text:
# Non-Existence of Black Holes in Certain Λ<0 Spacetimes.

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of new classes of asymptotically Anti-de Sitter (AdS) black holes in the past decade  has brought to light the fact that spacetimes with negative cosmological constant can admit black hole event horizons of nonspherical spatial topology. This is possible because these black holes violate neither of the two known obstructions to nontrivial horizon topology. The first of these is the theorem of Hawking , which assumes an energy condition incompatible with a negative cosmological constant and so does not apply. The second is topological censorship , which applies regardless of the cosmological constant but is not in itself a constraint on horizon topology. It merely enforces a topological relation between the horizon and the Penrose conformal boundary scri (when there is one), which consequently is also spatially nonspherical for black holes with nonspherical horizons. 444By “nonspherical scri” we mean “spatially nonspherical”; i.e., slices of scri orthogonal to its timelike conformal Killing field are not topological spheres.

Despite differing from anti-de Sitter spacetime in the global structure of scri, these spacetimes still satisfy fall-off conditions that are essentially those given by Henneaux and Teitelboim  (see also ) for asymptotically anti-de Sitter spacetimes, and so serve as examples of what are called asymptotically locally AdS (AL-AdS) spacetimes. Spacelike slices of scri are homogeneous manifolds of either positive, zero, or negative Ricci curvature. Interestingly, when these have negative Ricci curvature, the associated black holes can have negative mass .

In this paper, we concern ourselves with related black hole existence issues. These are motivated by a curious property of asymptotically locally AdS spacetimes with nonspherical scri, namely that the lowest energy solutions or ground states need not be locally AdS (i.e., constant curvature). An example of a nonsingular, nonconstant curvature spacetime with Ricci flat conformal boundary which has negative mass (relative to a zero of mass corresponding to constant curvature) is the AdS soliton . Indeed, assuming a generalisation of the AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture  which states that string theory on the $`5`$ dimensional AdS soliton is equivalent to a certain non-supersymmetric gauge theory on scri, Horowitz and Myers conjectured that, in $`5`$ spacetime dimensions, the AdS soliton is the ground state in its asymptotic class . In  we proved (in all spacetime dimensions $`4`$) that the AdS soliton is the unique negative mass globally static vacuum solution satisfying certain asymptotic and topological conditions. In other words, there is a “mass gap” in this class of static solutions. Dropping the requirement of global staticity allows us to include black hole regions in the spacetime (we retain the assumption of an irrotational timelike Killing field in the domain of outer communications: such spacetimes are called static but not globally static). However, as we will show, there exist no regular, static, negative mass black holes with Ricci flat scri, so that our uniqueness result holds more generally. This result is summarised in:

Proposition 1.1 Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ be an $`n+1`$ dimensional ($`n3`$) static AL-AdS spacetime which satisfies the null energy condition $`R_{ab}k^ak^b0`$ $``$ null $`k^a`$, has Ricci flat scri, and has Ashtekar-Magnon mass aspect pointwise negative on scri. If $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is infinite and if the asymptotic condition (S) (Definition 2.1) is satisfied, then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes.

Here (and in (1.2) and (1.3)), $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ refers to a spacetime with static domain of outer communications of the form $`(\times \mathrm{\Sigma },N^2dt^2h)`$. By “regular black hole”, we mean one with a smooth, nondegenerate event horizon of any topology, cf., Section 2 for further details.

The uniqueness theorem of  can be interpreted as evidence for the Horowitz-Myers conjecture for $`n=4`$. The above Proposition strengthens this evidence, by extending the uniqueness to the class of non-nakedly-singular spacetimes with an irrotational Killing field that is timelike near infinity (together with certain asymptotic conditions). This class of spacetimes is important, since if there is a ground state, it should be static (though not necessarily globally static), i.e. should have zero kinetic energy.

Anderson, Chruściel, and Delay  have recently established the uniqueness of the AdS soliton and the Lemos toroidal black holes  in the $`n=3`$ (i.e., spacetime dimension $`4`$) case with fewer asymptotic restrictions. It would be interesting from the point of view of physics to extend their degree of generality and their methods to $`n=4`$.

When the conformal boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at infinity, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, has generic topology and geometry, the existence of solutions (let alone a well defined ground state) is largely an open question (cf., however, ). If a regular static solution were to exist for a given $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, one might expect it to also admit black holes. The following proposition establishes further restrictions on the models that can occur as static AL-AdS spacetimes.

Proposition 1.2. Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ be an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional ($`n3`$ ) static AL-AdS spacetimes satisfying the null energy condition. Suppose (a) the conformal boundary at infinity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ has positive scalar curvature (with respect to the Fermat metric, see Section 2), (b) the fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is infinite, $`|\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })|=\mathrm{}`$,

and (c) the asymptotic condition (S) (Definition 2.1) is satisfied. Then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes.

What sort of conformal boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is compatible with the assumptions (a–c)? In $`4+1`$ dimensions the prototypical example is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}=S^1\times S^2`$, with standard metric. In general, topological censorship  requires that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ have infinite fundamental group whenever $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does. Moreover, as follows from the boundary analysis in Section 3 (see also Appendix A), assumptions (a) and (c) imply that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ must have nonnegative Ricci curvature. (Further connections between the convexity condition (S) and the curvature of the conformal boundary are considered in Section 3). Thus Proposition 1.2 rules out, within a certain class of static AL-ADS spacetimes, conformal boundaries which, for example, are products of flat spaces and spaces of positive Ricci curvature.

One may ask whether one can use the above results to rule out certain horizon topologies (once again, our term “black hole” includes nonspherical horizon topologies). This is possible if one restricts to the class of “product” black hole spacetimes, namely ones whose domain of outer communications has the simple product topology $`\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}\times ^+`$. For such spacetimes, scri and the horizon are diffeomorphic. Proposition 1.1 then implies that, under certain asymptotic conditions, there are no (pointwise) negative mass, regular, static, product black hole spacetimes with horizon topology $`^{n1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a discrete co-compact isometry group of $`^{n1}`$. In particular, it rules out static (pointwise) negative mass toroidal horizons in product black hole spacetimes (consistent with  in the $`n=3`$ case, wherein it is shown that the positive mass toroidal black holes of Lemos  are unique amongst vacuum solutions). Similarly, as follows from the discussion above, Proposition 1.2 rules out, for example, a certain family of product spacetimes with horizon topology $`U\times V`$ where $`U=S^{k_1}\times \mathrm{}S^{k_m}`$ for $`k_i2,m1`$ and $`V=S^1\times \mathrm{}S^1`$. In $`n+1=5`$ it thus rules out static product black hole spacetimes with $`S^2\times S^1`$ horizons.

Our proof makes crucial use of the construction of a complete achronal null geodesic, or null line in  and the subsequent use of an extension of the null splitting theorem (NST) of Galloway  (Theorem 3.1). The NST was used to show that the existence of a null line implies a certain rigidity of the spacetime—indeed, under certain asymptotic restrictions the only vacuum spacetimes with zero and positive cosmological constants admitting null lines are Minkowski and de Sitter spacetimes, respectively . On the other hand, as we will show, null lines always exist in the universal cover of a static AL-AdS spacetime whenever this cover contains non-compact spatial directions, given our asymptotic conditions. The presence of regular black holes regions in the spacetime, however, implies the existence of strictly convex surfaces (in the ambient Fermat metric) in the neighbourhood of the black hole, which can be shown, using the NST, to be incompatible with the presence of a null line. Thus, as we will prove, the existence of a null line in the interior of a static spacetime is incompatible with the existence of regular black holes.

In section 2, we begin by specifying the class of spacetimes which we will consider. Apart from the requirement that the spacetime be AL-AdS and static (in the domain of outer communications), we further require it to satisfy a certain asymptotic convexity condition, which we denote as Condition (C). Condition (C) can be related to the mass when the boundary is Ricci flat, and shown to be equivalent to a weaker condition (S) when the boundary has positive Ricci curvature. This involves a boundary analysis along the lines of  which we include in the Appendix. Next, we observe that there exists a neighbourhood of any regular horizon, in which all constant lapse surfaces outside the horizon are strictly convex with respect to the Fermat metric. In section 3 we first show that the null generators of the boundary of the past (respectively future) of the null line are future (respectively past) complete. This fact then allows us to use the null splitting theorem to prove our black hole non-existence theorem:

Theorem 1.3. Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ be an $`n+1`$ dimensional ($`n3`$) static AL-AdS spacetime satisfying the null energy condition. If $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is infinite and if the asymptotic condition (C) (Definition 2.1) is satisfied, then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes.

In Section 4, we show that under the stated assumptions, Propositions 1.1 and 1.2 follow as corollaries of Theorem 1.3.

