text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has been some emphasis on the construction of supergravity solutions which have a dual interpretation as the renormalisation group flow from $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric pure Yang–Mills theory in the ultraviolet (UV) to $`𝒩=2,1`$ or 0 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theories of various sorts, in the infrared (IR) .

The supergravity solutions interpolate between AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$, the dual of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory , which is at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ (where $`r`$ is a suitably chosen radial coordinate of AdS5), and some much more complex solution in the interior, towards smaller $`r`$. Such solutions are typically found in 5 dimensional supergravity, and in some cases they can be lifted to 10 dimensional type IIB solutions. They often possess naked curvature singularities at finite values of $`r`$ . It is clear that some of these singularities are simply not physical, and the whole supergravity solution represents a flow to field theory with pathological behaviour, which presumably would be represented in terms of a pathology of the full type IIB string theory solution. For other singularities, it is to be expected that the full stringy physics will resolve the singular physics into benign phenomena consistent with the dual gauge theory.

The full technology for studying string theory in such backgrounds —where there is high curvature and strong Ramond–Ramond fields— is yet to be developed to a point where we can answer all of the questions raised by these issues. However, while we wait for these techniques, we may try to use the tools already at our disposal for clues as to how the physics of such singularities is to be resolved.

In a context slightly different from the AdS/CFT correspondence, supergravity solutions containing the physics of (but not fully dual to or decoupled from) pure $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory were found to have naked, unphysical singularities . The singular solutions were not obtained as RG flows from some smooth supergravity dual of a more symmetric theory, but were deduced from properties of the gauge theory it was desired to represent, combined with knowledge of the parent string theory and the world–volume curvature couplings of the branes involved.

Using various clues and techniques, a method was found by which string theory excises the singular part of the solution in a way that was consistent with the gauge theory physics. This is called the “enhançon mechanism”, and simply put, the idea is that the constituent branes making up the supergravity/string solution have expanded to form a spherical shell (called the “enhançon”) around the region which appears singular in supergravity. The interior of this shell contains no point–like brane sources at all, and is (to a first approximation) a smooth, flat region of spacetime .

A key tool in arriving at this conclusion was the idea of using a single D–brane as a probe of the geometry created by the others. D–branes as probes of the “true” nature of spacetime at short distances and/or at strong string coupling, have been shown to be extremely useful, and when combined with ideas from gauge theory  (which lives on the brane’s world–volume ), form part of a kit of sharp tools for studying the issues at hand . 111For a collection of pedagogical studies with a focus on these techniques, the reader may wish to have ref. to hand.

In this short note, we would like to turn to the issue of the supergravity “duals” of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory again, but now in the context of solutions describing RG flow from the $`𝒩=4`$ theory in the presence of appropriate masses. Recently, the full ten dimensional “lift” of the five dimensional supergravity solutions representing the flows  has been presented . The point is that, just like in the case of ref., the dual physics is not just that of supergravity, but of the full type IIB string theory, and the idea here is to try to uncover some of the essential details of the crossover between the two.

The ten dimensional solutions are generically singular in the IR, having naked curvature singularities, while being smooth in the UV, where they are weakly curved, matching onto AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$, which is dual to the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills theory at large $`N`$. We introduce a D3–brane probe and study the nature of the effective Lagrangian for moving the D3–brane probe in a supersymmetric way in the subspace corresponding to (a part of) the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric four dimensional gauge theory. The result has the complementary interpretation as the effective geometry seen by the D3–brane probe as it moves in ten dimensional spacetime, and as the physics of the moduli space of the gauge theory on the constituent branes.

We find that there is an enhançon shell, just as in the prototype cases studied in ref., which in this case is a ring. Here, there is no enhanced gauge symmetry in the parent supergravity, (which was partly responsible for the name “enhançon”), but all of the other key phenomena are present. In summary:

* There is a ring where the tension of the probe brane drops to zero, signalling the last radius where there is any meaning to the constituent branes as localised sources. The branes have spread out into a ring there and the supergravity solution interior to that —which is singular— should be drastically modified by smoothing.
* The full result for the spacetime metric as seen by the probe interpolates smoothly between the simple behaviour at infinity and that of the interior. In gauge theory language this results in a description of the behaviour of the gauge coupling from the UV (where it is constant) to the IR (where it runs logarithmically).222Since the work presented in ref. was a study of the pure $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory in isolation, i.e. not connected to another gauge theory by a massive continuous RG flow, the smooth interpolation to the physics of the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory is not present there.
* Deep in the IR, the coupling of the gauge theory is seen to run logarithmically, and it diverges at the enhançon ring, representing the locus of points on the Coulomb branch where new massless degrees of freedom appear in the gauge theory.
* The enhançon ring itself characterises a family of vacua at which all species of $`(p,q)`$ dyons can become massless. There is a descendant of the type IIB string theory’s $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ duality group which acts naturally on and within the vacua, and the existence of the dyons with this action follows from the existence of bound states of type IIB strings. There is a beautiful pattern of relationships between the vacua as one goes around the circle.

It is very encouraging to see the enhançon behaviour appearing so naturally in the supergravity flow arena, and we expect that this technique will find further fruitful application in this context as more ten dimensional supergravity solutions are found.

## 2 The Ten Dimensional Solution

The family of ten dimensional solutions of ref. describing the gravity dual of $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills theory, broken to $`𝒩=2`$ in the IR may be written as:

$$ds_{10}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2ds_{1,4}^2+ds_5^2,$$
(1)
for the Einstein metric, where

$$ds_{1,4}^2=e^{2A(r)}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2\right)+dr^2,$$
(2)
and

$$ds_5^2=L^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\rho ^2}\left[\frac{d\theta ^2}{c}+\rho ^6\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \left(\frac{\sigma _1^2}{cX_2}+\frac{\sigma _2^2+\sigma _3^2}{X_1}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{d\varphi ^2}{X_2}\right],$$
(3)
with $`c=\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(cX_1X_2)^{1/4}}{\rho }}`$
$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\rho ^6\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\rho ^6\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (4)
The $`\sigma _i`$ are the standard $`SU(2)`$ left–invariant forms, the sum of the squares of which would give the standard metric on a round three–sphere.

The functions $`\rho (r)=e^{\alpha (r)}`$ and $`\chi (r)`$ which appear in the lifted 10 dimensional metric are the 5 dimensional supergravity scalars pertaining to certain operators in the dual gauge theory. There is a one–parameter family of solutions for them, giving a family of supergravity solutions, and correspondingly a slice through a moduli space of $`𝒩=2`$ theories in the IR. We will discuss $`\rho (r)`$ and $`\chi (r)`$ further shortly.

At $`r\mathrm{}`$, the various functions in the solution have the following asymptotic behaviour:

$$\rho (r)1,\chi (r)0,A(r)r/L,$$
(5)
where $`L=\alpha ^{1/2}(2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N)^{1/4}`$. Also $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2=2\pi g_s`$, here.

It is easily seen that the non–trivial radial dependences of $`\rho (r)`$ and $`\chi (r)`$ deform the supergravity solution from AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ where there is an obvious $`SO(6)`$ symmetry (the round $`S^5`$ is restored), to a spacetime which only has an $`SU(2)\times U(1)^2`$ symmetry, which is manifest in the metric (3).

There are also explicit solutions given in ref. for the dilaton, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the R–R scalar and two–form potential, $`C_{(0)}`$ and $`C_{(2)}`$, and the NS–NS two–form potential $`B_{(2)}`$. In fact, for the subspace of the solutions which we will probe in this paper (see later), the two–form fields are zero, and so we shall not list their full form here.

