text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is an important direction to extend the AdS/CFT duality of Maldacena  to nonconformal systems with less supersymmetry. One way to do this is by perturbing the Hamiltonian, which is equivalent to perturbing the boundary conditions on the AdS space .

The understanding of the resulting solutions is still limited. One approach, beginning with refs. , is to reduce to five-dimensional gauged supergravity. This has been very useful, but it has limitations. For one, only rather special states can be obtained in this way. The solutions have only a finite number of integration constants, whereas a gauge theory moduli space has of order $`N`$ parameters. For a second, the full ten-dimensional geometry is in general quite complicated in the reduced directions. This is encoded in the five-dimensional geometry through the algebraic magic of consistent truncation, but it is necessary to lift the solution to ten dimensions to see its full structure. A related issue is that most solutions are singular. While there have been attempts to identify allowed singularities in a purely five-dimensional picture , the ten-dimensional structure is crucial for a full understanding.

For $`𝒩=4`$ broken to $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=0`$ by mass terms the full ten-dimensional geometries have recently been found . Here there is the simplifying feature that the 3-brane charge dominates the dynamics, so the solution can be treated as a perturbation of the Coulomb branch (black 3-brane ) solution. However, this approximation was found to break down in some interesting regimes. In particular, it becomes less useful for phases with many 5-branes.

For $`𝒩=4`$ broken to $`𝒩=2`$ by mass terms (the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory) there is a moduli space. Pilch and Warner (PW)  have recently found the ten-dimensional supergravity solution on a one-parameter subspace of the moduli space. It is the purpose of this paper to analyze some of the physics of the PW solution. The PW theory has the same massless content, pure $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory, as for D7-branes wrapped on K3; the latter was studied in ref. . In that case the naive supergravity solution had a naked singularity, which was resolved by an interesting stringy phenomenon. The constituent D7 branes were forced to lie on a ring of finite radius, the enhançon. This mechanism involved states becoming massless when the K3 on which the branes were wrapped became small, and as such it may be a much more general phenomenon. The PW solution has a feature resembling the enhançon, and we would like to make the connection more precise.

In section 2 we study the PW supergravity background. We first discuss its symmetries, and also remark on a recent $`𝒩=1`$ ten-dimensional solution . We then study a probe in the PW geometry. The basic constituents of the PW solution are the D3-branes, and so these are the natural probes to consider. We find that the probe potential vanishes on a two-dimensional plane in the transverse space, which is the correct moduli space, and that the low energy action for the probe can be put in the expected $`𝒩=2`$ form by an appropriate choice of coordinates; these are checks on the PW solution. In addition, we will determine the precise configuration of branes that the solution of PW represents. We find that it is a different part of moduli space than that studied in ref.  — the branes lie on a line segment rather than in a ring.

In section 3 we discuss the gauge theory side of the correspondence. We identify the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gauge theory vacuum corresponding to linear enhançon of the PW geometry and compute from the field theory perspective the moduli space metric of a D3 probe. The $`𝒩=2^{}`$ supersymmetric gauge theory was solved by Donagi and Witten . As we argue below, matching the supergravity probe computation is essentially perturbative in the gauge theory, so we will not really use the nonperturbative tools of Seiberg-Witten theory. The gravity and the gauge theory computations of the moduli space metric agree up to $`1/N`$ corrections. This provides another check on the proposed correspondence.

Because the gauge theory calculation is perturbative, it can be extended to any point on the moduli space. Thus the gauge side gives some information about the general supergravity solution. There is a further simplifying feature that the gauge theory is close to the $`𝒩=4`$ theory, in the sense that the masses from gauge symmetry breaking are large compared to the masses from explicit $`𝒩=4`$ breaking; this may allow more of the supergravity solution to be extracted. By using information from the gauge theory side it may be possible to find the supergravity solution at all points on moduli space.

In section 4 we find the noncommutative generalization of the Pilch-Warner solution, extending to PW solution the construction of refs. . Although the PW solution is much more complicated than $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, the same strategy can be used to generate the solution. That is, take the $`T`$-dual on a $`T^2`$, turn on a constant $`B`$-field on the $`T^2`$, and $`T`$-dualize back. The resulting solution should be dual to the noncommutative $`𝒩=2^{}`$ gauge theory. As a check, we find that the D3-probe moduli space is unaffected by the noncommutativity, a result which is expected from the gauge theory side.

## 2 The supergravity side

In this section will examine the physics of the PW background by using a D3-brane probe in order to elucidate its properties. The PW background is complicated: all the IIB supergravity fields are nontrivial. An essentially new feature of their solution is that the ten-dimensional dilaton-axion field depends on the radial coordinate, and it also depends (perhaps surprisingly) on two angular transverse coordinates as well.

### 2.1 The PW solution and its symmetries

We begin by recalling the necessary pieces of the PW solution . The ten-dimensional Einstein frame metric is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_\mathrm{E}^2& =\frac{\left(cX_1X_2\right)^{1/4}}{\rho ^3}\{\frac{k^2\rho ^6}{c^21}dx_{}^2\frac{L^2}{\rho ^6(c^21)^2}dc^2\hfill \\ & L^2[\frac{1}{c}d\theta ^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{X_2}d\varphi ^2+\rho ^6\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (\frac{1}{cX_2}\sigma _3^2+\frac{1}{X_1}(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2))]\};\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
the five-form field strength is

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{(5)}=+,=4dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dw(r,\theta );$$
(2.2)
(the factor of 4 results from conventions, to be explained in section 4.1) and the dilaton-axion is

$$\tau =\frac{\tau _0\overline{\tau }_0B}{1B},B=e^{2i\varphi }\frac{\sqrt{cX_1}\sqrt{X_2}}{\sqrt{cX_1}+\sqrt{X_2}}$$
(2.3)
where $`\tau _0=\theta _\mathrm{s}/2\pi +i/g_\mathrm{s}`$ is the asymptotic value. PW’s abbreviations are111Note that this equation for $`w`$ corrects a typo in PW equation (4.9), and also extends it to general $`g_\mathrm{s}`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}X_1=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +c\rho ^6\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,X_2=c\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\rho ^6\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\hfill \\ w(r,\theta )=\frac{k^4\rho ^6X_1}{4g_\mathrm{s}(c^21)^2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
and

$$\rho ^6=c+(c^21)\left[\gamma +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{c1}{c+1}\right)\right].$$
(2.5)
The $`\sigma _i`$ are the differentials $`\sigma _1=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha d\psi +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi d\beta )`$, $`\sigma _2=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi d\beta )`$, $`\sigma _3=\frac{1}{2}(d\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\psi d\beta )`$. That is, the angles $`\alpha ,\beta ,\psi `$ parameterize a 3-sphere, which we can also describe by an $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`g`$ where

$$\sigma _i=\mathrm{tr}(g^1\tau _idg).$$
(2.6)
The above set of coordinates may be unfamiliar, so for orientation purposes we note the behavior of various coordinates and functions of interest in the gauge theory UV where we get back the $`𝒩=4`$ symmetry. The AdS5 metric goes as $`dr^2+e^{2r/L}dx_{}^2=(L/\stackrel{~}{r})^2d\stackrel{~}{r}^2+(\stackrel{~}{r}/L)^2dx_{}^2`$, where $`L=(4\pi g_\mathrm{s}N)^{1/4}\alpha ^{1/2}`$ is the radius of curvature of AdS5 and $`\stackrel{~}{r}=Le^{r/L}`$ is the usual isotropic radial coordinate appearing in the 3-brane harmonic function. The asymptotic region $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}\mathrm{}`$ matches the metric (2.1) as $`c1^+`$ (so $`\rho ^6,X_1,X_21`$), with $`\stackrel{~}{r}=Le^{r/L}=kL/\text{arccosh}(c)`$.

The solution contains two parameters. The parameter $`k`$ is proportional to the symmetry-breaking mass perturbation $`m`$. One way to see this is to note that $`k`$ and $`x_{}`$ appear in the background only in the combination $`kx_{}`$, while the gauge theory physics depends only on the combination $`mx_{}`$. More precisely, eq. (63) of ref.  shows that deviations from AdS become large at $`\stackrel{~}{r}mL^2`$ (where $`r`$ in that reference is $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ here), while the deviation here becomes large when $`c1=O(1)`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{r}kL`$. Thus $`k=mL`$ times a constant of order 1.

The parameter $`\gamma `$ defines a family of distinct solutions. In PW, the interpretation is given that $`\gamma 0`$ corresponds to being on the $`𝒩=4`$ Coulomb branch while $`\gamma >0`$ is unphysical. The solution $`\gamma =0`$ appears to have an enhançon, and so we are most interested in this value but we keep $`\gamma `$ general for now.

The $`𝒩=4𝒩=2`$ gauge theory has an $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ $`R`$-symmetry. The symmetry breaking gives equal masses to two of the four Weyl fermions $`\lambda _i`$. The $`SU(2)`$ acts on the two massless fermions, and the $`U(1)=SO(2)`$ mixes the two massive fermions. This symmetry is evident in the metric (2.1) as $`ge^{i\zeta \tau _3}gh`$ with $`hSU(2)`$. The six scalars transform as the combinations $`\lambda _{[i}\lambda _{j]}`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟔}=(\mathrm{𝟒}\times \mathrm{𝟒})_{\mathrm{antisym}}`$), and two of these are invariant under $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. Thus the supergravity solution has a fixed plane where the radius of the transverse (squashed) two-sphere goes to zero. At long distance this is the equator $`\theta =\pi /2`$, but there is a second coordinate patch where $`\rho =0`$. This fixed plane will play an important role.