## 2 Preliminaries

We will consider $`(n+1)`$-dimensional, $`n2`$, AL-AdS spacetimes $`M`$, with an event horizon $``$ (possibly empty). Let $`(𝒟,g)`$ be a static connected component of the domain of outer communications, so there is an irrotational timelike Killing vector field on $`(𝒟,g)`$, which extends smoothly to $`𝒟=\overline{𝒟}`$, where it becomes null. Then we have

$$𝒟=\times \mathrm{\Sigma },g=N^2dt^2h,N|_𝒟=0,$$
(2.1)
where $`h`$ is the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`N`$ is the lapse, such that the triple $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ is conformally compactifiable. For technical reasons, we will assume that the static black hole horizon is regular (nondegenerate), i.e., $`dN|_{}0`$ pointwise. Thus, there exists a smooth compact manifold with boundary, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_H\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, such that

1. $`N`$ and $`h`$ extend smoothly to the closure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M`$, with $`N|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_H}=0`$, $`dN|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_H}0`$,
2. $`N^1`$ extends to a smooth function $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\backslash \mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{N}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{N}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}0`$ pointwise, and
3. $`N^2h`$ extends to a smooth Riemannian metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, the Fermat metric on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

We will refer to the triple $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ as the physical spacetime, and $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\stackrel{~}{h},\stackrel{~}{N})`$ as the Fermat conformal gauge. Note in this gauge, when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H\mathrm{}`$, the surface $`N=0`$ gets mapped to infinity. We allow $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ to have multiple components.

We also require $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ to satisfy the static field equations,

$`R_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`N^1_a_bN+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n1}}h_{ab}+𝒯_{cd}h_a^ch_b^d,`$ (2.2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n1}}N+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}𝒯_{00},`$ (2.3)
where $`_a`$ and $`R_{ab}`$ are respectively the covariant derivative and Ricci tensor on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h)`$, the Laplacian is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=h^{ab}_a_b`$, the cosmological constant is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, and

$$𝒯_{ab}=T_{ab}\frac{1}{n1}g_{ab}g^{cd}T_{cd},$$
(2.4)
with $`T_{ab}`$ the matter stress-energy tensor, such that $`N^{n1}T_{ab}`$ admits a smooth limit to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

It will be useful for the purposes of Section 3 and the appendix to write the field equations in terms of the Fermat metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ and associated $`\stackrel{~}{}_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ab}`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{\stackrel{~}{N}}}\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{N}+8\pi 𝒯_{cd}\stackrel{~}{h}_a^c\stackrel{~}{h}_b^d,`$ (2.5)
$`\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n1}}+n\stackrel{~}{W}\right)8\pi \stackrel{~}{N}^2𝒯_{00},`$ (2.6)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{W}:=\stackrel{~}{h}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{N}=\frac{1}{N^2}h^{ab}_aN_bN.$$
(2.7)
For our theorem we will need to examine the behaviour of geodesics in the neighbourhood of the compact boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_H\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$. Our analysis will make use of the existence of a “collar neighbourhood” of the boundary $`U=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times [0,ϵ)`$ whose interior is foliated by constant lapse surfaces. Such a collaring exists for any function $`f`$ satisfying (i) $`f|_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=const`$ and (ii) $`df|_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}0`$. Putting $`f=N`$ for the regular black hole boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$, and $`f=\stackrel{~}{N}`$ for the boundary at infinity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and using conditions (a), (b) and (c) above, we may therefore construct collar neighbourhoods of both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ whose interiors are foliated by constant lapse surfaces $`𝒱_c=\{N=c\}`$.

We will require a particular convexity assumption for the constant lapse surfaces in a neighbourhood of scri in the Fermat conformal gauge (see also ). Let us consider a collar neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ which is foliated by the level surfaces $`𝒱_c=\{N=c\}`$ of the lapse $`N`$. The second fundamental form of the $`𝒱_c`$ in the Fermat conformal gauge, with respect to the unit normal vector $`\stackrel{~}{n}^a`$ pointing towards scri, is given by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}=(\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{n}_b)_{}`$ where $``$ denotes the projection to the $`𝒱_c`$. The eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}`$ are called the principal curvatures of the $`𝒱_c`$.

Definition 2.1. We say that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ *satisfies condition (S)* provided that the second fundamental form $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}`$ of each level surface $`N=c`$ is semi-definite (equivalently, provided that the principal curvatures of each level surface $`N=c`$ are either all non-negative or all non-positive) whenever $`c`$ is sufficiently large (i.e., near scri). If $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}`$ is positive semi-definite (equivalently, if the principal curvatures are all non-negative) for each of the level surfaces in this neighbourhood of scri, we say that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ *satisfies condition (C)*, and the level surfaces of $`N`$ in this neighbourhood are said to be weakly convex.

As in , Condition (C) will be used to control the behaviour of certain geodesics near scri as follows. Suppose Condition (C) holds, so that the level surfaces $`𝒱_c:=\{N=c\}`$ are weakly convex, in the sense of the definition, for all $`c`$ sufficiently large. Let $`𝒱_0=\{N=c_0\}`$ be such a level surface; $`𝒱_0`$ has a well-defined “inside” ($`N<c_0`$) and “outside” ($`N>c_0`$). Then, as follows from the maximum principle, if $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic segment with endpoints inside $`𝒱_0`$, all of $`\gamma `$ must be contained inside $`𝒱_0`$. Thus, Condition (C) provides “barrier surfaces” for the construction of certain minimizing geodesics, as will be seen in the next subsection. Condition (S) on the other hand allows the level surfaces $`N=c`$ near scri to be either weakly convex ($`H_{ab}`$ positive semi-definite) or weakly concave ($`H_{ab}`$ negative semi-definite). All the relevant examples known to us obey condition (S), even when Condition (C) fails. As we will see in Section 4, Condition (S) along with certain extra boundary conditions may be used to obtain Condition (C).

We also need to understand the behaviour of geodesics near the black hole boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$. In the following we will call a surface $`𝒦\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ strictly convex with respect to a choice of normal if the second fundamental form $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}`$ in the Fermat conformal gauge is positive definite (equivalently, its principal curvatures are strictly positive) with respect to this normal.

Lemma 2.2. Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ be a static spacetime with regular black hole boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H\mathrm{}`$. Then for each $`c>0`$ sufficiently small, the constant lapse surface $`𝒱_c=\{N=c\}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ and strictly convex in $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\stackrel{~}{h})`$ with respect to the normal pointing towards $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$. Thus, any Fermat geodesic with endpoints in the region $`N>c`$ cannot intersect $`𝒱_c`$.

Proof. Let us consider the collar neighbourhood $`𝒰[0,c_0)\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ foliated by the constant lapse surfaces $`𝒱_c=\{N=c\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$, $`0<c<c_0`$. The second fundamental forms of each $`𝒱_c`$ in the physical metric and in the Fermat metric are related by

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}(c)=c^1H_{ab}(c)c^2h_{ab}n^d_dN,$$
(2.8)
where $`n^d`$ is the unit normal field to the $`𝒱_c`$ in the physical metric, chosen to be pointing towards surfaces of decreasing lapse, i.e., towards $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$.

Let $`X^a`$ be a unit vector field in the physical metric, defined in a neighbourhood $`𝒪𝒰`$ of any point $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$, such that $`X^a`$ is tangent to each $`𝒱_c`$ meeting $`𝒪`$. On $`𝒪\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$, set $`\stackrel{~}{X}^a=NX^a`$; $`\stackrel{~}{X}^a`$ is a unit vector field in the Fermat metric also tangent to each $`𝒱_c`$. Contracting equation (2.8) with $`\stackrel{~}{X}^a`$, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}(c)\stackrel{~}{X}^a\stackrel{~}{X}^b=cH_{ab}(c)X^aX^bn^d_dN.`$ (2.9)
Thus, in the limit as $`c0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}(c)\stackrel{~}{X}^a\stackrel{~}{X}^bdN(n)|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_H}>0`$. Using the compactness of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}(c)`$ is positive definite for all $`c`$ sufficiently small. The statement regarding Fermat geodesics follows from the discussion after Definition 2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. In the above proof, the condition of regularity, $`n^d_dN(0)0`$, is crucial in obtaining a neighbourhood of the horizon in which $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}(c)`$ is strictly positive definite. For degenerate horizons, $`n^d_dN(0)=0`$, and hence our lemma does not extend in a trivial manner to this case. However, for familiar examples such as the extremal Reissner Nordstrom and the extremal charged AdS black holes, one can explicitly construct a strictly convex surface $`𝒦`$ in the neighbourhood of the horizon.

## 3 Black hole non-existence theorem.

We begin by reminding the reader of the definition of a line. In a Riemannian manifold, a *line* is an inextendible geodesic, each segment of which has minimal length, while in a spacetime, a *timelike line* is an inextendible timelike geodesic, each segment of which has maximal length. Motivated by these more standard cases, a null line in spacetime is defined to be an inextendible null geodesic which is globally achronal, i.e., for which no two points can be joined by a timelike curve. (Hence, each segment of a null line is maximal with respect to the Lorentzian arc length functional.) In static spacetimes, spacelike Fermat geodesics in $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\stackrel{~}{h})`$ can be lifted, via the timelike Killing field, to null geodesics in the physical spacetime $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ under suitable reparameterisations (see ). Indeed, there is essentially a one-to-one correspondence between affinely parameterised Fermat geodesics in $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\stackrel{~}{h})`$ and affinely parameterised, future directed null geodesics in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$. Moreover, a Fermat line in $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\stackrel{~}{h})`$ lifts to a unique future directed null line in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ through a fixed basepoint .

Since our proof will make crucial use of a slight generalisation of the NST, we state it here:

Theorem 3.1 (Null Splitting Theorem, Galloway ). If a null geodesically complete spacetime obeys $`R_{ab}X^aX^b0`$ for all null vectors $`X^a`$ and also contains a null line $`\eta `$, then $`\eta `$ lies in a smooth, edgeless, totally geodesic null hypersurface.

