full6}
\eeq
The untwisted tadpole cancelation from (\ref{full10}) and (\ref{full6})
requires
\beqa
\Tr\g_{0,9}&=&\Tr\g_{0,5}={32\over 2^{b/2}},
\label{gammatraceun}
\eeqa
and the same $\Omega$ projection for both the larger set of the
momentum sub-lattices in the 99-open string sector and the 55-open string
sector as in the $b=0$ case:
\begin{equation}
\g_{\Om_0,9}=\g^T_{\Om_0,9}\ ,\qquad
\g_{\Om_0,5}=-\g^T_{\Om_0,5}.
\label{ompro}
\end{equation}
Since traces of $\g_{0,p}$ count the number of D-branes,
(\ref{gammatraceun}) implies the rank reduction of a gauge
group in the open string sector when the B-flux is turned on
\cite{Bij,w9712,kst9803}.

In addition to the untwisted R-R 6- and 10-form tadpoles ---
which are canceled as discussed above,
the orientifolds of interest have potential tadpoles
corresponding to the twisted sector R-R 6-form exchange in
the tree channel. These tadpoles  come from
the cylinder vacuum amplitudes $C_{pq},\ p,q=\{5,9\}$, (\ref{camp})
with $k\ne 0$ and so do not get contributions
from momentum and winding modes on $T^4$.
Since the nonzero NS-NS tensor background effects
only the quantization of the momentum and winding modes on $T^4$, one
would expect  the twisted R-R 6-form tadpole to be the same
as in the $b=0$ case. As we will discuss in detail
in Sec.~\ref{anomaly}, anomaly cancelations in six dimensions
requires the $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity of massless
states in the 59 open string sector. In Type IIB orientifolds,
gauge degrees of freedom are carried by the Chan-Paton
indices, so the multiplicity of massless states is extended to the
multiplicity of Chan-Paton indices in the 59-sector and thus
the  multiplicity of massive states in this sector as well.
The latter implies that the cylinder vacuum amplitudes $\cc_{99}$,
$\cc_{55}$ are unaffected by the B-flux while $\cc_{95}$ and
$\cc_{59}$ get an extra factor of $2^{b/2}$. This raises a question:
once the relative factor of $\cc_{99}$ and $\cc_{95}$ vacuum amplitudes
is changed in the nonzero NS-NS background,
how one maintains the factorization of the twisted R-R 6-form tadpoles?
Recall that going to the tree channel interpretation in the
KB vacuum amplitude we related (for $b=0$) the tree channel modulus $\ell$
and the loop channel modulus $t_{\ck}$ through $\ell=1/(4t_{\ck})$.
This KB tree channel ``cylinder'' has length $\ell$ and two crosscaps.
The C and MS vacuum amplitudes of the open string sector in the tree
channel picture were represented by an identical length cylinder and
a cylinder with a crosscap. The fact that we used the same tree
channel modulus for C and MS implicitly assumed the ability to relate
KB, C and MS amplitudes to each other by adding/removing crosscaps.
This is possible only for $\cc_{99}$ and $\cc_{55}$ since only they have
the same type boundaries, which allows putting the crosscaps.
The above arguments do not fix the relation between $\ell$
and $t_{\cc_{59}}$. We claim that this relation must be fixed
by demanding anomaly cancelation along with factorization
of twisted R-R 6-form tadpoles. Thus we require
\beq
\ell={2^{b-1}\over t_{\cc_{59}}}.
\label{tc59}
\eeq
The twisted R-R 6-form tadpoles vanish provided
\beqa
T^4/\mbz_2:\qquad
&&\Tr\g_{1,9}=\Tr\g_{1,5}=0,\cr
T^4/\mbz_4:\qquad &&\Tr\g_{1,9}=\Tr\g_{2,9}=\Tr\g_{1,5}=\Tr\g_{2,5}=0.
\label{bnonzero}
\eeqa
Eqs.~(\ref{gammatraceun}) and (\ref{bnonzero}) are solved by
\beqa
T^4/\mbz_2:\qquad &&\g_{1,9}=\g_{1,5}=\biggl(i I_{2^{4-b}},-i
I_{2^{4-b}}\biggr),\cr
\cr
T^4/\mbz_4:\qquad &&\g_{1,9}=\g_{1,5}=\biggl(\b I_{2^{3-b}},\b^3 I_{2^{3-b}},
\overline{\b} I_{2^{3-b}},\overline{\b}^3 I_{2^{3-b}}\biggr),\qquad
\b=e^{\pi i/4}.
\label{bnonzerosolv}
\eeqa
The ``shift'' vectors corresponding to the above gauge twists are
\beqa
T^4/\mbz_2:\qquad &&V_{(99)}={1\over 4}(\ \overbrace{1,\cdots,1}^{2^{4-b}\
{\rm times}}\ ),\cr
\cr
T^4/\mbz_4:\qquad &&V_{(99)}={1\over 8}(\ \underbrace{1,\cdots,1}_{2^{3-b}\
{\rm times}},\ \underbrace{3,\cdots,3}_{2^{3-b}\ {\rm times}}\ ).
\label{shiftz4}
\eeqa
with  $V_{(55)}=V_{(99)}$ and $V_{(95)}=V_{(99)}\otimes V_{(55)}$.
As for the $b=0$ case,  we can choose  $\g_{\Om_0,9}$ purely
real and $\g_{\Om_0,5}$ to be purely imaginary. Eqs.~(\ref{ompro})
then imply
\beq
\g_{\Om_0,9}=\pmatrix{0_{2^{4-b}}&I_{2^{4-b}}\cr
I_{2^{4-b}}&0_{2^{4-b}}\cr},\qquad
\g_{\Om_0,5}=\pmatrix{0_{2^{4-b}}&i I_{2^{4-b}}\cr
-i I_{2^{4-b}}&0_{2^{4-b}}\cr}.
\label{omegasolun}
\eeq
Given (\ref{bnonzerosolv}) and (\ref{omegasolun}),
the massless open string states can be determined as in the
$b=0$ case. The open string spectra are
given in Table \ref{6dtable1}.

\subsection{Closed String Sector}
\label{closedsector}
In this section we discuss the closed string sector of Type IIB
orientifolds on $T^4/\mbz_N$, ($N=2,4$), in the presence of B-flux.

First consider the $\mbz_2$ orientifold models.
The untwisted sector of the models is constructed by keeping states
of Type IIB orbifold on $T^4/\mbz_2$ invariant under the world sheet
parity $\Om$. This gives rise to a $\cn=1$ supergravity multiplet in
six dimensions, accompanied by one tensor multiplet and
four hypermultiplets.

The twisted sectors will produce additional multiplets. The bosonic
content of a hypermultiplet is four scalars transforming as
$4{\bf (1,1)}$ under the six dimensional little group
$SO(4)\approx SU(2)\otimes SU(2)$, while that of a tensor multiplet
as ${\bf (1,1)}\oplus {\bf (1,3)}$. There are overall 16 fixed points
in the $\mbz_2$ orbifold with an  orientifold 5-plane sitting
at each fixed point. As we explained in Sec.~\ref{opensector},
out of 16 orientifold 5-planes, each one of $2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}+2^{b/2-1})$
$O_5$-planes carries $(-2)$ units of R-R charge while the
other $2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$ $\tilde{O}_5$-planes have
opposite R-R charge. This implies that precisely
$2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}+2^{b/2-1})$ $\mbz_2$ fixed points
are even under the $\Om$ projection while the other
$2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$
$\mbz_2$ fixed points pick up a minus sign under the $\Om$ projection.
At each fixed point of the twisted sector, the NS and R sector
massless states transform as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lc}
{\mbox {Sector}} \quad \quad & SU(2) \otimes SU(2) ~ {\mbox {rep.}} \\
{\mbox {NS}}     & 2 ({\bf 1},{\bf 1})~, \\
{\mbox {R}}      & ({\bf 1},{\bf 2})~. \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The twisted sector spectrum is obtained by taking products of states
from the left- and right-moving sectors. The orientifold projection
$\Omega$ keeps symmetric (antisymmetric) combinations in the NS-NS
sector and antisymmetric (symmetric) combinations in the R-R sector
for each $\Om$-even ($\Om$-odd) $\mbz_2$ fixed point. This gives the
bosonic content of a hypermultiplet for each $\Om$-even $\mbz_2$ fixed
point and the bosonic content of a tensor multiplet for each $\Om$-odd
$\mbz_2$ fixed point. Overall, the twisted sectors of $\mbz_2$ orientifold
contribute $2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}+2^{b/2-1})$ hypermultiplets
and $2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$ extra tensor multiplet
(see Table \ref{6dtable1}).

The untwisted sector of $T^4/\mbz_4$ orientifold contains $\cn=1$
supergravity multiplet in six dimensions, accompanied by one tensor
multiplet and two hypermultiplets.

The four $\mbz_4$ invariant fixed points of $T^4/\mbz_4$ orientifold
give four hypermultiplets and four tensor multiplet.
They are also $\mbz_2$ fixed points and so supply an additional
4 hypermultiplets. The other 12 $\mbz_2$ fixed points form
6 $\mbz_4$ invariant pairs. Out of 12 $\mbz_2$ fixed points
which are not $\mbz_4$ invariant, $2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$
fixed points are odd under the $\Om$ projection and the
other $12-2^{4-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$ are even.
Thus they contribute $2^{3-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$
extra tensor multiplets and $6-2^{3-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$
hypermultiplets. Overall, twisted sectors of $\mbz_4$ orientifold
contribute $4+2^{3-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$ extra tensor
multiplets and  $14-2^{3-b}\cdot (2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$
hypermultiplets (see Table \ref{6dtable1}).

\section{Anomaly Cancelations}
\label{anomaly}
An important check on the consistency of the $\cn=1$ six dimensional
vacua constructed in the previous sections is provided by the
cancelation of all gauge, gravitational, and mixed
anomalies. Cancelation of tadpoles in Type IIB orientifolds
on $T^4/\mbz_N$ ($N=2,4$) discussed in Sec.~\ref{opensector}
guarantees 1-loop consistency of the equations of motion
for the untwisted R-R 6- and 10-form as well as the twisted R-R
6-form. Recall that the tadpoles were extracted from the
KB, MS and C vacuum amplitudes. Each of these amplitudes
involves a summation over four spin structures ({\sl i.e.},
summation over $\{\a,\b\}=\{0,\oh\}$ in Appendix~\ref{1loopb0}).
Actually, the R-R spin structure,
$\{\a,\b\}=\{\oh,\oh\}$ in Appendix~\ref{1loopb0}, does not
contribute to the 1-loop vacuum amplitudes because of the
fermionic zero modes. On the other hand, it will contribute
to the  2-loop vacuum amplitudes, as well as to various scattering
processes. In fact, being odd under the spacetime parity,
it is the only spin structure (at 1-loop level) that would generate
potential chiral anomalies in the low-energy effective field
theory.
In this sense, the cancelation of six dimensional chiral
anomalies follows from the absence of tadpoles coming from the
R-R spin structure. In this section we show that $T^4/\mbz_N$ ($N=2,4$)
Type IIB orientifolds with B-flux are free from chiral anomalies.
First, we explain anomaly cancelation in the framework of
the six dimensional effective field theory. Then we discuss
how the Green-Schwarz terms can be computed from the corresponding
non-planar diagrams in string theory.
In the latter
approach we confirm the necessity of $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity of
59-cylinder diagrams. Some useful facts on six dimensional chiral anomalies
are given in Appendix~\ref{anomalyreview}.