The fields $`(\mathrm{\Phi },C_{(0)})`$ are gathered into a complex scalar field which we shall denote as $`\lambda =C_{(0)}+ie^\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is a natural object in the basis where the classical $`SL(2,\text{I}\text{R})`$ symmetry of the type IIB supergravity is manifest. However, in ref. the more venerable $`SU(1,1)`$ basis is used, and the supergravity field $`B`$ given there is related to $`\lambda `$ as follows:

$$\lambda =i\left(\frac{1B}{1+B}\right).$$
(6)
The explicit solution is

$$B=\left[\frac{b^{1/4}b^{1/4}}{b^{1/}+b^{1/4}}\right]e^{2i\varphi },\mathrm{where}bc\frac{X_1}{X_2}.$$
(7)
In fact, we shall not yet need the explicit form for the dilaton because it disappears from the D3–brane probe action when it is written in Einstein frame, as we shall do in section 4. The scalar field $`C_{(0)}`$ couples to $`FF`$ on the D3–brane world volume, contributing to the $`\theta `$–angle in the $`𝒩=2`$ effective low energy theory.

We will need the explicit form for the R–R four form potential $`C_{(4)}`$, to which the D3–brane naturally couples. It is: 333We noticed that the expression given in equation (4.9) of ref. is not consistent with their equation (3.31), and we assume that it is a typographical error. There is a crucial factor of $`\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi )`$ missing. Instead of checking the ten dimensional solution by hand, we verify this correction by requiring that the potential seen by the brane probe is constant, as required by supersymmetry. We have also inserted a factor of $`g_s^1`$ to match our standard conventions for the D3–brane charge.

$$C_{(4)}=e^{4A}\frac{X_1}{g_s\rho ^2}dx_0dx_1dx_2dx_3.$$
(8)
The radial dependences of the various functions which appear in the solution are given by the $`5d`$ supergravity equations of motion, written in the following form (recall that $`\rho =\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}\rho ^4\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\rho ^4\mathrm{sinh}(2\chi )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^4\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )\right),`$ (9)
(where $`g=2/L`$) with the partial result:

$`e^A`$ $`=`$ $`k{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\chi )}}`$
$`\rho ^6`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )+\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi )\left(\gamma +\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\chi }{\mathrm{cosh}\chi }}\right]\right).`$ (10)
Here, $`k`$ is a constant we shall fix later.

More importantly, $`\gamma `$ is a constant whose values characterise a family of different solutions for $`(\rho (r),\chi (r))`$ representing different flows to the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory in the IR. (See figure 2, on page 2.)

To date, it has been hard to extract the physics of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory from this solution. The authors of  have proposed that the solutions with $`\gamma 0`$ describe the gauge theory at different points on moduli space with the $`\gamma =0`$ curve describing the singular point on moduli space where the gauge coupling diverges. The functional dependence of the gauge coupling on moduli space has not been reproduced so far, and we present it in this paper. For these solutions, the five dimensional supergravity potential is bounded above by the asymptotic UV value, and this is suggested in ref.  as a phenomenological criterion for physical acceptability.

Strong evidence for the above interpretation of the $`\gamma =0`$ flow was obtained in ref.. There, the five dimensional criterion of ref., applied to solutions in the theory perturbed to $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory shows that the $`\gamma =0`$ solution is distinguished, as it yields the vacuum which is not lifted after the $`𝒩=1`$ perturbation.

It would be nice to have a fully ten–dimensional criterion for what constitutes a physical flow, and our probe analysis of this paper is a concrete step in this direction. In the calculations we present below, the physical function describing the running of the gauge coupling will emerge naturally from the solutions, and we will confirm the above identification of these solutions.

## 3 The Gauge Theory

The $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory’s gauge multiplet has bosonic fields $`(A_\mu ,X_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$, where the scalars $`X_i`$ transform as a vector of the $`SO(6)`$ R–symmetry, and fermions $`\lambda _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ which transform as the $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ of the $`SU(4)`$ covering group of $`SO(6)`$.

In $`𝒩=1`$ language, there is a vector supermultiplet $`(A_\mu ,\lambda _4)`$, and three chiral multiplets made of a fermion and a complex scalar ($`k=1,2,3`$):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\lambda _k,\varphi _k=X_{2k1}+iX_{2k}).$$

In this language, the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory has the vector multiplet and one massless chiral multiplet, which we can choose to be $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$. The flow from the $`𝒩=4`$ theory to the $`𝒩=2`$ theory is therefore achieved by turning on operators which correspond to giving a mass to the other multiplets. As one falls well below the scale of these masses —by going to the IR— the theory becomes more effectively the theory we seek (although one must always remember that the gauge coupling is strongly coupled in the far UV in the cases where the supergravity is valid).

The operators are switched on in supergravity by considering a combination of the operators:

$`\alpha :`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}(X_iX_i)2{\displaystyle \underset{i=5}{\overset{6}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}(X_iX_i)`$
$`\chi :`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(\lambda _1\lambda _2+\lambda _2\lambda _2)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (11)
The dictionary of the AdS/CFT correspondence assigns two specific scalars $`(\rho =\mathrm{exp}(\alpha )`$, $`\chi )`$ to these operators. The IR/UV property  of the AdS/CFT correspondence then requires a non–trivial solution for these fields, making them functions of $`r`$ varying along the flow from the UV ($`r=+\mathrm{}`$) to the IR $`r=\mathrm{}`$. Consistency of the supergravity equations of motion require that there be a non–trivial back–reaction on the geometry, giving a deformation of the spacetime metric, represented by $`A(r)`$, etc., in section 2.

Moving around on the accessible part of the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory corresponds to giving a vacuum expectation value (vev) to $`\varphi _3=X_5+iX_6`$. We shall explore this branch by moving a probe brane in those directions, and examining its physics. In the supergravity solution written in section 2, this corresponds to moving in the $`(r,\varphi )`$ plane, setting $`\theta =\pi /2`$. Attempting to move the probe out of this plane induces a non–trivial potential for the brane’s motion indicating that such motion is not a modulus of the field theory. In fact, in the field theory it would correspond to inducing vevs for the massive scalars which is energetically disfavoured.

The Coulomb branch of the moduli space of the $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory is parameterised by the vevs of the complex adjoint scalar $`\varphi _3`$ which set the potential $`\mathrm{Tr}[\varphi _3,\varphi _3^{}]^2`$ to zero. This generically breaks the theory to $`U(1)^{N1}`$. This moduli space is of course an $`N1`$ complex dimensional space. The low energy effective action of the theory is described in terms of the $`N1`$ complex low energy fields $`\varphi _a`$, with a matrix of couplings and $`\theta `$–angles given in terms of the complex couplings $`\tau ^{ab}(\varphi _a)`$ . The theory is invariant under an $`Sp(2N2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ group of duality transformations which shifts and inverts the coupling matrix $`\tau `$, and exchanges the fields $`\varphi _a`$ with dual fields $`\varphi _a^D`$. This operation, which includes a strong–weak coupling duality, is crucial in the study of the physics of the Coulomb branch, as first demonstrated in ref..