For our purposes, null geodesic completeness is too strong a requirement, since we would like to allow for the presence of black holes in the spacetime. As was pointed out in , the NST is still valid if null geodesic completeness is dropped and instead one imposes the less stringent requirement that the null generators of $`S^+=J^+(\eta )`$ and $`S^{}=J^{}(\eta )`$ be past and future complete, respectively. Indeed, it is only in order to show this latter property of the null generators of $`S^\pm `$ that null geodesic completeness was used in the proof. Thus, in order to use the NST in the absence of null geodesic completeness, one requires an alternative method to prove this. For our purposes it suffices to show:

Lemma 3.2. Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ be a static spacetime, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ be an open subset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose that

1. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$, the closure of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is a complete Riemannian manifold-with-boundary in the Fermat metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}=N^2h`$,
2. the boundary $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$ of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$ is weakly convex (with respect to the outward normal) in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{~}{h})`$, and
3. $`N`$ has a positive lower and upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$.

If $`\eta `$ is a complete null line in the “truncated spacetime” $`M_0=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,h,N)`$, then the null generators of $`S^+=J^+(\eta ,M_0)`$ are past complete, and the null generators of $`S^{}=J^{}(\eta ,M_0)`$ are future complete.

In the proof of Theorem 1.3, Lemma 3.2 will be applied to the universal cover of the domain of outer communications.

Proof. In what follows, pasts and futures will refer to the spacetime $`M_0=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,h,N)`$, and we identify $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ with the time slice $`t=0`$ in $`M_0`$.

We begin with the hypersurface $`S^+`$ and a point $`qS^+`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`q`$ is not a future endpoint of a null generator of $`S^+`$. We express $`q=(t_0,p)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,h,N)`$, where $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Let $`p_0\eta `$ be the point where $`\eta `$ meets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be the projection of $`\eta `$ into $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$; $`\gamma `$ is a complete line in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{h})`$ passing through $`p_0`$. Let $`\{q_i\}`$ be a sequence of points which exhaust $`\eta `$ to the past. The points $`q_i=(t_i,p_i)`$ with $`p_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ then project to the sequence $`\{p_i\}\gamma `$ such that the Fermat distance from $`p`$ to $`p_i`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{h})`$ for successive $`i`$ tends to infinity. The convexity assumption implies that any two points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ can be joined by a minimal Fermat geodesic contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Thus, for each $`i`$, there exists a minimal Fermat geodesic $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ from $`p`$ to $`p_i`$. By passing to a subsequence if necessary, the $`\sigma _i`$ converge to a ray (geodesic half-line) $`\sigma `$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{h})`$ starting at $`p`$; $`\sigma `$ is referred to as an asymptote of $`\gamma `$.

Each $`\sigma _i`$ lifts to a unique null geodesic $`\mu _i`$ in the physical spacetime with $`q_i=(t_i,p_i)`$ as its past endpoint. The future endpoint of each $`\mu _i`$ is some $`x_i=(\tau _i,p)`$. We now show that the $`\tau _i`$ lie in a finite interval. In $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{h})`$, the triangle inequality allows us to write

$$|\stackrel{~}{d}(p_0,p_n)\stackrel{~}{d}(p,p_n)|\stackrel{~}{d}(p,p_0)=l_0,$$
(3.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{d}(p_1,p_2)`$ denotes the Fermat distance between the points $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. Let $`\gamma _i\gamma `$ be a segment of the Fermat line $`\gamma `$ with endpoints $`p_0`$ and $`p_i`$. Since $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are minimal with respect to the Fermat metric, $`\stackrel{~}{d}(p_0,p_i)=\stackrel{~}{L}(\gamma _i)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}(p,p_i)=\stackrel{~}{L}(\sigma _i)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{L}(x)`$ represents the Fermat arc length. In a static spacetime, the time taken to traverse a null geodesic in the physical metric is given by the arc length of the projected Fermat metric. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{L}(\gamma _i)=t_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}(\sigma _i)=t_i\tau _i`$, which, from (3.1) implies that $`|\tau _i|l_0`$. Thus, by passing to a subsequence if necessary, the $`x_i=(\tau _i,p)`$ converge to some $`x=(\tau ,p)`$. This means that, passing to a further subsequence if necessary, the $`\mu _i`$ converge to a null geodesic $`\mu `$ with future endpoint $`x`$, such that the projection of $`\mu `$ onto $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{h})`$ is the ray $`\sigma `$. Since the $`q_i`$ exhaust $`\eta `$ to the past, $`\mu `$ is past inextendible. If $`u`$ denotes an affine parameter along $`\mu `$ then it follows that $`du=KN^2d\stackrel{~}{s}`$, $`K=\mathrm{const}.`$, where $`d\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is arc length along $`\sigma `$. Since $`\sigma `$ has infinite length, and $`N^2`$ has a positive lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, it follows that $`\mu `$ is past complete in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,h,N)`$.

Finally, we show that $`\mu `$ is in fact a generator of $`S^+`$ with future endpoint $`q`$. Since $`\mu _nJ^+(\eta )`$, this means that $`\mu \overline{J^+(\eta )}=\overline{I^+(\eta )}`$. Let us assume that $`\mu I^+(\eta )\varphi `$. Thus, there exists an $`a\mu `$ and $`b\eta `$ such that $`aI^+(b)`$. Consider a neighbourhood $`U_a`$ of $`a`$ such that $`U_aI^+(b)`$. Since $`a\mu `$ and $`\mu `$ is a limit curve to the $`\mu _i`$ there exists an $`N_1`$ such that $`i>N_1`$, there exists an $`a_i\mu _i`$ such that $`a_iU_a`$. Moreover, since the $`q_i`$ exhaust $`\eta `$ to the past, for any $`b\eta `$, $`N_2`$ such that $`i>N_2`$, $`q_i`$ is to the past of $`b`$ on $`\eta `$. Thus, $`N`$ such that $`i>N`$, $`q_i`$ lies to the past of $`b`$ on $`\eta `$ and $`a_iI^+(b)`$ which implies that $`a_iI^+(q_i)`$, which is not possible since $`\mu _i`$ is achronal. Hence $`\mu J^+(\eta )`$. That its future endpoint $`x=q`$ follows, since $`xS^+`$ and $`x`$ and $`q`$ lie along the same orbit of the time-like Killing vector field $`(\frac{}{t})^a`$. A similar argument shows that the null generators of $`S^{}=J^{}(\eta )`$ are future complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. If, further, $`R_{ab}X^aX^b0`$ for all null vectors $`X^a`$ then the proof of the NST  implies that $`S^+=S^{}=S`$ is a smooth, edgeless, totally geodesic null hypersurface. This ultimately leads to a contradiction in the presence of black holes as will be shown in the following theorem:

Theorem 1.3. Let $`M`$ be an $`n+1`$ dimensional ($`n3`$) AL-AdS spacetime with static domain of outer communications $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ satisfying the null energy condition. If $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is infinite and if the asymptotic condition (C) (Definition 2.1) is satisfied, then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Suppose to the contrary that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ is conformally compactifiable with conformal boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, and that it has a regular black hole horizon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H\mathrm{}`$, as described in Section 2.

Recall, by definition, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ is a compact Riemannian manifold-with-boundary. We truncate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by removing small collared neighbourhoods (foliated by constant lapse slices) $`𝒰_H[0,ϵ]\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ and $`𝒰_{\mathrm{}}[0,ϵ]\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. In this way we obtain an open set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose closure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a compact manifold with boundary $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0=𝒱_A𝒱_B`$, where $`𝒱_A`$ is a constant lapse slice near $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ and $`𝒱_B`$ is a constant lapse slice near $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$. By Lemma 2.2, we may assume that $`𝒱_A`$ is strictly convex. By Condition C we may assume that $`𝒱_B`$, and all constant lapse slices near $`𝒱_B`$, are weakly convex.

Let $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{},\stackrel{~}{h}^{})`$ be the Riemannian universal cover of $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0,\stackrel{~}{h})`$. Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$ is a deformation retract of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, its fundamental group is isomorphic to that of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, and hence to that of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and so $`|\pi _1(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0)|=\mathrm{}`$. Thus, $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{},\stackrel{~}{h}^{})`$ is a complete noncompact Riemannian manifold with boundary $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}=𝒱_A^{}𝒱_B^{}`$, where $`𝒱_A^{}`$ covers $`𝒱_A`$ and $`𝒱_B^{}`$ covers $`𝒱_B`$. The convexity conditions on $`𝒱_A`$ and $`𝒱_B`$ lift to $`𝒱_A^{}`$ and $`𝒱_B^{}`$.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$, the manifold interior of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$, corresponds to the universal cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. We now show that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},\stackrel{~}{h}^{})`$ contains a Fermat line. This construction is a simple extension of that used in the Lorentzian structure theorem of . Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ and $`\{q_i\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ be a sequence of points uniformly bounded away from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$ such that the distance from $`p`$ to $`q_i`$ tends to infinity. For each $`i`$, let $`\gamma _i`$ be a length minimizing geodesic in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ from $`p`$ to $`q_i`$ . Our convexity conditions imply that such $`\gamma _i`$ exist, and are uniformly bounded away from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$. Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0`$ is compact, the universal cover $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$ admits a compact fundamental domain $`D`$. For every point in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$ there exists a covering space transformation, $`𝔤\pi _1(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{})`$, mapping it to a point in $`D`$. Let $`𝔤_i\pi _1(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{})`$ map the midpoint $`r_i`$ of $`\gamma _i`$ into $`D`$. Since the $`𝔤_i`$ are isometries, the new curves $`\gamma _i^{}=\gamma _i𝔤_i`$ are minimal geodesics which meet $`D`$, and are bounded away from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$, since the $`\gamma _i`$ are. Moreover, the lengths of the $`\gamma _i^{}`$ are now unbounded in both directions. It follows that some subsequence of $`\{\gamma _i^{}\}`$ converges to a complete line $`\gamma `$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},\stackrel{~}{h}^{})`$.