Note that the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ does not act on the coordinate $`\varphi `$. Thus it is not surprising that the dilaton (2.3) has a complicated $`\varphi `$-dependence. Rather, what is surprising is that the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`B`$ is so simple, and even more surprising is that $`\varphi `$-translation is a Killing vector of the metric (2.1). This can be understood as follows. The $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ multiplies the fermion bilinears by a complex number; if we extend this to $`SL(2,𝐑)`$, then there is a $`U(1)`$ subgroup which multiplies the bilinear by a phase. A combination of this $`U(1)`$ and a $`U(1)SO(6)`$ leaves the mass perturbation invariant; call this combination $`U(1)^{}`$. Supergravity without branes is invariant under $`SL(2,𝐑)`$. The boundary conditions are invariant under $`U(1)^{}`$, and so in fact is the full PW solution. Since the metric does not transform under $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ it is invariant under $`\varphi `$-translation; the field $`B`$ transforms by a phase under $`U(1)SL(2,𝐑)`$ and so by a phase under $`\varphi `$-translation.

The $`𝒩=2`$ PW solution implicitly contains D3-branes, as we will see, but these are invariant under $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ and so do not affect the forgoing argument. Thus, the $`U(1)^{}`$ is an accidental symmetry of the gauge theory as long as we restrict attention to states and observables that only involve the supergravity fields and D3-branes on the supergravity side.

It is interesting to compare the more recent $`𝒩=1`$ solution of Pilch and Warner (PW2) . Here one does expect 5-branes on the supergravity side . Again there is a $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetry in the supergravity and in the boundary conditions, and some puzzling features of the $`𝒩=1`$ solution can be understood if this is a symmetry of the full solution. Namely, if there is a D5-brane as in ref , then the $`U(1)^{}`$ will carry this into a $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$-brane at angle $`\varphi `$: the solution appears to contain a continuous distribution of such branes on an $`S^2\times S^1`$. Now, $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$-branes may sound unfamiliar, but supergravity does not know that $`(p,q)`$5-brane charges are quantized, and so it admits such sources. Thus it might seem that the PW2 solution is illegitimate in string theory. However, it can be obtained as a limit of the multi 5-brane phases described in ref. . Namely, for large enough $`n`$, $`n(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ can be approximated by integers, and such 5-branes can be distributed around the $`\varphi `$ direction.

### 2.2 Probing the solution

We have in general for a D$`p`$-brane probe

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{probe}}=& S_{\mathrm{DBI}}+S_{\mathrm{WZ}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mu _pd^{p+1}ye^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det\left(𝐏\left[G+B\right]_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)}\hfill \\ & +\mu _p𝐏[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{(2)}+B_{(2)})_nC_{(\mathrm{n})}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
where $`\mu _p^1=(2\pi )^p\alpha ^{(p+1)/2}`$ and $`𝐏`$ denotes pullback to the world-volume of the bulk fields.

We take the directions parallel to the probe to be $`x_{}`$; the transverse coordinates $`x^i`$ in the conventions of PW are $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ plus the three coordinates on the (squashed) sphere generated by the SU(2) R-symmetry of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory. In the PW background, the components of the NS-NS or R-R two-form potentials parallel to the D3-brane probe and the world-volume field strength all vanish. It follows that the only remaining terms in the probe action come from the R-R four-form potential and from a combination of the metric and dilaton. The supergravity metric in  is given in Einstein frame. Conveniently, for the case of the D3-brane this is precisely the combination222$`G`$ is the string metric. $`g_{\mu \nu }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}G_{\mu \nu }`$ that appears in the probe action. The Chern-Simons terms in $`F_{(5)}`$ do not contribute to the longitudinal components, and so we can read the longitudinal components of $`C_{(4)}`$ directly from eq. (2.2) with $`=dC_{(4)}`$.

The probe action in static gauge becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{probe}}& =\mu _3d^4y\left[g_\mathrm{s}^1\sqrt{det𝐏[g_{ab}]}+𝐏\left[C_{(4)}\right]\right],\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mu _3}{g_\mathrm{s}}d^4y\left[\sqrt{detg_{ab}}\left(1v^iv^j\left|g_{ij}/g_{00}\right|\right)^{1/2}+w(r,\theta )\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.8)
Inserting the PW solution, we find the potential energy density to be

$$V=\frac{\tau _3k^4\rho ^6}{(c^21)^2}\left(\sqrt{cX_1X_2}X_1\right),$$
(2.9)
with $`\tau _3=\mu _3/g_\mathrm{s}`$. Similarly, the kinetic energy density is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T=& \tau _3\frac{k^2L^2}{2}\frac{\sqrt{cX_1X_2}}{(c^21)}(\frac{1}{\rho ^6(c^21)^2}(v^c)^2+\frac{1}{c}(v^\theta )^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{X_2}(v^\varphi )^2\hfill \\ & +\rho ^6\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \{\frac{1}{cX_2}(v^3)^2+\frac{1}{X_1}[(v^1)^2+(v^2)^2]\}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
where $`v^{c,\theta ,\varphi ,1,2,3}`$ are the velocities of the probe in the each of the six transverse directions.

For comparison to the enhançon physics of , we are interested in the moduli space, where the potential vanishes. There are two solutions to the condition $`V=0`$,

$$(\mathrm{I})cX_2=X_1\mathrm{cos}\theta =0,(\mathrm{II})\rho ^6=0.$$
(2.11)
Let us determine the dimensionality of these pieces of moduli space by inspecting the kinetic terms on loci I and II.

On locus I, the kinetic term is independent of $`\gamma `$,

$$T_\mathrm{I}=\tau _3\frac{k^2L^2}{2}\frac{c}{(c^21)}\left[\frac{1}{(c^21)^2}(v^c)^2+(v^\varphi )^2\right].$$
(2.12)
and we see that the locus I is the $`(c,\varphi )`$ plane. Note that the potential term (2.9) in the D3 probe Lagrangian has a particularly simple expansion about locus I,

$$V_I=0+\tau _3\frac{k^4\rho ^6}{2(c^21)}\left(\theta \frac{\pi }{2}\right)^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(2.13)
Locus II does not exist for $`\gamma >0`$: the function $`\rho `$ is positive on the entire range $`1<c<\mathrm{}`$. For $`\gamma <0`$ there is a unique value $`c_0(\gamma )`$ such that $`\rho (c_0)=0`$ in eq. (2.5), and this defines locus II. Locus II is then parameterized by $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$, and the moduli space metric there is

$$T_{\mathrm{II}}(\gamma <0)=\tau _3\frac{k^2L^2}{2}\frac{1}{(c_0^21)}\left[\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (v^\theta )^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (v^\varphi )^2\right].$$
(2.14)
As noted in PW, the dilaton-axion bulk field is trivial on locus II.

For $`\gamma >0`$, there is only locus I, where $`c1^+`$ is the AdS boundary and $`c\mathrm{}`$ is a singularity. For $`\gamma <0`$, locus I is defined by $`1<cc_0`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$; locus II is defined by $`c=c_0`$, $`0\theta \pi `$. These fit together to form a plane if we identify $`\theta \pi \theta `$ in locus II. In the limit $`\gamma =0`$, $`c_0\mathrm{}`$ and locus II becomes singular: the moduli space metric vanishes while the dilaton field blows up.

The moduli space is two-dimensional in accordance with expectation from $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory. This is the same as the fixed plane of the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ $`R`$-symmetry, consistent with the fact that this symmetry is unbroken on the moduli space.

To identify the $`𝒩=2`$ structure in the moduli space metric we need also the gauge field action. Expanding the probe action in powers of the field strength, the coefficient of the kinetic term is $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and that of $`FF`$ is $`C_{(0)}`$, so that

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}=\tau _{\mathrm{sugra}}.$$
(2.15)
In the natural coordinates on the $`𝒩=2`$ moduli space, the kinetic term for the transverse scalars is the imaginary part of $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$:

$$T(Y)=\frac{1}{2}\mu _3e^\mathrm{\Phi }v^Yv^{\overline{Y}}$$
(2.16)
where $`Y`$ is a complex coordinate encoding the two-dimensional moduli space.

We focus now on locus I. From eq. (2.3), the dilaton is

$$e^\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{c}{g_\mathrm{s}|\mathrm{cos}\varphi +ic\mathrm{sin}\varphi |^2}.$$
(2.17)
In order to find the coordinate $`Y`$ we first identify the obvious isotropic coordinate $`r^{}`$ in the metric (2.12) via $`dc/(c^21)=dr^{}/r^{}`$. Then in terms of

$$z=r^{}e^{i\varphi }=e^{i\varphi }\sqrt{(c+1)/(c1)}$$
(2.18)
the locus I metric becomes

$$\tau _3\frac{k^2L^2}{2}\frac{c}{(c+1)^2}v^zv^{\overline{z}}.$$
(2.19)
Equating the metrics (2.16) and (2.19), $`Y`$ is analytic in $`z`$ with

$$\left|\frac{Y}{z}\right|^2=k^2L^2\left|\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi +ic\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{c+1}\right|^2=\frac{k^2L^2}{4}\left|1\frac{1}{z^2}\right|^2.$$
(2.20)
Thus

$$Y=\frac{kL}{2}(z+z^1).$$
(2.21)
and

$$\tau =\frac{\tau _0z^2\overline{\tau }_0}{z^21}=\frac{i}{g_\mathrm{s}}\left(\frac{Y^2}{Y^2k^2L^2}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{\theta _\mathrm{s}}{2\pi }.$$
(2.22)
This is holomorphic, as expected from supersymmetry; note that $`B`$ is simply $`z^2`$.