We have only a one complex dimensional subspace of the moduli space here. As such, we have one complex field whose vev we wish to study and one complex coupling $`\tau `$ which depends on this vev. We should expect that there is a subgroup of the $`Sp(2N2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ duality acting on our low energy theory, and we need not look far for its origin: Our moduli space is the physics of a single D3–brane probe, moving in the $`\theta =\pi /2`$ plane, and there is a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory living on it which shall be our effective low energy theory. There is a gauge coupling $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2`$ and a $`\theta `$–angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, which combine into a natural complex coupling

$$\tau =\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2\pi }+i\frac{4\pi }{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}.$$
(12)
There is a natural $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ invariance of the world–volume action of the probe, which is the self duality symmetry of the type IIB superstring theory. This duality inverts and shifts the complex type IIB coupling, which is the scalar $`\lambda `$ described in section 2, according to

$$\lambda \frac{a\lambda +b}{c\lambda +d};adbc=1\{a,b,c,d\}\text{Z}\text{Z}.$$
(13)
It leaves the ten dimensional Einstein metric and the R–R four–form invariant, and mixes the NS–NS and the R–R two–forms, under which the fundamental string and D1–brane are charged. The resulting $`(p,q)`$ bound state strings will play a role later. On the world–volume of the brane, the duality exchanges the gauge field $`F_{ab}`$ with a dual gauge field, $`F_{ab}^D2(\delta S/\delta F^{ab})`$, where $`S`$ is defined in equation (14).

This $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ action descends to an action on the effective low energy theory which we shall derive on the probe, with complex coupling $`\tau `$, which we will see the first hints of below. This duality transformation which acts on our moduli space, and it will be exciting to explore its uses further: It ought to give weakly coupled dual descriptions of the physics near the enhançon, where as we shall see, $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ diverges.444The issue of the search for a weakly coupled effective description of the enhançon is a matter discussed in ref.. A more thorough exploration of this descendant of $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ duality shall be left for future work.

## 4 Probing with a D3–brane

The uplifted geometry presented in ref. and listed in section 2 is given in the Einstein frame. It therefore makes sense to write the D3–brane world–volume action in terms of this:

$`S=\tau _3{\displaystyle __4}d^4\xi \mathrm{det}^{1/2}[G_{ab}+e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}_{ab}]+\mu _3{\displaystyle __4}\left(C^{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{(0)}\right),`$ (14)
where $`_{ab}=B_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}`$, and $`_4`$ is the world–volume of the D3–brane, with coordinates $`\xi ^0,\mathrm{},\xi ^3`$. The parameters $`\mu _3`$ and $`\tau _3`$ are the basic R–R charge and tension of the D3–brane: $`\mu _3=\tau _3g_s=(2\pi )^3(\alpha ^{})^2`$. Also, $`G_{ab}`$ and $`B_{ab}`$ are the pulls–back of the ten dimensional metric (in Einstein frame) and the NS–NS two–form potential, respectively. The String frame metric is $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}G_{\mu \nu }`$, and the pull–back is e.g.:

$$G_{ab}=G_{\mu \nu }\frac{x^\mu }{\xi ^a}\frac{x^\nu }{\xi ^b}.$$
(15)
We will work in static gauge and partition the spacetime coordinates, $`x^\mu `$, as follows: $`x^i=\{x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3\}`$, and $`y^m=\{r,\theta ,\varphi ,\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3\}`$. (The $`\phi _i`$ are angles on the deformed $`S^3`$ of section 2.) Static gauge is chosen as:

$$x^0t=\xi ^0,x^i=\xi ^i,y^m=y^m(t).$$
(16)
Focusing on the subspace $`\theta =\pi /2`$, for the $`𝒩=2`$ theory’s Coulomb branch (as discussed in the previous section) we get the following result for the effective Lagrangian for the slowly moving probe moving in the transverse directions $`y^m=(r,\varphi )`$ (we restrict ourselves to considering $`F_{ab}=0`$ here):

$$=\frac{\tau _3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2e^{2A}\underset{m}{}G_{mm}\dot{y}^m\dot{y}^m.$$
(17)
We have neglected terms higher than quadratic order in the velocities. There is no potential term; it vanished due to a cancellation between the leading term in the expansion of the determinant, and the term containing $`C^{(4)}`$. This result is consistent with the fact that we have eight supercharges. (See footnote 3.) Writing this out explicitly, we see that:

$$=\frac{\mu _3}{g_s}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^4e^{2A}\dot{r}^2+\frac{L^2}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^4e^{2A}}{\rho ^8}\dot{\varphi }^2\right).$$
(18)
Next, we should attempt to find good coordinates which are appropriate to the description of the physics of the Coulomb branch of an $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory.

## 5 The Coulomb Branch in the UV limit

Now before proceeding further, we should check that our result makes sense in the UV limit ($`r\mathrm{}`$). There, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }^41`$, from (5) and defining

$$r=L\mathrm{log}\left(u\frac{\alpha ^{}}{L}\right),\mathrm{for}L=\alpha ^{1/2}(2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N)^{1/4},$$
(19)
where $`u`$ has dimensions of energy, we have:

$$=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\left(\dot{u}^2+u^2\dot{\varphi }^2\right).$$
(20)
This is the right result. We are looking at the result for a single D3–brane probing a two dimensional subspace of the full six dimensional transverse direction to $`N`$ other branes. The full result is flat, as it should be for the $`𝒩=4`$ theory. Interpreted in terms of gauge theory, $`u`$ is an energy scale, or the modulus of the vev of $`\varphi _3`$. We see that there is no running for $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$; there is a flat metric on moduli space.

We can write our result in the expected form:

$$ds^2\mathrm{Im}\tau dUd\overline{U},$$
(21)
showing that the complex plane $`(u,\varphi )`$ constitutes a good choice of coordinates for the $`𝒩=2`$ Coulomb branch in the UV. We shall have to work harder to find such good coordinates in the IR, as is clear from the general expression in equation (18).

## 6 The Coulomb Branch in the IR limit

Let us use the same radial variable $`u`$ as we did before, initially, although we will define another shortly. The idea should be that we simply see a deviation from the flat metric (20) as we come into smaller $`u`$.

Since in the case $`\theta =\pi /2`$ we have:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^4=\rho ^4\mathrm{cosh}2\chi ;e^{2A}=\frac{k^2\rho ^4}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi )},$$
(22)
we can simply write the moduli space metric as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2\mathrm{\Omega }^4e^{2A}}{8\pi ^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2u^2\rho ^8\alpha ^2}}\left(\rho ^8du^2+u^2d\varphi ^2\right)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )}{u^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi )}}\left(\rho ^8du^2+u^2d\varphi ^2\right).`$
Our next goal is to try to understand the physics of this metric for arbitrary distance into the IR. It is convenient555We thank Rob Myers for a crucial comment. to define a new radial parameter, $`v=u/h`$, such that $`h(u)1/a`$ as $`u\mathrm{}`$, where $`a`$ is a dimensionless constant. Furthermore, if we choose $`\rho ^4(u)=h(u)dv/du`$, our metric takes the simple form:

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\frac{L^2}{\alpha ^2}\frac{k^2\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )}{v^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi )}\left(dv^2+v^2d\varphi ^2\right).$$
(24)
In this form we can interpret the function of $`v`$ outside the canonical Lagrangian as the running of the coupling $`\mathrm{Im}\tau `$ in the $`𝒩=2`$ theory. The next steps are to study the behaviour of the metric component:

$$G_{vv}(v)\frac{1}{8\pi ^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2(v)}=\frac{N}{4\pi ^2}\frac{k^2\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi (v))}{L^2v^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi (v))}$$
(25)
as a function of $`v`$, and also to find a suitable local presentation of the effective action at least at low energy. Note now that $`\chi (v)`$ satisfies a different differential equation. Since

$$\frac{d\chi }{dr}=\frac{d\chi }{du}\frac{du}{dr}=\frac{d\chi }{dv}\frac{dv}{du}\frac{u}{L}=\frac{d\chi }{dv}\rho ^4\frac{v}{L},$$

a new equation may be deduced from (9):

$$\frac{d\chi }{dv}=\frac{1}{2v}\mathrm{sinh}(2\chi ).$$
(26)
remarkably, this is an easy equation to solve, and the result is:

$$\chi (v)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{v}{v_e}\right)\right)\right].$$
(27)
where $`v_e`$ is an integration constant!