Consider the static spacetime $`M_0^{}=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},h^{},N^{})`$, where $`N^{}=N\rho `$, and $`\rho :\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is the covering map; $`M_0^{}`$ is the universal covering spacetime of $`M_0=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,h,N)`$. Now, $`\gamma `$ lifts to a complete null line $`\eta `$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},h^{},N^{})`$. By Lemma 3.2 and the remark following its proof, the NST implies that $`\eta `$ is contained in a smooth totally geodesic, edgeless achronal null hypersurface $`S`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},h^{},N^{})`$. As $`S`$ is edgeless, and hence closed as a subset of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},h^{},N^{})`$, and as its generators are complete, it can be shown that $`S`$ maps diffeomorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ (viewed as the slice $`t=0`$) via the flow lines of the timelike Killing field $`(\frac{}{t})^a`$; cf.,  for details. The null generators of $`S`$, being complete null lines, project to complete Fermat lines in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$. It follows that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{},\stackrel{~}{h}^{})`$ is ruled by complete Fermat lines. Fix a point $`x`$ on the boundary component $`𝒱_A`$, and let $`\{x_i\}`$ be a sequence of points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ such that $`x_ix`$. Let $`\sigma _i`$ be a complete Fermat line in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ passing through $`x_i`$. By passing to a subsequence if necessary, $`\sigma _i`$ will converge to a complete Fermat geodesic $`\sigma `$ contained in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0^{}`$ passing tangentially through $`x𝒱_A`$. But this contradicts the fact that $`𝒱_A`$ is strictly convex. Thus we conclude that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Applications: Proofs of Propositions 1.1 and 1.2

In special cases, condition (C) can be weakened to condition (S) by using a boundary analysis along the lines of  where one considers a foliation of a neighbourhood of scri with constant lapse surfaces. Consider a collar neighbourhood $`𝒪`$ of the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ at $`x\stackrel{~}{N}=0`$. In the coordinates $`x^1=x,x^2,\mathrm{},x^n`$ the Fermat metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ takes the form

$$\stackrel{~}{h}=\stackrel{~}{W}^1dx^2+\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta ,$$
(4.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }=\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }(x,x^\gamma )`$ is the induced metric on the constant $`x`$ slices $`𝒱_x`$, which are diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Let us first consider the class of spacetimes with Ricci flat scri, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}=^{n1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a discrete co-compact isometry group of $`^{n1}`$. The boundary analysis of  shows that the mean curvature of a constant lapse surface in a neighbourhood of scri is

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(x)=nx^{n1}\mu +𝒪(x^n),$$
(4.2)
where the mass aspect $`\mu `$ is related to the the Ashtekar-Magnon mass  via

$$M_{AM}=\frac{1}{16\pi }_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mu \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{b}}𝑑S,$$
(4.3)
When the mass aspect is pointwise negative, the mean curvature is positive. This, along with Condition (S) implies Condition (C). Then it is an immediate corollary of Theorem 3.1 that:

Proposition 1.1. Let $`M`$ be an $`n+1`$ dimensional ($`n3`$) AL-AdS spacetime, with static domain of outer communications $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$, which satisfies the null energy condition and has a Ricci flat scri, and whose Ashtekar-Magnon mass aspect on scri is pointwise negative. If $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is infinite and if the asymptotic condition (S) is satisfied, then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H=\mathrm{}`$.

Next, we consider the case in which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ has positive scalar curvature in the induced metric $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{ab}(0)`$. In the collar neighbourhood $`𝒪`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, the mean curvature of the $`𝒱_x`$ can be expressed as

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(x)=x_x\stackrel{~}{H}(0)+O(x^2),$$
(4.4)
where we have used the fact that the extrinsic curvature $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }(0)=0`$ (see (A.7)). By taking the projection of the field equation (2.5) tangent to $`𝒱_x`$ and differentiating once (i.e. putting $`k=1`$ in (LABEL:A7)) we obtain

$$_x\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }(0)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{(n2)}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }(0),$$
(4.5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Ricci curvature with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }`$. Tracing the above, and substituting into (4.4) we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(x)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{(n2)}\stackrel{~}{S}x+O(x^2),$$
(4.6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is the scalar curvature $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }`$. $`\stackrel{~}{H}(x)`$ is clearly positive for small enough $`x`$, under the assumption $`\stackrel{~}{S}>0`$. Thus, Condition (C) reduces to Condition (S) in this case, and we obtain another corollary of Theorem 1.3:

Proposition 1.2. Let $`M`$ be an $`n+1`$ dimensional ($`n3`$) AL-AdS spacetime, with static domain of outer communications $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ satisfying the null energy condition. Suppose (a) the conformal boundary at infinity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ has positive scalar curvature with respect to the Fermat metric, (b) the fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is infinite, $`|\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })|=\mathrm{}`$, and (c) the asymptotic condition (S) is satisfied. Then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ does not admit regular black holes.

To conclude this section, we examine Condition (S) for a class of conformal boundaries $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ which naturally have positive scalar curvature and infinite fundamental group, such as $`S^2\times S^1`$.

Consider the class of spacetimes with “mixed” boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}=U\times V`$, such that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are compact, with $`\mathrm{dim}(U)2`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}(V)1`$. In a collar neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ the constant lapse surfaces $`𝒱_x`$ are diffeomorphic to $`U\times V`$. Let $`𝐮(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)`$ and $`𝐯(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)`$ be the induced metrics with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }`$ on $`U`$ and $`V`$ respectively, where $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ are the coordinates on $`U`$ and $`V`$ respectively. We further assume that metric has the simple product form at $`x=0`$

$$\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},0)=𝐮_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},0)+𝐯_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{v},0),$$
(4.7)
such that

$${}_{}{}^{u}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}(\stackrel{}{u},0)=\frac{n(n1)}{2\mathrm{}^2}𝐮_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},0);{}_{}{}^{𝐯}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}(\stackrel{}{v},0)=0.$$
(4.8)
where $`{}_{}{}^{𝐮}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{𝐯}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ are the Ricci tensors associated with $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐯`$, respectively. Our boundary data are thus “mixed” in the sense that it is a product of a positive Ricci curvature Einstein manifold and a zero curvature Einstein manifold. We leave the details of the boundary analysis for this class of boundary data to the appendix, only stating the relevant results here.

From (4.5) and (4.8), the projection along $`U`$ of the second fundamental form $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{\delta \rho }=𝐮_\delta ^\alpha 𝐮_\rho ^\beta \stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }`$ of $`𝒱_x`$ has the expansion

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)=\frac{n(n1)}{2(n2)\mathrm{}}x𝐮_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},0)+O(x^2),$$
(4.9)
which, by itself, for small enough $`x`$, has positive eigenvalues. From Proposition A.3, the remaining components of the second fundamental form $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }=𝐯_\delta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be expanded as

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)=\frac{1}{(n1)!}x^{n1}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(n1)}(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},0)+O(x^n).$$
(4.10)
Since the boundary data $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(n1)}(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},0)`$ are independent of $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},0)`$, we are free to choose $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(n1)}(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},0)`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ab}`$ has only non-negative eigenvalues in a small enough neighbourhood of scri. Thus, Condition (S) can indeed be satisfied in a neighbourhood of the conformal boundary when it is of the type under consideration here. 555If the “mixed” boundary were instead such that $`{}_{}{}^{𝐯}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}(\stackrel{}{v},0)`$ was Einstein with negative curvature, then it can be seen that Condition (S) could never be satisfied.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (USA) DMS-0104042 and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada). SS was partially supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences.

## Appendix A Boundary analysis

Before we proceed, it is useful to compare our analysis with that of . While the work of  is general and includes metrics of both Lorentzian and Euclidean signature, it needs to be modified to suit the purpose of our work. In  a particular choice of conformal gauge is made, namely, $`h=y^2\stackrel{~}{h}_1=y^2(dy^2\stackrel{~}{b}_1)`$ and the boundary data $`\{_y^k\stackrel{~}{b}_1(0)\}`$ is then analysed. However, the choice of a Fermat conformal gauge is crucial to the method employed in our work, since we specifically require conditions (C) and (S) to be satisfied with respect to the Fermat metric. From (4.1) it is clear that the Fermat conformal gauge coincides with the conformal gauge used in  only when $`\stackrel{~}{W}=1`$. Moreover, while $`\stackrel{~}{b}(0)=\stackrel{~}{b}_1(0)`$ the boundary data $`\{_x^k\stackrel{~}{b}(0)\}`$ and $`\{_y^k\stackrel{~}{b}_1(0)\}`$ will in general differ.