Notice that this function has a branch cut emanating from $`Y=\pm kL`$. The real line segment $`kLYkL`$ maps to the circle $`z=1`$ and thence to $`c=\mathrm{}`$. Thus the branch cut is present only for $`\gamma 0`$, and runs along the real axis where $`c=\mathrm{}`$. This form for $`\tau `$ is the main result that we will need in the next section. Note that $`kL=\zeta mL^2`$ for some constant $`\zeta `$ which we determine explicitly in the next section.

We would now like to know what kind of brane distribution would give rise to the function $`\tau `$ which we found above. We expect that the source D3-branes are distributed on the Coulomb branch, and we can infer their distribution in a number of ways. For example, the metric components $`g_{}`$ vanish as one approaches a D3-brane distribution, provided that the branes are not spread in too many dimensions. In terms of an appropriate radial coordinate $`y`$, the metric behaves as $`y^{(4k)/2}dx_{}^2+y^{(4k)/2}dy^2`$. In the metric (2.1), $`g_{}`$ vanishes only near locus II, $`\rho =0`$. Since $`\rho `$ vanishes linearly at $`c_0`$, the metric behaves as $`(c_0c)^{1/2}dx_{}^2+(c_0c)^{3/2}dc^2`$. For $`y=(c_0c)^{1/2}`$ this is of the expected form with $`k=2`$, consistent with the two-dimensionality of locus II. Thus, when $`\gamma <0`$ the branes are spread over locus II. PW make the identification that $`\gamma <0`$ corresponds to the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory. This will be true for very negative $`\gamma `$; for smaller values the effect of the soft breaking parametrized by $`m`$ will be less negligible.

In the limit $`\gamma =0`$ this locus collapses to the line segment found above. Curiously, the metric $`c^2(dx_{}^2+dc^2)`$ is of $`k=0`$ form with $`y=1/c`$, which is more singular than expected for a one-dimensional distribution. Evidently the effect of the perturbation on the D3-brane metric cannot be ignored in this case. Notice that we are at a different point in moduli space than the setup of , where the branes of the enhançon lay on a circle in the “natural” coordinates. If we start from $`\gamma =0`$ and turn on a slightly negative $`\gamma `$, the source brane distribution will turn from a line segment into a very squashed disk.

Finally, for $`\gamma >0`$ both $`g_{}^2`$ and the string metric $`G_{}^2`$ diverge at $`c=\mathrm{}`$, which appears to be unphysical .

The linear D3-brane distribution at $`\gamma =0`$ is reminiscent of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ limit of the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory, where the 5-brane collapses into a line as one mass is taken to zero . However, the length of the distribution here is $`O(kL)=O(m\sqrt{g_\mathrm{s}N}\alpha ^{})`$ in the isotropic coordinate, where the limit of a D5-brane has length $`O(mN\alpha ^{})`$ and that of an NS5-brane has length $`O(mg_\mathrm{s}N\alpha ^{})`$. The latter are both larger, reflecting the fact that the 5-branes in the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory are large compared with the radius at which the perturbation becomes large. Possibly the PW solution could be obtained as a limit of a configuration with a large number of 5-branes.

Let us make more precise the relation of the branch cut on the real axis to the enhançon of ref. . The enhançon is a distribution of D-branes on a curve where the gauge kinetic term $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes.333In ref. , the gauge potential term was proportional to $`VV_{}`$, where $`V`$ was the volume of K3 and $`V_{}`$ the self-dual volume, so that $`V=V_{}`$ defined the enhançon. Any further contraction of the distribution would lead to a negative kinetic term. From eq. (2.17), the limit $`c\mathrm{}`$, which again is a line segment in the natural coordinates, has vanishing kinetic term, and this is where the D3-branes are located when $`\gamma =0`$. The shape of the distribution is dependent on where one is on moduli space.

Let us also remark on magnetic Wilson lines. This is relevant to the enhançon physics in the following way. In the $`d=2+1`$ case of , the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory setup comes from D6-branes wrapped on a K3. A D0-brane probe of this system feels a force, but the more interesting aspect of its behavior is that the coefficient of its kinetic term goes to zero at the enhançon, and by duality one can see that it becomes the gauge boson of the enhanced SU(2) symmetry. We would like to investigate the analog of this for the PW system. The most direct analogy is to consider a D-string parallel to the D3-branes; for a static configuration we need to hang a D-string in from infinity, and so the gauge theory dual is the magnetic Wilson line.

We wish to concentrate on that part of the D-string worldsheet parallel to the D3-brane. Starting with the action (2.2) for a general D$`p`$-brane probe, we need to extract the terms which are turned on in the PW background. Since we are interested only in the kinetic piece of the action we can ignore all the Chern-Simons-type terms in $`S_{\mathrm{WZ}}`$. Therefore, let us consider the DBI piece

$$S_{\mathrm{D1}}=\tau _1d^2ye^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det𝐏(G_{ab}+B_{ab})}.$$
(2.23)
In static gauge where we allow only time dependence of the transverse coordinates, the pullback of the NS-NS $`B`$-field is zero, and so we need only the metric. In Einstein frame, expanding to lowest order in velocities gives

$$T_{\mathrm{D1}}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}\frac{1}{2}v^iv^j\left|g_{ij}/g_{00}\right|\sqrt{det(g_{ab})}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}\frac{1}{2}v^iv^jg_{ij},$$
(2.24)
where in the last equality we used the fact that $`g_{11}=g_{00}`$ in the PW coordinates. The effective mass, the coefficient of the invariant velocity, goes to zero when the dilaton blows up. This is the fact we were after to make the connection to enhançon physics.

Let us make a few remarks about the resolution of singularities by brane expansion. When all D3-branes are at the origin it appears that the supergravity solutions are singular there. When they are sufficiently spread out then the origin is like an ordinary point and it is possible to connect the nonnormalizable perturbation from infinity with the normalizable solution at the origin. An enhançon distribution is one that is as compact as possible. For the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory the same principle holds but there is no moduli space; the branes are expanded by the dielectric mechanism .

## 3 Gauge theory

Via the AdS/CFT correspondence, the supergravity solution of  corresponds to softly broken $`𝒩=4`$, large $`N`$ $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory at a specific point on the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with a massive adjoint hypermultiplet. In this section we discuss the gauge theory part of the correspondence. We identify the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory vacuum corresponding to linear enhançon of the PW geometry at $`\gamma =0`$ and compute from the field theory perspective the moduli space metric of a D3 probe. The supergravity calculation matches to a one loop gauge theory calculation, a result that is likely to be useful in understanding the supergravity solution at more general points in moduli space.

In the language of four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, the mass deformed $`𝒩=4`$ $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory consists of a vector multiplet $`V`$, an adjoint chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ related by $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry to the gauge field, and two additional adjoint chiral multiplets $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ which form the $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplet. In addition to the usual gauge-invariant kinetic terms for these fields, the theory has additional interactions and hypermultiplet mass term summarized in the superpotential444The classical Kähler potential is normalized $`(2/g_{YM}^2)\mathrm{tr}[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{Q}Q+\overline{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\stackrel{~}{Q}]`$.

$$W=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{g_{YM}^2}\mathrm{tr}([Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}]\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{m}{g_{YM}^2}(\mathrm{tr}Q^2+\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{Q}^2).$$
(3.1)
The theory has a moduli space of Coulomb vacua parameterized by expectation values of the adjoint scalar