\subsection{$\mbz_2$ Orientifolds}

We start with the $T^4/\mbz_2$ orientifold models. From the
spectrum of the models given in Table \ref{6dtable1}
it is straightforward to check using the
results of Appendix~\ref{anomalyreview}
that the
leading anomalies, {\em i.e.}, the $\tr R^4$ and $\tr F^4$ terms
vanish.
To see this explicitly,
notice that the leading term in the
pure gravitational anomalies is proportional to
\begin{equation}\label{R4}
(n_H - n_V + 29 n_T -273) ~ \tr R^4,
\end{equation}
where $n_H$ is the number of hypermultiplets from both open
and closed string sectors.
From Section \ref{closedsector}, $n_T-1=8-8/2^{b/2}$ and the
number of closed string hypermultiplets is $n_H^c=12+8/2^{b/2}$.
The gauge group is $U(N) \times U(N)$ where
$N=16/2^{b/2}$, and hence $n_V=2 N^2$. The number of open string
hypermultiplets is $n_H^o = 2 N(N-1) + 2^{b/2} N^2$.
It is easy to see that the above term (\ref{R4}) vanishes.
Notice that it is crucial for the cancelation of
the $\tr R^4$ gravitational anomaly that the multiplicity
of 59-open string matter states is $2^{b/2}$.
In addition, the
hypermultiplet representations plus the $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity
in the 59-sector ensure that the $\tr F^4$ term is absent.
This can be seen from (\ref{tracesrelations}) that the
leading pure gauge non-abelian anomalies for each $SU(N)$ gauge group
is proportional to
\begin{equation}
(2 N - 2 (N-8) - 2^{b/2} N)~ \tr F^4
\end{equation}
which vanishes since the multiplicity of $59$ states is $2^{b/2}$
which is equal to $16/N$.
The remaining gravitational $+$ gauge anomaly may be written
in the form
\beq
i{(2\pi)}^3 I=-{1\over 16\cdot 2^{b/2}}\ X_4^{(9)}\wedge X_4^{(5)}
+X_2\wedge X_6^{(9)}-\tilde{X}_2\wedge X_6^{(5)},
\label{z2anomaly}
\eeq
where
\beqa
X_4^{(a)}&=&R^2-2\cdot 2^{b/2}\ (F_a^2+f_a^2),\cr
X_6^{(a)}&=&{1\over 6}
\bigg[R^2 f_a-2^{b/2}f_a^3-3\cdot 2^{b/2} F_a^2 f_a-4\cdot 2^{b/4}
F_a^3\bigg],
\label{46z2}
\eeqa
and
\beqa
X_2&=&{4\over 2^{b/2}}f_9-f_5,\cr
\tilde{X}_2&=&{4\over 2^{b/2}}f_5-f_9.
\label{2z2}
\eeqa
The subscript $a=5,9$ refers to the gauge group factors in
the 55- and  99-open string sectors\footnote{The anomalies
of the $b=0$ models were discussed previously
in \cite{6authors}. The difference
between the corresponding anomaly polynomials
of (\ref{2z2}) and the one given in \cite{6authors}
is due to a different convention of the $U(1)$ charges.
See Table \ref{6dtable1} for our convention.}.
The anomaly polynomial
(\ref{z2anomaly}) contains terms that involve only nonabelian
field strength as well as terms that also involve abelian field strength.
The former can be canceled by exchange of a two-form,
which involves Green-Schwarz interactions of the form
\beqa
\Gamma_{c.t.}={i\over 16\  2^{b/2}\ {(2\pi)}^3}\int B_2\wedge X_4^{(5)}.
\label{counter1}
\eeqa
The $B_2$ field is the 2-form with gauge invariant
field strength $H=d B_2-X_3^{(9)}$ where $X_4^{(9)}=d X_3^{(9)}$.
The counterterm (\ref{counter1}) arises from the tree-level diagram
which involves coupling of the $B_2$ field and a pair
of gauge bosons. Such couplings can be computed
from the disk diagram in string theory.
When $b\ne 0$, a disk diagram involving two gauge bosons and a two-form
potential of the twisted sector tensor multiplet is proportional
to $\tr(\g_{1,p}{(\lambda_p)}^2)$, where $p=5,9$ refers to the
55- or 99-open string sector and $\lambda_p$ denotes the Chan-Paton
generator of the corresponding gauge boson. Using the results in
Appendix~\ref{lambdatraces}, this trace is zero.
Thus we identify the 2-form $B_2$  as a combination of the two-form
potential of the gravity multiplet with a self-dual field strength
and the two-form potential with an anti-self-dual field strength
of the untwisted sector tensor multiplet. The remaining terms
of the anomaly polynomial (\ref{z2anomaly}) can be canceled by
\begin{equation}\label{counterBL}\Gamma'_{c.t.}=-{i\over {(2\pi)}^3}
\int B_0^{(9)}\;
X_6^{(9)}+{i\over {(2\pi)}^3}\int B_0^{(5)}\; X_6^{(5)},
\end{equation}
if we assign the anomalous transformation laws:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{anomshift}
B_0^{(9)}\rightarrow B_0^{(9)}+ {4\over 2^{b/2}}\epsilon_9-\epsilon_5,
\\B_0^{(5)}\rightarrow B_0^{(5)}+ {4\over 2^{b/2}}\epsilon_5-\epsilon_9,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
under the $U(1)_a$ gauge transformations $A_a\rightarrow A_a
+d\epsilon_a$.  As in (\ref{counter1}), the counterterm
(\ref{counterBL}) arises from a tree-level diagram. This diagram
involves the coupling of the $B_0^{(a)}$ scalars with a single
$U(1)_a$ gauge boson. From the disk diagram, the coupling of the
untwisted sector R-R scalars to $U(1)_a$ gauge boson is proportional
to $\tr (\lambda_a)$ which vanishes, see Appendix~\ref{lambdatraces}.
On the other hand, the corresponding coupling of the twisted sector
R-R scalars is proportional to $\tr \g_{1,a}\lambda_a\ne 0$.

Consider first the $b=0$ case.  The number of $\mbz_2$ twisted scalars
$\phi_I$ is $16$. All of them couple with the same relative strength
to the 99-sector $U(1)$, because $\tr(\g_{1,9}\lambda_9)$ (which
measures the coupling strength) is the same for all fixed
points. Since all D5-branes sit at the origin, only the twisted scalar
at the origin (which we denote by $\phi_1$) will couple. This can be
seen explicitly from the tadpole solution: the coupling of the scalar
at a fixed point $I$ to a 55-sector gauge boson is proportional to
$\tr(\g_{1,5,I}\lambda_5)$, which is zero unless $I=1$ is the origin,
where all the D5-branes are located.  Therefore,
\beqa
B_0^{(9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^{16}\phi_I,\cr
B_0^{(5)}&=&\b\ \phi_1,
\label{b0z2}
\eeqa
for some coefficients $\a$ and $\b$ to be determined.
Since $\phi_1$ couples both to 55-sector and 99-sector
gauge fields, it transforms under $U(1)$ gauge transformations
as
\beq
\phi_1\to \phi_1+a_1\ep_9+a_2\ep_5,
\label{f1z2}
\eeq
for some coefficients $a_1$ and $a_2$ to be determined.
The other scalars $\phi_I,\ I=2,\cdots 16$, couple only to
the 99-sector, but all in a same way, so
\beq
\phi_I\to \phi_I+b_1\ep_9.
\label{fiz2}
\eeq
Requiring that (\ref{b0z2})-(\ref{fiz2}) generate
(\ref{anomshift}) uniquely fixes all the coefficients:
$\a, \b, a_1, a_2, b_1$  up to
field normalization. We have
\beqa
B_0^{(9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^{16}\phi_I,\cr
B_0^{(5)}&=&-4\a\ \phi_1,
\eeqa
where
\beqa
\phi_1&\to& \phi_1+(\ep_9-4\ep_5)/(4\a),\cr
\phi_I&\to& \phi_I+\ep_9/(4\a),\qquad I=2,\cdots,16.
\label{finalz2b0}
\eeqa
Since the $\phi_I$'s  are in  linear multiplets, the choice of normalization
$\a$ is irrelevant. The choice $\a=1/4$ reproduces the result of
\cite{6authors}. One can always attain the canonical normalization
of $B_0^{(9)}$ and $B_0^{(5)}$ with an appropriate
change of the coupling constants in the counterterm (\ref{counterBL}).
This is also generic to other
orientifold models: a linear combination of twisted scalars
that couple to the abelian gauge fields is unique, up to field
normalization.

In the $b=2$ case,  the number of $\mbz_2$ twisted scalars is $12$.
As in the previous case, one scalar is singled out as living
at the fixed point where we put all D5-branes.
Using the same logic as before, we find a unique solution
\beqa
B_0^{(9)}&=&\a\ \sum_{I=1}^{12}\phi_I,\cr
B_0^{(5)}&=&-2\a\ \phi_1,
\eeqa
where
\beqa
\phi_1&\to& \phi_1+(\ep_9-2\ep_5)/(2\a),\cr
\phi_I&\to& \phi_I+3 \ep_9/(22 \a),\qquad I=2,\cdots,12.
\label{finalz2b2}
\eeqa

In the $b=4$ case, the number of $\mbz_2$ twisted scalars
is $10$. Therefore, we find
\beqa
B_0^{(9)}&=&\a\ \sum_{I=1}^{10}\phi_I,\cr
B_0^{(5)}&=&-\a\ \phi_1,
\eeqa
where
\beqa
\phi_1&\to& \phi_1+(\ep_9-\ep_5)/\a,\cr
\phi_I&\to& \phi_I,\qquad I=2,\cdots,10.
\label{finalz2b4}
\eeqa