From Definition 2.1 and (4.1) $`x^{1n}T_{ab}`$ should have a smooth limit to scri. Thus in a neighbourhood of scri we have

$$T_{ab}(x,x^\alpha )=A_{ab}(x^\alpha )x^{n1}+O(x^n).$$
(A.1)
Moreover, the second fundamental form of $`𝒱_x`$ can be expressed as

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2\psi }_x\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta },$$
(A.2)
where $`\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{W}}}`$. Taking the projections of (2.5) tangent and normal to the $`𝒱_x`$ we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{x\psi }}\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }+8\pi [𝒜_{\alpha \beta }x^{n1}+𝒪(x^n)],`$ (A.3)
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{x\psi }}_x\psi +8\pi [𝒜_{xx}x^{n1}+𝒪(x^n)],`$ (A.4)
where we have used (A.1) and defined $`𝒜_{ab}=A_{ab}\frac{1}{n1}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ab}\stackrel{~}{h}^{cd}A_{cd}`$. As in  we may expand the left-hand sides of the above equations to obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{n1}}(_x\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }+2\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \gamma }\stackrel{~}{H}_\beta ^\gamma \psi \stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }\psi +\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }\psi D_\alpha D_\beta \psi `$ (A.5)
$`+8\pi \psi [𝒜_{\alpha \beta }x^{n1}+𝒪(x^n)]),`$
$`_x\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{n1}}\psi ^2\left(_x\stackrel{~}{H}D^2\psi \stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{H}^{\alpha \beta }\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi ^2}}8\pi [𝒜_{xx}x^{n1}+𝒪(x^n)]\right),`$
where $`D_\alpha `$ is the connection compatible with $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the associated Ricci curvature. Assuming the conformal metric is $`C^2`$ at $`x=0`$, this yields

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }(0)=_x\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }(0)=_x\psi (0)=0;\psi (0)=\mathrm{}$$
(A.7)
Assuming $`C^k`$ regularity of the metric for $`1k<n1`$, (A.5) and (LABEL:A5t) may be differentiated $`k`$ times to obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{(nk1)}}_x^{k1}(2\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \gamma }\stackrel{~}{H}_\beta ^\gamma \psi \stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }\psi +\psi \stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha D_\beta \psi )|_0`$
$`\psi ^{(k+1)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{n1}}_x^{k1}(\psi ^2_x\stackrel{~}{H}\psi ^2D^2\psi \psi ^3\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{H}^{\alpha \beta })|_0,`$
where $`X^{(k)}_x^kX^kX/x^k`$ and $`X^{(0)}=X`$. Notice that the matter stress-energy terms do not contribute to these expressions because of the assumed fall-off rates (A.1).

It is handy to write down the expressions relating $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}(0)`$, which we obtain by differentiating (A.2) $`k`$ times and using (A.7),

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)_x^i(\psi ^1)(0)\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1i)}(0),$$
(A.10)
or,

$$\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}(0)=2\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)\psi ^{(i)}(0)\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(ki)}(0).$$
(A.11)
By inspection, we notice that

Lemma A.1. For $`k>0`$ even, every term in (A.10) will contain either a $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(m+2)}(0)`$, or a $`\psi ^{(m)}(0)`$ where $`m`$ is odd and $`1mk1`$. Similarly, for $`k`$ even, every term in (A.11) will contain either an $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(m+1)}(0)`$, or a $`\psi ^{(m)}(0)`$ where $`m`$ is odd and $`1mk1`$.

Proposition A.2 Assume that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ is a $`C^n`$ differentiable static spacetime which is AL-AdS. For even $`k<n1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}(0)=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=\psi ^{(k+1)}(0)=0`$. For $`k=n1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$ cannot be determined from $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }(0)`$ and constitute independent boundary data.

Remark. This matches the results of  for their choice of conformal gauge. Notice that unlike  we do not require that the conformal boundary be Ricci flat.

Proof. As in  the proof is iterative. We take $`k`$ to be even and $`<n1`$ throughout the proof.

Step A: Consider the expression for $`\psi ^{(k+1)}(0)`$ in (LABEL:A8). By inspection, and using Lemma A.1 and the Leibniz rule, every term in the expression can be seen to contain either a (i) $`\psi ^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`m`$ odd and $`1mk1`$ or a (ii) $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(l)}(0)`$ for $`l`$ odd and $`1lk+1`$ (or both). Applying this recursively to $`\psi ^{(m)}(0)`$, and using $`_x\psi (0)=0`$ from (A.7), this simplifies to the fact that every term in the right hand side of (LABEL:A8) must contain a $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`m`$ odd and $`1mk+1`$.

Step B: Next, consider the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$ in (LABEL:A7). Again, using the Leibniz rule and Lemma A.1, we see that every term in the expression contains at least a (i) $`\psi ^{(m)}(0)`$ or a (ii) $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\delta \rho }^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`m`$ odd and $`mk1`$. From step A above, this implies that every term in the expansion for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}`$ contains a $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\delta \rho }^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`m`$ odd and $`1mk1`$. Using this recursively with Lemma A.1, this means that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}`$ can be expanded such that each term in the expansion contains a $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\delta \rho }^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`m`$ odd and $`1mk1`$.

Thus, if $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\delta \rho }^{(m)}(0)=0`$ $`m`$ odd and $`1mk1`$, then from steps A and B we may conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}(0)=0`$ $`k`$ even and $`0<k<n1`$. Since this is true for $`k=0`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}=0`$ (A.7), by iteration we may conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\gamma \delta }^{(k+1)}(0)=0`$ $`k`$ even and $`0<k<n1`$. It follows from step A, and Lemma A.1 that $`\psi ^{(k+1)}(0)=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=0`$ $`k`$ even and $`0<k<n1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$ .

Next, we consider the class of boundaries (4.7, 4.8). However, to prove Proposition A.3 below, it suffices to merely require that

$${}_{}{}^{𝐯}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}(0)=0,$$
(A.12)
with $`𝐮(\stackrel{}{u},0)`$ left arbitrary. As in Section 4, we will use the shorthand

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)=(𝐮_\alpha ^\delta 𝐮_\beta ^\rho \stackrel{~}{H}_{\delta \rho })(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)$$
(A.13)
to denote the projection of the second fundamental form of the constant lapse surfaces along $`U`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x)=(𝐯_\alpha ^\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_{\beta \delta })(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{v},x).$$
(A.14)
to denote the remaining components.

Proposition A.3. Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h,N)`$ be a $`C^n`$ differentiable, static spacetime which is AL-AdS. Let the conformal boundary at $`x=0`$ be of the form described in (4.7, A.12). Then, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(k)}(0)=0`$, $`k<n1`$.

Proof. From Proposition A.2 we know that $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k+1)}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=0`$, $`k`$ even and $`0kn1`$. Thus, we need to only consider the case $`k`$ odd. For the rest of the proof we will assume that $`k`$ is odd and $`k<n1`$.

Step A: We begin by differentiating $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$ along $`V`$, $`𝐯(\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)})(0)`$, where $`𝐯𝐯_\gamma ^\alpha _\alpha `$. Using the Leibniz rule, Proposition A.2, (A.10), (A.11), (A.7) and (4.7), we see that every term on the right hand side of the expression contains either a (i) $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \rho }^{(m1)}(0)`$ or a (ii) $`𝐯(\psi ^{(m)})(0)`$ or a (iii) $`𝐯(P_{\delta \rho }^{(m)})(0)`$ for $`1mk1`$. Applying this recursively to (iii), this implies that every term in the expression for $`𝐯(\stackrel{~}{P}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)})(0)`$ contains either a (i) $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \rho }^{(m1)}(0)`$ or a (ii)$`𝐯(\psi ^{(m)})(0)`$ for $`1mk1`$.

Step B: Next, differentiate (LABEL:A8) along $`V`$, to obtain an expression for $`𝐯(\psi ^{(k+1)})(0)`$. Again, using the Leibniz rule, Proposition A.2, (A.10), (A.11), (A.7) and (4.7), we see that every term in the expression contains either a (i) $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(m1)}(0)`$ or a (ii) $`𝐯(\stackrel{~}{P}_{\delta \eta }^{(m)})(0)`$ or a (iii) $`𝐯(\psi ^{(m)})(0)`$ for $`1mk1`$. Applying this recursively along with the results of step A, we see that every term in the expression for $`𝐯(\psi ^{(k+1)})(0)`$ contains a $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`1mk2`$.

Step C: Finally, we consider the projection of (LABEL:A7) along $`U`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$. Again, using the Leibniz rule, Proposition A.2, (A.10), (A.11), (A.7) and (4.7), we see that every term in the projection of the right hand side of (LABEL:A7) contains either a (i) $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(m1)}(0)`$ or a (ii) $`𝐯(P_{\delta \rho }^{(m)})(0)`$ or a (iii) $`𝐯(\psi ^{(m)})(0)`$ for $`1mk1`$. Applying this recursively along with the results of steps A and B above, we see that every term in the expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(k)}(0)`$ contains a $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\delta \beta }^{(m)}(0)`$ for $`1mk2`$.