The truly remarkable thing is that it is easy to see that the function $`G_{vv}(v)`$ has a zero on the circle $`v=v_e`$, which deserves to be called the “enhançon”, since the probe’s tension is going to zero there!

(Note also that $`\chi (v)`$ has a mild divergence at $`v=v_e`$, and is smooth and exists for $`v>v_e`$.) The behaviour of $`G_{vv}(v)`$ is displayed in figure 1. (There, we have chosen various constants to be unity for plotting convenience.) The first thing to notice is that our function correctly goes to unity in the UV limit, rapidly becoming nearly constant, showing the (near) scale invariance of the theory. It fact, this nearly conformal behaviour dominates much of the flow, which is interesting.

More engaging behaviour can be seen in the neighbourhood of $`v=v_e`$, where we may expand the function to see that in that region (we fix $`k=2v_e\alpha ^{}/(aL)`$ by examining the UV asymptotics and also equation (22)):

$$ds^2N\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{v}{v_e}\right)\left(dv^2+v^2d\varphi ^2\right).$$
(28)
which is the one–loop logarithmic running we expect from the gauge coupling of a $`U(1)`$ low energy theory on the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory!

(It is important to note that we have set $`a^2=g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N`$ by hand. One would expect to be able to fix $`a`$ uniquely in terms of the supergravity parameters in the solution, and that we have not quite done this suggests that our attempt to adjust the conventions of ref. to restore all factors of $`N`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is incomplete. However, we are confident that our parameters are correct for the following reasons: On general grounds, the complete decoupling from gauge theory of the dual supergravity ensures that it must depend on $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ and $`N`$ only through the t’Hooft coupling $`\lambda =g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N`$. So our choice for $`a`$ is not unnatural, up to pure numbers. Furthermore, the structure of the AdS/CFT correspondence is such that we should get the one–loop field theory result in this way, which fixes the factor of $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$, and then the $`N`$ must accompany it to make $`\lambda `$. See also ref..)

Quite pleasingly, we have succeeded in showing analytically that our metric (and hence our low energy effective action) can be written in the form:

$$ds^2\mathrm{Im}\tau (V)dVd\overline{V},$$
(29)
where now the complex coordinate $`V`$ is the $`(v,\varphi )`$ plane.666Added in v2 of preprint: One can check that our function agrees with the coefficient of the $`F^2`$ term in the effective action on the probe. That coefficient is simply $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and from (27) and (32), it can be seen that its IR limit is also proportional to $`\mathrm{log}(v/v_e)`$. The dependence of the coefficient on $`\varphi `$ can be absorbed by a rescaling of $`v`$. There is $`\varphi `$ dependence in the coupling since the $`U(1)`$ symmetry on the $`𝒩=2`$ theory’s moduli space is not an exact symmetry of the broken $`𝒩=4`$ theory, especially when, as in this case, the $`𝒩=4`$ matter is not decoupled at the strong coupling scale. See ref. for a change of coordinates which emphasises this, while converting the circular enhançon into a line segment by squashing it. The full metric interpolates between this form of coordinates in the IR and the similar form (21) found earlier in terms of the the coordinate $`U`$ in the UV.

We are now ready to discuss the interpretation and consequences of our computation for the Coulomb branch of the gauge theory.

## 7 Families of Flows: The Moduli Space

As mentioned before, the $`𝒩=2`$ flows are characterised into three different classes $`\gamma <0`$, $`\gamma =0`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ (see figure 2, on page 2). Equation (27) and the metric (28) must be interpreted carefully for each of these flows.

Let us first check the supergravity behaviour of these flows:

* For $`\gamma <0`$, equation (10) yields a finite value of $`\chi `$ in the IR, while $`\rho `$ goes to zero. It is clear, from the functions listed at the beginning of section 2, that the ten dimensional supergravity solution has a naked singularity as a result.
* For $`\gamma =0`$, $`\chi `$ diverges in the IR and again $`\rho `$ goes to zero. Supergravity again has singular behaviour, coming from both the divergence and the zero.
* For $`\gamma >0`$ both $`\chi `$ and $`\rho `$ diverge, and the supergravity is singular.

Let us now see how this behaviour combines with our equations (27) and (28) to give sensible physics.

* For the $`\gamma <0`$ solutions, $`\rho 0`$ in the IR while $`\chi `$ approaches some fixed value, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, different from zero. From equation (27), this translates into some specific value of $`v>v_e`$, which we shall denote as $`w`$. This is a particular point (or ring of points) on the moduli space, and although supergravity diverges there, we have the right to ask physical questions.

This is where the probe physics comes in: The metric that the probe sees is perfectly smooth at $`w`$. We can evaluate the gauge theory coupling as seen by the probe there using (28) even though supergravity is singular. Deep enough in the IR, the result is proportional to $`N\mathrm{log}(w/v_e)`$, just as it should be for the low energy effective gauge theory, at position/vev $`w`$ on the moduli space.
* For the $`\gamma =0`$ solutions, $`\chi `$ diverges, and this is at $`v=v_e`$. Supergravity has diverged and we appeal again to the physics of the probe to help us. We see that the tension of the probe drops to zero there: the gauge coupling diverges logarithmically as seen in equation (28). This is the enhançon, and the radius $`v=v_e`$ is the locus of points where there are new massless degrees of freedom in the gauge theory.

We should digress here. The latter fact is borne out by the realisation that the mass of a particle made by a macroscopic string stretched orthogonally to the D3–branes along the $`r`$ direction (which make dyonic bound states in the gauge theory) has a chance to drop to zero at $`v=v_e`$, since (by an analogous computation to that done for the D3–brane) it is proportional to

$$=_r^{r_e}𝑑rF(r)(G_{rr}G_{tt})^{1/2}=_r^{r_e}𝑑rF(r)\frac{\mathrm{cosh}^{1/2}(2\chi )}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\chi )}k\rho ^4.$$
(30)
The part of the integrand not involving $`F(r)`$ is going to zero, as its square is proportional to the D3–brane probe’s $`G_{vv}`$. The prefactor function $`F(r)`$ depends upon the type of macroscopic string under investigation. For the D–string, $`F_{0,1}(r)=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^1e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}`$, but it can be more complicated for other strings, since their tension is controlled by:

$$F_{p,q}(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\left[e^\mathrm{\Phi }(qC_{(0)}p)^2+q^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }\right]^{1/2}.$$
(31)
Inserting this into equation (30) essentially yields a formula for the mass of a $`(p,q)`$ dyon in the gauge theory as a function of $`v`$, as it is made of a bound state of $`p`$ fundamental strings and $`q`$ D1–branes ending on the D3–branes, whose tension is given by (30). These dyons will be mapped into one another by the $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ duality group bequeathed to the low energy theory by the parent type IIB string theory.

Given that we are in a non–trivial background, there is the possibility that divergent enough $`F(r)`$ might appear, to save some bound states from going massless, and it is interesting to compute just which of the $`(p,q)`$ do, generalising the structures in ref.. In fact, (for the moduli space choice $`\theta =\pi /2`$), equations (6) and (7) yield:

$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(2\chi )(1+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )+1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi }},\mathrm{and}`$
$`C_{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\chi )\mathrm{sin}2\varphi }{\mathrm{cosh}^2(2\chi )(1+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )+1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi }}.`$ (32)
Furthermore, taking the limit appropriate to $`\gamma =0`$, (i.e., $`\chi \mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho 0`$), we see that because of the large power of $`\rho `$ present in equation (30), all of the types of strings/dyons are tensionless on the enhançon, since nothing can save $`(r)`$ from going to zero as $`rr_e`$. This is generalisation of the features in ref. which is consistent with the fact that constituent D3–branes of the supergravity solution have spread out to form this ring, and so all strings stretched between our probe and the background D3–branes will give zero mass states in the limit.