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{diag}(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_N),\underset{i}{}a_i=0,$$
(3.2)
in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group. For generic values of the moduli $`a_i`$ the gauge symmetry is broken to that of the Cartan subalgebra $`\mathrm{U}(1)^{N1}`$, up to the permutation of individual $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ factors. At the semi-classical level, non-generic values of the moduli may yield a larger symmetry group. One of the fundamental results of the Seiberg-Witten theory 555See  for an introduction and extensive list of references. is that in the full quantum theory, such larger residual gauge symmetry groups do not survive quantization, so that the theory is always in the Coulomb phase. The entire low energy effective action $``$ of the $`N1`$ Abelian $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplets is completely determined in terms of the single prepotential $`(\tau ,m;\{a_i\})`$ which depends holomorphically on the microscopic parameters (the gauge coupling $`\tau =\frac{\theta }{2\pi }+i\frac{4\pi }{g_{YM}^2}`$ and the hypermultiplet mass $`m`$) and the Coulomb branch moduli $`\{a_i\}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 8\pi =& g_{i\overline{j}}\left(D_\mu a^iD^\mu \overline{a}^{\overline{j}}+i\overline{\psi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu \psi ^i\right)\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{Re}\left\{\tau _{ij}\left(\frac{i}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{j\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^i\stackrel{~}{F}^{j\mu \nu }2\overline{\lambda }^i\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu \lambda ^j\right)\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
with

$$\tau _{ij}=\frac{^2}{a^ia^j},g_{i\overline{j}}=\mathrm{Im}[\tau _{ij}].$$
(3.4)
In Eq. (3.3) $`\psi `$’s and $`\lambda `$’s are fermionic superpartners of the scalars and gauge bosons respectively. The covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ is taken with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ of the scalar metric $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$

$$D_\mu a^i=_\mu a^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^ia^j_\mu a^k.$$
(3.5)
Classically, the prepotential is given by

$$_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{1}{2}\tau \underset{i}{}a_i^2.$$
(3.6)
The full quantum prepotential receives both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections

$$=_{\mathrm{class}}+_{\mathrm{pert}}+_{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}.$$
(3.7)
The perturbative contribution is one-loop exact  and is determined by the standard quantum field theory computation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\mathrm{pert}}=& \frac{i}{8\pi }[\underset{ij}{}(a_ia_j)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\left(a_ia_j\right)^2}{\mu ^2}\hfill \\ & \underset{ij}{}(a_ia_j+m)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\left(a_ia_j+m\right)^2}{\mu ^2}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.8)
From the Wilsonian effective action viewpoint it is generated by integrating out electrically charged gauge bosons and the charged components of the adjoint hypermultiplet. Finally, the nonperturbative prepotential is generated by instantons. The nonperturbative part of the prepotential can, in principle, be extracted from the exact solution of the theory . In practice the computation is very difficult to carry out explicitly other than for gauge groups of small rank. Nonperturbative corrections become important in regions of moduli space with light BPS states. Semi-classically, monopoles are expected to have masses $`4\pi v/g_{YM}^2`$, where $`v`$ is a characteristic scale of the Higgs field $`v|a_ia_j|`$. In the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit we scale the gauge coupling $`g_{YM}^20`$ while keeping the ’t Hooft coupling fixed $`Ng_{YM}^2O(1)`$. So unless the spacing between eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`O(1/N)`$ or smaller, instanton corrections do not survive in this limit.

The moduli space of a D3-brane probing the PW supergravity background is dual to the projection of the Coulomb branch vacua of $`\mathrm{SU}(N+1)\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{U}(1)^{N1}`$ to that of the probe $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$. If $`u`$ is the modulus of the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ representing the probe, the perturbative parametrization of the full moduli space (3.2) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{diag}(u,a_1u/N,a_2u/N,\mathrm{},a_Nu/N),\underset{i}{}a_i=0.$$
(3.9)
If $`|ua_i|1/N`$, the instanton corrections to the metric on the probe moduli space are exponentially suppressed and the complete answer (in the large $`N`$ limit) is determined by the perturbative prepotential. From (3.6) and (3.8) we find

$$\tau (u)=\frac{i}{g_\mathrm{s}}+\frac{\theta _\mathrm{s}}{2\pi }+\frac{i}{2\pi }\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(ua_iu/N)^2}{(ua_iu/N)^2m^2}.$$
(3.10)
We would like to match (3.10) and the metric on the moduli space of the D3 probe (2.22) in the large $`N`$ limit for a specific Coulomb vacuum $`\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ of the “$`\mathrm{U}(1)^{N1}`$ background”.

Recall that the D3 probe computation in the previous section suggests that $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity flow with $`\gamma =0`$ corresponds to the Coulomb branch vacuum in which the background branes form a $`𝐙_2`$ symmetric linear enhançon singularity around the origin of the probe moduli space. The size of the enhançon in the variable $`a=Y/2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ is

$$\frac{kL}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}=\zeta \frac{mL^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}=\zeta \frac{m\sqrt{g_\mathrm{s}N}}{\sqrt{\pi }}a_0.$$
(3.11)
In particular, the characteristic scale of moduli space is large compared to $`m`$ and so we can approximate

$$\tau (u)=\frac{i}{g_\mathrm{s}}+\frac{\theta _\mathrm{s}}{2\pi }+\frac{i}{2\pi }\underset{i}{}\frac{m^2}{(ua_i)^2}.$$
(3.12)
Away from the enhançon singularity nonperturbative corrections are suppressed and the probe metric is given by the continuous limit of this

$$\tau (u)=\frac{i}{g_\mathrm{s}}+\frac{\theta _\mathrm{s}}{2\pi }+\frac{i}{2\pi }_{a_0}^{a_0}𝑑a\rho (a)\frac{m^2}{(ua)^2}$$
(3.13)
where $`\rho (a)`$ is a linear density of the background branes eigenvalues normalized as

$$_{a_0}^{a_0}𝑑a\rho (a)=N.$$
(3.14)
This is to be equal to the supergravity result (2.22),

$$\tau (u)=\frac{i}{g_\mathrm{s}}\left(\frac{u^2}{u^2a_0^2}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{\theta _\mathrm{s}}{2\pi }.$$
(3.15)
Equating the discontinuities across the enhançon branch cut gives

$$m^2\rho ^{}(u)=\frac{2}{g_\mathrm{s}}\frac{u}{\sqrt{a_0^2u^2}},\rho (\pm a_0)=0.$$
(3.16)
This integrates to

$$\rho (u)=\frac{2}{m^2g_\mathrm{s}}\sqrt{a_0^2u^2},$$
(3.17)
and the normalization condition fixes $`a_0^2=m^2g_\mathrm{s}N/\pi `$ or $`\zeta =1`$.

The one loop metric (3.12) should apply everywhere on moduli space — except of course when it goes negative in some region. Seiberg and Witten  showed that instanton corrections make the metric positive everywhere. The lesson of ref.  is that at large $`N`$ these corrections turn on sharply on the boundary where the metric changes sign, that is, the enhançon. Outside the enhançon the metric is perturbative. The effect of nonperturbative corrections is that the constituent D3-branes are expanded from their perturbative positions and dissolved in the enhançon.

Thus the gauge theory one loop calculation gives information about the supergravity solution anywhere on the $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ moduli space. Essentially, it determines the dilaton and metric on a two-dimensional plane. Finding the solution on the full six-dimensional transverse space may then be possible, with some ingenuity. It may also be possible to extract information about the full solution from the gauge theory. Off the moduli space plane supersymmetry is broken and so the gauge theory less constrained. However, there is a simplification in the problem, which we have used in deriving eq. (3.12). That is, the splitting of $`𝒩=4`$ multiplets by the mass term is small compared to the masses from gauge symmetry breaking. This should restrict the renormalization of the perturbative effective action even off the plane where supersymmetry is unbroken.

One physical interest in studying exactly solvable $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories is that upon deformation to $`𝒩=1`$ one hopes to get a new handle in the mystery of confinement. We have noted in section 2 that the PW solution is not the $`𝒩=2`$ limit of the confining vacuum of ref. . It would be very interesting to find the exact supergravity flows corresponding to the linearized solutions of that paper. Constructing first the relevant $`𝒩=2`$ solution of the mass deformed $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory  might be a way of approaching this problem.

## 4 Turning on a constant B-field

Recently there has been a revival of interest in quantum field theories formulated on noncommutative spaces, in particular those that emerge as various limits of M-theory compactifications. Gauge theories are especially interesting: the limit of large noncommutativity is similar to the large $`N`$ limit of ordinary gauge theories. In the previous section we reconstructed the low-energy effective action on the one complex dimensional submanifold of the moduli space of the mass deformed $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory from its supergravity dual. In this section we construct the deformation of the PW flow by turning on a $`B`$-field on the world-volume of the D3 branes. We propose that this deformation is the dual gravity description of the noncommutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory with massive adjoint hypermultiplet.

After constructing the solution we consider the same observable as in the commutative case, namely the moduli space metric for a probe D3-brane. In fact this metric should be the same as in the commutative case. The classical supergravity description is dual to the large-$`N`$ limit of the gauge theory, and planar graphs in the noncommutative theory differ from those of the commutative theory only by a phase factor, which is trivial for the two-derivative terms which define the moduli space metric.

The section is organized as follows. After fixing conventions, we review the gravity flow dual to the noncommutative $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory constructed in . In the third part we present the deformation of the PW flow and study the dynamics of a D3 probe in the deformed PW geometry.

