This post is closely related to the post Localization principle in supersymmetry and can be considered as a continuation of it, although independent.

In § 9.3 of the book “Mirror symmetry” (K. Hori et al.) the authors formulate the following general localization principle for computation of integrals over supermanifolds: Assume there is some supersymmetry transformation of variables. Then the integral becomes localized on the field configurations for which the fermionic variables are invariant under the supersymmetry. I would like to understand this principle in the following example below (which slightly generalizes the example in § 9.3 in the book) and how it should be compatible with Theorem 1 of the paper “Supersymmetry and Localization” by Schwarz and Zaboronsky, see arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9511112 In example below the vector field $ Q$ is chosen such that the integral should be localized over the empty set, i.e. it should vanish.

Let $ M^{1|2}$ be the supermanifold with one even coordinate $ x$ and two odd ones $ \psi_1,\psi_2$ . Let $ Q$ be an odd vector field on $ M$ and $ F(x,\psi_1,\psi_2)$ be a function on $ M$ defined as follows: \begin{eqnarray*} Q:=\psi_1\partial_x +C(x)\partial_{\psi_2},\ F(x,\psi_1,\psi_2):=f(x)+\frac{f'(x)}{C(x)}\psi_1\psi_2, \end{eqnarray*} where $ f(x),C(x)$ are functions depending on $ x$ only, and $ C$ never vanishes. It is easy to see that \begin{eqnarray*} Q(F)=0,\ Q \mbox{ preserves the measure }dx \, d\psi_1\, d\psi_2. \end{eqnarray*} The last condition means that for any function $ G(x,\psi_1,\psi_2)$ one has $ $ \int Q(G)dx \, d\psi_1\, d\psi_2=0.$ $ Since $ C(x)$ never vanishes by assumption, the integral $ \int \exp(-F) dx \, d\psi_1\, d\psi_2$ localizes over the empty set, and should be 0. Explicitly \begin{eqnarray*} \int \exp(-F) dx \, d\psi_1\, d\psi_2=\int \exp(-f(x))(1-\frac{f'(x)}{C(x)}\psi_1\psi_2)dx \, d\psi_1\, d\psi_2=\-\int \exp(-f(x))\cdot \frac{f'(x)}{C(x)}dx. \end{eqnarray*}

It is clear that the last integral cannot vanish for generic $ C$ . What is wrong?

**Remark 1.** In the above book the authors consider a special case of this situation when $ $ f(x)=\frac{1}{2}H^2(x),\, C(x) =-H(x),$ $ where $ H$ is non-vanishing. In this case \begin{eqnarray*} \int \exp(-F) dx \, d\psi_1\, d\psi_2=-\int \exp(-f(x))\cdot \frac{f'(x)}{C(x)}dx=\int \exp(-H^2(x))\cdot H'(x)dx. \end{eqnarray*} The last integral vanishes if $ M$ is compact.

**Remark 2.** A sufficient condition for the localization principle to hold formulated in Thm 1 of the above mentioned paper by Schwarz and Zaboronsky is that the vector field $ Q^2$ generates a one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms of $ M$ contained in a compact group. In our (more general) case $ $ Q^2= C'(x)\psi_1\partial_{\psi_2}.$ $ As far as I understand it does not generate a compact group unless $ C’$ is constant. But this is not the case even in the example from the book.

Thus I do not understand on the conceptual level why the localization principle does work in the example from the book, but does not work in a slightly general situation. Any feedback is welcome.