\subsection{$\mbz_4$ Orientifolds}

We now consider $T^4/\mbz_4$ orientifold models. From
the open string spectrum of the models given in Table \ref{6dtable1}
and the closed string spectrum in Section \ref{closedsector},
one can easily see that
the $\tr R^4$ and all $\tr F^4$ terms vanish in the 8-form anomaly
polynomial. The remaining gravitational $+$ gauge anomaly may be
written in the form
 \beqa
i{(2\pi)}^3 I=&&-{1\over 32\cdot 2^{b/2}} X_4^{(9)}\wedge X_4^{(5)}
-{2^{b/2}\over 8}\tilde{X}_4^{(9)}\wedge\tilde{X}_4^{(5)}+
{1\over 8}\tilde{X}_4^{(5)}\wedge\tilde{X}_4^{(5)}+
{1\over 8}\tilde{X}_4^{(9)}\wedge\tilde{X}_4^{(9)}\cr
\cr
&&+X_2^{(1,9)}\wedge X_6^{(1,9)}+X_2^{(3,9)}\wedge X_6^{(3,9)}
+X_2^{(1,5)}\wedge X_6^{(1,5)}+X_2^{(3,5)}\wedge X_6^{(3,5)},
\label{anomz4}
\eeqa
where
\beqa
X_4^{(a)}&=&R^2-2\cdot 2^{b/2} (F_{1,a}^2+F_{3,a}^2+f_{1,a}^2+f_{3,a}^2),\cr
\cr
\tilde{X}_4^{(a)}&=&F_{1,a}^2+f_{1,a}^2-F_{3,a}^2-f_{3,a}^2,\cr
\cr
X_6^{(\a,a)}&=&{1\over 12\cdot 2^{b/2}}R^2 f_{\a,a}-{1\over 6}f_{\a,a}^3
-{1\over 2}F_{\a,a}^2 f_{\a,a}-{2^{(2-b)/4}\over 3} F_{\a,a}^3,
\label{46z4}
\eeqa
and
\beqa
X_2^{(1,9)}&=&3 f_{1,9}-f_{3,9}-2^{b/2} f_{1,5},\cr
X_2^{(3,9)}&=&3 f_{3,9}-f_{1,9}-2^{b/2} f_{3,5},\cr
X_2^{(1,5)}&=&3 f_{1,5}-f_{3,5}-2^{b/2} f_{1,9},\cr
X_2^{(3,5)}&=&3 f_{3,5}-f_{1,5}-2^{b/2} f_{3,9}.
\label{2z4}
\eeqa
In the $Z_4$ orientifolds there are two nonabelian
gauge factors in the 99-sector and 55-sector. One comes
from the shift-vector $1/8$ components  and the other
come from the shift-vector $3/8$ components, (c.f. (\ref{shiftz4})).
In (\ref{anomz4}), we  use this
to label different gauge factors. For example,
the 99-sector nonabelian field strengths will
be denoted by $F_{1,9}$ and $F_{3,9}$. The nonabelian
factors in the 55-sector are denoted by
$F_{1,5}$ and $F_{3,5}$.
We use similar notation $f_{\a,a}$ for
the abelian factors.
The terms of the anomaly polynomial (\ref{anomz4})
that involve only nonabelian field strengths
can be canceled by exchange of three two-forms
with Green-Schwarz interactions
\beq
\Gamma_{c.t.}={i\over 32\  2^{b/2}\ {(2\pi)}^3}\int
B_2^{(1)}\wedge X_4^{(5)}+{i\ 2^{b/2}\over 8\   {(2\pi)}^3}\int
B_2^{(2)}\wedge \tilde{X}_4^{(5)}-{i \over 8\   {(2\pi)}^3}\int
B_2^{(3)}\wedge \tilde{X}_4^{(9)},
\label{z42form}
\eeq
where $B_2^{(i)}$ 's have gauge invariant field strengths
\beqa
H^{(1)}&=&d B_2^{(1)} - X_3^{(9)},\qquad X_4^{(9)}=d X_3^{(9)},\cr
H^{(2)}&=&d B_2^{(2)} - X_3^{(9,5)},\qquad
\tilde{X}_4^{(9)}-{1\over 2^{b/2}}\tilde{X}_4^{(5)}=d X_3^{(9,5)},\cr
H^{(3)}&=&d B_2^{(3)} - \tilde{X}_3^{(9)},\qquad
\tilde{X}_4^{(9)}=d \tilde{X}_3^{(9)}.
\label{2fromtransform}
\eeqa
The counterterm (\ref{z42form}) arises from a tree-level diagram
which involves coupling of $B_2^{(i)}$ fields and a pair of
gauge bosons. Recall that these models have a single
tensor multiplet from the untwisted sector, $4$ tensor multiplets
from the $\mbz_4$ twisted sector and
$2^{3-b}\cdot(2^{b-1}-2^{b/2-1})$ extra tensor multiplets coming from
the $\mbz_2$ twisted sector. By the same arguments as for the
$T^4/\mbz_2$ orientifolds, the $\mbz_2$ twisted sector tensor multiplets
do not couple to a pair of gauge bosons. On the contrary,
the coupling of the $\mbz_4$ twisted sector tensor multiplets
from the disk diagram is  nonzero. With all the D5-branes at the
origin, only the $\mbz_4$ twisted tensor multiplet at the origin
will couple to the 55-sector gauge bosons.
Thus we expect that $B_2^{(1)}$ and $B_2^{(3)}$
are combinations of the untwisted sector two-form potentials
of the gravity and the tensor multiplets plus two-form
potentials of all four $\mbz_4$ twisted sector tensor multiplets.
$B_2^{(2)}$ must contain the untwisted sector two-form potentials
and a  two-form potential from the $\mbz_4$ twisted sector tensor
multiplet at the origin. The remaining abelian terms of the anomaly
polynomial (\ref{anomz4}) may be canceled by
additional counterterms
\begin{eqnarray}\label{counterBLz4}\Gamma'_{c.t.}=&&
-{i\over {(2\pi)}^3} \int B_0^{(1,9)}\;
X_6^{(1,9)} - {i\over {(2\pi)}^3}\int B_0^{(3,9)}\;
X_6^{(3,9)} - {i\over {(2\pi)}^3}\int B_0^{(1,5)}\; X_6^{(1,5)}\cr
&&-{i\over {(2\pi)}^3} \int B_0^{(3,5)}\; X_6^{(3,5)},
\end{eqnarray}
if we assign the anomalous transformation laws:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{anomshiftz4}
B_0^{(1,9)}\rightarrow B_0^{(1,9)}+ 3\epsilon_{1,9}-\epsilon_{3,9}
-2^{b/2}\ep_{1,5},
\\B_0^{(3,9)}\rightarrow B_0^{(3,9)}+ 3\epsilon_{3,9}-\epsilon_{1,9}
-2^{b/2}\ep_{3,5},
\nonumber
\\B_0^{(1,5)}\rightarrow B_0^{(1,5)}+ 3\epsilon_{1,5}-\epsilon_{3,5}
-2^{b/2}\ep_{1,9},
\nonumber
\\B_0^{(3,5)}\rightarrow B_0^{(3,5)}+ 3\epsilon_{3,5}-\epsilon_{1,5}
-2^{b/2}\ep_{3,9},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
under the $U(1)$ gauge transformations $A_{\a,a}\rightarrow A_{\a,a}
+d\epsilon_{\a,a}$.

Notice that in the presence of D-branes, the total twist of a
non-vanishing
$N$-point function does not have to be zero. Therefore,
the anomalous $U(1)$ gauge bosons
can couple to closed string states from
different twisted sectors (in this case ${\mathbb Z}_2$ and
${\mathbb Z}_4$ twisted sectors). As a result, there are
mixings in the kinetic terms of the ${\mathbb Z}_2$ and
${\mathbb Z}_4$ twisted sector states even when $g_s =0$.
We now proceed to identify the scalars
$B_0^{(\a,a)}$ in terms of the twisted R-R states.

We start with the $b=0$ case.  There are in total 14 twisted scalars:
4 scalars (we denote them by $\phi_I^{(4)},\ I=1,\cdots 4$) coming
from the $\mbz_4$ twisted sector, the other 10 scalars (we denote them
$\phi_J^{(2)},\ J=1,\cdots 10$) coming from the $\mbz_2$ twisted
sector. Out of 10 $\mbz_2$ twisted fields, 4 come from the $\mbz_2$
fixed points which are also $\mbz_4$ fixed points, and the other 6
come from 6 pairs of the $\mbz_2$ fixed points which are $\mbz_4$
invariant.  Let us analyze the coupling of these R-R twisted fields to
the various $U(1)$ gauge bosons.  All twisted fields couple to the
99-sector vector bosons. These couplings can be computed from the disk
diagram: for the $\mbz_4$ twisted fields the coupling is proportional
to $\tr(\g_{1,9}\lambda_{\a,9})$ while for the $\mbz_2$ twisted fields
the coupling is proportional to $\tr(\g_{2,9}\lambda_{\a,9})$. Since
\beqa
{\tr(\g_{1,9}\lambda_{1,9})\over \tr(\g_{1,9}\lambda_{3,9})}&=&1,\cr
{\tr(\g_{2,9}\lambda_{1,9})\over \tr(\g_{2,9}\lambda_{3,9})}&=&-1,
\label{t1}
\eeqa
the coupling of $\phi_I^{(4)}$ to the $A_{3,9}$ abelian
gauge boson is  identical to that of the $A_{1,9}$,
while the coupling of $\phi_J^{(2)}$ to $A_{3,9}$
is opposite to its coupling to $A_{1,9}$.
As in the case of $\mbz_2$ orientifold, only
twisted fields that live at the fixed point where the
D5-branes are located will couple to the 55-sector gauge bosons.
We call these fields $\phi_1^{(4)}$ and $\phi_1^{(2)}$.
Their coupling to different $U(1)$ can be deduced as discussed
above.
Collecting the information about the coupling,
we can easily generalize (\ref{b0z2}) to:
\beqa
B_0^{(1,9)}&=&\a\sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}+
\b \sum_{J=1}^{10}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,9)}&=&\a\sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}-
\b \sum_{J=1}^{10}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(1,5)}&=&\g\  \phi_1^{(4)}+
\d\ \phi_1^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,5)}&=&\g\  \phi_1^{(4)}-
\d\  \phi_1^{(2)},
\label{b0z4}
\eeqa
where $\a,\b,\g,\d$  are coefficients to be determined.
Using the same logic as for the $\mbz_2$ orientifolds,
we assign the following gauge transformations to the
twisted fields
\beqa
&&\phi_1^{(4)}\to \phi_1^{(4)}+a_1\ep_{1,9}+a_2\ep_{3,9}+a_3\ep_{1,5}+
a_4\ep_{3,5},\cr
&&\phi_I^{(4)}\to \phi_I^{(4)}+b_1\ep_{1,9}+b_2\ep_{3,9},
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
I=2,\cdots 4,\cr
&&\phi_1^{(2)}\to \phi_1^{(2)}+c_1\ep_{1,9}+c_2\ep_{3,9}+c_3\ep_{1,5}+
c_4\ep_{3,5},\cr
&&\phi_J^{(2)}\to \phi_J^{(2)}+d_1\ep_{1,9}+d_2\ep_{3,9},\qquad\qquad
\qquad\qquad
J=2,\cdots 10.
\label{trans}
\eeqa
As we already mentioned, requiring that (\ref{b0z4})-(\ref{trans})
satisfy (\ref{anomshiftz4}), fixes uniquely all coefficients
up to the field normalization.  (The
system is overconstraint and so generically
would not have solution at all.) We end up with
\beqa
B_0^{(1,9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}+
\b \sum_{J=1}^{10}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}-
\b \sum_{J=1}^{10}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(1,5)}&=&-2\a\ \phi_1^{(4)}-4\b\ \phi_1^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,5)}&=&-2\a\ \phi_1^{(4)}+4\b\ \phi_1^{(2)},
\eeqa
where
\beqa
\phi_1^{(4)}&\to& \phi_1^{(4)}+(\ep_{1,9}+\ep_{3,9})/(4 \a)-(\ep_{1,5}+
\ep_{3,5})/(2 \a),\cr
\phi_I^{(4)}&\to& \phi_I^{(4)}+(\ep_{1,9}+\ep_{3,9})/(4 \a),
\qquad
I=2,\cdots 4,\cr
\phi_1^{(2)}&\to& \phi_1^{(2)}+(\ep_{1,9}-\ep_{3,9})/(8 \b)-(\ep_{1,5}-
\ep_{3,5})/(2 \b),\cr
\phi_J^{(2)}&\to& \phi_J^{(2)}+5(\ep_{1,9}-\ep_{3,9})/(24 \b),\qquad
J=2,\cdots 10.
\label{finalz4b0}
\eeqa
The appearance of two normalization constants in the final
expression comes from an independent choice of normalizations
for the $\mbz_4$ and $\mbz_2$ twisted fields.