### 4.1 Type to IIB equations and conventions

We use mostly negative conventions for the signature $`(+\mathrm{})`$ and $`ϵ^{1\mathrm{}10}=+1`$. The type IIB equations consist of :

$``$ The Einstein equations:

$$R_{MN}=T_{MN}^{(1)}+T_{MN}^{(3)}+T_{MN}^{(5)}$$
(4.1)
where the energy momentum tensors of the dilaton/axion field, $`B`$, the three index antisymmetric tensor field, $`F_{(3)}`$, and the self-dual five-index tensor field, $`F_{(5)}`$, are given by

$$T_{MN}^{(1)}=P_MP_N{}_{}{}^{}+P_NP_M{}_{}{}^{},$$
(4.2)
$$T_{MN}^{(3)}=\frac{1}{8}(G^{PQ}{}_{M}{}^{}G_{PQN}^{}+G^{PQ}{}_{M}{}^{}G_{PQN}^{}\frac{1}{6}g_{MN}G^{PQR}G_{PQR}^{})$$
(4.3)
$$T_{MN}^{(5)}=\frac{1}{6}F^{PQRS}{}_{M}{}^{}F_{PQRSN}^{}$$
(4.4)
In the unitary gauge $`B`$ is a complex scalar field and

$$P_M=f^2_MB,Q_M=f^2\mathrm{Im}(B_MB^{})$$
(4.5)
with

$$f=\frac{1}{(1BB^{})^{1/2}}$$
(4.6)
while the antisymmetric tensor field $`G_{(3)}`$ is given by

$$G_{(3)}=f(F_{(3)}BF_{(3)}^{}).$$
(4.7)
$``$ The Maxwell equations:

$$(^PiQ^P)G_{MNP}=P^PG_{MNP}^{}\frac{2}{3}iF_{MNPQR}G^{PQR}$$
(4.8)
$``$ The dilaton equation:

$$(^M2iQ^M)P_M=\frac{1}{24}G^{PQR}G_{PQR}$$
(4.9)
$``$ The self-dual equation:

$$F_{(5)}=F_{(5)}$$
(4.10)
In addition, $`F_{(3)}`$ and $`F_{(5)}`$ satisfy Bianchi identities which follow from the definition of those field strengths in terms of their potentials:

$`F_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`dA_{(2)}`$ (4.11)
$`F_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`dA_{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{Im}(A_{(2)}F_{(3)}^{}).`$ (4.12)
The above supergravity potentials do not transform simply under $`T`$-dualities. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a dilaton, $`B_{(2)}`$ NSNS two-form and $`C_{(n)}`$ RR forms, as conventionally defined in D-brane physics. For the type IIB theory one would have $`C_{(n)}`$ with $`n=0,2,4,6,8`$. This range of $`n`$ is consistent with the implicit summation over RR potentials in the D-brane world-volume action. Recall however, that these are not all independent, but rather apper in dual pairs. Following , we define the “modified” field strengths

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{(0)}`$ (4.13)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{(2)}+C_{(0)}dB_{(2)}`$ (4.14)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{(4)}+C_{(2)}dB_{(2)}`$ (4.15)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{(6)}+C_{(4)}dB_{(2)}`$ (4.16)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(9)}`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{(8)}+C_{(6)}dB_{(2)}.`$ (4.17)
The duality constraint is then implemented as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{(n+1)}=()^{n(n1)/2}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(9n)}.$$
(4.18)
Comparing the Einstein equations (4.1) with those of  we identify

$`C_{(0)}+ie^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1+B}{1B}}`$ (4.19)
$`A_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{(2)}+iB_{(2)}`$ (4.21)
$`A_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(C_{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{(2)}C_{(2)}\right).`$ (4.23)
Now we wish to recall the $`T`$-duality transformations of these supergravity fields. $`T`$-duality acts on the Neveu-Schwarz fields as :

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G_{yy}}}e^{2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\varphi }}{G_{yy}}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mu y}G_{\nu y}B_{\mu y}B_{\nu y}}{G_{yy}}}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu y}={\displaystyle \frac{B_{\mu y}}{G_{yy}}}`$ (4.24)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{B_{\mu y}G_{\nu y}G_{\mu y}B_{\nu y}}{G_{yy}}}\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu y}={\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mu y}}{G_{yy}}}`$
where we defined the string metric by $`(G_{\alpha \beta })_{\mathrm{string}}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}(g_{\alpha \beta })_{\mathrm{Einstein}}`$. In Eq. (4.24), $`y`$ denotes the Killing coordinate with respect to which the $`T`$-dualization is applied, while $`\mu ,\nu `$ denote any coordinate directions other than $`y`$. If $`y`$ is identified on a circle of radius $`R`$, i.e.,$`yy+2\pi R`$, then after $`T`$-duality the radius becomes $`\stackrel{~}{R}=\alpha ^{}/R=\mathrm{}_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/R`$. The string coupling is also shifted as $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g\mathrm{}_s/R`$.

$`T`$-duality transforms the type IIB theory into the type IIA theory and vice versa, through its action on the world-sheet spinors . This aspect of $`T`$-duality is then apparent in the transformations of the RR fields. The odd-form potentials of the IIA theory are traded for even-form potentials in the IIB theory and vice versa. Using the conventions adopted above, the transformation rules for the RR potentials are :

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(n)\mu \mathrm{}\nu \alpha y}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{(n1)\mu \mathrm{}\nu \alpha }(n1){\displaystyle \frac{C_{(n1)\mu \mathrm{}\nu |y}G_{|\alpha ]y}}{G_{yy}}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(n)\mu \mathrm{}\nu \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`C_{(n+1)\mu \mathrm{}\nu \alpha \beta y}+nC_{(n1)[\mu \mathrm{}\nu \alpha }B_{\beta ]y}`$ (4.25)
$`+n(n1){\displaystyle \frac{C_{(n1)[\mu \mathrm{}\nu |y}B_{|\alpha |y}G_{|\beta ]y}}{G_{yy}}}.`$
### 4.2 Pure $`𝒩=4`$ flow

The type IIB supergravity background dual to noncommutative $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory was constructed in , . We briefly review this analysis here.

Generalization of quantum commutative field theories to theories on noncommutative spaces involves adding infinitely many higher derivative terms, which renders the theory non-local. It is thus very hard to provide a proof of the quantum consistency of such theory using the familiar renormalization tools of local field theories . String theory provides a way to obtain noncommutative gauge theories by considering the decoupling limit of D$`(p2)`$-branes in type II string theories on $`T^2`$ with a background NSNS 2-form field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ polarized along the $`T^2`$ . The fact that noncommutative supersymmetric gauge theory is obtained in the decoupling limit of string theory suggests that it should be consistent at the quantum level. In the specific example of  the noncommutative gauge theory has 16 supercharges. In general, we would expect the quantum consistency of any gauge theory (even with less supersymmetry as in the example below), provided it can be realized in the limit of string theory where one decouples gravity.

Following , consider large number of D3-branes in weakly coupled type IIB theory, oriented along the $`x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3`$ directions. Decoupling the stringy excitations by sending $`\alpha ^{}0`$ results in $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on the world-volume of the D3 branes. This theory has an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ supergravity dual, describing the near horizon geometry of the D3-branes . In the string frame the metric and the dilaton is given by666We discuss RR potentials in detail in a more general setting in the next section.

$`ds_\mathrm{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}dr^2ds_5^2`$ (4.26)
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_\mathrm{s}`$ (4.27)
where $`L^4=4\pi g_\mathrm{s}N\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Consider compactifying the $`x^2,x^3`$ directions on the square torus $`T^2`$. The system of D3-branes extending along $`x^0,x^1`$ and wrapping the $`T^2`$ is $`T`$-dual to D1-branes oriented along $`x^0,x^1`$ directions. The near horizon geometry of the string frame solution in the presence of D1-branes and their images coming from the $`T^2`$ compactification is given by the $`T`$-dual of (4.27)

$`ds_\mathrm{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}}(d(x^0)^2d(x^1)^2){\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}(d(x^2)^2+d(x^3)^2){\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}dr^2ds_5^2`$ (4.28)
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_\mathrm{s}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}.`$ (4.29)
Let us turn on a constant $`B_{(2)}`$-field polarized along $`T^2`$. According to  we end up in the decoupling limit with the noncommutative $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory. More specifically, it was argued in , that in order to get a finite noncommutative scale one should take

$$B_{(2)}\mathrm{},\alpha ^{}0$$
(4.30)
while keeping $`B_{(2)}\alpha ^{}`$ fixed. The constant $`B_{(2)}`$-field does not act as a source for other supergravity fields, as $`dB_{(2)}=0`$, so (4.29) with the background NSNS two form

$$\delta B_{(2)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\alpha ^{}}dx^2dx^3$$
(4.31)
is still a solution. $`T`$-duality on the $`T^2`$ produces finally the supergravity background dual to the noncommutative $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory ,:

$`ds_\mathrm{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}}(d(x^0)^2d(x^1)^2){\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2h}}(d(x^2)^2+d(x^3)^2){\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}dr^2ds_5^2`$ (4.32)
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_\mathrm{s}/h^{1/2}`$ (4.33)
$`\delta B_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2r^4}{\alpha ^{}L^4h}}dx^2dx^3`$ (4.34)
where

$$h=1+\frac{\mathrm{}^4r^4}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L^4}.$$
(4.35)
The solution (4.35) reduces to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ solution for small $`r`$, which corresponds to the IR regime of the gauge theory. This is consistent with the field-theoretical expectations : the commutative $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory does not have UV divergences, so its noncommutative deformation does not change the IR physics (in any case UV/IR mixing would show up only in nonplanar effects).

### 4.3 Deformed PW flow

In constructing the gravity dual of the noncommutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory we follow the strategy of , reviewed above. The starting point is the PW supergravity solution compactified on a square torus $`T^2`$ along $`x^2,x^3`$ directions. The bosonic background can be written schematically as

$`ds_\mathrm{E}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_1^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu g_2^2\left(d(x^2)^2+d(x^3)^2\right)ds_6^2`$ (4.36)
$`A_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`c_2+ib_2`$ (4.37)
$`F_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`d\chi _4+d\chi _4,\chi _4=wdx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (4.38)
where $`ds_6^2`$ is the transverse metric and $`A_{(2)}`$ has nonvanishing components only along $`S^5`$. The various functions and forms depend on the six transverse coordinates and are independent of $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3`$. In this initial solution the functions $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are equal. Note that the metric is given in Einstein frame.