Thus, if $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(m)}(0)=0`$ $`m`$ satisfying $`1mk2`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=0`$. From (LABEL:A7) and (A.7), $`_x\stackrel{~}{H}_{\alpha \beta }(0)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{(n2)}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }(0)`$. Since $`{}_{}{}^{𝐯}\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha \beta }^{}(0)=0`$ and $`𝐯_\alpha ^\delta \stackrel{~}{}_{\delta \beta }(0)=0`$ from (4.7), $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}(0)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{(n2)}𝐯_\alpha ^\delta \stackrel{~}{}_{\delta \beta }(0)=0`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=0`$ for $`k=1`$, by induction, we can conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}(0)=0`$ $`k<n1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$ .


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0212225

Adding Fundamental Matter to “Chiral Rings and Anomalies in Supersymmetric Gauge Theory”

Nathan Seiberg

School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton NJ 08540 USA

We consider a supersymmetric $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with matter fields in the adjoint, fundamental and anti-fundamental representations. As in the framework which was put forward by Dijkgraaf and Vafa, this theory can be described by a matrix model. We analyze this theory along the lines of \[F. Cachazo, M. Douglas, N.S. and E. Witten, “Chiral Rings and Anomalies in Supersymmetric Gauge Theory” hep-th/0211170\] and show the equivalence of the gauge theory and the matrix model. In particular, the anomaly equations in the gauge theory is identified with the loop equations in the matrix model.

December 2002

1. Introduction

Recently Dijkgraaf and Vafa  were motivated by earlier work \[2--8\] to conjecture an interesting relation between SUSY gauge theories and matrix models. Many authors have added matter in the fundamental representation \[9--25\] to this framework. We will examine a general theory of this form which includes the various examples of \[9--25\] as special cases. We will follow the point of view of , and will extend it to this case with fundamental matter.

We consider an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with matter in the adjoint $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`N_f`$ fundamentals $`Q^f`$ and $`N_f`$ anti-fundamentals $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ ($`f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ are the flavor indices). The tree level superpotential is

$$W_{tree}=\mathrm{Tr}W(\mathrm{\Phi })+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(\mathrm{\Phi })Q^f$$

where we suppressed the color indices. The function $`W`$ and the matrix $`m`$ are taken to be polynomials

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W(z)& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{k+1}g_kz^{k+1}\hfill \\ \hfill m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(z)& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}z^{k1}\hfill \end{array}$$

We consider arbitrary $`N`$ and $`N_f`$. For $`nN_f>N`$ these theories exhibit a certain duality \[27--29\] exchanging $`NnN_fN`$, and we hope that this discussion will shed light on it.

In section 2 we analyze this quantum field theory focusing on its chiral ring, the anomaly equations and the low energy effective superpotential. In section 3 we consider the corresponding matrix model and prove its equivalence to the gauge theory.

2. Gauge theory considerations

2.1. Anomaly equations

As in  we will be interested in the chiral operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T(z)& =\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ \hfill w_\alpha (z)& =\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W_\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ \hfill R(z)& =\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W_\alpha W^\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ \hfill M_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^f(z)& =\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}Q^f\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`W_\alpha Q^f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}W_\alpha `$ are not in the chiral ring, there is no need to include more operators1 We thank E. Witten for a useful discussion on this point.. Also, since the gauge group is $`U(N)`$ rather than $`SU(N)`$ we do not include “baryonic operators.”

We perform the following five independent transformations in the functional integral

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \mathrm{\Phi }& =\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \mathrm{\Phi }& =\frac{W_\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \mathrm{\Phi }& =\frac{W_\alpha W^\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta Q^f& =\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\lambda _f^{}^fQ^f^{}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}& =\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\lambda _f^{}^f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}`$ are constant flavor matrices. The anomaly equations of these transformations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{Tr}\frac{W^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\frac{m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(\mathrm{\Phi })}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}Q^f=2R(z)T(z)+w_\alpha (z)w^\alpha (z)\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })W_\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}=2R(z)w_\alpha (z)\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })W_\alpha W^\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}=R(z)^2\hfill \\ & \lambda _f^{}^f\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\frac{m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(\mathrm{\Phi })}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}Q^f^{}=\lambda _f^fR(z)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\frac{m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(\mathrm{\Phi })}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}Q^f=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}R(z)\hfill \end{array}$$

where the equalities are only in the chiral ring; i.e. they are up to SUSY commutators. The $`𝒪(1/z)`$ term in the first equation is the equation of motion of $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The $`𝒪(1/z^2)`$ term in that equation and the $`𝒪(1/z)`$ terms in the fourth and fifth equations are the Konishi anomaly \[30,,31\] for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ respectively. The other equations and the other powers of $`1/z`$ are various generalizations.

Since $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are polynomials, we can replace these equations with

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[W^{}(z)T(z)\right]_{}+\mathrm{tr}\left[m^{}(z)M(z)\right]_{}=2R(z)T(z)+w_\alpha (z)w^\alpha (z)\hfill \\ & \left[W^{}(z)w_\alpha (z)\right]_{}=2R(z)w_\alpha (z)\hfill \\ & \left[W^{}(z)R(z)\right]_{}=R(z)^2\hfill \\ & \left[\left(M(z)m(z)\right)_f^f^{}\right]_{}=R(z)\delta _f^f^{}\hfill \\ & \left[\left(m(z)M(z)\right)_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\right]_{}=R(z)\delta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`m(z)`$ and $`M(z)`$ are matrices in flavor space. We multiply such matrices as $`(AB)_{f^{\prime \prime }}^f=A_f^{}^fB_{f^{\prime \prime }}^f^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}`$ denotes a trace over the flavor indices. In the last two equations we used the fact that the corresponding equations in (2.1) are satisfied for every $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. These identities are also true for the expectation values of the operators (2.1).

Writing the third equation in (2.1) as

$$W^{}(z)R(z)+\frac{1}{4}f(z)=R(z)^2$$

with a polynomial $`f(z)=4\left[W^{}(z)R(z)\right]_+`$ of degree $`n1`$, we solve for $`R(z)`$

$$2R(z)=W^{}(z)\sqrt{W^{}(z)^2+f(z)}$$

Similarly, we write the last two equations in (2.1) as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(M(z)m(z)q(z)\right)_f^f^{}=R(z)\delta _f^f^{}\hfill \\ & \left(m(z)M(z)\stackrel{~}{q}(z)\right)_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}=R(z)\delta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

in terms of polynomial matrices

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q(z)& =\left[M(z)m(z)\right]_+\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{q}(z)& =\left[m(z)M(z)\right]_+\hfill \end{array}$$

We can now solve for the matrix $`M(z)`$

$$M(z)=R(z)m^1(z)+q(z)m^1(z)=R(z)m^1(z)m^1(z)\stackrel{~}{q}(z)$$

where $`m^1(z)`$ is the inverse matrix. For consistency the polynomial matrices $`q(z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}(z)`$ are related by $`\stackrel{~}{q}=mqm^1`$. Using the solution for $`R(z)`$ in (2.1) the expression for $`M(z)`$ (2.1) leads to a solution for $`M(z)`$ in terms of the polynomials $`f(z)`$ and $`q(z)`$.

The polynomial $`f(z)`$ is kept arbitrary, but the polynomials $`q(z)`$ are fixed as follows. From (2.1) it is clear that $`M(z)`$ is singular when $`m(z)`$ has a zero eigenvalue. The freedom in the polynomials $`q(z)`$ is exactly such as to remove these singularities. To see this, consider for simplicity the case $`N_f=1`$, where the flavor matrices are one dimensional. $`m(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`l`$ (1.1), and therefore it has $`l`$ zeroes $`z_I`$. For large $`z`$ the resolvent $`M(z)`$ behaves as $`\frac{1}{z}`$ and therefore $`q(z)=\left[M(z)m(z)\right]_+`$ is a polynomial of degree $`l1`$. The $`l`$ coefficients of $`q`$ can be tuned to set the $`l`$ residues of $`M(z)`$ at $`z_I`$ to zero.

Now that we have solved for $`R(z)`$ and $`M(z)`$, it is simple to solve for $`w_\alpha (z)`$ and $`T(z)`$ using the first two equations in (2.1). In doing that we need to introduce new polynomials

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _\alpha (z)& =4[W^{}(z)w_\alpha (z)]_+\hfill \\ \hfill c(z)& =4[W^{}(z)T(z)]_+\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that the solution for $`R(z)`$ is as in the theory without the fundamental matter, but $`T(z)`$ is different; it depends on $`m(z)`$.

2.2. The effective superpotential

We parametrize the superpotential of the adjoint field as

$$W^{}(z)=g_n\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(za_i)$$

in terms of its stationary points $`a_i`$. We consider the classical vacuum

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}a_1& & & & & & & & & \\ & .& & & & & & & & \\ & & .& & & & & & & \\ & & & a_2& & & & & & \\ & & & & .& & & & & \\ & & & & & .& & & & \\ & & & & & & a_3& & & \\ & & & & & & & .& & \\ & & & & & & & & .& \\ & & & & & & & & & a_n\end{array}\right)$$

where $`a_i`$ occurs $`N_i`$ times. We assume that $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`m(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are generic and in particular $`m(a_i)`$ does not have a zero eigenvalue. Since all the matter fields acquire masses, the low energy degrees of freedom are only the gauge fields in $`_iU(N_i)`$. Following  we express them as the gauge invariant objects

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_i& =\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_i}R(z)𝑑z\hfill \\ \hfill w_\alpha ^{(i)}& =\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_i}w_\alpha (z)𝑑z\hfill \\ \hfill N_i& =\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_i}T(z)𝑑z\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`C_i`$ is a contour around $`a_i`$.