A tantalising feature of the special family of vacua represented by the enhançon is that the dilaton and R–R scalar change as one goes around the circle in $`\varphi `$, moving along the enhançon ring: the $`(p,q)`$–“flavour” of the vacuum changes! Since the overall factor not involving $`F_{p,q}(r)`$ is common to all, it seems intuitively clear that there is a “lightest” dyon state among those which go massless, which characterises the vacuum at a given value of $`\varphi `$. This is easy to see by plotting some samples of the behaviour of $`F_{p,q}(\varphi )`$ for a value of $`v`$ away from the enhançon, as we have done in figure 3.

Furthermore, it is clear that the duality which descends from the $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ of the type IIB string plays a beautiful role here, by exchanging the different vacua at different points on the circle. For example, the points $`\varphi =\{0,\pi /2,\pi ,3\pi /2\}`$, forming the principal points on the compass, are special in that $`C_{(0)}=0`$. So a $`(p,q)`$ dyon’s mass is controlled by the familiar Pythagorean form: $`\sqrt{p^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }+q^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. However, as we go around the four points, the dilaton toggles between $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. These are clearly vacua which are related by the action of the $`S`$ generator of the $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$. We should now return to our discussion of the flows.

* The $`\gamma >0`$ curves appear to give behaviour which is irretrievably unphysical from both the point of view of the supergravity and the probe. This conclusion is in line with the previous suggestions of refs., but we make a more detailed suggestion: In it natural to suppose that these flows attempt to take us behind the enhançon ring to get to the limiting IR physics, where the tension of the probe would need to be (unphysically) negative in order to preserve supersymmetry. We propose, in the spirit of ref., that these are not physical solutions for that region. Excising that part of the supergravity solution and (perhaps) replacing it with flat space seems prudent. Whether or not this gives a description of a part of gauge theory moduli space possibly hidden inside the enhançon is a matter for future work.

We note again that we also have a full strong/weak coupling duality group acting on the low energy gauge theory. (It is inherited from the $`SL(2,\text{Z}\text{Z})`$ symmetry of the D3–brane within type IIB string theory, as discussed in section 3). This means that although the gauge coupling diverges on the probe at the enhançon, there is a dual description to a low energy theory with coupling $`1/\tau `$ and complex modulus field $`V_D`$. This duality may be interesting to study, although the dual vacua reached thus will also have a full tower of massless dyons, and may require altogether new techniques to study them, since some non–locality certainly arises. Nevertheless, this might be a promising new handle on the issue of finding an effective low–energy description of the physics near the enhançon, and may also shed light on whether one can make sense of the stringy physics behind it in terms of gauge theory.

## Added Note

We have been informed that Alex Buchel, Amanda Peet, and Joe Polchinski have done independent work on the issue of probing the solution of ref., and understanding the role of the enhançon in this context.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Juan Maldacena, Rob Myers, Joe Polchinksi, Nick Warner and Alberto Zaffaroni for conversations and comments. N.E. is grateful to PPARC for the sponsorship of an Advanced Fellowship. C.V.J. would like to thank the Aspen Centre for Physics for hospitality while this work was completed. M.P. is partially supported by INFN and MURST, and by the European Commission TMR program ERBFMRX-CT96-0045, wherein she is associated to Imperial College, London, and by the PPARC SPG grant 613. This paper is report number DTP/00/69 at the CPT, Durham.


format: text

text:
# Multifractal properties of aperiodic Ising model: role of the geometric fluctuations

## I Introduction

The introduction of deterministic aperiodicity in the couplings and fields has been intensively used to mimic of the effect of disorder on physical homogeneous systems. This approach, opposed to the more conventional random disorder distribution of coupling constants and fields, has been first used in the analysis of electronic systems, and is now being used to investigate the critical behavior of magnetic systems on Euclidean lattices, as well as on fractal hierarchical lattices.

Hierarchical lattices have been largely used as a framework for analyzing both homogeneous  and quenched disordered magnetic systems . It is well known that they offer only crude approximations for the critical properties of the corresponding homogeneous systems on Euclidean spaces with the same fractal dimension, but they provide an useful tool to investigate, via exactly solvable models, the effect of both random and deterministic disorder. For instance, the short range Ising spin glass model defined on the diamond hierarchical lattice has been analyzed by means of a methodology that encompasses an exact real space renormalization group decimation and an exact recursive procedure to calculate the local magnetization of all lattice sites for a particular realization of the disorder (sample). A detailed numerical investigation reveals that the multifractal properties of the local Edwards-Anderson (EA) order parameter remains non-trivial far below the critical temperature. This contrasts with previous investigations of the homogeneous pure ferromagnetic Ising model on the same lattice, for which the multifractal spectra of the normalized local magnetization survives only at the critical temperature . Concerning the critical behavior of the Ising spin glass model, it was possible to obtain strong evidences of universal critical exponents and a unique value for the temperature of the critical point when several probability distributions for the quenched coupling constants are considered . It is worth to mention that the values of the critical temperature and of the critical exponents associated to the order parameter and correlation length for Ising spin glass model on diamond hierarchical lattice with graph fractal dimension $`d_F=3`$ are surprisingly close to those obtained by numerical simulations for the model defined on cubic lattices .

In a recent publication, Luck  proposed a heuristic criterion to account whether the geometric fluctuations in coupling constants and fields are relevant or irrelevant to alter (or not) the universality class of the aperiodic systems with respect to the corresponding homogeneous one. Luck’s criterion plays the similar role of that due to Harris , that holds when quenched disorder is introduced in ferromagnetic systems. In the latter, the critical behavior is changed provided the critical exponent associated with the divergence of the specific heat of the corresponding homogeneous system is positive. More recently, an exact derivation of an analog of the Luck’s criterion was presented for both the Ising  and the Potts  models, defined on the family of diamond hierarchical lattice filled with aperiodic interactions dictated by a generalized Fibonacci sequence. Using the transfer matrix (TM) approach, Andrade  obtained exact numerical results for the thermodynamic and critical properties of the aperiodic ferromagnetic Ising model defined on the family of diamond hierarchical lattices (hereafter DHL), corroborating the change of universality class of the model when relevant geometric fluctuations are considered accordingly to the Luck’s like criterion properly adapted to cope with hierarchical lattices. We notice that the exact scale invariance symmetry is the crucial property of the DHL’s underlying the methods which link the thermodynamic functions of lattices with successive generations, as occurs for the above mentioned real renormalization group scheme as well as for transfer matrices approach .

In this work we are mainly interested to investigate the role of geometrical fluctuations on the multifractal properties of the local magnetization of ferromagnetic Ising model on the DHL’s. We focus our study on two distinct models, both defined on DHL’s with the same graph fractal dimension but with distinct topologies leading to relevant and irrelevant fluctuations. To deal with the multifractal properties of the local magnetization we apply the methodology developed to study the multifractal spectra of the order parameter of the homogeneous ferromagnetic Ising model  and the spin-glass Ising model  on the DHL’s. As we will show, the caracter of the fluctuations influences the nature of the changes observed in the singularity spectrum of the local magnetization.

In section II, we describe the model Hamiltonian, present the sequences governing the aperiodic interactions and discuss the relevance of the geometric fluctuations for both lattices, accordingly with the appropriated criterion presented in . We also review the main features of the flow diagram and the phase diagram of the aperiodic systems. Section III is devoted to review the method to obtain the local magnetization and to discuss the multifractal spectra for special realizations of the geometric fluctuations. Finally we discuss and summarize our main conclusions in section IV.