Turning on rank two NS-NS two form field $B_{ij}$ converts two
of the $\mbz_2$ twisted hypermultiplets into tensor multiples, so the
total number of $\mbz_2$ twisted scalars becomes $8$.
Repeating identical analysis as in the $b=0$ case,
we find a unique solution (up to field normalization)
\beqa
B_0^{(1,9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}+
\b \sum_{J=1}^{8}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}-
\b \sum_{J=1}^{8}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(1,5)}&=&-\a\ \phi_1^{(4)}-2\b\ \phi_1^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,5)}&=&-\a\ \phi_1^{(4)}+2\b\ \phi_1^{(2)},
\eeqa
where
\beqa
\phi_1^{(4)}&\to& \phi_1^{(4)}+(\ep_{1,9}+\ep_{3,9})/\a-(\ep_{1,5}+
\ep_{3,5})/\a,\cr
\phi_I^{(4)}&\to& \phi_I^{(4)},
\qquad
I=2,\cdots 4,\cr
\phi_1^{(2)}&\to& \phi_1^{(2)}+(\ep_{1,9}-\ep_{3,9})/(2 \b)-(\ep_{1,5}-
\ep_{3,5})/\b,\cr
\phi_J^{(2)}&\to& \phi_J^{(2)}+3(\ep_{1,9}-\ep_{3,9})/(14 \b),\qquad
J=2,\cdots 8.
\label{finalz4b2}
\eeqa

Finally, the rank four B-flux converts three
of the $\mbz_2$ twisted hypermultiplets into tensor multiples, so the
total number of $\mbz_2$ twisted scalars becomes $7$.
In this case we find
\beqa
B_0^{(1,9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}+
\b \sum_{J=1}^{7}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,9)}&=&\a \sum_{I=1}^4 \phi_I^{(4)}-
\b \sum_{J=1}^{7}\phi_J^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(1,5)}&=&-(\a/2)\ \phi_1^{(4)}-\b\ \phi_1^{(2)},\cr
\cr
B_0^{(3,5)}&=&-(\a/2) \phi_1^{(4)}+\b\ \phi_1^{(2)},
\eeqa
where
\beqa
\phi_1^{(4)}&\to& \phi_1^{(4)}+4(\ep_{1,9}+\ep_{3,9})/\a-2(\ep_{1,5}+
\ep_{3,5})/\a,\cr
\phi_I^{(4)}&\to& \phi_I^{(4)}-(\ep_{1,9}+\ep_{3,9})/\a,
\qquad
I=2,\cdots 4,\cr
\phi_1^{(2)}&\to& \phi_1^{(2)}+2(\ep_{1,9}-\ep_{3,9})/\b-2(\ep_{1,5}-
\ep_{3,5})/\b,\cr
\phi_J^{(2)}&\to& \phi_J^{(2)},\qquad\qquad
\qquad\qquad
J=2,\cdots 7.
\label{finalz4b4}
\eeqa

\subsection{Green-Schwarz Terms from Non-Planar Diagrams}

In the field theory framework the cancelation procedure of
the six dimensional chiral anomalies involves one-loop
and tree-level diagrams. The former generates the anomaly
polynomial, while the latter cancels it through the
generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism. This cancelation
has a simple interpretation from the string theory point of
view. Consider 1-loop open string diagrams whose low-energy
limit reproduces the 1-loop field theory anomalies.
The factorized form of the anomaly polynomial
comes from the appropriate non-planar diagrams in
string theory.
Let $t$ denotes the standard
1-loop cylinder modulus, the field theory result comes from the
$t\to +\infty$ boundary of the moduli space. Since
the non-planar diagrams are finite \cite{GSW}, they can not generate
chiral anomalies: the anomalous contribution of the 1-loop
amplitude from the large $t$ region of the moduli space
is canceled exactly by the contribution from the small
$t$ region. Through the conformal transformation
$t\to 1/\ell$, the $t\to 0$ region of the
1-loop open  string amplitude is interpreted as
$\ell\to\infty$ limit of a tree-level closed
string exchange between two boundary states.
This is precisely the string theory picture of the Green-Schwarz
mechanism. In the rest of this section, we identify
the string diagrams whose $t\to \infty$ limit
produces purely gauge anomalies of the $T^4/\mbz_2$ orientifold
models. For illustrative purposes, we consider terms of the anomaly
polynomial (\ref{z2anomaly}) in the ${\mathbb Z}_2$ models
which are sensitive to the
$2^{b/2}$ multiplicity of states in the 59-open string sector.
The analysis
for the other terms in (\ref{z2anomaly})
as well as that for the $T^4/\mbz_4$ orientifold
models is similar and so will not be repeated here.

 From the anomaly polynomial (\ref{z2anomaly}),
the ratio of the coefficients of $f_9\wedge f_9^3$ and
$f_5\wedge f_9^3$ terms is $(-4/2^{b/2})$. This is
the result we want to confirm by a string computation.

We start with the $f_9\wedge f_9^3$ term.  The 1-loop open string
diagram that would generate this term is shown on
Fig.~\ref{6dfigure1}.  This amplitude is given by
\beqa
A_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}^{(99)}\bigg[f_9;f_9^3\bigg]&=&\int
{d t\over 2t}\
\biggl[\int dx_1\prod_{n=1}^3
dy_n\biggr]\cr
&&\times \biggl\langle\hat{V}_{\mu_1,9}(x_1)
\hat{V}_{\nu_1,9}(y_1)\hat{V}_{\nu_2,9}(y_2)
\hat{V}_{\nu_3,9}(y_3)\biggr\rangle_{\{\a,\b\}=\{\oh,\oh\}}^{\cc_{99}},
\label{ab9ab9}
\eeqa
where the 4 99-sector abelian gauge bosons are split into groups of three
and one
between the two cylinder boundaries. The subscript of the correlator
indicates the relevant spin structure\footnote{
All the vertex operators
in (\ref{ab9ab9}) are chosen to be in the $(0)$-picture.
This can be achieved by inserting an appropriate number of
worldsheet supercurrents.}.
The correlation function in (\ref{ab9ab9}) decomposes into
the non-compact part which depends on  the vertex insertion
coordinates $x_1,y_n$
but is independent of the twists $\th^k$, and the compact part.
Since the vertex insertions involve only the non-compact excitations,
this compact part is identical to the compact part of the $\cc_{99}$
tadpole with $\{\oh,\oh\}$  spin structure (\ref{z991}). Altogether,
we can  rewrite  (\ref{ab9ab9}) as
\beqa
A_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}^{(99)}\bigg[f_9;f_9^3\bigg]
&=&{1\over 3}\int {d t\over 2t}\  C_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}(t)\cr
&&\times \biggl\{\  \sum_{k=0}^1 \prod_{i=1}^2\
(-2\sin\pi k v_i)\ \tr(\g_{k,9}\cdot\lambda_9)\tr(\g_{k,9}^{-1}\cdot
\lambda_9^3)
\times S_{\cc_{99}}(k) \biggr\}\cr
&=&{1\over 3}\int {d t\over 2t}\
C_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}(t)\ \biggl\{\ -4\
\tr(\g_{1,9}\cdot\lambda_9)\tr(\g_{1,9}^{-1}\cdot
\lambda_9^3)
\biggr\},
\label{ab9ab9f}
\eeqa
where  $\lambda_9$ is
the generator of the $U(1)$ in the 99-sector. A symmetry  factor
$1/3$ in (\ref{ab9ab9f}) accounts for the fact that all three gauge
bosons on one of the boundaries of the cylinder come from the same $U(1)$.

The 1-loop open string diagram that  generates
$f_5\wedge f_9^3$ term in the anomaly polynomial
(\ref{z2anomaly}) is  shown on
Fig.~\ref{6dfigure2}.  This amplitude is given by
\beqa
A_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}^{(59)}\bigg[f_5;f_9^3\bigg]&=&
2^{b/2}\int {d t\over 2t}\
\biggl[\int dx_1\prod_{n=1}^3
dy_n\biggr]\cr
&&\times \biggl\langle\hat{V}_{\mu_1,5}(x_1)
\hat{V}_{\nu_1,9}(y_1)\hat{V}_{\nu_2,9}(y_2)
\hat{V}_{\nu_3,9}(y_3)\biggr\rangle_{\{\a,\b\}=\{\oh,\oh\}}^{\cc_{59}},
\label{ab5ab9}
\eeqa
where $2^{b/2}$ accounts for the multiplicity
of 59-cylinders.
As before, the correlation function in (\ref{ab5ab9}) decomposes into
the non-compact part which depends on  the vertex insertion
coordinates $x_1,y_n$
but is independent of the twists $\th^k$, and the compact part.
The non-compact part of this  correlation function
is identical to the non-compact part of the correlation
function in  (\ref{ab9ab9}) since 99- and 59-cylinders
have the same boundary conditions for the non-compact
excitations. The compact part coincides with the compact part
of the $\cc_{59}$ tadpole with $\{\oh,\oh\}$  spin structure
(\ref{z591}). Altogether,
the  can  rewrite  (\ref{ab5ab9}) as
\beqa
A_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}^{(59)}\bigg[f_5;f_9^3\bigg]
&=&{2^{b/2}\over 3}\int {d t\over 2t}\  C_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}(t)\cr
&&\times \biggl\{\  \sum_{k=0}^1 \prod_{i=1}^2\
  \frac{\vartheta[{{1} \atop {\oh + kv_i}}]}
{\vartheta[{0 \atop {\oh +kv_i}}]} \
\tr(\g_{k,5}\cdot\lambda_5)\tr(\g_{k,9}^{-1}\cdot
\lambda_9^3) \biggr\}\cr
&=&{2^{b/2}\over 3}\int {d t\over 2t}\
C_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}(t)\ \biggl\{\ \
\tr(\g_{1,5}\cdot\lambda_5)\tr(\g_{1,9}^{-1}\cdot
\lambda_9^3)
\biggr\},
\label{ab5ab9f}
\eeqa
where  $\lambda_5$ is
the generator of the $U(1)$ in the 55-sector.
 From (\ref{ab9ab9f}) and (\ref{ab5ab9f})
\beq
{A_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}^{(99)}\bigg[f_9;f_9^3\bigg]
\over A_{(\mu_1;\nu_1\nu_2\nu_3)}^{(59)}\bigg[f_5;f_9^3\bigg]}=
-{4\over 2^{b/2}},
\label{99ratio59}
\eeq
which is the desired result.

\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}

In this paper we have considered Type IIB orientifolds
on $T^4/\mbz_N$ ($N=2,4$) with discrete B-flux, previously
constructed in \cite{kst9803}.
We have analyzed the gravitational, gauge and mixed
anomalies of the resulting six dimensional vacua
and showed that they all cancel. The cancelation
required the $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity of states
in the 59-open string sector. In a field theory
framework, we have identified the twisted sector R-R
scalars and tensor multiplets involved in the Green-Schwarz mechanism
responsible for this cancelation.