Since we assumed that $`m`$ is generic, all the quarks are massive and are integrated out. Therefore, our effective Lagrangian will not depend on the “meson operator in the $`i`$ group”

$$M^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_i}M(z)𝑑z$$

As in  (see also ) we integrate out the massive fields in perturbation theory. It is straightforward to add the fundamental matter to the discussion of the Feynman diagrams in . Assume for simplicity that the group $`U(N)`$ is unbroken; i.e. $`N_1=N`$. Then considerations of symmetry and holomorphy along the lines of  constrain the perturbative effective superpotential to be of the form

$$W_{eff}^{pert}=W_\alpha ^2F(\frac{g_kW_\alpha ^{k1}}{g_1^{\frac{k+1}{2}}},\frac{m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}W_\alpha ^{k1}}{(m_{f,k=1}^{\stackrel{~}{f}})^{\frac{k+1}{2}}})$$

Since the theory depends on several masses $`g_1`$, $`m_{f,k=1}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, the function $`F`$ can also depend on various ratios of them. From (2.1) we see that the number of $`W_\alpha `$ in a diagram that contributes to $`W_{eff}^{pert}`$ is constrained to be

$$\mathrm{\#}W_\alpha =2+\underset{r}{}(k_r1)$$

Here $`r`$ labels the vertices of the Feynman diagram, and $`k_r`$ is the index $`k`$ either for $`g_k`$ or for $`m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ at the vertex. We now write the diagram using ’tHooft’s index loops notation. Every $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a double line and every $`Q`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ has a single line. The number of index loops in the diagram is

$$L=2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{r}{}(k_r1)2hb$$

where $`h`$ is the number of handles in the surface and $`b`$ is the number of boundaries ($`b`$ is the number of $`Q`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ index loops). From (2.1) and (2.1)

$$\mathrm{\#}W_\alpha =2L2+4h+2b$$

As in , it is straightforward to extend this discussion to the case where the gauge group is broken, and the external light fields in the diagram are $`W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$. Here we find

$$\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\#}W_\alpha ^{(i)}=2L2+4h+2b$$

We also know that chiral operators have at most two factors of $`W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ in a trace and therefore there are at most two $`W_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ on each index loop:

$$\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\#}W_\alpha ^{(i)}2L$$

Combining (2.1) and (2.1) we learn that only three kinds of diagrams can contribute to the effective superpotential:

1. $`h=b=0`$. These diagrams have the topology of a sphere. One index loop has no operator insertion (leading to a factor of $`N_i`$) and every other index loop has an insertion of $`S_j`$ leading to a result proportional to $`N_iS_j^{L1}`$ ($`S_j^{L1}`$ stands for a product of $`L1`$ factors of $`S_j`$ not necessarily all with the same value of $`j`$).

2. $`h=b=0`$. These diagrams also have the topology of a sphere. Two index loops have an insertion of $`w_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ on each, and every other index loop has $`S_j`$ leading to a result proportional to $`w_\alpha ^{(i)}w^{(k)\alpha }S_j^{L2}`$.

3. $`h=0`$, $`b=1`$. These diagrams have the topology of a disk. They have an insertion of $`S_j`$ on each index loop leading to a result proportional to $`S_j^L`$.

The sphere diagrams do not involve $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Therefore, their contribution is the same as in the theory without these fields; i.e. having only the adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This theory has a shift symmetry associated with the decoupled diagonal $`U(1)`$ field $`_iw_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ . This symmetry is best implemented by adding the auxiliary spinor coordinate $`\psi _\alpha `$, and combining $`S_i`$, $`w_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ and $`N_i`$ to a superfield

$$𝒮_i(\psi )=S_i+\psi ^\alpha w_\alpha ^{(i)}\psi ^1\psi ^2N_i$$

Then the symmetry of shifting $`\psi ^\alpha `$ determines the sphere contribution in terms of a single function $`_0^{pert}`$ of $`𝒮_i(\psi )`$

$$d^2\psi _0^{pert}(𝒮_i(\psi ))$$

The integral over $`\psi `$ leads to the two sphere contributions we mentioned above. The function $`_0^{pert}`$ is exactly the same as this function in the theory without the fundamental matter. It is given by

$$_0^{pert}=\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{2}𝒮_i^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{g_n\underset{ji}{}(a_ia_j)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\right)\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j}{ij}}{}𝒮_i𝒮_j\mathrm{log}\frac{a_ia_j}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+𝒪(S_j^3)$$

Here we wrote explicitly the one loop result which depends on the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ . The first term arises from integrating out the massive chiral superfield in the adjoint of $`U(N_i)`$, and the second term is from the massive vector superfields which acquired mass in the Higgs mechanism. The higher order terms $`𝒪(S_j^3)`$ are independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

The disk diagrams lead to another function of $`S_i`$ whose contribution to the effective superpotential is not integrated over $`\psi `$

$$_1^{pert}=\underset{i}{}S_i\mathrm{log}\left(det\frac{m(a_i)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\right)+𝒪(S_j^2)$$

where we wrote explicitly the one loop terms which arise from the massive quarks $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Again, the higher order terms $`𝒪(S_j^2)`$ are independent of the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. $`_1^{pert}`$ is not integrated over $`\psi `$ and it does not respect the shift symmetry of $`\psi `$. This is consistent with the fact that in the theory with fundamental matter the over all $`U(1)`$ superfield $`_iw_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ does not decouple.

The full effective superpotential at the scale $`\mu `$ where the gauge dynamics of the unbroken $`_iU(N_i)`$ gauge fields is still weak is

$$W_{eff}^{pert}=\tau _0\underset{i}{}S_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mu }\right)^3\underset{i}{}d^2\psi 𝒮_i^2(\psi )+d^2\psi _0^{pert}(𝒮_i(\psi ))+_1^{pert}(S_i)$$

The first term is the bare coupling. The second term includes the one loop running of the gauge couplings in $`_iSU(N_i)`$; it depends only on the $`SU(N_i)`$ fields $`s_i=S_i+\frac{1}{2N_i}(w_\alpha ^{(i)})^2`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mu }\right)^3\underset{i}{}d^2\psi 𝒮_i^2(\psi )=\underset{i}{}N_is_i\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mu }\right)^3$$

The dependence on the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ from all the terms is

$$(2NN_f)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\underset{i}{}S_i+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\left(\underset{i}{}w_\alpha ^{(i)}\right)^2$$

In accordance with the one loop beta function we choose the bare coupling

$$\tau _0=(2NN_f)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

with a finite scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This has the effect of changing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ everywhere except the term $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\left(_iw_\alpha ^{(i)}\right)^2`$. This indicates that the over all $`U(1)`$ superfield $`_iw_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ is free in the renormalized theory. We will continue to use the same notation as in (2.1)-(2.1) but with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The strong IR dynamics is implemented by replacing (2.1) (after $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) with the Veneziano-Yankielowics superpotential

$$W_{VY}(s_i)=\underset{i}{}s_i\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_i}}{s_i^{N_i}}+N_i\right)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}d^2\psi 𝒮_i^2\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{𝒮_i}+\frac{3}{2}\right)$$

Therefore, the final answer for the effective superpotential is

$$W_{eff}(S_i,w_\alpha ^{(i)},N_i)=d^2\psi _0(𝒮_i(\psi ))+_1(S_i)=d^2\psi \left(_0(𝒮_i(\psi ))+\psi ^2\psi ^1_1(𝒮_i(\psi ))\right)$$

with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0& =_0^{pert}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}𝒮_i^2\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{𝒮_i}+\frac{3}{2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill _1& =_1^{pert}\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`s_i=S_i+\frac{1}{2N_i}(w_\alpha ^{(i)})^2`$ are independent chiral superfields, and $`w_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ are independent field strengths of the massless vector superfields.

Using the effective superpotential we can compute expectation values of operators by differentiating with respect to the coefficients in (1.1)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{1}{k+1}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+1}=\frac{W_{eff}}{g_k}=\frac{}{g_k}d^2\psi _0+\frac{_1}{g_k}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{k1}Q^f=\frac{W_{eff}}{m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}}=\frac{_1}{m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the second equation we used the fact that the sphere diagrams do not involve the fundamental matter, and therefore the function $`_0`$ is independent of $`m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$. The sphere contribution in the first equation is as in the theory without the fundamental matter. The disk contribution depends on $`m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+1}`$ and $`T(z)`$ depend on $`m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ in accord with the comment after (2.1).

Since we have already solved for these expectation values using the anomaly equations, we effectively found the full effective superpotential. The variables $`S_i`$ or more precisely $`s_i`$ capture the information in the coefficients in the polynomial $`f(z)`$ in (2.1). Equivalently, the freedom in $`f(z)`$ is determined by the values of the fields $`s_i`$. The polynomials $`\rho _\alpha `$ (2.1) are determined in terms of the variables $`w_\alpha ^{(i)}`$. Finally, $`c(z)`$ (2.1) is determined in terms of $`N_i`$. We remarked above that $`M^{(i)}`$ (2.1) are integrated out. This is closely related to the fact that the polynomials $`q(z)`$ (2.1) are determined (see the discussion after (2.1)). An ambiguity in $`q(z)`$ would have appeared as more fields in the effective superpotential.