## II The model Hamiltonian and the aperiodic interactions

A general hierarchical lattice is constructed according to a recursive rule where some bonds of basic unit are successively replaced by the basic unit itself. The general basic unit of the diamond hierarchical lattices $`(b,p)`$-DHL, is formed by two roots sites connected by a set of $`p`$ parallel branches, each one containing a series of $`b`$ connected bonds. A given generation is obtained by replacing all bonds of the previous generation by the basic unit, as sketched in Figure 1. For this family of hierarchical lattices, the graph fractal dimension is given by $`d_F=1+\mathrm{log}p/\mathrm{log}b`$, while its size, number of sites and the number of bonds are respectively given by $`L=b^N`$, $`N_S=(b1)p[(bp)^N1]/(bp1)`$ and $`N_B=(bp)^N`$, $`N`$ being the number of generations.

The reduced Hamiltonian for the system is

$$H/k_BT=\underset{i,j}{}K_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ are the Ising variables and the sum runs over all pairs of nearest neighbors spins $`i,j`$ , $`K_{ij}=J_{ij}/k_BT`$ are the corresponding coupling constants, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ is the absolute temperature.

In this paper, we consider geometric fluctuations introduced by the generalized Fibonacci inflation rule expressed by

$$(A,B)(AB^{b1},A^b).$$
(2)
When applied to define the coupling constants of the hierarchical lattice $`(J_{ij}=J_A;J_B)`$, the above rule corresponds to the following procedure: $`(a)`$ a bond with coupling constant $`J_A,(J_A>0)`$ should be replaced by a basic unit with $`p`$ parallel branches each one containing the first bond with coupling constant $`J_A`$ and the next $`(b1)`$ ones with coupling constants $`J_B`$; $`(b)`$ a bond $`J_B,(J_B>0)`$ should be replaced by a basic unit with all bonds with coupling constants $`J_A`$. This correspondence is displayed in Figures 2a and 2b, for the cases of the lattices with $`p=b=2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. After N steps, the length of the aperiodic sequences on which we base the present definition of the geometric fluctuations is given by $`b^N`$, which corresponds to the number of bonds within each one of the shortest paths connecting the two root sites and measures the size of the lattice. We also notice that there are $`p^N`$ of such shortest paths, all of them with no common bonds and showing the same aperiodic sequence. Therefore the systems can be regarded as formed by identical layers with the bonds $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$ arranged accordingly to the sequence (2). The number of distinct letters or coupling constants within two subsequent generations of the sequence are related by the substitution matrix $`M`$ given by

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& b\\ b1& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(3)
whose eigenvalues are $`\lambda _1=b`$ and $`\lambda _2=(1b)`$. The wandering exponent which measures, the fluctuation in the distribution of elements within the sequence, is defined as

$$\omega =\frac{\mathrm{log}\left|\lambda _2\right|}{\mathrm{log}\lambda _1}.$$
(4)
The sequences defined by (2) are said to be non-Pisot if $`\omega >0`$ ($`b>2`$), which means that the fluctuations are unbounded, whereas the case $`\omega =0`$ ($`b=2`$) corresponds to marginal case. On the other hand, for the Ising model on DHL with aperiodic interactions arranged by sequences such that $`\lambda _1=b`$, the geometric fluctuations are said to be relevant  provided

$$\omega >\omega _c=11/\nu ,$$
(5)
$`\nu `$ being the critical exponent associated with the correlation length of the homogeneous system .

In the present work we consider two models: model 1 is defined on a $`(2,2)`$-DHL while model 2 is defined on a $`(3,3)`$-DHL.

The corresponding lattices have been choosen to have the same fractal dimension ($`d_F=2`$), but the geometric fluctuations are respectively irrelevant and relevant respectively accordingly to eq.(5), as has been demonstrated by Pinho et al . In the rest of this section we review the basic properties of the renormalization flow of the model Hamiltonian in these lattices.

Consider a general $`(b,p)`$-DHL with the coupling constants defined by the inflation rule given by (2). Within the real space renormalization group scheme, the decimation procedure is carried on by partial tracing on the spins introduced in the last generation. This leads to exact scaling relations for the coupling constants $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$, given respectively the following renormalization equations:

$`t_A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}[p\mathrm{tanh}^1(t_At_B^{b1})]`$ (6)
$`t_B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}[p\mathrm{tanh}^1(t_A^b)]`$ (7)
where $`t_x=\mathrm{tanh}K_x,`$ $`x=A`$ or $`B`$.

The renormalization flow diagram in the $`(t_A,t_B)`$ space has been carefully studied in . The equations (6) have three fixed point solutions, all of them located along the manifold $`t_A=t_B`$: $`t_{\mathrm{}}^{}=0`$, $`t_0^{}=1`$, and $`t_c^{}`$. Therefore, they are also the solutions of the corresponding homogeneous system. The first two solutions refer to stable fixed points corresponding to the infinite (paramagnetic) and zero (ferromagnetic) temperature phases respectively while the third one is associated with the critical point governing the transition of the corresponding homogeneous system. For the particular models considered here, these critical point solutions are exact and given by,

$`t_{c1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(a_c2/a_c1)=0.543689\mathrm{}\text{ for }p=b=2`$ (8)
$`t_{c2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{5}1)=0.618033\mathrm{}\text{ for }p=b=3`$ (9)
where $`a_c=(3\sqrt{33}+17)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. As shown in , the renormalization flow space has two regions corresponding to the basins of attraction of the stable fixed points. The frontier of these regions, containing the critical point of the homogenous system, determines the phase diagram. However, as pointed out in , linearization about the non-trivial fixed point indicates that it is a saddle-point for lattices with $`b=2,(\omega =0<\omega _c)`$, while it becomes fully unstable for lattices with $`b>2,(\omega >\omega _c)`$. Therefore, for model 1 the critical behavior should be governed by the fixed-point of the homogeneous system and the geometric fluctuations are irrelevant with respect to change the universality class of the model. On the other hand, for model 2, the non-trivial fixed point is fully inaccessible indicating that the geometric fluctuations are indeed relevant to change the critical behavior. To grasp the critical behavior of the relevant aperiodic model one should explore further the flow diagram given by eqs.(6). This was already done by Haddad et al  investigating the Potts model on the $`(3,2)`$-DHL. Actually, whenever the fixed-point becomes fully unstable, they found the appearance of a two-cycle attractor associated with the novel critical behavior. For the present model 2, this two-cycle attractor is given by coordination points ($`t_{A1}^{}=0.95116\mathrm{},t_{B1}^{}=0.46135\mathrm{}`$) and ($`t_{A2}^{}=0.54822\mathrm{},t_{B2}^{}=0.99915\mathrm{}`$) .

In Figure 3, we show the $`(t_A,t_B)`$ flow diagram for the $`p=b=3`$ case. Note that thetwo-cycle attractor is a saddle-point being unstable towards the trivial stable fixed-points and stable in the perpendicular direction.

The frontier between the basin of attraction of the stable fixed-points contains both the two-cycle attractor and the fully unstable fixed-point. This frontier intersects the lines $`t_B=1`$ and $`t_A=1`$ in two points, respectively $`A`$ and $`B`$, and it manifold is associated with the critical temperatures of the model for different choices of the ratio $`R=J_B/J_A`$.

The flow diagram can be numerically obtained by inverting eqs.(6) taking into account that the inverse equations share the same trivial, non-trivial fixed points and two-cycle attractor as eqs.(6), but with inverted unstable to stable manifolds and vice-versa. So, the iterates of these inverted equations starting close to the critical fixed point are now pushed towards line $`ACB`$, so that a relation $`t_B=g(t_A)`$ can be numerically obtained ending to the phase diagram.