$`T`$-duality transformations are most conveniently expressed in fields conventional in D-brane physics. Using (4.23) we find

$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1B)(1\overline{B})}{1B\overline{B}}},C_{(0)}c=i{\displaystyle \frac{B\overline{B}}{(1B)(1\overline{B})}}`$ (4.39)
$`B_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`b_2,C_{(2)}=c_2`$ (4.41)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`4F_{(5)}.`$ (4.43)
We also define the string frame metric according to

$`ds_\mathrm{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`G_1^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu G_2^2\left(d(x^2)^2+d(x^3)^2\right)dS_6^2`$ (4.44)
$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/4}g_1,G_2=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/4}g_2,dS_6^2=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}ds_6^2.`$ (4.45)
Since 1-, 3-, and 5-form field strengths are nonzero, there will be nonvanishing 8-, 6-, and 4-form potentials as well

$`C_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`4wdx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3+\alpha _4`$ (4.46)
$`C_{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_2dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (4.47)
$`C_{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`p_4dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (4.48)
where the 2-form $`f_2`$ and 4-forms $`\alpha _4`$ and $`p_4`$ have only transverse components, are independent of $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3`$, and satisfy

$`dc`$ $`=`$ $`(dp_4+f_2db_2)dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (4.49)
$`(dc_2+cdb_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(df_2+4wdb_2)dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (4.50)
$`(dwdx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(d\alpha _4+c_2db_2\right).`$ (4.51)
Eqs. (4.51) reflect the duality constraints (4.18).

Using the transformations rules (4.24) and (4.25), $`T`$-duality first along $`x^3`$ and then along $`x^2`$ produces the following configuration, denoted by tildes:

$`e^{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}/G_2^4`$ (4.52)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_1`$ $`=`$ $`G_1,\stackrel{~}{G}_2=1/G_2,d\stackrel{~}{S}_6^2=dS_6^2`$ (4.53)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{(2)}`$ (4.54)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.55)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`cdx^3dx^2+4wdx^0dx^1`$ (4.56)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`c_2dx^3dx^2+f_2dx^0dx^1`$ (4.57)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _4dx^3dx^2+p_4dx^0dx^1`$ (4.58)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.59)
It is straightforward to verify that given (4.51), the field strengths constructed from the R-R potentials of (4.59) satisfy the duality constraints (4.18).

As in the case of the supergravity flow corresponding to the $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory, to generate a background dual to the noncommutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory we now turn on a constant NS-NS $`2`$form potential on the $`T^2`$:

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{B}_{(2)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\alpha ^{}}dx^2dx^3$$
(4.60)
Again, since the corresponding field strength vanishes, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{B}_{(2)}`$ is a modulus.

After turning on $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{(2)}`$, $`T`$-duality along $`x^2`$ and then along $`x^3`$ directions, followed by the decompactification of $`T^2`$ produces the gravitational dual on the noncommutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory with massive adjoint hypermultiplet. We denote this final configuration with primes:

$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}/h,h=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^4G_1^4}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ (4.61)
$`G_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`G_1,G_2^{}=G_1/h^{1/2},ds_{6}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}=ds_6^2`$ (4.62)
$`B_{(2)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`b_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2G_1^4}{\alpha ^{}h}}dx^2dx^3`$ (4.63)
$`C_{(0)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c`$ (4.64)
$`C_{(2)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_2+4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2w}{\alpha ^{}}}dx^0dx^1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2G_1^4c}{\alpha ^{}h}}dx^2dx^3`$ (4.65)
$`C_{(4)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4w}{h}}dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3+\alpha _4+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\alpha ^{}}}f_2dx^0dx^1`$ (4.67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2G_1^4}{\alpha ^{}h}}c_2dx^2dx^3`$
$`C_{(6)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}f_2dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\alpha ^{}}}p_4dx^0dx^1`$ (4.69)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2G_1^4}{\alpha ^{}h}}\alpha _4dx^2dx^3`$
$`C_{(8)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}p_4dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (4.70)
where we used the fact that in the original metric $`G_1=G_2`$. We have checked that the field strengths produced by the RR potentials of (4.70) satisfy the duality constraints (4.18).

In the remaining of this section we show that a D3 probe in the background (4.70) has the same moduli space as that in the PW geometry. Furthermore, the metric on this moduli space is the same, as expected.

For convenience, we reproduce the action of a D3 probe

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _3{\displaystyle d^4ye^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det\left(𝐏\left[G+B\right]_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)}}`$ (4.72)
$`+\mu _3{\displaystyle }𝐏[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{(2)}+B_{(2)})_nC_{(\mathrm{n})}].`$
where $`a,b`$ denote directions parallel to the world volume of the probe. For a probe oriented along $`x^0,\mathrm{}x^3`$ directions, the potential energy density in the background (4.70) is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _3e^\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sqrt{det\left(𝐏[G^{}+B^{}]_{ab}\right)}\mu _3𝐏[C_{(4)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+C_{(2)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}B_{(2)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{0123}`$ (4.73)
$`=`$ $`\mu _3\left(g_\mathrm{s}^1G_1^44w\right),`$ (4.74)
where to get the second line we used the transformation rules (4.70). This is identical to the potential for the original PW solution in section 2. Thus, the moduli space of a D3 probe in the gravity background dual to the noncommutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory coincides with its commutative counterpart.

Further, the metric of this space is the same. Letting the probe coordinates $`x^i`$ have a slow dependence on $`y^a`$, the relevant part of the probe action is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _3{\displaystyle d^4ye^\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sqrt{det\left(𝒢_{ab}+g_{ij}^{}_ax^i_bx^j\right)}}`$ (4.75)
$`\stackrel{O(^2)}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _3}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4ye^\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sqrt{det\left(𝒢_{ab}\right)}𝒢^{ab}g_{ij}^{}_ax^i_bx^j}`$
where

$$𝒢_{ab}=𝐏[G^{}+B^{}]_{ab}.$$
(4.76)
Using the properties

$$e^\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\sqrt{det\left(𝒢_{ab}\right)}𝒢^{(ab)}=e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det\left(G_{ab}\right)}G^{ab},g_{ij}^{}=g_{ij}$$
(4.77)
of the solution (4.70), it follows that the metric on moduli space is the same as in the commutative case. We have explained earlier why this should be true from the gauge theory point of view. Note that in the supergravity description this result is obvious in the $`T`$-dual tilted picture, where a probe D1-brane does not couple to the transverse $`\delta B_{(2)}`$.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Justin David, Aki Hashimoto, Gary Horowitz, Sunny Itzhaki, Matt Strassler, and Nick Warner for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF grants PHY94-07194 and PHY97-22022.


format: text

text:
# Orientation of Vortices in a Superconducting Thin-Film: Quantitative Comparison of Spin-Polarized Neutron Reflectivity and Magnetization

## I Introduction

The current transport properties of type II superconductors depend critically on the mobility of vortices and, therefore, the subject of vortex pinning has attracted considerable attention . Since the addition or removal of a vortex requires an encounter with the superconductor’s surface, the interaction of vortices with surfaces and interfaces play an important role in the current transport properties . For thin-film superconductors, the surface has a substantial effect on vortex behavior. In this case, a large anisotropy between vortices parallel or perpendicular to the film plane might be anticipated. For example, recent studies of artificially layered superconducting thin films suggest that vortices parallel to the surface can order spatially due to the interaction with the surface .

In studies of thin-film superconductors it is useful to apply the magnetic field parallel to the surface. This geometry can, however, be problematic for experiments. A magnetization measurement presents special difficulties due to the large demagnetization factor perpendicular to the surface combined with a small sample tilt angle that is unavoidable. On the other hand, local probe techniques, such as the Bitter method, scanning probe techniques, and Lorentz microscopy, are constrained to measure the magnetic flux as it emerges through the surface (i.e. vortices are perpendicular to the surface). Alternatively, small angle neutron diffraction methods require large volume samples so that thin films cannot be studied. Since the selection rules for the specular reflection of spin-polarized neutrons from a thin film guarantees that only the magnetization parallel to the surface is measured, spin-polarized neutron reflectivity (SPNR) should be useful for measuring the magnetization of thin-film superconductors.

The application of SPNR to thin-film superconductors was demonstrated by G. Felcher et al.  where the London penetration length, $`\lambda _L`$, was measured for Nb. Further refinement of this technique for Nb by H. Zhang et al.  included the effect of the electron mean-free path on $`\lambda _L`$. The same technique has also been used to determine $`\lambda _L`$ for high-temperature superconducting oxides . All of these studies were performed at low field, below Hc1. Recently, Han et al.  demonstrated that SPNR is also useful at higher fields, above Hc1, where it can yield information on vortices. In particular, the average vortex density was extracted for the field parallel to a thin film of YBa2Cu3O7-x (YBCO) and a large hysteresis loop was observed.

In this paper, we compare SPNR and DC magnetization measurements on a Nb thin film for the field applied parallel to the surface. The two measurements exhibit different field dependences: hysteresis is observed for the DC magnetization whereas the SPNR is reversible. The difference is attributed to the magnetic field of vortices that is generated perpendicular to the film plane as the applied field is decreased. By quantitatively comparing the SPNR and magnetization measurements we have deduced the rotation of the magnetic field as a function of the applied field.