3. Matrix model

We consider the matrix model with the “action”

$$A=\frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}\left[\mathrm{Tr}W(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})\widehat{Q}^f\right]$$

where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ and $`\widehat{Q}`$ are $`\widehat{N}\times \widehat{N}`$, $`\widehat{N}\times N_f`$ and $`N_f\times \widehat{N}`$ dimensional matrices, and define its free energy $`\widehat{}`$ through

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\widehat{N}^2}{\widehat{g}^2}\widehat{}\right)=𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}𝑑\widehat{Q}𝑑\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\mathrm{exp}(A)$$

Eventually, we will take the large $`\widehat{N}`$ limit with everything else held fixed.

We will be interested in the resolvents

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{R}(z)=& \frac{\widehat{g}}{\widehat{N}}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{M}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^f(z)=& \widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{Q}^f\hfill \end{array}$$

We perform the following three independent transformations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}& =\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \widehat{Q}^f& =\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\lambda _f^{}^f\widehat{Q}^f^{}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta \widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}& =\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \end{array}$$

to find

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W^{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}+\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\frac{m^{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{Q}\right]=\left(\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)^2\hfill \\ & \frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\frac{m(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\lambda \widehat{Q}=\mathrm{tr}\lambda \mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \\ & \frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\frac{m(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{Q}=\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \end{array}$$

where we suppressed both the matrix indices and the flavor indices. Again we used the convention $`A_f^f^{}B_{f^{\prime \prime }}^f=(AB)_{f^{\prime \prime }}^f^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{tr}`$ denotes a trace over the flavor indices. Taking the expectation values of these equations and the large $`\widehat{N}`$ limit they become

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[W^{}(z)\widehat{R}(z)\right]_{}=\widehat{R}(z)^2\hfill \\ & \left[\left(\widehat{M}(z)m(z)\right)_f^f^{}\right]_{}=\widehat{R}(z)\delta _f^f^{}\hfill \\ & \left[\left(m(z)\widehat{M}(z)\right)_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\right]_{}=\widehat{R}(z)\delta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\stackrel{~}{f}^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the last two equations we used the fact that they are true for every $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$.

The equations (3.1) are the loop equation  of the matrix model. The first equation describes a closed string splitting to two closed strings. The other two equations describe an open string turning into a closed string.

In solving the first equation for $`\widehat{R}(z)`$ there is an ambiguity in a polynomial $`\widehat{f}(z)=4\left[W^{}(z)\widehat{R}(z)\right]_+`$. However, in solving for $`\widehat{M}(z)`$ the ambiguity in $`\widehat{q}(z)=\left[m(z)\widehat{M}(z)\right]_+`$ is fixed by imposing that $`\widehat{M}(z)`$ is not singular at the points where $`m(z)`$ has a zero eigenvalue.

The equations (3.1) are the same as the last three equations in the gauge theory (2.1) and the ambiguity in solving them (the value of $`\widehat{f}(z)`$ and the way $`\widehat{q}(z)`$ is determined) is also the same. Therefore we can identify

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{R}(z)=& R(z)\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{M}(z)=& M(z)\hfill \end{array}$$

It is interesting that while $`\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ in the matrix model is not identified with $`\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in the gauge theory but with $`\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W_\alpha ^2}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, the matrix model object $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\widehat{Q}`$ is identified with its natural gauge theory counterpart $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}Q`$.

We now relate the effective superpotential in the gauge theory (2.1) to the free energy of the matrix model $`\widehat{}`$. We will need the sphere and the disk contributions to the free energy: $`\widehat{}_0=lim_{\widehat{N}\mathrm{}}\widehat{}`$, $`\widehat{}_1=lim_{\widehat{N}\mathrm{}}\frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}(\widehat{}\widehat{}_0)`$. $`\widehat{}_0`$ is computed in the theory without the fundamental matter. It was conjectured by Dijkgraaf and Vafa , and proven in  (see also ) that in this theory $`_0=\widehat{}_0`$ (recall that $`_0`$ in the gauge theory (2.1)(2.1) is the same as in the theory without the fundamental matter). We now turn to the disk amplitudes. Following (3.1)

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{k1}Q^f=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_{\stackrel{~}{f}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{k1}\widehat{Q}^f$$

They can be computed in the matrix model and in the gauge theory as derivatives with respect to the coefficients in $`m_f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(z)`$

$$\frac{_1}{m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}}=\frac{\widehat{}_1}{m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}}$$

where we used (2.1) and the fact that in the matrix model $`\widehat{}_0`$ is independent of $`m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$. We learn that $`_1=\widehat{}_1+\delta _1`$ with $`\delta _1`$ independent of $`m_{f,k}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$. Using the special case with only $`m_{f,k=1}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}=m\delta _f^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ nonzero and $`m\mathrm{}`$ we easily learn that $`\delta _1=0`$.

We conclude that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0=& \widehat{}_0\hfill \\ \hfill _1=& \widehat{}_1\hfill \end{array}$$

This establishes the equivalence of the gauge theory and the matrix model for this case.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank D. Berenstein, F. Cachazo, M. Douglas, D. Kutasov, G. Moore and E. Witten for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by DOE grant #DE-FG02-90ER40542 to IAS.

References

relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “A perturbative window into non-perturbative physics,” arXiv:hep-th/0208048. relax M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 165, 311 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9309140\]. relax R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1415 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9811131\]. relax C. Vafa, “Superstrings and topological strings at large N,” J. Math. Phys. 42, 2798 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0008142\]. relax F. Cachazo, K. A. Intriligator and C. Vafa, “A large N duality via a geometric transition,” Nucl. Phys. B 603, 3 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103067\]. relax F. Cachazo and C. Vafa, “N = 1 and N = 2 geometry from fluxes,” arXiv:hep-th/0206017. relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “Matrix models, topological strings, and supersymmetric gauge theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0206255. relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “On geometry and matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0207106. relax T. J. Hollowood and T. Kingaby, “The phase structure of mass-deformed SU(2) x SU(2) quiver theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0210096. relax D. Berenstein, “Quantum moduli spaces from matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0210183. relax R. Argurio, V. L. Campos, G. Ferretti and R. Heise, “Exact superpotentials for theories with flavors via a matrix integral,” arXiv:hep-th/0210291. relax J. McGreevy, “Adding flavor to Dijkgraaf-Vafa,” arXiv:hep-th/0211009. relax H. Suzuki, “Perturbative derivation of exact superpotential for meson fields from matrix theories with one flavour,” arXiv:hep-th/0211052. relax I. Bena and R. Roiban, “Exact superpotentials in N = 1 theories with flavor and their matrix model formulation,” arXiv:hep-th/0211075. relax Y. Demasure and R. A. Janik, “Effective matter superpotentials from Wishart random matrices,” arXiv:hep-th/0211082. relax Y. Tachikawa, “Derivation of the Konishi anomaly relation from Dijkgraaf-Vafa with (bi-)fundamental matters,” arXiv:hep-th/0211189. relax R. Argurio, V. L. Campos, G. Ferretti and R. Heise, “Baryonic corrections to superpotentials from perturbation theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0211249. relax S. G. Naculich, H. J. Schnitzer and N. Wyllard, “Matrix model approach to the N = 2 U(N) gauge theory with matter in the fundamental representation,” arXiv:hep-th/0211254. relax I. Bena, R. Roiban and R. Tatar, “Baryons, boundaries and matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0211271. relax B. Feng, “Seiberg duality in matrix model,” arXiv:hep-th/0211202. relax B. Feng and Y. H. He, “Seiberg duality in matrix models. II,” arXiv:hep-th/0211234. relax Y. Ookouchi, “N = 1 gauge theory with flavor from fluxes,” arXiv:hep-th/0211287. relax K. Ohta, “Exact mesonic vacua from matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0212025. relax I. Bena, S. de Haro and R. Roiban, “Generalized Yukawa couplings and matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0212083. relax C. Hofman, “Super Yang-Mills with flavors from large N(f) matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0212095. relax F. Cachazo, M. R. Douglas, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Chiral rings and anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0211170. relax D. Kutasov, “A Comment on duality in N=1 supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B 351, 230 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9503086\]. relax D. Kutasov and A. Schwimmer, “On duality in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Phys. Lett. B 354, 315 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9505004\]. relax D. Kutasov, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, “Chiral Rings, Singularity Theory and Electric-Magnetic Duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 459, 455 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9510222\]. relax K. Konishi, “Anomalous Supersymmetry Transformation Of Some Composite Operators In Sqcd,” Phys. Lett. B 135, 439 (1984). relax K. i. Konishi and K. i. Shizuya, “Functional Integral Approach To Chiral Anomalies In Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,” Nuovo Cim. A 90, 111 (1985). relax R. Dijkgraaf, M. T. Grisaru, C. S. Lam, C. Vafa and D. Zanon, “Perturbative Computation of Glueball Superpotentials,” arXiv:hep-th/0211017. relax N. Seiberg, “Naturalness versus supersymmetric nonrenormalization theorems,” Phys. Lett. B 318, 469 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9309335\]. relax G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz, “An Effective Lagrangian For The Pure N=1 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 113, 231 (1982). relax A. A. Migdal, “Loop Equations And 1/N Expansion,” Phys. Rept. 102, 199 (1983).