In Figures 4a and 4b, we draw such relation in the $`(T/J_A,R)`$ phase diagrams of both models, indicating the critical temperature obtained for some special values of the ratio $`R`$ by using the TM formalism , as well as the corresponding exact values for the homogeneous models ($`R=1`$). The critical exponent $`\nu `$ associated with the correlation length of the corresponding homogeneous systems can be exactly calculated as

$$\nu =\frac{lnb}{lnr_c}$$
(10)
where

$$r_c=\left|\frac{dt^{}(t)}{dt}\right|_{t=t_c^{}}=\frac{4bpt_c^b(1+t_c^b)^{p1}(1t_c^b)^{p1}}{((1+t_c^b)^p+(1t_c^b)^p)^2},$$
(11)
and $`t^{}(t)`$ is given by eqs.(6) when $`t_A=t_B=t`$.

In Table I, we show the values of $`\nu `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\omega _c`$ for models 1 and 2. It corroborates that for model 2 we have $`\omega >\omega _c`$ indicating that the geometric fluctuation should be relevant for this model.

## III The Local Magnetization

The method of evaluation the local magnetization is based on the assumption that the model Hamiltonian for a lattice with $`N`$ generations is equivalent to a reduced effective Hamiltonian of a single basic unit introduced in the $`N^{th}`$ step plus effective fields acting on the spins of its external sites and an effective interaction coupling these spins. This assumption, which has been proved to be formally correct for the homogeneous system, also holds for the present model, since no special condition is imposed to the coupling constants of the Hamiltonian. These unknown local effective interaction and fields represent the influence of the remaining lattice spin couplings transmitted by the external spins of that basic unit. The local magnetization of both internal and external sites of the basic unit of the effective system are calculated as a function of coupling constants $`(J_A`$ and $`J_B)`$ and the unknown effective coupling and fields. Eliminating the unknown variables we end up to recursive relations for the local magnetization of the internal sites in terms of the corresponding values of the root sites. Now, considering a $`N`$ generation lattice and successively decimating the spins up to the first generation (basic unit) one can recursively calculate the local magnetization by choosing appropriated values for the magnetization of root sites, accordingly with the configuration of the phase of the corresponding fixed point. In  the details of the calculations of the recursive equations for the uniform ferromagnetic case is presented, while in  these equations were generalized for basic unit with arbitrary interactions in order to investigate the short range Ising spin glass model. The recursive equations for the latter can be straightforwardly applied to deterministic aperiodic Ising models expressing the site magnetization of internal sites $`\sigma `$ in terms of the corresponding values for the external sites. The recursive expression for model 1 is given by :

$$\sigma =A_1\mu +B_1\mu ^{}$$
(12)
where

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_A(1t_At_B)}{(1t_A^2t_B^2)}},`$ (13)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_B(1t_At_B)}{(1t_A^2t_B^2)}},`$ (14)
for the $`(AB)`$ non-homogeneous basic unit while

$$A_1=B_1=\frac{t_A}{(1+t_A^2)}$$
(15)
for the $`(A,A)`$-homogeneous basic unit, as specified in Figure 2a.

On the other hand, for model 2 we have two sets of recursive equations obtained for each one of the basic units shown in Figure 2b. Each set has two equations corresponding to the internal sites of each basic unit. For the non-homogeneous basic unit (ABB) these equations are given by

$$\sigma _i=A_i\mu +B_i\mu ^{}(i=1,2),$$
(16)
where

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_A(1t_B^4)}{(1t_A^2t_B^4)}},`$ (17)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_B^2(1t_A^2)}{(1t_A^2t_B^4)}},`$ (18)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_At_B(1t_B^4)}{(1t_A^2t_B^4)}},`$ (19)
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_B^2(1t_A^2t_B^2)}{(1t_A^2t_B^4)}},`$ (20)
while for the homogeneous basic unit (AAA) they are expressed by

$$\sigma _i=C_i\mu +D_i\mu ^{}(i=1,2),$$
(21)
where

$`C_1=D_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_A(1t_A^4)}{(1t_A^6)}},`$ (22)
$`D_1=C_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_A^2(1t_A^2)}{(1t_A^6)}}.`$ (23)
To evaluate the correct value of the local magnetization $`m_i=\sigma _i`$ of each site, it is necessary to keep track of its local interaction configuration, i.e., to know with which choice of $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$ a given inner spin interacts with its root sites. In order to breakdown the global up-down symmetry and obtain non-zero values for the spontaneous magnetization, it is enough to apply a field on a given site of the lattice and let this local field equal zero at the end of calculation. However, within the present methodology this breakdown is easily done by assuming boundary conditions to root sites accordingly with the corresponding configuration of the stable fixed-point phase. This latter procedure is followed in the present work.

Now we focus our attention to model 2 looking over the effects of the relevant geometric fluctuations with regard to the homogeneous pure model on the same lattice. First, we consider the local magnetization of the sites along one of the shortest path connecting the root sites. These values are assigned to points within the interval $`[0,1]`$, since the DHL is a fractal graph where the bonds mean ”chemical distances” without any geometric sense. The resulting plot gives a representative picture of the local magnetization distribution, hereafter called magnetization profile, since all shortest path are equivalent as far the DHL graph symmetry is concerned. Figure 5a shows the magnetization profile for the homogeneous model 2 at the critical temperature of the corresponding saddle-point fixed-point, and Figures 5b and 5c show the profiles for the aperiodic model 2 at the critical temperatures of each one point of the two-cycle attractor for (which correspond to fluctuation parameter values $`R_{c1}=J_B/J_A=0.2706\mathrm{}`$ and $`R_{c2}=J_B/J_A=6.3104\mathrm{}`$. For the first profile, in any of the renormalization steps, the coefficients (17,22) have their values fixed by the corresponding value at the critical point. For the other two profiles these coefficients alternate between the corresponding values at the two-cycle attractor. For values of $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$ other than those corresponding to the critical sets, the present methodology produces the local magnetization as function of the temperature, but the above mentioned coefficients evolve under the renormalization process. In any case, the magnetization of the global root sites are held fixed with initial values equal to one, which corresponds to the ferromagnetic configuration.

All profiles shown display many singularities and are, in some sense, self similar. However those of the aperiodic system clearly do not show the same symmetries as the one from the homogeneous model ($`R=1`$). As pointed out in , for the homogeneous model the pattern symmetries are solely related with the topologic symmetry of the lattice, imposed by the distribution of coordination numbers along the profile. However, for the aperiodic systems, the self similar symmetry of the lattice topology is superimposed by symmetries of the aperiodic sequence defining the distribution of interactions, so that the resulting pattern expresses the influence of both symmetries. We emphasize that this feature does not depend on the relevant-irrelevant character of the fluctuations, and is observed also for the aperiodic situation of model 1. It is worth to comment that for the spin-glass model the symmetry induced by the lattice topology is completely washed out by the random quenched disorder of the coupling constants .

The profiles in Figures 5b and 5c are, at first sight, rather different, but a close analysis uncover the fact that they share the same structure. We note also the presence of two different scales corresponding to the regions where the letters $`A`$ and $`B`$ are more abundant. As the values of $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$ are rather distinct for the two points of the cycle, they enhance or depress the values of the local magnetization in these regions, leading to the two different shapes.

It is important to observe that both profiles were obtained after eight generations, so that, in the flow diagram, the trajectories start and end at the same point of the cycle.

If we consider an odd number of generations the form of the profiles would be reversed, indicating that the profile does not converge to a single form, but rather oscillates between two distinct patterns which reflect the properties of each of the points in the cycle. The same behavior is observed for every profile, evaluated with any choice of values for $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$, at the corresponding value of $`T_c`$.

As this alternating form of the profile pattern results from the different properties of the two points of the cycle, it is not observed in the case of irrelevant fluctuations. Indeed, for any value of $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$, the trajectory at the corresponding $`T_c`$ is controlled by the properties of the critical point of the homogeneous system: the profile converges to a definite form, with a lower symmetry than in the case of the homogeneous system.

As previously observed for the homogeneous cases , the high degree of singularities suggests the multifractal analysis as a valuable tool to investigate the structure of the magnetization profiles for the models with $`R1`$. The $`F(\alpha )`$ functions of the measure defined by the normalized local magnetization $`\mu _i(L)=m_i(L)/_jm_j(L)`$ were calculated by the method due to Chhabra and Jensen  which is based on a one parameter family of normalized measures,

$$\xi _i(q,L)=\frac{\mu _i(L)^q}{_j[\mu _j(L)]^q}.$$
(24)
In Figures 6a and 6b we show the plots for both models comparing the $`F(\alpha )`$ spectra of the aperiodic and the homogeneous system at criticality. Both curves have the same maximum value ($`F(\alpha )_{max}`$=1) since the measure has been arbitrarily assigned to the interval $`[0,1]`$, that is, to the same fractal set (support) of dimension $`d=1`$. Therefore, one must focus our attention to the values of the H$`\ddot{o}`$lder exponent $`\alpha `$. The minimum and the maximum values of $`\alpha `$ reflect, respectively, how the measures of the most concentrated and the most rarefied intervals scale with the box width. For the homogeneous systems the domain of the $`F(\alpha )`$ spectra can be analytically calculated . Moreover as was demonstrated in  there is a straightforward relation between the H$`\ddot{o}`$lder exponent and the critical exponents given by

$$\alpha =d+\frac{1}{\nu }(\beta _\alpha \beta )$$
(25)
where $`d`$ is the fractal dimension of the support and $`\beta _\alpha `$ is the critical exponent associated with the average magnetization of the subset of sites whose the measure vanishes with exponent $`\alpha `$, as $`L\mathrm{}`$. Since the most concentrated measures of both models have finite values at the thermodynamic limit induced by the boundary conditions we have $`\beta _{\alpha _{min}}=0`$ and $`\alpha _{min}=d\beta /\nu `$. Therefore $`\alpha _{min}`$ is solely related with the exponents describing the critical behavior of the whole system and should follows the rules for the universality class of the systems. Moreover, for the subset of sites where the measure behaves with the H$`\ddot{o}`$lder exponent $`\overline{\alpha }=d`$, the local magnetization behaves with the same critical exponent of the average magnetization of whole lattice, that is, $`\beta _{\overline{\alpha }}=\beta `$. This particular subset should also follow the rules of the universality class, and therefore the point $`(d,F(d))`$ on the $`F(\alpha )`$ function should remains fixed when irrelevant geometric fluctuations are considered.

From Figure 6b, it becomes clear that the aperiodic systems with relevant geometric fluctuations belong to a distinct class of universality regarding the homogeneous system, as the $`F(\alpha )`$-function of the former is shifted to higher values of $`\alpha `$. Moreover, we notice two distinct $`F(\alpha )`$ spectra, corresponding to distinct profiles with $`R=1`$ and $`R1`$.

On the other hand, as displayed in Figure 6a the $`F(\alpha )`$ functions of model 1 with $`R=0.5`$ and $`2`$ suffer minor changes due to finite size effects when compared with the one for $`R=1`$. To handle with such differences we refine our calculations by doing a finite size scaling estimation of the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`F(\alpha )`$ for higher $`|q|`$, and by proceeding a finite size scaling estimation of the exponent $`\varphi `$ governing the average magnetization at the critical point $`mL^\varphi `$,which by it turn is related with the critical exponents by $`\varphi =\beta /\nu `$.

In Tables II and III, we present these estimations for both models respectively, comparing with exact values whenever is possible. We notice the slight difference when the $`\alpha _{min}`$ of the aperiodic system of model 1 is compared with the exact value for the homogeneous system, indicating conservation of universality (see Table II). However, for model 2, qualitative differences are observed when the $`\alpha _{min}`$ values of the aperiodic and the homogeneous models are compared. In this latter case the values of $`\alpha _{min}`$ oscillates as we go from $`N`$ even to $`N`$ odd lattices. As pointed out in our former discussion, these oscillations are a manifestation of the fact that the profile oscillates between two different patterns dictated by the properties of each of the points of the cycle. In Figure 7 we present the scaling for the $`\alpha _{min}`$ of the F($`\alpha `$) function of model 2 for some values of the fluctuation parameter $`R`$. For $`R_{c1}`$ and $`R_{c2}`$ these oscillations are clearly seen as we go from $`N`$ even to $`N`$ odd lattices. For finite lattices and finite values of $`q`$, the oscilations on the scaling plot introduce significant errors bars for thevalues of the corresponding exponents. However, as $`N`$ goes to infinity, we expect that $`\alpha _{min}`$ converges to a unique universal limit for any value of the fluctuation parameter other than $`R=1`$.

In Table III, we also compare the values of $`\alpha _{min}`$ obtained within the present approach with the ones deduced from the results for $`\beta /\nu `$, calculated using the transfer matrix approach developed by one of us . It is worth to mention that this latter approach allows to work with higher values of $`N`$, ending up with more accurate values for the exponents.

## IV Summary and conclusions

We investigate the role of the geometric fluctuations on the local magnetization and critical properties of the ferromagnetic Ising model when the coupling constants are defined by deterministic aperiodic sequences. Two distinct models were considered as a matter of comparation. Model 1 (model 2) was build with irrelevant (relevant) Fibonacci like geometric fluctuations with respect to changes in the critical properties. The models are defined on different diamond hierarchical lattices but with then same fractal dimension $`d_F=2`$. The phase diagram of both models were obtained and carefully analyzed. The local magnetization of both models was calculated by an exact recurrence procedure as function of the temperature but we concentrate our analysis close to the critical point. When the relevant (irrelevant) geometric fluctuation is concerned the pattern of the local magnetization profile exhibit a strong (weak) change of it symmetry as compared with the one of the corresponding homogeneous system. For the model 1, the self-similar pattern induced by the lattice topology is predominant, as it occurs for the homogeneous system.

However, for model 2, the pattern symmetry of the homogeneous system is strongly affected by the one dictated by aperiodic distribution of coupling constants and the local magnetization profile resulting with a quite different distribution of singularities. This break of symmetry is straightforwardly related with the change in critical properties, as revealed by the multifractal analysis of the magnetization profiles at the criticality. The $`F(\alpha )`$-functions of the model 1 is quite close to the one of the corresponding homogeneous systems for all values of domain of the spectrum, reflecting the same critical behavior of the latter. However, the domain of the $`F(\alpha )`$-functions of the model 2 is shifted to higher values of $`\alpha `$, with respect to the one of the corresponding homogeneous systems, leading to change the universality class of the model regarding the relative values of the ferromagnetic coupling constants. The critical exponent associated with the magnetization of model 2 were calculated by means of the $`F(\alpha )`$-function as well as by scaling the average magnetization. The results are in good agreement with the ones obtained through the thermodynamic functions calculated using a quite different approach previously developed by one of us. Therefore, we have demonstrated, by means of exact numeric calculations of the local magnetization of useful models, that as far as relevant deterministic geometric fluctuations is concerned the resulting disorder in the distribution of aperiodic ferromagnetic interactions leads to a strong break of symmetry in the patterns of the local magnetization following the change of universality class.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the Federal Brazilian granting agencies CNPq, CAPES and FINEP (under the grant PRONEX 94.76.0004/97). One of us (S. C. ) is also grateful for the financial support received from his local granting agency FACEPE. The authors thank S. R. Salinas, S. T. R. Pinho and T. A. S. Haddad for helpful discussions.