We presented details of the construction of these models
and argued that consistency with $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity
of 59-sector states requires a modification of the
relation between the open string 1-loop channel modulus
and the closed string tree
channel
modulus for the 59- (95-) cylinder amplitudes. The latter
should not be surprising, since only for cylinders with the
same boundary conditions ( 99- or 55-cylinders) can one
relate their loop moduli to the loop moduli
of the Klein bottle and the M\"obius strip by adding/removing
crosscaps. In fact, we argued that it is precisely
the anomaly cancelation condition that should be used to determine the
relation between the 59-cylinder 1-loop and tree channel modulus.
The reason is that chiral anomalies are sensitive to the
R-R spin structure of 1-loop amplitudes, however this spin
structure  does not contribute to the 1-loop tadpoles. On the other
hand, the R-R
spin structure will contribute to 2-loop tadpoles,
and hence the cancelation of anomalies probes the 2-loop tadpole
consistency of the models.

We showed that the anomaly polynomial
computed in field theory can be extracted
from an appropriate limit of non-planar cylinder
amplitudes. We identified certain 1-loop non-planar
diagrams which are sensitive to the $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity
of 59-sector states and showed that they correctly
reproduce the field theory result, when the multiplicity
of 59-cylinders is taken to be $2^{b/2}$ as required
from the cancelation of the tadpoles.

Our results here can be extended to four dimensional orientifolds
\cite{bst}.  In \cite{ST} a $T^6/\mbz_6$ orientifold with $b=2$ B-flux
was proposed as an explicit string realization of the ``brane world''
scenario.  The model constructed there contains three chiral families
and a Pati-Salam $SU(4)\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes SU(2)_R$ gauge
group. The fact that there are three chiral families depends crucially
on the $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity of states in the 59-open string sector.
In four dimensions, anomaly constraints are much weaker and so are not
stringent enough to determine the doubling of the 59-sector states
\cite{bst}.  However, by compactifying the $b=2$ $T^4/\mbz_2$
orientifold considered in this paper on an extra $T^2$ and further
orbifolding it by $\mbz_3$, we obtain the $T^6/\mbz_6$ orientifold.
Before the $\mbz_3$ orbifold projection, there is doubling of states
in the 59 sector of the orientifold since it is connected to the
six-dimensional $\mbz_2$ orientifold discussed in this paper by
decompactifying the $T^2$ \footnote{For special radius of the $T^2$,
it is possible that some momentum/winding states become
massless. However, these states do not come from the $59$ sector.}.
This doublet of states can only transform as a singlet representation
under $\mbz_3$. Thus either all the 59-states of $T^6/\mbz_6$
orientifolds are projected out, or all of them are kept.  Since
tadpole cancelation requires the presence of 59 open string sector
states \cite{ST,bst}, this implies that the 59 sector states come with
a multiplicity \makebox{of 2}. In addition to the two anomalous $U(1)$ gauge
fields which contribute to the mixed $U(1)$-gravitational anomalies \cite{ST},
two more anomalous $U(1)$'s arise when other mixed $U(1)$ gauge
anomalies are taken into account, giving rise to a total of
four anomalous $U(1)$ gauge fields\cite{bst}.

The presence of the NS-NS sector B-field background is rather
generic. For example, when one considers orientifolding an
asymmetric orbifold \cite{bg9812158}, the background
B-field is generically non-zero.
The fact that that $b_{ij}$ defined in Eq.(\ref{momenta}) is invariant
under $b_{ij} \rightarrow b_{ij}+1$ and that it
takes only quantized values of $0$ or $1/2$ suggests
that it should be possible to associate with it a
$\mbz_2$ action. Indeed, one also finds
a $2^{b/2}$ multiplicity of states in the 59-sector in this
picture \cite{bg9812158}.

\acknowledgments

{}We thank Philip Argyres,
Mirjam Cvetic, Luis Ibanez, Clifford Johnson, Zurab Kakushadze,
Robert Shrock, Angel Uranga
and Piljin Yi for discussions. The research of G.S. is partially
supported by the NSF
grant PHY-97-22101.
The research of A.B. and
S.-H.H.T. is partially supported by
the National Science Foundation.
G.S. and S.-H.H.T would also like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics
for hospitality
while part of this work was completed.


\section{Introduction}

The two-photon Lie algebra $h_6$  is generated by the
operators $\{N,A_+,A_-,B_+,B_-,\break M\}$ endowed with the following
commutation rules \cite{Gil}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
 [N,A_+]=A_+ \quad  &[N,A_-]=-A_- \quad &[A_-,A_+]=M \cr
[N,B_+]=2B_+ \quad  &[N,B_-]=-2B_- \quad &[B_-,B_+]=4N+2M
\cr
 [A_+,B_-]=-2A_- \quad  &[A_+,B_+]=0 \quad
&[M,\,\cdot\,]=0\cr
 [A_-,B_+]=2A_+ \quad  &[A_-,B_-]=0 .\quad
& \cr
\end{array}
\label{aa}
\end{equation}
The  Lie algebra $h_6$ contains several remarkable Lie subalgebras: the
Heis\-enberg--Weyl algebra
$h_3$ spanned by $\{N,A_+,A_-\}$, the harmonic
 oscillator algebra $h_4$ with
generators
$\{N,A_+,A_-,M\}$,  and the $gl(2)$ algebra
generated by $\{N,B_+,B_-,M\}$. Note that  $gl(2)$ is isomorphic to
a trivially extended ${sl}(2,{\mathbb R})$ algebra (the central  extension
$M$   can be absorbed by redefining $N\toN+M/2$). Hence we have
the following embeddings
\begin{equation}
h_3\subset h_4\subset h_6\qquad sl(2,{\mathbb R})\subset gl(2)\subset h_6 .
\label{ab}
\end{equation}

Representations of the two-photon algebra can be used to  generate a
large zoo of squeezed  and coherent states for (single mode) one- and
two-photon processes which have been  analysed in \cite{Gil,Brif}.
In particular, if the generators ${\hat a}_-$, ${\hat a}_+$ close a boson algebra
\begin{equation}
[{\hat a}_-,{\hat a}_+]=1 ,
\label{ac}
\end{equation}
then a one-boson representation of $h_6$ reads
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
N={\hat a}_+{\hat a}_-&\qquad A_+={\hat a}_+&\qquad A_-={\hat a}_-\cr
M=1&\qquad B_+={\hat a}_+^2&\qquad B_-={\hat a}_-^2  .
\end{array}
\label{ad}
\end{equation}
This realization shows that one-photon processes  are algebraically
encoded within the subalgebra $h_4$, while $gl(2)$ contains the
information concerning two-photon dynamics.
 When the operators
${\hat a}_-$, ${\hat a}_+$ act in the usual way on the number states Hilbert space
spanned by $\{|m\rangle\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$, {\it i.e.},
\begin{equation}
{\hat a}_- |m\rangle = \sqrt{m}\,|m-1\rangle   \qquad
{\hat a}_+ |m\rangle = \sqrt{m+1}\,|m+1\rangle ,
\label{ae}
\end{equation}
the action of   $h_6$  on these states becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
N|m\rangle =m |m\rangle &\quad M|m\rangle=|m\rangle\\
 A_+|m\rangle= \sqrt{m+1}\, |m+1\rangle
 &\quad B_+|m\rangle= \sqrt{(m+1)(m+2)}\,|m+2\rangle\\
A_-|m\rangle = \sqrt{m}\,|m-1\rangle  &\quad
B_-|m\rangle=  \sqrt{m(m-1)}\,|m-2\rangle.
\end{array}
\label{af}
\end{equation}

The one-boson realization (\ref{ad}) can be translated  into a
Fock--Bargmann representation \cite{FB} by  setting ${\hat a}_+\equiv \alpha$
and ${\hat a}_-\equiv
\frac d{d\alpha}$. Thus  the $h_6$ generators act in the
Hilbert space of entire   analytic functions
$f(\alpha)$ as linear differential operators:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&N=\alpha \frac{d}{d\alpha} \qquad A_+=\alpha \qquad
A_-=\frac{d}{d\alpha}\nonumber\\
&&M=1 \qquad\quad B_+=\alpha^2 \qquad
B_-=\frac{d^2}{d\alpha^2} .
\label{ag}
\end{eqnarray}
The two-photon algebra eigenstates \cite{Brif} are given by the
analytic eigenfunctions that fulfil
\begin{equation}
(\beta_1N + \beta_2 B_- + \beta_3B_++\beta_4A_-+\beta_5A_+)
f(\alpha)=\lambda f(\alpha).
\label{ah}
\end{equation}
In the Fock--Bargmann
representation (\ref{ag}), the
following differential equation is deduced from (\ref{ah}):
\begin{equation}
\beta_2 \frac{d^2f}{d\alpha^2}+(\beta_1\alpha  +\beta_4)\frac{d
f}{d\alpha} +(\beta_3\alpha^2+\beta_5\alpha -\lambda)f=0
\label{ai}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_i$ are arbitrary complex coefficients and  $\lambda$ is a
complex eigenvalue. The solutions of this equation  (provided a
suitable normalization is imposed) give rise to the two-photon
coherent/squeezed states \cite{Brif}. One- and two-photon coherent and
squeezed states corresponding to the subalgebras $h_4$ and
$gl(2)$ can be derived from equation (\ref{ai}) by
setting $\beta_2=\beta_3=0$ and  $\beta_4=\beta_5=0$, respectively.

The  prominent role that the two-photon Lie algebra  plays in relation
with squee\-zed and coherent states motivates the extension of the Lie
bialgebra classifications already perfor\-med for its
subalgebras $h_3$ \cite{heis},  $h_4$ \cite{osc} and $gl(2)$
\cite{gl}, since  the  two-photon bialgebras    would constitute the
underlying structures of any   further  quantum deformation  whose
representations  could be physically interesting in the field of quantum
optics. Thus in the next section we present such a classification for
the two-photon bialgebras. The remaining sections are devoted to show
how quantum two-photon deformations provide  a starting point    in the
analysis of `deformed' states of light.

\section{The two-photon Lie bialgebras}

The essential point in this contribution is the fact that any quantum
deformation of a given Lie algebra can be characterized (and sometimes
obtained) through the associated Lie bialgebra.

Let us first recall that a {\it Lie bialgebra} $(g,\delta)$ is a Lie
algebra $g$ endowed with a linear  map $\delta:g\to g\otimes g$ called
the {\it cocommutator} that fulfils two conditions \cite{CP}:

\noindent i) $\delta$ is a 1-cocycle, {\it i.e.},
\begin{equation}
\delta([X,Y])=[\delta(X),\, 1\otimes Y+ Y\otimes 1] +
[1\otimes X+ X\otimes 1,\, \delta(Y)]  \quad \forall X,Y\in
g.
\label{ba}
\end{equation}
\noindent ii) The dual map $\delta^\ast:g^\ast\otimes g^\ast \to
g^\ast$ is a Lie bracket on $g^\ast$.

A Lie bialgebra $(g,\delta)$ is called a  {\it coboundary} Lie
bialgebra  if there exists an element $r\in g\wedge g$ called the {\it
classical
$r$-matrix}  such that
\begin{equation}
\delta(X)=[1\otimes X + X \otimes 1,\,  r]  \qquad  \forall X\in
g.
\label{bb}
\end{equation}
Otherwise the Lie bialgebra is a {\it non-coboundary} one.

There are two types of coboundary Lie bialgebras $(g,\delta (r))$:

\noindent
i)  {\em Non-standard} (or triangular): The $r$-matrix is a
skewsymmetric solution of the classical Yang--Baxter equation (YBE):
\begin{equation}
[[r,r]]=0 ,
\label{bc}
\end{equation}
where $[[r,r]]$ is the Schouten bracket defined by
\begin{equation}
[[r,r]]:=[r_{12},r_{13}] + [r_{12},r_{23}] +
[r_{13},r_{23}].
\label{bd}
\end{equation}
If $r=r^{i j} X_i\otimes X_j$, we have denoted
$r_{12}=r^{i j} X_i\otimes X_j\otimes 1$,
$r_{13}=r^{i j} X_i\otimes 1\otimes X_j$ and
$r_{23}=r^{i j} 1\otimes X_i\otimes  X_j$.

\noindent
ii) {\em Standard} (or quasitriangular): The $r$-matrix is a
skewsymmetric solution of the\break modified classical  YBE:
\begin{equation}
[X\otimes 1\otimes 1 + 1\otimes X\otimes 1 +
1\otimes 1\otimes X,[[r,r]]\, ]=0  \quad \forall X\in g.
\label{be}
\end{equation}

\subsection{The general solution}

Now we proceed to introduce {\it all}  the Lie bialgebras associated
to $h_6$. Recently a classification of    all Schr\"odinger bialgebras
have been obtained \cite{sch} showing that all of them have a coboundary
character. Therefore we can make use of the isomorphism between the
  Schr\"odinger and two-photon algebras  \cite{tufotona} in order to
`translate' the results of the former in terms of the latter.

The most general two-photon classical $r$-matrix,  $r\in h_6\wedge h_6$,
 depends on 15 (real) coefficients:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& r=\a1 N\wedge A_+ + \a2 N\wedge B_+  +
\a3 A_+\wedge M  \cr
&&\qquad + \a4 B_+\wedge M +
\a5 A_+\wedge B_+ + \a6 A_+\wedge B_-\cr
&&\qquad + \b1 N\wedge A_-  + \b2 N\wedge B_-  +
\b3 A_-\wedge M  \cr
&&\qquad + \b4 B_-\wedge M +
\b5 A_-\wedge B_- + \b6 A_-\wedge B_+\cr
&&\qquad +\c1 N\wedge M + \c2 A_+\wedge A_- +
\c3  B_+\wedge  B_-
\label{bf}
\end{eqnarray}
which are subjected to 19 equations that we group into three sets:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
2 \a6^2 - \a6 \b1 + 3 \a1 \b5 + 2 \b5 \b6=0\cr
\a2 \a3-2 \a1 \a4+2 \a4 \b6-3 \a5 \c1-\a5 \c2-2 \a5 \c3=0\cr
\a1 \a2-2 \a2 \b6-4 \a5 \c3=0\cr
\a5 \b1-\a1 \b6+2 \a2 \c1+2 \a2 \c3+4 \a4 \c3=0\cr
2 \a2 \a6+4 \a4 \a6-2 \a4 \b1-2 \a5 \b2+2 \a2 \b3-
4 \a5 \b4+\a1 \c1+\a1 \c2=0\cr
3 \a1 \b2+2 \a2 \b5+4 \a6 \c3-2 \b1 \c3=0\cr
\a3 \b2+2 \a1 \b4+2 \a4 \b5+\a6 \c1-\a6 \c2-2 \a6 \c3-2 \b3 \c3=0\cr
3 \a2 \b5+\b2 \b6+2 \a6 \c3=0
\end{array}
\label{bbf}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
2 \b6^2 - \b6 \a1  + 3 \b1 \a5   + 2 \a5 \a6 =0   \cr
\b2 \b3 -2 \b1 \b4 +2  \b4 \a6 -3 \b5 \c1+\b5 \c2+2 \b5 \c3=0\cr
\b1 \b2 - 2 \b2 \a6 +4 \b5 \c3=0\cr
\b5 \a1  - \b1 \a6 +2 \b2 \c1-2 \b2 \c3-4 \b4 \c3=0\cr
2 \b2 \b6 +4 \b4 \b6-2 \b4 \a1 -2 \b5 \a2 + 2 \b2 \a3 -
4 \b5 \a4 +\b1 \c1-\b1 \c2=0\cr
3 \b1 \a2 +2 \b2 \a5-4 \b6 \c3  +2 \a1 \c3=0\cr
\b3 \a2 + 2 \b1 \a4 +2 \b4 \a5 +\b6 \c1+\b6 \c2+2 \b6 \c3+2 \a3 \c3=0\cr
3\b2 \a5 + \a2 \a6-2 \b6 \c3=0
\end{array}
\label{bbg}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\a2 \b2 + \c3^2=0\cr
2 \a2 \b4 + 2  \a4 \b2  - \a5 \b5 + \a6 \b6 - 2 \c3^2=0\cr
\a1 \b1 + \a1 \a6+ \b1 \b6 +2 \a5 \b5-2 \a6 \b6=0 .
\end{array}
\label{bbh}
\end{equation}

The classical $r$-matrix (\ref{bf}) satisfies the modified
classical YBE and its  Schouten bracket  reads
\begin{equation}
[[r,r]]= ( \a1 \b3 + \a3 \b1 + 2 \a3 \a6  + 2 \b3 \b6
  - 2 \a5 \b5 + 2 \a6 \b6  - \c2^2)A_+\wedgeA_-\wedgeM .
\label{bi}
\end{equation}
Hence we obtain an additional equation which allows  us to distinguish
between non-standard and standard classical $r$-matrices:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{Non-standard:}&\quad \a1 \b3 + \a3 \b1 + 2 \a3 \a6  + 2 \b3 \b6
  - 2 \a5 \b5 + 2 \a6 \b6  - \c2^2=0\cr
\mbox{Standard:}&\quad \a1 \b3 + \a3 \b1 + 2 \a3 \a6  + 2 \b3 \b6
  - 2 \a5 \b5 + 2 \a6 \b6  - \c2^2\ne 0 .
\end{array}
\label{bj}
\end{equation}

On the other hand, the following automorphism of $h_6$
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
N\to -N&\qquad A_+\to -A_- &\qquad A_-\to -A_+\cr
M\to -M&\qquad B_+\to -B_-&\qquad B_-\to -B_+
\end{array}
\label{bg}
\end{equation}
interchanges the roles
of  $A_+$ with $A_-$, and $B_+$ with $B_-$. This map can be
also implemented at a bialgebra level by introducing a suitable
transformation of the  parameters $a$'s, $b$'s and $c$'s given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a_i\to b_i\qquad\ b_i\to a_i\qquad i=1,\dots,6\cr
&&\c1\to \c1\qquad \c2\to -\c2\qquad\c3\to -\c3 .
\label{bh}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that the maps (\ref{bg}) and (\ref{bh}) leave   the general
classical
$r$-matrix (\ref{bf}), the equations (\ref{bbh}) and  the Schouten
bracket (\ref{bi}) invariant, while they interchange the sets of
equations (\ref{bbf}) and (\ref{bbg}).

As all the two-photon Lie bialgebras are coboundary ones, that is, they
come from  the classical $r$-matrix (\ref{bf}), the corresponding general
cocommutator can be derived from (\ref{bb}):
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
 \delta(N)=\a1 N\wedgeA_+ + 2\a2 N\wedge B_+ +
 \a3 A_+\wedge M + 2 \a4
B_+\wedgeM + 3 \a5 A_+ \wedge B_+ \cr
 \qquad\quad -\b1 N\wedgeA_- - 2\b2 N\wedge B_- -
 \b3 A_-\wedge M - 2 \b4
B_-\wedgeM - 3 \b5 A_- \wedge B_- \cr
\qquad\quad - \a6 A_+\wedge B_- + \b6 A_-\wedge B_+ \nonumber\\[6pt]
 \delta(A_+)=(2\a6 + \b1) A_-\wedge A_+ + \a2 B_+\wedge A_+
+ \b2(B_-\wedge A_+
+2 A_-\wedge N)\cr
\qquad\quad -\b1 N\wedge M - 2 \b4 A_-\wedgeM +  \b5 B_-\wedgeM
+ \b6
B_+ \wedge M\cr
\qquad\quad - (\c1 + \c2)A_+\wedge M + 2\c3 A_-\wedgeB_+ \\[6pt]
 \delta(A_-)=-(2\b6 + \a1) A_+\wedge A_- - \b2 B_-\wedge A_-  -
\a2(B_+\wedge A_- +2  A_+\wedge N)\cr
\qquad\quad +\a1 N\wedge M + 2 \a4 A_+\wedgeM -  \a5 B_+\wedgeM
- \a6
B_- \wedge M\cr
\qquad\quad + (\c1 - \c2)A_-\wedge M + 2\c3 A_+\wedgeB_-  \\[6pt]
\delta(B_+)= 4 \c3 N\wedgeB_+   + 2 (\a1 - \b6)A_+\wedge B_+ + 2 \b1
A_-\wedge B_+ + 2 \b2 B_-\wedge B_+\cr
\qquad\quad  +2(2\a6 - \b1) N\wedgeA_+ + 2 \b5 (2N \wedge A_-
-   A_+ \wedge B_- -   A_- \wedge M)\cr
\qquad\quad
-2(\b2 + 2\b4)N\wedge M - 2(\a6+\b3)A_+ \wedge M
-2(\c1+\c3)B_+\wedgeM
\\[6pt]
\delta(B_-)= 4 \c3 N\wedgeB_-  -  2 (\b1 - \a6)A_-\wedge B_- - 2 \a1
A_+\wedge B_- - 2 \a2 B_+\wedge B_-\cr
\qquad\quad  -2(2\b6 - \a1) N\wedgeA_- - 2 \a5 (2N \wedge A_+
- A_- \wedge B_+ - A_+ \wedge M)\cr
\qquad\quad
+2(\a2 + 2\a4)N\wedge M + 2(\b6+\a3)A_- \wedge M
+2(\c1-\c3)B_-\wedgeM\\[6pt]
\delta(M)= 0 .
\end{array}
\label{bk}
\end{equation}
The bialgebra automorphism  defined by the maps  (\ref{bg})
and (\ref{bh}) also interchanges the cocommutators
$\delta(A_+)\leftrightarrow\delta(A_-)$ and
$\delta(B_+)\leftrightarrow\delta(B_-)$ leaving  $\delta(N)$ and
$\delta(M)$ invariant.

\subsection{The two-photon Lie bialgebras with two primitive
generators}

We have just shown that  in all two-photon bialgebras  the
central generator $M$ is always {\em primitive}, that is, its
cocommutator vanishes. In general,  primitive generators
determine   the physical properties of the corresponding
quantum deformations.
Therefore we study  now those particular two-photon bialgebras
with {\it one} additional  primitive generator $X$ (besides
$M$). Furthermore, the restrictions implied by the condition
$\delta(X)=0$ rather simplify the equations
(\ref{bbf})--(\ref{bbh}).

Due to the equivalence
 $+\leftrightarrow -$ defined by the maps (\ref{bg}) and
(\ref{bh})  it suffices to restrict our study to  three
types of bialgebras: those with either
$N$, $A_+$ or $B_+$ primitive.

\noindent
$\bullet$ {\it Type I: $N$ primitive}.
The condition $\delta(N)=0$  leaves three free parameters $\c1$,
$\c2$ and $\c3$,  all others being equal to zero.
The equations (\ref{bbf})--(\ref{bbh}) imply that $\c3=0$.
The Schouten bracket  reduces to $[[r,r]]=-\c2^2\,  A_+\wedge
A_- \wedge M$, then we have a  standard subfamily with  two-parameters
$\{\c1,\c2\ne 0\}$ and a  non-standard subfamily with $\c1$ as the  only
free parameter; they read
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mbox{Standard subfamily:}\quad  \c1,\ \c2\ne 0 \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&r=\c1 N\wedge M+\c2   A_+\wedge A_-  \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(N)=0\qquad \delta(M)=0\label{ca} \\
&&\delta(A_+)=-(\c1+\c2) A_+\wedge M\qquad
\delta(A_-)=(\c1-\c2) A_-\wedge M\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(B_+)=-2\c1  B_+\wedge M\qquad
\delta(B_-)=2\c1  B_-\wedge M .\nonumber\\[8pt]
&&\mbox{Non-standard subfamily:}\quad  \c1\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&r=\c1 N\wedge M  \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(N)=0\qquad \delta(M)=0\label{cb}\\
&&\delta(A_+)=-\c1  A_+\wedge M\qquad
\delta(A_-)=\c1A_-\wedge M\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(B_+)=-2\c1  B_+\wedge M\qquad
\delta(B_-)=2\c1  B_-\wedge M .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

 \noindent
$\bullet$ {\it Type II: $A_+$ primitive}.  If we set
$\delta(A_+)=0$  the initial free parameters are:
$\a1$, $\a3$, $\a4$, $\a5$, $\b3$, $\c1$ and $\c2=-\c1$. The
relations (\ref{bbf})--(\ref{bbh}) reduce to a single
equation
$\a1\a4+\a5\c1=0$, and the Schouten bracket characterizes  the standard
and non-standard subfamilies by means of the term $\a1\b3-\c1^2$:

\noindent
Standard subfamily: $\a1$, $\a3$, $\a4$, $\a5$, $\b3$, $\c1$ with
$\a1\a4+\a5\c1=0$,  $\a1\b3-\c1^2\ne 0$.

\noindent
Non-standard subfamily: $\a1$, $\a3$, $\a4$, $\a5$, $\b3$, $\c1$ with
$\a1\a4+\a5\c1=0$,  $\a1\b3-\c1^2= 0$.

The structure for both subfamilies of bialgebras turns out to be:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! r=\a1 N\wedge A_+  +
\a3 A_+\wedge M    + \a4 B_+\wedge M +
\a5 A_+\wedge B_+ \cr
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \qquad     +
\b3 A_-\wedge M  +\c1 (N\wedge M - A_+\wedge A_-)
\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \delta(N)=\a1 N\wedgeA_+  + \a3
A_+\wedge
M + 2 \a4
B_+\wedgeM + 3 \a5 A_+ \wedge B_+  -  \b3 A_-\wedge M
\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \delta(A_+)=   0\qquad
\delta(M)= 0
\label{cc}\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \delta(A_-)=\a1 (N\wedge M -
A_+\wedge
A_- )    + 2 \a4 A_+\wedgeM - \a5
B_+\wedgeM   + 2\c1 A_-\wedge M   \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\delta(B_+)=   2 \a1 A_+\wedge B_+   -
2\b3A_+
\wedge M  -2\c1B_+\wedgeM\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\delta(B_-)=     2 \a1 (N\wedgeA_- -
A_+\wedge B_-  )
+ 2\a3A_- \wedge M +4\a4N\wedge M \cr
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\qquad\qquad - 2 \a5 (2N \wedge A_+
- A_- \wedge B_+ - A_+ \wedge M)
+2\c1B_-\wedgeM .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

\noindent
$\bullet$ {\it Type III: $B_+$ primitive}.
Finally, the condition $\delta(B_+)=0$ implies that the  initial free
parameters are:
$\a1$, $\a2$, $\a3$, $\a4$, $\a5$, $\c2$ and $\b6=\a1$.
The equations (\ref{bbf})--(\ref{bbh}) lead to   $\a1=0$ and
$\a2\a3-\a5\c2=0$. Hence from (\ref{bj}) we find that standard solutions
correspond to considering the set of parameters
$\{\a2,\a3,\a4,\a5=\frac{\a2\a3}{\c2},\c2\ne 0\}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mbox{Standard subfamily:}\quad  \a2,\
 \a3,\ \a4,\ \c2\ne 0 \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&r=\a2  N\wedge B_+  + \a3  A_+\wedge M +\a4  B_+\wedge M
 +\frac{\a2\a3}{\c2}  A_+\wedge B_+ + \c2
A_+\wedge A_-   \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(N)=2 \a2 N \wedge B_+ +\a3  A_+ \wedge M
+ 2\a4  B_+\wedge M +3\frac{\a2\a3}{\c2}  A_+\wedge B_+\cr
&&\delta(A_+)=\a2  B_+\wedge A_+ - \c2  A_+
\wedge M\label{ce} \\
&&\delta(A_-)=-
\a2  (B_+\wedge A_-  + 2  A_+\wedge N) +2 \a4  A_+  \wedge M
  -  \frac{\a2\a3}{\c2}  B_+\wedge M\cr
&&\qquad\qquad  -\c2  A_- \wedge M\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(B_+)=0\qquad \delta(M)=0\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(B_-)=-2\a2  B_+ \wedge B_-
+ 2\a3  A_- \wedge M +2(\a2 +2\a4)
N\wedge M\cr
&&\qquad\qquad - 2\frac{\a2\a3}{\c2}(2 N\wedge A_+ -  A_- \wedge B_+ -
A_+\wedge M).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The non-standard subfamily corresponds to  taking $\{\a2,\a3,\a4,\a5\}$
together with the relation  $\a2\a3=0$ which implies that either
$\a2$ or $\a3$ is equal to zero. However if  we set $\a2=0$ then
$\delta(A_+)=0$ and we are within the above non-standard type II;
therefore we discard it and only consider the case $\a3=0$.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mbox{Non-standard subfamily:}\quad  \a2,\
\a4,\  \a5\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&r=\a2  N\wedge B_+ + \a4 B_+\wedge M
+\a5  A_+\wedge B_+   \nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(N)=2 \a2 N \wedge B_+
+ 2\a4  B_+\wedge M +3\a5  A_+\wedge B_+\label{cf}\\
&&\delta(A_+)=\a2  B_+\wedge A_+\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(A_-)=-\a2  (B_+\wedge A_-  + 2  A_+\wedge N) +2 \a4  A_+
\wedge M
  -  \a5  B_+\wedge M\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(B_+)=0\qquad   \delta(M)=0\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&\delta(B_-)=-2\a2  B_+ \wedge B_-
+2(\a2 +2\a4)N\wedge M\cr
&&\qquad\qquad
- 2\a5(2 N\wedge A_+ - A_- \wedge B_+ -  A_+\wedge
M).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

In what follows we will study the quantum deformations of  two specific
bialgebras of non-standard type  with either $A_+$ or $B_+$ as primitive
generators. The former contains a quantum harmonic  oscillator $h_4$
subalgebra  while the latter includes a quantum $gl(2)$ subalgebra.

\section{The quantum two-photon algebra $U_{\a1}(h_6)$}

We consider the  bialgebra belonging to the non-standard  subfamily of
type II with $\a3=\a4=\a5=\b3=\c1=0$ and $\a1$ as the only free
parameter. Thus this one-parameter two-photon bialgebra can be written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
r=\a1 N\wedge A_+  \cr
\delta(A_+)=0\qquad \delta(M)=0\cr
\delta(N)=\a1N\wedgeA_+\qquad
\delta(B_+)=-2\a1B_+\wedgeA_+\cr
\delta(A_-)=\a1(A_-\wedgeA_+ + N\wedgeM)\cr
\delta(B_-)=2\a1(B_-\wedgeA_+ + N\wedgeA_-).
\end{array}
\label{db}
\end{equation}
In order to construct its corresponding quantum  deformation
$U_{\a1}(h_6)$, it is necessary to obtain a  homomorphism, the {\em
coproduct},  $\Delta: U_{\a1}(h_6)\to U_{\a1}(h_6)\otimes U_{\a1}(h_6)$,
verifying the coassociativity condition
$(\Delta\otimes\mbox{id})\Delta=\Delta(\Delta\otimes\mbox{id})$.  It
turns out to be
\cite{tufotona}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta(A_+)=1\otimes A_+ + A_+ \otimes 1\qquad
\Delta(M)=1\otimes M + M \otimes 1\cr
\Delta(N)=1\otimes N + N \otimes e^{\a1A_+}
\qquad
\Delta(B_+)=1\otimes B_+ + B_+ \otimes e^{-2\a1A_+}\cr
\Delta(A_-)=1\otimes A_- + A_- \otimes e^{\a1A_+}
+ \a1N \otimes e^{\a1A_+} M\cr
\Delta(B_-)=1\otimes B_- + B_- \otimes e^{2\a1A_+}
-\a1A_-\otimes e^{\a1A_+} N \cr
\qquad\qquad\quad
+ \a1N \otimes e^{\a1A_+}(A_--\a1 \bbN) .
\end{array}
\label{dc}
\end{equation}
The compatible deformed commutation rules are obtained by
imposing $\Delta$ to be a homomorphism of $U_{\a1}(h_6)$: $\Delta
([X,Y])=[\Delta(X),\Delta(Y)]$; they are
\begin{eqnarray}
&& [N,A_+]=\frac {e^{\a1A_+}-1}{\a1} \qquad   [N,A_-]=-A_- \qquad
 [A_-,A_+]=M  e^{\a1A_+} \cr
&& [N,B_+]=2B_+ \qquad   [N,B_-]=-2B_- - \a1 A_- N
\qquad [M,\,\cdot\,]=0\nonumber\\[2pt]
&&[B_-,B_+]= 2(1+  e^{-\a1A_+})N + 2M - 2 \a1 A_-B_+  \label{dd}\\
&& [A_+,B_-]=-(1+  e^{\a1A_+}) A_- + \a1 e^{\a1A_+}\bbN\qquad
[A_+,B_+]=0\cr
&&  [A_-,B_+]=2\frac {1-e^{-\a1A_+}}{\a1}
  \qquad   [A_-,B_-]=-\a1A_-^2 .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The associated universal quantum R-matrix, which satisfies the quatum
YBE, reads
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}=\exp\{-\a1A_+\otimesN\}\exp\{\a1N\otimesA_+\}  .
\label{de}
\end{equation}
Note that the underlying cocommutator  is related to the first  order in
$\a1$ of the coproduct  by means of $\delta=(\Delta - \sigma\Delta)$
where
$\sigma(X\otimes Y)=Y\otimes X$; the limit $\a1\to
0$ of (\ref{dd}) leads to the $h_6$ Lie brackets (\ref{aa});  and the
first order in $\a1$ of ${\cal R}$ corresponds to the classical
$r$-matrix (\ref{db}). We remark that the generators
$\{N,A_+,A_-,M\}$ give rise to a non-standard quantum harmonic
oscillator algebra  $U_{\a1}(h_4)\subset U_{\a1}(h_6)$ \cite{osc}.

On the other hand, a deformed one-boson realization of  $U_{\a1}(h_6)$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&N= \frac{e^{\a1{\hat a}_+}-1}{\a1}\,{\hat a}_- \qquad
  A_+={\hat a}_+  \qquad
  A_-=  e^{\a1{\hat a}_+}{\hat a}_- \cr
&& B_+=\left(\frac{1- e^{-\a1{\hat a}_+} }{\a1}\right)^2  \qquad
B_-=e^{\a1{\hat a}_+}{\hat a}_-^2  \qquad  M= 1  .
\label{dg}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that the classical identifications  $B_+=A_+^2$ and $B_-=A_-^2$
are no longer valid in the quantum case.  The action of the generators of
$U_{\a1}(h_6)$ on the number states
$\{|m\rangle\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$  is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A_+|m\rangle =\sqrt{m+1}\, |m+1\rangle  \qquad
M|m\rangle =  |m\rangle   \cr
&&A_-|m\rangle = \sqrt{m}\,
|m-1\rangle + m \sum_{k=0}^\infty
 \frac{{\a1}^{k+1} }{(k+1)!} \, \sqrt{\frac {(m+k)!}{m!} }
 \, |m+k\rangle  \cr
&&N|m\rangle =m\, |m\rangle + m \sum_{k=1}^\infty  \frac{{\a1}^k
}{(k+1)!} \, \sqrt{\frac {(m+k)!}{m!} }
 \, |m+k\rangle  \cr
&&B_+|m\rangle =\sqrt{(m+1)(m+2)}\,|m+2\rangle \cr
&&\qquad \qquad + \sum_{k=1}^\infty
(-2+2^{k+2}) \frac{(-{\a1})^k }{(k+2)!} \, \sqrt{\frac {(m+k+2)!}{m!} }
 \, |m+k+2\rangle  \cr
&&B_-|m\rangle =\sqrt{m (m-1)}\, |m-2\rangle +
{\a1} \sqrt{m} (m-1)\, |m-1\rangle \cr
&&\qquad \qquad + m (m-1) \sum_{k=0}^\infty  \frac{{\a1}^{k+2}
}{(k+2)!} \, \sqrt{\frac {(m+k)!}{m!} }
 \, |m+k\rangle  .\label{dh}
\end{eqnarray}

The deformed boson realization (\ref{dg}) can be
translated into differential operators acting on the the space of
entire analytic functions $f(\alpha)$, that is, a deformed Fock--Bargmann
representation which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& N= \frac{e^{{\a1}\alpha}-1}{{\a1}}\,\frac{d}{d\alpha}  \qquad
  A_+=\alpha   \qquad
  A_-=  e^{\a1\alpha}\,\frac{d}{d\alpha}    \cr
&& B_+=\left(\frac{1- e^{-\a1\alpha }}{\a1}\right)^2   \qquad
B_-=e^{\a1\alpha}\,\frac{d^2}{d\alpha^2} \qquad  M= 1 .
\label{di}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence the relation (\ref{ah}) provides the following   differential
equation that characterizes the   deformed two-photon algebra
eigenstates :
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_2 e^{\a1\alpha} \frac{d^2f}{d\alpha^2}+\left(\beta_1
\frac{e^{{\a1}\alpha}-1}{{\a1}}  +\beta_4  e^{\a1\alpha}\right) \frac{d
f}{d\alpha} \cr
 &&\qquad\quad +\left(\beta_3\left(\frac{1- e^{-\a1\alpha
}}{\a1}\right)^2 +\beta_5\alpha -\lambda\right)f=0 .
\label{dj}
\end{eqnarray}
The particular equation with $\beta_2=\beta_3=0$  is associated to the
quantum oscillator subalgebra $U_{\a1}(h_4)$ and it would give deformed
one-photon coherent states; the case
$\beta_4=\beta_5=0$ corresponds to the $gl(2)$ sector  which
is not a quantum subalgebra (see the coproduct (\ref{dc})).

We stress the relevance of the coproduct in  order to construct tensor
product representations of the two-photon generators (\ref{di}).
Finally, we remark that the limit $\a1\to 0$ of all the
above expressions gives rise to their classical version
presented in the Introduction.

\section{The quantum two-photon algebra  $U_{\a2}(h_6)$}

Let us consider now the non-standard bialgebra of  type III with
$\a4=\a5=0$ and
$\a2$ as a free parameter:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
r= \a2 N\wedge B_+\cr
 \delta(B_+)=0\qquad \delta(M)=0\cr
 \delta(N)=2\a2\, N\wedge B_+\qquad
 \delta(A_+)=-\a2\, A_+\wedge B_+\cr
 \delta(A_-)=\a2\, (A_-\wedge B_+ + 2 N\wedge A_+)\cr
 \delta(B_-)=2\a2\, (B_-\wedge B_+ + N\wedge M) .
\end{array}
\label{ea}
\end{equation}
The resulting  coproduct, commutation rules and universal  $R$-matrix of
the quantum algebra  $U_{\a2}(h_6)$ read \cite{tufotonb}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta(B_+)=1\otimes B_+ + B_+ \otimes 1 \qquad
\Delta(M)=1\otimes M + M \otimes 1\cr
\Delta(N)=1\otimes N + N \otimes e^{2\a2B_+}
\qquad \Delta(A_+)=1\otimes A_+ + A_+ \otimes
e^{-\a2B_+} \cr
\Delta(A_-)=1\otimes A_- + A_- \otimes e^{\a2B_+}
+ 2\a2N \otimes e^{2\a2B_+} A_+\cr
\Delta(B_-)=1\otimes B_- + B_- \otimes e^{2\a2B_+}
+ 2\a2N \otimes e^{2\a2B_+} M\cr
\end{array}
\label{eb}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& [N,A_+]=A_+ \qquad   [N,A_-]=-A_- \qquad
 [A_-,A_+]=M   \cr
&& [N,B_+]=\frac {e^{2\a2B_+}-1}{\a2} \qquad   [N,B_-]=-2B_- - 4\a2
{N}^2 \cr
&&[B_-,B_+]= 4N + 2M e^{2\a2B_+} \qquad  [M,\,\cdot\,]=0
\label{ec}\\
 && [A_+,B_-]=-2A_- + 2\a2(N A_+ + A_+ N) \qquad
[A_+,B_+]=0\cr
&&  [A_-,B_+]=2 e^{2\a2B_+} A_+
  \qquad   [A_-,B_-]=-2\a2(N A_- + A_- N)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
 \begin{equation}
{\cal R}=\exp\{-\a2B_+\otimesN\}\exp\{\a2N\otimesB_+\} .
\label{ed}
\end{equation}
Notice that the generators $\{N,B_+,B_-,M\}$  close a non-standard
quantum
$gl(2)$ algebra \cite{gl} such that  $U_{\a2}(gl(2))\subset
U_{\a2}(h_6)$, while the  oscillator  algebra $h_4$ is
preserved as an undeformed subalgebra  only at the level of
commutation relations.

A one-boson representation of $U_{\a2}(h_6)$   is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B_+={\hat a}_+^2\qquad M=1\qquad
 N=\frac{e^{2\a2{\hat a}_+^2}-1}{2\a2{\hat a}_+}\,{\hat a}_- \cr
&& A_+=\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\a2{\hat a}_+^2}}{2\a2}\right)^{1/2}\qquad
 A_-=\frac{e^{2\a2{\hat a}_+^2}}{{\hat a}_+}
\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\a2{\hat a}_+^2}}{2\a2}\right)^{1/2} \!\! {\hat a}_- \cr
&& B_- =\left( \frac{e^{2 \a2 {\hat a}_+^2}-1}{2 \a2 {\hat a}_+^2 }   \right)
{\hat a}_-^2 +
\left(\frac {e^{2 \a2 {\hat a}_+^2}}{{\hat a}_+}+\frac {1-e^{2 \a2 {\hat a}_+^2}} {2 \a2
{\hat a}_+^3}\right)
{\hat a}_- .
\label{ee}
\end{eqnarray}
 We remark that, although
(\ref{ec}) presents a non-deformed oscillator subalgebra,  the
representation (\ref{ee}) includes strong deformations in terms of the
boson operators. The corresponding Fock--Bargmann representation
adopts the following  form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B_+=\alpha^2\qquad M=1\qquad
 N=\frac{e^{2\a2\alpha^2}-1}{2\a2\alpha}\,\frac{d}{d\alpha} \cr
&& A_+=\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\a2\alpha^2}}{2\a2}\right)^{1/2}\qquad
 A_-=\frac{e^{2\a2\alpha^2}}{\alpha}
\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\a2\alpha^2}}{2\a2}\right)^{1/2} \!\!
\frac{d}{d\alpha} \cr && B_- =\left( \frac{e^{2 \a2 \alpha^2}-1}{2 \a2
\alpha^2 }   \right)
\frac{d^2}{d\alpha^2}  +
\left(\frac {e^{2 \a2 \alpha^2}}{\alpha}+\frac  {1-e^{2 \a2 \alpha^2}}
{2 \a2
\alpha^3}\right)
\frac{d}{d\alpha} .
\label{ef}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore if  we substitute these operators in the equation of the
two-photon algebra eigenstates
(\ref{ah}) we obtain the  differential equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\beta_2 \left( \frac{e^{2 \a2 \alpha^2}-1}{2 \a2 \alpha^2 }
\right)
\!\frac{d^2f}{d\alpha^2}
+\left(\beta_1 \frac{e^{2\a2\alpha^2}-1}{2\a2\alpha}
 + \beta_4
\frac{e^{2\a2\alpha^2}}{\alpha}
\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\a2\alpha^2}}{2\a2}\right)^{1/2} \right)\!
\frac{d f}{d\alpha} \cr
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+\beta_2  \left(\frac {e^{2 \a2 \alpha^2}}{\alpha}+\frac
{1-e^{2 \a2
\alpha^2}} {2 \a2
\alpha^3}\right)\! \frac{d
f}{d\alpha} +\left(\beta_3 \alpha^2
+\beta_5\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\a2\alpha^2}}{2\a2}\right)^{1/2}
\!\! -\lambda\right)\! f=0 .\cr
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\label{eg}
\end{eqnarray}
If we set $\beta_4=\beta_5=0$,  then we obtain an equation associated to
the quantum subalgebra $U_{\a2}(gl(2))$, while the case
$\beta_2=\beta_3=0$ corresponds to the harmonic oscillator sector.
Note that in the limit $\a2\to 0$ we recover the classical
two-photon structure.

To end with, it is remarkable that we can make use of the two-photon
bialgebra automorphism  defined by (\ref{bg})
and (\ref{bh}) in order to obtain from $U_{\a1}(h_6)$ and
$U_{\a2}(h_6)$ two  other (algebraically equivalent) quantum
deformations of $h_6$, namely $U_{\b1}(h_6)$ and
$U_{\b2}(h_6)$, but now with $A_-$ and
$B_-$ as the primitive generators, respectively. However at a
representation level, the physical implications are rather
different. If, for instance, $A_-$ is a primitive generator
instead of $A_+$ we would obtain a deformed
Fock--Bargmann representation with terms as
$\exp(\b1\frac{d}{d\alpha})$ (instead of $e^{\a1\alpha}$),
giving rise to a differential-difference realization
\cite{tufotona}. Therefore, quantum $h_6$ algebras with
either $A_+$ or $B_+$ primitive  would
originate a class of smooth deformed states, while
those with either $A_-$ or $B_-$ primitive  will be
linked to a set of states including some intrinsic
discretization.

{\section*{Acknowledgments}}
\noindent
 A.B. and
F.J.H. have been partially supported by DGICYT (Project  PB94--1115)
from the Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Cultura  de Espa\~na and by Junta
de Castilla y Le\'on (Pro\-jects CO1/396 and CO2/297). P.P. has been
supported by a fellowship from AECI, Spain.

\bigskip