## II Experimental Details

A Nb/Al thin-film bilayer was grown by sputter-deposition on a 1 cm2 (1$`\overline{1}`$02) single-crystal Al2O3 substrate . A 50-hour pumpdown in a UHV-compatible stainless-steel vacuum chamber was preformed with simultaneous substrate baking at 520oC. Before deposition a cold trap was filled with liquid nitrogen, providing a base pressure of less than 1x10-8 Torr. Sputter deposition was performed under a 7x10-3 Torr atmosphere of Ar. With the substrate temperature held at 470oC, a 1370 Å -thick layer of Nb was deposited at a rate of 8 Å/sec. Without breaking vacuum, the substrate temperature was then reduced to 120oC and a 760 Å -thick layer of Al was deposited in-situ on the Nb surface. The superconducting transition temperature was determined to be Tc = 9.25 $`\pm `$ 0.25 K from the magnetization measured at 50 Oe, which is consistent with Tc = 9.11 K (transition width = 0.06 K) found by 4-probe resistivity measured on an adjacently grown sample. The residual resistivity ratio was measured to be $`\rho _{300\mathrm{K}}/\rho _{10\mathrm{K}}=25.4`$.

The SPNR measurements were performed using the GANS reflectometer  at the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) with a neutron wavelength of 2.35 Å. A supermirror was employed to select the spin state of the neutron beam to be perpendicular to the scattering plane and the spin state could be switched using a flipper coil located downstream from the mirror. A polarization analyzer was not used. The beam width at the sample position, $``$0.23 mm, and the angular divergence of the beam, 0.018o, were measured in the scattering plane. During the data analysis, the instrumental resolution as well as the incident beam polarization efficiency, 93%, were taken into account. The specular reflectivity was consecutively measured for spin-up and spin-down neutrons near the critical angle for total external reflection. The sample was mounted in a cryostat having a superconducting split-coil magnet where the field was applied perpendicular to the scattering plane and parallel to the sample surface. The sample was always cooled to 2 $`\pm `$ 0.2 K in zero magnetic field before a field was applied.

A Quantum Design superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer was used for the magnetization measurements which were performed on the same sample used for the neutron experiments. This sample was cut to 0.36 $`\times `$ 0.26 cm2 and placed in the magnetometer cryostat such that the sample surface was near-parallel to the applied field. The tilt angle between the sample surface and the applied field was set when it was mounted in the magnetometer. The angular reproducibility was $`\pm `$ 0.25o and the zero angle was determined from a fit to the angular dependence of the DC susceptibility measured at low field. The reported magnetization curves were obtained for the sample cooled in zero magnetic field.

## III Results

The number of specularly reflected spin-up and spin-down neutrons measured as a function of the scattering angle, 2$`\theta `$, for the sample held at 2 K and 1000 Oe is shown in Fig. 1 (a). The interference fringes arise from the finite thickness of the film. A least squares fit using a reflectivity model  yields the Nb film thickness (1370 $`\pm `$ 10 Å) as well as the Al/Nb (30 $`\pm `$ 10 Å) and Nb/Al2O3 (2 $`\pm `$ 1 Å) interface roughnesses. Since the neutron scattering cross section of Al is small relative to Nb and the neutron absorption in Al is negligible, the Al layer had little effect on the measurement. X-ray specular reflectivity, measured on the same sample, gave an Al thickness of 760 $`\pm `$ 30 Å, a roughness of 70 $`\pm `$ 16 Å at the air/Al interface, and the other quantities were consistent with the neutron measurement. The magnetic contribution to the neutron reflectivity can be observed by plotting the difference between the spin-up and the spin-down reflectivities, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, divided by the average of the spin-up and down reflectivity, $`\overline{R}`$, as shown in Fig. 1 (b).

The London penetration length, $`\lambda _L`$, for this sample was obtained from a SPNR measurement at small applied field (600 Oe), as shown in Fig. 2. Since the contribution of vortices to the magnetization is negligible at this field, the data were fit  assuming no vortices. This yields $`\lambda _L`$ = 490 $`\pm `$ 110 Å, in agreement with previous work .

In order to observe the effect of vortices, the reflectivity was measured as a function of applied field at a single position of 2$`\theta `$ = 0.38o, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$/$`\overline{R}`$ exhibits the first maximum. Figure 3 shows the results for ascending and descending fields. With ascending field (open circles), it is seen that $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/\overline{R}`$ increases steadily until $``$1500 Oe where it begins to decrease as large numbers of vortices enter the sample. It can also be seen that the data for descending field follow the ascending field data and there is no remanence at low field. This reversible behavior is quite different from the previous SPNR study of a YBCO film where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/\overline{R}`$ exhibited a large hysteresis loop .

The data were analyzed to extract the vortex density using a model presented previously . Although this requires the spatial distribution of the vortices as input information, the analysis of the present experiments does not depend on the choice of distribution, as shown in Fig. 4 for data taken at 2000 Oe after the sample had been subjected to a field of 3000 Oe. The three fitted curves correspond to different spatial distributions: a uniform distribution (solid curve) with a vortex density of 40 $`\mu m^2`$, vortices arranged in a single row in the middle of the film (dashed curve) with a density of 28 $`\mu m^2`$, and vortices arranged in a double row (dotted curve) with a density of 33 $`\mu m^2`$. The given densities were chosen to yield a best fit for each spatial distribution. There is only a small difference between the curves because the interference between the reflections from the front and back interfaces of the superconducting film dominates over the contribution from the vortex spatial distribution. This effect depends on the relative nuclear scattering lengths of the layers and was not observed previously for YBCO/SrTiO3.

Using the magnetic screening length $`\lambda _L`$ = 490 Å and a uniform distribution of vortices in the model of ref. , the average vortex density parallel to the surface, n, was determined from the data of Fig. 3. The result, shown in Fig. 5, gives Hc1 $``$1000 Oe and the vortex density is found to increase steadily at higher field. Also, n exhibits reversible behavior. The full angle-dependent curves for $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/\overline{R}`$ are calculated and compared with the data in Figs. 1 (b), 2, and 4 – the good agreement demonstrates that it is sufficient to measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/\overline{R}`$ at a single angle in order to obtain n.

We now discuss magnetization measurements that provide additional information on the vortex behavior. The SQUID magnetization measured as a function of applied field for different tilt angles is shown in Figure 6. For each angle, the sample was first zero-field cooled to 2 K. The magnetization was subsequently measured from zero to the maximum field and then to zero field. Above Hc1 the magnetization curves do not show the maxima that have been observed in some artificially layered superconductors , suggesting there are no transitions of the vortex distribution in the film. These data, as well as other measurements performed at higher field (not shown), permit an estimate of the upper critical field H$`{}_{c2}{}^{}`$5300 $`\pm `$ 300 Oe. From this, the coherence length can be calculated: $`\xi `$ = $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_o/(2\pi H_{c2})}`$ = 250 $`\pm `$ 8 Å. This is somewhat smaller than the 390 Å obtained for Nb by Pronin et al. who also reported the London penetration depth to be 350 Å. Since the samples were grown in the same sputtering system using the same procedure, the difference might arise from the fact that the two techniques determine the coherence length in somewhat different ways. Using the magnetic screening length (490 Å) and coherence length (250 Å), we estimate the lower critical field in the thin film limit , Hc1 = $`\mathrm{\Phi }_oK_0(\xi /\lambda _L)/(4\pi \lambda _L^2)\times (1+2e^{t/2\lambda _L})`$, to be $``$1000 Oe, which agrees well with both the SPNR (Fig. 5) and the magnetization measurements (from the smallest tilt angle of -0.5o in Fig. 6).

The most striking features of the SQUID data are the large hysteresis, in sharp contrast to the SPNR measurement, as well as the strong dependence on tilt angle. Both features are interrelated and we first discuss the effect of angle.

If a magnetic field, H, is applied perpendicular to the surface of a superconductor then the magnetization perpendicular to the surface M is strongly affected by the geometry according to :

$$4\pi M_{}=\frac{H_{}n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o}{(1N)},$$
(1)
where N is the demagnetization factor, n is the component of vortex density oriented perpendicular to the surface, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$ is the flux quantum, hc/2e = 20.679 G $`\mu `$m2. Note that n$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{o}^{}`$ is just the component of magnetic field perpendicular to the film plane. For a field applied parallel to the surface of a superconductor, assuming a uniform distribution of vortices, the magnetization parallel to the surface M is obtained by direct integration of the equations in ref. :

$`4\pi M_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle _{t/2}^{t/2}}[H_{}\{{\displaystyle \frac{cosh(z/\lambda _L)}{cosh(t/2\lambda _L)}}1\}`$

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o}{2\lambda _L}}{\displaystyle _{t/2}^{t/2}}\{e^{|zz^{}|/\lambda _L}e^{(zt/2)/\lambda _L}{\displaystyle \frac{sinh([z^{}+t/2]/\lambda _L)}{sinh(t/\lambda _L)}}+e^{(z+t/2)/\lambda _L}{\displaystyle \frac{sinh([z^{}t/2]/\lambda _L)}{sinh(t/\lambda _L)}}\}dz^{}]dz`$

$$=(H_{}n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o)\left\{1\frac{2\lambda _L}{t}tanh(\frac{t}{2\lambda _L})\right\},$$
(2)
where n is the component of vortex density parallel to the surface. The magnetic field generated parallel to the surface is $`n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ where,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}=\mathrm{\Phi }_o\left\{1\frac{2\lambda _L}{t}tanh(\frac{t}{2\lambda _L})\right\},$$
(3)
is the average effective flux quantum of a vortex that is screened by image fields due to the surfaces. For this sample, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}=0.37\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$. Fig. 7 (a) shows the magnetization obtained from the SPNR results of Fig. 5 using Eq. 2.

In the SQUID magnetometer the magnetization is measured along the direction of the applied field so when the sample surface is slightly tilted from the applied field by an angle $`\theta `$, a projection of the components of magnetization parallel and perpendicular to the surface will be measured:

$$M_{}cos\theta +M_{}sin\theta .$$
(4)
This is demonstrated quantitatively for our data in the low-field Meissner regime, below Hc1. In this regime, the magnetization of a superconducting film at an angle with the applied field will be:

$$4\pi M_o=Hcos^2\theta \left\{1\frac{2\lambda _L}{t}tanh(\frac{t}{2\lambda _L})\right\}\frac{Hsin^2\theta }{1N}.$$
(5)
The inset to Fig. 6 shows the slope of the low-field magnetic moment data of Fig. 6 as a function of tilt angle, where the solid curve is the result of a least-squares fit to Eq. 5 with two free parameters, N and a scale factor. The latter permits an accurate determination of the magnetization, which also contains small instrumental effects . As can be seen, the curve represents the data quite well and we obtain N = 0.998 $`\pm `$ 0.0015, which is slightly larger than the value 0.994 estimated for our sample geometry .

More generally, we can include the effect of vortices on the magnetization measured with the SQUID by substituting Eqs. 1 and 2 into Eq. 4, which gives

$$4\pi M=4\pi M_o+n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}cos\theta +\frac{n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_osin\theta }{1N},$$
(6)
where Mo is the Meissner term in the absence of vortices, given by Eq. 5.

The conclusion is that the magnetometer is highly sensitive to the component of magnetization perpendicular to the film. Although this component diminishes with decreasing $`\theta `$, the demagnetization factor causes the denominator of Eq. 1 to be small. Thus, the SQUID measurements can, even for very small angles of tilt, be dominated by the magnetization perpendicular to the film. This effect is also much larger for the vortex contribution than in the Meissner regime, since, the Meissner effect diminishes as $`sin^2\theta `$ but the vortex contribution diminishes more slowly, as $`sin\theta `$. Therefore, we conclude that the irreversibility observed in the SQUID measurement is due to M, since, the SPNR shows M to be reversible.

In order to quantitatively compare the SPNR and SQUID experiments, the SQUID magnetization was measured by following the same field history as the SPNR measurement, as shown by the small data points in Fig. 7 (b). This was done for the sample tilt angle nominally set to zero. The open circles in Fig. 7 (b) are the ascending field SPNR data replotted from Fig. 7 (a). As can be seen, the SPNR and SQUID measurements quantitatively give the same magnetization for the virgin ascending field, indicating that the magnetization and vortices are parallel to the film plane. Moreover, the quantitative agreement between the two data sets also indicates that sample tilt effects as well as any contribution from vortices perpendicular to the surface are insignificant for the virgin ascending field.

The SQUID and SPNR measurements differ only subsequent to the virgin magnetization, which suggests that a magnetic field due to vortices is generated out of the film plane as the applied field is reduced. Thus, for descending field, the data were analyzed using two components of magnetic field, one parallel ($`n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$) and one perpendicular ($`n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$) to the film plane. The parallel magnetic field is obtained directly from the SPNR measurement and it is desireable to obtain the perpendicular field from the SQUID data. However, as can be seen from Eq. 6, the perpendicular field contribution to the SQUID magnetization also depends on the sample tilt angle, which is not precisely known, so that an additional piece of information is required. It is found that good quantitative agreement between the SQUID and SPNR data can be obtained by assuming that the sum of the parallel and perpendicular magnetic fields is equal to the maximum trapped field: $`n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}=n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}+n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$, where $`n_{max}`$ is the maximum vortex density parallel to the film plane, which occurs at the maximum applied field. The large solid data points in Fig. 7 (b) show the SQUID magnetization predicted from the SPNR data using this relationship and a tilt angle of 0.12o. Note that this angle is essentially zero to within the experimental error of setting the angle; yet, its finite size qualitatively impacts the shape of the magnetization curve by determining the size of the hysteresis loop. The solid square SPNR data point was measured at 600 Oe after cycling the field to -3000 Oe. In that case, the maximum density of vortices was assumed to be the same as was measured by SPNR at 3000 Oe and this also gives good agreement with the SQUID data. An alternative model where the total vectorial magnetic field is conserved, corresponding to $`(n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff})^2=(n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff})^2+(n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o)^2`$, gave a substantially poorer comparison between the SPNR and SQUID data, although the qualitative trend was similar.

The perpendicular magnetic field can also be obtained independent of such models if a specific tilt-angle is assumed. In this case, we have chosen two angles, 0.5o and 0.12o. The former is twice the maximum that could have been set experimentally and the latter is the value obtained from the above model (which we take as the lower limit because a smaller angle would unphysically give $`n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_o>n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$). The result of this analysis is given in Figure 8 (a) which shows the individual magnetic field components. Fig. 8 (b) shows the resulting angle between the magnetic field and the film plane, $`\omega `$ = tan$`{}_{}{}^{1}(n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_o/n_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff})`$.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

The good quantitative agreement between the SQUID and SPNR data using the above analysis supports the basic conclusion that the initial magnetic field of the vortices is parallel to the film plane and it subsequently rotates perpendicular to the film plane as the applied field is removed. Although the analysis presented in Fig. 7 (b) assumes that the trapped magnetic field is strictly conserved, one cannot draw this conclusion because of the uncertainty in the sample tilt-angle. Fig. 8 demonstrates the range of perpendicular magnetic fields that can be obtained, which depend upon the assumed sample tilt. Assuming the maximum tilt leads to a lower limit on the maximum trapped perpendicular magnetic field: $`n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$ = 0.25 $`n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$. In this limiting scenario, 75% of the magnetic field leaves the sample when the applied field is reduced to zero. In any case, it is safe to conclude that a significant fraction of the magnetic field is trapped at remanance and that it is oriented perpendicular to the film plane.

Based on previous studies, these results are different from what one might expect. For example, our SPNR investigation  of a YBCO thin-film showed a large hysteresis loop and remanence, indicating a strong preference for the vortices to remain parallel to the film plane. From the smaller coherence length of YBCO one expects significantly stronger vortex pinning in YBCO than Nb. However, the rotation of the trapped magnetic field in Nb rather than the removal of vortices is not expected. Other studies of anisotropic superconductors  have found that the vortex density perpendicular to the surface is essentially proportional to the projection of the applied field. However, those studies were performed on thick crystals and the vortices were examined upon field-cooling. Given the isotropy of Nb, we expect that the observed magnetic field rotation is due to the thin-film nature of the sample (thickness/$`\lambda _L`$2.8).

We can speculate on two surface-related mechanisms that give a lower equilibrium energy for vortices oriented perpendicular to the film plane. First, the vortex density in the perpendicular direction is no more than 37$`\%`$ of the maximum parallel vortex density (because $`n_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_on_{max}\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$) and this leads to a lower vortex-vortex repulsion for vortices reoriented perpendicular to the film plane. A second mechanism relates to the weaker vortex binding energy (one-body interaction) for the parallel geometry where there are two energy contributions arising from the surface : a repulsive term due to the vortex interaction with the surface-screening field and an attractive term due to the interaction with the image vortex. The repulsive term is proportional to H and will dominate at higher field, thereby leading to smaller binding energy for vortices parallel to the surface. Whether these mechanisms are relevant will depend on kinetics as well as crystalline anisotropy. It could be that the latter plays a role in the YBCO thin-film .

Also of interest are the pinning, rotation, and nucleation behavior of vortices in this geometry. One might expect, to a first approximation, that the mechanism for vortex rotation is similar to vortex removal: the vortex line must move towards a surface. However, the vortices appear to rotate rather than exit the sample, suggesting that opposite ends of a vortex line penetrates the opposite planar surfaces of the film. Once rotated, the vortex pinning is much stronger in the perpendicular geometry . Vortex rotation alone, however, does not explain these results. Given the magnitude of the perpendicular magnetic field found in Fig. 8, many additional vortices must be generated when the field is reduced because the planar area of the film is nearly $`10^5`$ times larger than the area of the film’s edge. It might be that, with decreasing applied field, the segment of a vortex that is parallel to the surface decreases in length (effectively giving a rotation, since, the ”threading” segment perpendicular to the surface is constant in length) while, simultaneously, new vortices are nucleated in order to increase the number of vortex threads that penetrate the planar surface. Clearly, further theoretical and experimental work is necessary in order to gain a better understanding of the vortex behavior in this geometry.

Support is gratefully acknowledged (PFM, SWH, JF) from the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium (MISCON) under DoE grant DE-FG02-90ER45427, the NSF DMR 96-23827, and (LHG, IVR) from DoE Grant DE FG02 96 ER45439. The SPNR experiments were performed at the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR).