text:
# 𝐶𝑃𝑇 violating neutrinos in the light of KamLAND and Super-K

## 1 Introduction

$`CPT`$ violating neutrino masses allow the possibility  \-  of reconciling the LSND , atmospheric , and solar oscillation  data without resorting to sterile neutrinos. As argued in , there are good reasons to imagine that $`CPT`$ violating dynamics couples directly to the neutrino sector, but not to other Standard Model degrees of freedom. An explicit $`CPT`$ violating model of this type was presented in .

KamLAND , a medium baseline reactor antineutrino disappearance experiment, is sensitive to antineutrino mass-squared splittings in the $`10^4`$ eV2 range characteristic of the large mixing angle (LMA) solar neutrino scenario. The KamLAND collaboration has recently reported  an electron antineutrino survival probability which is significantly less than one:

$$P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=0.611\pm 0.085\pm 0.041.$$
(1.1)
If the neutrino mass spectrum conserves $`CPT`$, then this result is consistent with the LMA interpretation of solar neutrino oscillations. If the neutrino mass spectrum violates $`CPT`$, however, the KamLAND result provides no information about solar oscillations, but rather constrains the splittings in the antineutrino spectrum.

In this paper we show that a hierarchical $`CPT`$ violating neutrino spectrum can simultaneously accommodate the oscillation data from LSND, atmospheric, solar and KamLAND, as well as the nonobservation of antineutrino disappearance in short baseline reactor experiments. Comparing our model to the global neutrino data set we obtain a total $`\chi ^2=201`$ for 228 degrees of freedom. This can be compared to the usual $`CPT`$ conserving best fit, which has a total $`\chi ^2=199`$ for 232 degrees of freedom .

While the total $`\chi ^2`$ are about the same, there are striking differences when we make a more detailed comparison to the data. The $`CPT`$ conserving best fit parameter set (two mass differences and 3 mixing angles) matches remarkably well to the global data set, with the glaring exception of the LSND result. This single data point contributes a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ of about +12, leading to widespread speculation that the LSND result is simply wrong, and will be disconfirmed by MiniBooNE.

As we will see, the hypothesis of a $`CPT`$ violating neutrino sector (four mass differences and 6 mixing angles) leads to a completely different conclusion. In this framework our (non-optimized) parameter choices give an excellent fit to LSND. The largest single discrepancy with the global data set instead occurs with the atmospheric Super-K multi-GeV muons and thru-going muons. In either case the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ is no worse than +4. Thus instead of casting a skeptical eye upon LSND one is led to speculate that the forthcoming re-analysis of the Super-K atmospheric data will improve this discrepancy. Indeed the new fluxes announced for the Super-K re-analysis definitely work in this direction.

We also make a dramatic prediction for the observation of atmospheric neutrinos using the MINOS detector . Because the MINOS detector discriminates positive and negative charge, this experiment can disentangle the neutrino and antineutrino components of atmospheric oscillations in a straightforward way. As the mass differences in the atmospheric sectors differ by orders of magnitude in our scenario, MINOS will be able to tell them apart easily.

## 2 The spectrum

To analyze all the possible $`CPT`$ violating spectra is not an easy job. With four mass differences and six mixing angles (not taking into account the two $`CP`$ violating phases which participate in oscillations) a complete scan of the whole parameter space is impractical. However, thanks to the available experimental data, it is possible to reduce the allowed regions to two sets of well-differentiated spectra with (quasi) orthogonal experimental signatures.

The easiest way to make contact with the experimental results is in terms of the neutrino survival and transition probabilities, which are given by

$`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=\delta _{\alpha \beta }4{\displaystyle \underset{i>j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2L}{4E}}\right]`$ (2.1)
for neutrinos and

$`P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )=\delta _{\alpha \beta }4{\displaystyle \underset{i>j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\overline{U}_{\alpha i}\overline{U}_{\beta i}\overline{U}_{\alpha j}\overline{U}_{\beta j}\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{ij}^2L}{4E}}\right]`$ (2.2)
for antineutrinos. Here the matrix $`U=\left\{U_{\alpha i}\right\}`$ ($`\overline{U}=\left\{\overline{U}_{\alpha i}\right\}`$) describes the weak interaction neutrino (antineutrino) states, $`\nu _\alpha `$, in terms of the neutrino (antineutrino) mass eigenstates, $`\nu _i`$. That is,

$`\nu _\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}U_{\alpha i}\nu _i\text{and}\overline{\nu }_\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\overline{U}_{\alpha i}\overline{\nu }_i`$ (2.3)
where we have ignored the possible $`CP`$ violation phases in both matrices and took them to be real. The matrices can be parametrized as follows:

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)`$ (2.4)
and similarly for $`\overline{U}`$. In Eq. (2.1) $`L`$ denotes the neutrino flight path, i.e. the distance between the neutrino source and the detector, and $`E`$ is the energy of the neutrino in the laboratory system.

Regarding the mass spectrum of the three neutrinos we assume that it is hierarchical and thus characterized by two different squared masses

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=m_2^2m_1^2\text{and }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=m_3^2m_1^2$$

whose numerical values are rather different, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ and similarly for the antineutrinos. Having said that, it becomes apparent that the larger mass-squared difference in the neutrino sector will be related to the atmospheric neutrino signal observed by Super-Kamiokande, while the smaller one will drive the solar neutrino oscillations. In the antineutrino sector, the largest mass difference will provide an explanation to the signal observed in LSND, while the smaller one is the one which might have been (mis)identified by KamLAND as a confirmation of LMA.

The key ingredient to sort out the antineutrino spectra are reactor experiments. Their results indicate  that electron antineutrinos produced in reactors remain electron antineutrinos on short baselines. As the distance traveled by our antineutrinos is small we can forget about the smallest mass difference and average the other two, thus the survival probability can be expressed as

$`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=12\overline{U}_{e3}^2(1\overline{U}_{e3}^2).`$ (2.5)
It is clear that there are two possible ways to achieve a survival probability close to one, i.e. $`\overline{U}_{e3}`$ can be almost one or almost zero. Physically this means that we can choose between having almost all the antielectron flavor in the heavy state (or in the furthest away state) or just leave in this state almost no antielectron flavor. The first possibility (which is depicted in Fig. 1) is the one we explored in our previous works. This spectrum predicts for KamLAND a survival probability consistent with one. Since this is strongly disfavored by the KamLAND result (1.1), we instead pursue the second possibility, which is represented by the spectrum shown in Figure 2.

This second family of spectra is characterized by a strong violation of $`CPT`$ in the mass differences but a much slighter effect in the mixing matrix. This is seen in Fig. 2 where the flavor distribution in the neutrino and antineutrino spectra is rather similar. The most distinctive feature of this family of solutions is its $`\theta _{23}`$, which lives far away from maximal mixing, or in other words which has a large component of antitau neutrino in the heavy state. The small antimuon neutrino component in the heavy state is not bounded by the non observation of muon neutrino disappearance over short baselines in the CDHS experiment, as the antineutrino component in this experiment was minimal.

KamLAND could have observed an oscillation signal driven by the smaller antineutrino mass splitting and interpreted it as LMA oscillations. To explicitly see how this might have happened, we will choose two sample points in our parameter space and calculate the transition probabilities for it. Let us emphasize that we have not performed a chi-squared fit and therefore the points we are selecting (by eye and not by chi) are not optimized to give the best fit to the existing data. Instead, they must be regarded as two among the many equally good sons in this family of solutions.

The point we have chosen has $`\overline{\theta }_{13}=.08`$, $`\overline{\theta }_{23}=.5`$, $`\overline{\theta }_{12}=.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{12}^2=510^4`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{13}^2=𝒪`$(1) eV2. Since we are dealing with an antineutrino signal, we do not need to identify either the flavor distribution or the mass eigenstates of the neutrino sector. We will do it later, when showing the zenith angle dependence this model predicts for Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrinos.

The survival probability measured by KamLAND is given by

$`P_{\text{KamLAND}}`$ $`=`$ $`14\overline{U}_{e3}^2(1\overline{U}_{e3}^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{13}^2L}{4E}}\right]4\overline{U}_{e1}^2\overline{U}_{e2}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{12}^2L}{4E}}\right],`$ (2.6)
where the second term (proportional to $`\overline{U}_{e3}^2`$) is negligible. Plugging our numbers in, it is straightforward to see that $`P_{\text{KamLAND}}.6`$ regardless of whether the mass difference that drives the solar neutrino oscillations belongs to the LMA region.

By the same token, we can calculate the probability associated with the LSND signal. It is given by

$`P_{\text{LSND}}=4\overline{U}_{\mu 3}^2\overline{U}_{e3}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{13}^2L}{4E}}\right],`$ (2.7)
where we have neglected terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{12}^2`$ which are irrelevant for such small distances. As the reader can easily verify, we predict a $`P_{\text{LSND}}.0022`$ in excellent agreement with the LSND final analysis:

$`P_{\text{LSND-final}}=0.00264\pm .00081.`$ (2.8)
The only piece of experimental evidence involving antineutrinos which remains to be checked is the signal found for Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrinos. As we are introducing an antineutrino mass difference roughly two orders of magnitude larger than the Super-K best fit point (for an analysis with two generations and conserving $`CPT`$), there is cause for concern. In fact we pass this test as successfully as we did the others. To see this, we have first to state the parameters in the neutrino sector. Once more they have been chosen almost randomly from the different analyses available in the literature and are given by $`\theta _{13}=.08`$, $`\theta _{23}=.78`$, $`\theta _{12}=.52`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=110^4`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=2.810^3`$ eV2. We stress that although we have chosen a point in the LMA region, the particular election of both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ does not affect the quality of the agreement with the data.

With these parameters we have calculated the zenith angle dependence of the ratio (observed/expected in the no oscillation case) for muon and electron neutrinos for the sub-GeV and multi-GeV energy ranges (remember that since Super-K is a water Cherenkov detector it does not distinguish neutrinos from antineutrinos and washes out any possible difference between the conjugated channels). The results are shown in Fig. 3 where we have also included the experimental data for the sake of comparison. As we have closely followed the spirit of the calculation in , we refer the reader to this article for details and skip the technicalities. We worked in a complete three generation framework and included matter effects.

In Fig. 4 we show the comparison to Super-K for our second example point. For this point we have chosen $`\overline{\theta }_{13}=.08`$, $`\overline{\theta }_{23}=.5`$, $`\overline{\theta }_{12}=.785`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{12}^2=710^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{13}^2=𝒪`$(1) eV2. Note that this point is consistent with the best-fit point of KamLAND .

## 3 Comparison with other analyses

It is clear from Figs. 3 and 4 that our $`CPT`$ violating spectrum does pretty well, with a moderate discrepancy apparent only for the multi-GeV muons. In order to understand the results it is important to remember that due to production and cross section effects Super-K is dominated by neutrinos, with antineutrinos a minor (but not negligible) contribution. This is only part of the story, however, since an analysis done by the Super-K collaboration allowing for $`CPT`$ violation did not allow (at 99% C.L.) a mass difference in the antineutrino sector as drastically different as the one we are proposing. The difference is due to the fact that the Super-K analysis was done in a two generation context and, most importantly, forcing the two mixing angles to be maximal. This latter fact indeed maximizes the antineutrino contribution and compels the antineutrino mass difference to take the closest possible value to the neutrino one. By the same token, if we want a large antineutrino mass difference, we expect to improve the fit to Super-K data by combining this with a non-maximal mixing angle, which suppresses the antineutrino contribution to the Super-K oscillation signal.

The two vs three generation analysis has also an impact, as is seen by inspecting the transition probability for muon antineutrinos into tau antineutrinos, which is given by,

$`P(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\tau )=`$ $`=`$ $`4\overline{U}_{\mu 3}^2\overline{U}_{\tau 3}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{23}^2L}{4E}}\right]4\overline{U}_{\mu 2}\overline{U}_{\tau 2}\overline{U}_{\mu 1}\overline{U}_{\tau 1}\mathrm{sin}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{12}^2L}{4E}}\right]`$ (3.1)
From this formula it becomes apparent that for neutrinos coming from above only the largest mass difference contributes. However, for those neutrinos which have travelled through sizeable portions of the Earth and have covered distances of the order of 104 km, the second mass difference also plays a role. This contribution (which does affect the final result, especially for sub-GeV neutrinos) is neglected if only one mass difference is taken into account.

Our analysis agrees with the spirit of the findings in Ref  where a two generation approximation that didn’t include matter effects was used. Also a simplified analysis based only on the up/down asymmetry in the number of multi-GeV events (in the $`CPT`$ violating case) is available in the literature , which used an older Super-K data set. If one uses (as we do) the result from the full 1490 day of SK-I data, i.e. $`A_\mu =.288\pm .030`$  the $`CPT`$ violating case (which gives for the sample points we have being using $`A_\mu =.27`$) turns out to be as acceptable as the $`CPT`$ conserving one (with $`A_\mu =.33`$ for maximal mixing but where smaller values can be obtained by departures of maximal mixing). In all the cases the electron neutrino asymmetry is consistent (within experimental errors) with zero.

In order to get a quantitative estimate of how well our $`CPT`$ violating spectrum fits the global data set not including LSND, we have compared (for both of our sample points) the total $`\chi ^2`$ to the minimum total $`\chi ^2`$ which is obtained for different values of the 10 input parameters. Fixing $`\theta _{13}=\overline{\theta }_{13}=.08`$ our (admittedly crude) program finds that the minimum total $`\chi ^2`$ occures for $`\theta _{23}=\overline{\theta }_{23}=.8`$, $`\theta _{12}=\overline{\theta }_{12}=.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{12}^2=610^5`$ eV2, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{m}_{13}^2=310^3`$ eV2. This agrees rather well with more sophisticated best fit analyses. We find the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ for either of our sample points to be smaller than 9.6. Making the conservative observation that variations in $`\theta _{13}`$, $`\overline{\theta }_{13}`$ don’t affect the total $`\chi ^2`$ as long as the central values are small, we can interpret $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^29.6`$ for 8 parameters as occurring with probability 29% due to Gaussian fluctuations in the global data set.

However this result is questionable since, as it happens, the minimum total $`\chi ^2`$ is obtained for values of the 8 input parameters which are very close to $`CPT`$ conserving. Thus one can argue that we are only interested in contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ arising from fluctuations in the data which simulate variation in the 4 independent $`CPT`$ violating parameters. In that case we are dealing with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^29.6`$ for 4 parameters, which occurs with probability 5%.

After our model was proposed it was pointed out by Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni and Schwetz  that the comparison with Super-K atmospheric data needs to include the zenith angle dependence of the thru-going muons. Because the data contains too many events near the horizon compared to the prediction of our model, this turns out to give a large contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ in an analysis like that described above. Using a $`CPT`$ violating spectrum very close to our sample points, these authors obtain a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=12.7`$, which for 4 parameters implies a fluctuation with probability 1.3%. This is not especially encouraging, although it is worth pointing out that the Standard Model fit to the global electroweak data set has a confidence level of only $`CL=0.02`$ .

Thus, if the LSND experiment did not exist, we would have concluded that our model has a confidence level of $`CL=0.01`$. The fact that it competes well with the $`CPT`$ conserving scenario once LSND is included is an indication that LSND is not statistically very compatible with the rest of the global data set. Indeed Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni and Schwetz have estimated, using their own customized goodness-of-fit test, that the LSND and all-but-LSND data sets are only statistically compatible at confidence level $`CL=7.5\times 10^4`$. It is important to note that this stringent result, although it employs the $`CPT`$ violating parameter space, does not represent the confidence level for our model. As seen above, the confidence level for our model if LSND did not exist would be $`CL=0.01`$. With the entire global data set including LSND, the confidence level is $`CL=0.74`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^22`$ for 4 parameters).

## 4 Outlook

Once we have established that a $`CPT`$ violating mass spectrum as the one shown in Fig. 2 can account for all the available experimental evidence data, it is time to ask how we might confirm $`CPT`$ violation in future data.

The most straightforward answer is through experiments able to run in both modes (neutrino and antineutrino), by simple comparison of the conjugated channels. The first of them is MiniBooNE, which is meant to close the discussion about LSND one way or the other. MiniBooNE is taking data and is expected to give a definite answer to the $`CPT`$ question after some years of running. Needless to say we expect MiniBooNE to confirm LSND only when running in the antineutrino mode.

For our type of spectrum, the observation of atmospheric neutrinos using the MINOS detector  is also ideal. Because the MINOS detector discriminates positive and negative charge, this experiment can disentangle the neutrino and antineutrino components of atmospheric oscillations in a straightforward way. As the mass differences in the atmospheric sectors differ by orders of magnitude in our scenario, MINOS will be able to tell them apart easily.

A positive oscillation signal at KamLAND (which could be a misidentification of a $`CPT`$ violating spectrum as LMA) and Borexino  finding a day/night asymmetry (evidence of a LOW solution ) or a seasonal variation (an indication of VAC ) will point towards $`CPT`$ violation. Indeed a conflict between KamLAND and Borexino results would constitute strong evidence for $`CPT`$ violation even if LSND is disconfirmed by MiniBooNE. It is worth mentioning that, despite the accumulation of strong evidence for the LMA solution, some interesting discrepancies remain .

All in all, $`CPT`$ violation has the potential to explain all the existing evidence about neutrinos with oscillations to active flavors. Such a scenario makes distinctive predictions that will be tested in the present round of neutrino experiments. One should always bear in mind that so far we have no evidence of $`CPT`$ conservation in the neutrino sector. The true status of $`CPT`$ in the neutrino sector might be established by the combined results of KamLAND, Borexino and SNO, and certainly by MiniBooNE. In the atmospheric sector MINOS is the ideal experiment for such a test.

### Acknowledgments

We are grateful to André de Gouvêa, Bill Louis, Michele Maltoni, and Steve Mrenna for comments and assistance. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant DE-AC02-76CHO3000.


format: text

text:
# New Results from Glueball Superpotentials and Matrix Models: the Leigh-Strassler Deformation

## 1 Introduction

The motivation of the present paper is to derive some new results in supersymmetric gauge theories from the remarkable developments which relate glueball superpotentials of $`𝒩=1`$ theories to matrix models .

Leigh and Strassler  discovered that $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory has two complex marginal deformations. One of them involves replacing the tree-level superpotential, which involves the commutator term, by the “$`q`$ deformation”:

$$W_{\mathrm{cl}}=i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]i\lambda \mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]_\beta ,$$
(1)
where we have defined the $`q`$-commutator

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^{i\beta /2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^+e^{i\beta /2}.$$
(2)
In the above, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ are $`\text{SU}(N)`$ adjoint-valued chiral fields (unlike  we will only consider the $`\text{SU}(N)`$ theory and so we will drop the hats from $`\text{SU}(N)`$-valued fields). The resulting theory is known to be finite on some 2-complex dimensional surface in the space spanned by the two new couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ along with the complex gauge coupling $`\tau `$. Away from the $`𝒩=4`$ line, $`\lambda =1`$, $`\beta =0`$ with $`\tau `$ arbitrary, the theory only has $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry.

In , generalizing the analysis of the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory in , we analysed certain relevant deformations of this space of theories by using the matrix formalism developed by Dijkgraaf and Vafa for calculating the exact glueball superpotentials of $`𝒩=1`$ theories . The perturbed theory is described by the tree-level superpotential

$$W_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(i\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]_\beta +m\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^2\right).$$
(3)
More generally one can replace the last term by an arbitrary function $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Rather remarkably in the confining vacuum the one-cut saddle-point solution of the matrix model is solvable thanks to . In , we showed how the matrix model could also be solved around certain multi-cut solutions that describe all the massive vacua of the theory. Explicit formulae will be given later; however, on the basis of these explicit results we were able to conjecture an exact form for the “elliptic” superpotential of the theory. This is a superpotential induced by the final term in (3) when the theory is compactified to three dimensions. It is a rather useful quantity because, unlike the matrix model glueball superpotentials, it captures all the vacua in one go and the values of the condensates that are extracted from it are valid in the four-dimensional decompactification limit.

It is well known that the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ and $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theories are related to the elliptic Calogero-Moser system; in particular, the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory is the spectral curve of the integrable system and the elliptic superpotential that arises on breaking to $`𝒩=1^{}`$ is one of the Hamiltonians. In this paper, we ask whether the matrix model results of  can be used to deduce whether this relation to integrable systems is maintained under the Leigh-Strassler $`q`$ deformation? The answer is yes, since it transpires that the Leigh-Strassler $`q`$ deformation involves a natural one parameter deformation of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system known as the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system. This result allows us to solve the Seiberg-Witten theory of the Leigh-Strassler $`q`$ deformation of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory. In other words, we find the exact description of this $`𝒩=1`$ Coulomb branch.

## 2 Review of the relevant deformations of $`𝒩=4`$

In this section we will review the story of the relevant deformations of $`𝒩=4`$. In other words, we take $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\beta =0`$ in (3). This theory is known as the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory. The vacuum structure of this theory was originally determined by compactifying the theory on $`^3\times S^1`$  (see also ). In order to describe how this works it is useful to think of the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ deformation in two stages: firstly with only the mass $`m`$ non-zero, which describes the so-called $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory, and then with the final mass $`\mu `$ turned on.

The $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory in four dimensions has a Coulomb branch which was described by Donagi and Witten . In particular, it is the moduli space of the Seiberg-Witten curve which in this case is a certain $`N`$-fold ramified cover of the basic torus $`E_\tau `$ with complex structure $`\tau `$ the complex gauge coupling. In the following, we choose a normalization in which the periods of $`E_\tau `$ are:

$$2\omega _1=2\pi i,2\omega _2=2\pi i\tau .$$
(4)
The Seiberg-Witten curve is also the spectral curve of the Calogero-Moser integrable system  describing the interaction $`N`$ particles according to the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{a}{}p_a^2+m^2\underset{ab}{}\mathrm{}(x_ax_b),$$
(5)
with momenta $`p_a`$ and positions $`x_a`$. In the following, we shall freeze the trivial centre-of-mass motion by choosing

$$\underset{a}{}p_a=\underset{a}{}x_a=0.$$
(6)
This amounts to restricting to the $`\text{SU}(N)`$ gauge group without an additional $`\text{U}(1)`$ factor. In the above, $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ is the Weierstrass function defined on the torus $`E_\tau `$.

Integrability is manifest in the Lax formalism. One defines the Lax matrix with elements

$$\varphi _{ab}(z)=p_a\delta _{ab}+im(1\delta _{ab})\frac{\sigma (x_{ab}+z)}{\sigma (x_{ab})\sigma (z)},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma (z)`$ is the Weierstrass sigma function and $`x_{ab}=x_ax_b`$. The time evolution can then be written via another matrix $`M`$:

$$\dot{\varphi }=[M,\varphi ]$$
(8)
which clearly leaves invariant the spectrum of $`\varphi (z)`$. In particular, the spectral curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$F(v,z)=\mathrm{det}\left(v1_{\left[N\right]\times \left[N\right]}\varphi (z)\right)=0$$
(9)
is left invariant. This curve is an $`N`$-fold branched covering of the basic torus $`E_\tau `$:

$$F(v,z+2\omega _1)=F(v,z+2\omega _2)=F(v,z)$$
(10)
and plays the rôle of the Seiberg-Witten curve for the theory. A basis for the space of $`N1`$ Hamiltonians is obtained by taking the finite parts of $`\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^k(z)`$, $`k=2,\mathrm{},N`$, around the poles at $`z=0`$. In particular,

$$\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^2(z)=m^2N(N1)\mathrm{}(z)+H,$$
(11)
where $`H`$ is (5).

The Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory is identified with the moduli space of the spectral curve (9) of the complexified Calogero-Moser system—so $`x_a`$ and $`p_a`$ are taken to be complex—parameterized by the $`N1`$, now complex, Hamiltonians. The relation with the integrable system becomes even more satisfying once the theory is compactified on a circle: in that case the Coulomb branch doubles in dimension because there are $`N1`$ Wilson lines and dual photons which can be amassed into $`N1`$ additional complex scalar fields. These variables are naturally valued on a multi-dimensional torus which is nothing but the space of the angle variables of the Calogero-Moser system conjugate to the Hamiltonian, or action, variables. The multi-dimensional torus is naturally identified with the Jacobian variety $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of the spectral curve. So in the compactified theory the Coulomb branch is naturally identified with the whole phase space of the integrable system.

Now we can turn on the final mass deformation $`\mu `$. This lifts the Coulomb branch according to a superpotential which is precisely the quadratic Hamiltonian $`H`$ in (5). This is the exact elliptic superpotential of . Actually more general deformations of the form $`\mathrm{Tr}W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ can be considered as these simply correspond to some linear combination of the $`N1`$ Hamiltonians.

One way to understand why the superpotential is exact and to more fully elucidate the relation with the integrable system is to realize the whole set-up within string theory. We briefly describe the chain of arguments. One starts with Witten’s elliptic brane construction in Type IIA string theory . The background spacetime is $`^9\times S^1`$. There are $`N`$ D4-branes whose world-volume lies in $`^4\times S^1`$ parameterized by $`x^n`$, $`n=0,1,2,3,6`$, where $`x^6`$ is the periodic coordinate. There is one NS5-brane with a world-volume along $`x^n`$, $`n=0,1,2,3,4,5`$. The low energy theory on the D4 branes is then four-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. Up until now, the single NS5 plays no rôle. However by twisting the spacetime we can break to $`𝒩=2^{}`$. This is achieved by a non-trivial fibration of the complex direction $`v=x^4+ix^5`$ over the $`x^6`$ circle:

$$x^6x^6+2\pi L,vv+m.$$
(12)
In this case the D4-branes have to split at the NS5-brane and the resulting theory at low energies is the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory. In order to include quantum corrections one now lifts the configuration to M theory . A new dimension appears parameterized by $`x^{10}`$ which, along with $`x^6`$, forms a torus $`E_\tau `$ with complex structure $`\tau `$, the underlying complex gauge coupling of the theory. In M theory the configuration of D4-branes and NS5-brane lifts to a single M theory 5-brane with a world volume $`^4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a 2-surface embedded non-trivially in the four-dimensional space $`^2\times E_\tau `$, parameterized by the two complex coordinates $`(v,z)`$. The embedding is described by the Seiberg-Witten curve and has the form

$$F(v,z)=v^Nf_1(z)v^{N1}+f_2(z)v^{N2}\mathrm{}+(1)^Nf_N(z)=0.$$
(13)
The functions $`f_a(z)`$ are elliptic on the torus $`E_\tau `$ (which we take, as before, to have periods $`(2\omega _1=2\pi i,2\omega _2=2\pi i\tau )`$), with the following analytic structure. The elliptic functions $`f_a(z)`$ have a pole of order $`a`$ at $`z=0`$ and upon a suitable shift in $`v`$, the singularities of $`F(v,z)`$ can be converted into a simple pole at $`z=0`$. It is not difficult to show  that the curve (13) is precisely the spectral curve of the Calogero-Moser system (9). Note that in order to describe $`\text{SU}(N)`$, rather than $`\text{U}(N)`$, we decouple the centre-of-mass motion and this sets $`f_1(z)=0`$.

As an alternative to lifting to M theory, following Kapustin , we take a different route that leads to the same result but is more suitable for our needs. The idea is to compactify one of the spacetime directions of the D4-branes, say $`x^3`$, on a circle of radius $`R`$. For small radius $`R`$, we can now perform a T-duality in $`x^3`$ to yield the Type IIB configuration of D3-branes spanning $`x^0,x^1,x^3,x^6`$. Under this duality, the string coupling is transformed to $`g_s^{}=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}/R`$. We follow this with an $`S`$-duality on the four-dimensional theory on the D3-branes. Finally, we perform, once again, a T-duality in $`x^3`$ to return to a Type IIA configuration with D4-branes spanning $`x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3,x^6`$. However, due to the intervening $`S`$-duality, the radius of the $`x^3`$ is not returned to its original value. The new radius is $`Rg_s^{}=g_s\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$. In other words, it is independent of the radius $`R`$.111All memory of $`R`$ is not lost because the string coupling in the dual theory is $`R^2/(g_s\alpha ^{})`$. The theory describing the collective dynamics of these D4-branes is the mirror dual, or “magnetic”, theory. It is a five-dimensional theory compactified on $`^3\times T^2`$. The most significant fact is that the torus $`T^2`$ has complex structure $`\tau `$, the complex gauge coupling of the original theory, and so is identified with the basic torus $`E_\tau `$ but now realized in the $`(x^3,x^6)`$ space rather than the $`(x^6,x^{10})`$ space of the M theory construction.

The discussion so far has been simplified because we have ignored the fact that there is an NS5-brane in the original Type IIA set-up on which the D4-branes can split when the mass $`m`$ is non-vanishing. Under the first T-duality the NS5-brane become a Type IIB NS5-brane. Then under $`S`$-duality it becomes a D5’-brane (to distinguish it from the other D-branes in the problem). Finally the T-duality around $`x^3`$ changes it into an D4’-brane spanning $`x^0,x^1,x^2,x^4,x^5`$, but localized at points on the $`(x^3,x^6)`$ torus. As usual in a mirror transform we have mapped the Coulomb branch of the original theory, where the D4-branes were prevented from moving off the NS5-branes, to the Higgs branch of the magnetic theory.

The configuration that we are considering preserves eight real supersymmetries. So we have a realization of the Coulomb branch of the 3-dimensional theory as the Higgs branch of an “impurity” gauge theory with eight real supercharges. This is why the mirror map is a useful device. The Higgs branch will not be subject to quantum corrections and in this way we are able to “solve” the theory. It is naturally described by a set of $`D`$\- and $`F`$-flatness equations which involve the, suitably normalized, components of the dual $`\text{SU}(N)`$ gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{z,\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{A}_3\pm i\stackrel{~}{A}_6)`$ of the D4-branes along the torus222We perform an overall re-scaling of the torus $`T^2`$ so that it becomes precisely $`E_\tau `$ parameterized by the holomorphic coordinate $`z`$ with periods $`2\omega _1=2\pi i`$ and $`2\omega _2=2\pi i\tau `$. and the adjoint-valued complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ describing the fluctuations of the D4-branes in the $`x^4,x^5`$ direction. In addition, the D4’-brane impurity gives rise to a hypermultiplet $`(Q_a\stackrel{~}{Q}_a)`$ transforming in the $`(𝑵,\overline{𝑵})`$-representation of $`\text{SU}(N)`$, which is localized at a point on the torus which we choose at $`z=0`$. The $`D`$\- and $`F`$-flatness conditions, respectively, with some convenient choice of normalization of the hypermultiplets, read

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{z\overline{z}}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]\right)_{ab}=i\pi \delta ^2(z,\overline{z})(Q_aQ_b^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_a^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_b),`$ (14a)
$`\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{\overline{z}}\varphi \right)_{ab}=i\pi \delta ^2(z,\overline{z})(Q_a\stackrel{~}{Q}_bm\delta _{ab}).`$ (14b)
Here, (14a) is a real equation and (14b) is a complex equation and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{\overline{z}}\varphi =_{\overline{z}}\varphi +[\stackrel{~}{A}_{\overline{z}},\varphi ]`$. Notice how the mass enters into the $`F`$-flatness equation. These equations are a generalization of Hitchin’s self-duality equations reduced to two dimensions .

The Coulomb branch of the 3-dimensional theory is then the solution of the $`D`$\- and $`F`$-flatness conditions modulo local $`\text{SU}(N)`$ gauge transformations on the torus. The construction is an example of an infinite hyper-Kähler quotient and so the Coulomb branch of the 3-dimensional theory is a $`4(N1)`$-dimensional hyper-Kähler space. As usual as long as we are interested in holomorphic quantities we can relax the $`D`$-flatness condition and then solve for the $`F`$-flatness condition moduli complex local gauge transformations—those valued in $`\text{SL}(N,)`$.

To proceed, it is very convenient to use up (most of) the local part of the quotient group, $`\text{SL}(N,)`$, to transform the anti-holomorphic component $`A_{\overline{z}}`$ into a constant diagonal matrix:

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\overline{z}}=\frac{\pi i}{2(\overline{\omega }_2\omega _1\overline{\omega }_1\omega _2)}\mathrm{diag}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)$$
(15)
with $`_{a=1}^Nx_a=0`$. The only local transformations that remain act by shifting the $`x_a`$ by periods of the torus:

$$x_ax_a+2n\omega _1+2m\omega _2,m,n.$$
(16)
The remaining global part of the gauge group is also fixed, up to permutations of the $`x_a`$, by choosing

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_a=1.$$
(17)
We can now solve explicitly for $`\varphi `$ to get a very concrete parameterization of the Coulomb branch. With $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\overline{z}}`$ diagonal, the diagonal elements $`\varphi _{aa}`$ are meromorphic functions on the torus with a possible simple pole at $`z=0`$. However, there are no such functions other than a constant; consequently,

$$\varphi _{aa}=p_a\text{and}Q_a=m.$$
(18)
where the $`p_a`$ with $`_{a=1}^Np_a=0`$ are new parameters.

The off-diagonal elements are

$$\varphi _{ab}(z,\overline{z})=im\frac{\sigma (x_{ab}+z)}{\sigma (x_{ab})\sigma (z)}e^{\psi (z,\overline{z})x_{ab}}(ab).$$
(19)
Here $`x_{ab}x_ax_b`$, and we have defined

$$\psi (z,\overline{z})=\frac{1}{\overline{\omega }_2\omega _1\overline{\omega }_1\omega _2}\left[\zeta (\omega _2)(\overline{\omega }_1z\omega _1\overline{z})\zeta (\omega _1)(\overline{\omega }_2z\omega _2\overline{z})\right].$$
(20)
One can readily verify that $`\varphi _{ab}(z,\overline{z})`$ is periodic on the torus. Furthermore, a shift of $`x_a`$ by a lattice vector $`2\omega _{\mathrm{}}`$, can be undone by a large gauge transformation on the torus as anticipated earlier. Up to a simple diagonal gauge transformation,

$$U_{ab}=e^{\psi (z,\overline{z})x_a}\delta _{ab},$$
(21)
the matrix $`\varphi `$, with elements (18) and (19), is equal to the Lax matrix of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system (7) where the $`x_a`$ are the positions and the $`p_a`$ are the momenta.

We now have an explicit parameterization of the 3-dimensional Coulomb branch furnished by $`\{p_a,x_a\}`$ with

$$\underset{a}{}p_a=\underset{a}{}x_a=0.$$
(22)
As we have already alluded to above, there is also a completely integrable dynamical system for which $`x_a`$ are the positions and $`p_a`$ are momenta with the usual Poisson bracket structure. It is the elliptic Calogero-Moser system . In particular, as we have already stated, the spectral curve (9) is precisely the Seiberg-Witten curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the four-dimensional theory before compactification to three dimensions. Since the dynamical system is completely integrable, there are $`N1`$ (complex) Hamiltonians. These are identified with coordinates on the Coulomb branch of the four-dimensional theory. The conjugate angle variables—also complex—take values in the Jacobian of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

A basis in the space of the Poisson-commuting Hamiltonians of the dynamical system is obtained by taking the gauge invariant quantities $`\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^k(z)`$, $`k=2,\mathrm{},N`$, for some fixed $`z`$. These Hamiltonians parameterize the Coulomb branch of the four-dimensional theory. In particular, the quadratic Hamiltonian is the finite part of

$$\mathrm{Tr}\varphi (z)^2=N(N1)m^2\mathrm{}(z)+\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_a^2+m^2\underset{ab}{}\mathrm{}(x_{ab})$$
(23)
around $`z=0`$.

Now that we have established the description of the Coulomb branch of the compactified theory in terms of the Calogero-Moser integrable system, we can break to $`𝒩=1^{}`$ by adding the general perturbation

$$\underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _k\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^k$$
(24)
to the tree-level superpotential. In the Higgs branch description of the compactified theory this gives rise to an exact “elliptic” superpotential which is some linear combination of Hamiltonians:

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(x_a,p_a)=\underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _kH_k.$$
(25)
This superpotential lifts the three-dimensional Coulomb branch and importantly is independent of the compactification radius and so is equally valid in the four-dimensional limit. The only subtlety involved is in identifying the coordinates $`\{H_k\}`$ in the space of Hamiltonians. This problem involves resolving operator mixing ambiguities . For the quadratic perturbation $`\mu \mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ the situation is simple and the exact elliptic superpotential is

$$\frac{1}{\mu }W_{\mathrm{eff}}(x_a,p_a)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_a^2+m^2\underset{ab}{}\mathrm{}(x_{ab})$$
(26)
up to an additive constant which is not physically significant.

We can go on to consider the vacuum structure of the theory by extremizing $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(x_a,p_a)`$. First of all, it is clear that in any vacuum $`p_a=0`$. There are two classes of vacua: the massive and massless. The former have been completely determined  while the classification of the latter is still an unsolved problem . The massive vacua have a very beautiful interpretation from the point-of-view of the dynamical system : they are precisely equilibrium configurations with respect to the space of flows defined by the $`N1`$ Hamiltonians.333Here, “time” is an auxiliary concept referring to evolution in the dynamical system and not a spacetime concept in the field theories under consideration. The point is that the massive vacua correspond to points of the four-dimensional Coulomb branch for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ degenerates to a torus: cycles pinch off and one is left with an $`N`$-fold un-branched cover of the basic torus $`E_\tau `$. This means that the Jacobian Variety $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ itself degenerates: at these points the period matrix only has rank 1, with non-zero eigenvalue $`\tau `$. The remaining torus is associated with the centre-of-mass motion of the integrable system, so the overall $`\text{U}(1)`$ factor, which we have removed by (22). So at a massive vacuum, the remaining angle variables must stay fixed under any time evolution. Since the Hamiltonians are by definition constants of the motion, this means that the entire dynamical system must be static at a massive vacuum and the system is at an equilibrium point. Consequently, a massive vacuum is not only a critical point of the quadratic Hamiltonian but simultaneously of all the other $`N2`$ Hamiltonians.

The simplest kind of massive vacua are labelled by two integers $`p`$ and $`q`$ with $`pq=N`$. All the other cases can be generated from these by modular transformations of $`\tau `$ (in fact all the massive vacua lie on a single orbit of the modular group). The critical point is then

$$x_a\{\frac{2r}{q}\omega _1+\frac{2s}{p}\omega _2,0r<q,0s<p\}.$$
(27)
The proof that this is a critical point of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is delightfully simple. One only needs to use the fact that $`\mathrm{}^{}(z)`$ is an odd elliptic function. Terms in the sum $`_{b(a)}\mathrm{}^{}(x_{ab})`$ either cancel in pairs or vanish because $`x_{ab}`$ is a half-lattice point. As we mentioned, the set (27) does not exhaust the set of massive vacua. For a given pair $`(q,p)`$ we can generate $`q1`$ additional vacua by replacing $`\tau \tau +l/p`$, $`l=0,\mathrm{},q1`$. So the total number of massive vacua is equal to $`_{p|N}p`$, as expected on the basis of a semi-classical analysis .

In the vacua (27) one can write down an expression for the superpotential in terms of the $`2^{\mathrm{nd}}`$ Eisenstein series:

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mu m^2Np^2}{12}E_2(p^2\tau /N),$$
(28)
up to a vacuum-independent constant.

## 3 The Leigh-Strassler deformation

Now we consider the deformed theory. We start with the expressions that generalize the superpotential in a subset of the massive vacua (28) that we derived from the matrix model formalism :

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{pN\mu M^2}{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\beta }\frac{\theta _1^{}(p\beta /2|p^2\widehat{\tau }/N)}{\theta _1(p\beta /2|p^2\widehat{\tau }/N)}\frac{N\mu M^2}{4\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2}}.$$
(29)
In this expression, we have defined the renormalized gauge coupling

$$\widehat{\tau }=\tau \frac{iN}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\lambda .$$
(30)
In the limit $`\beta 0`$ and $`\lambda 1`$ (29) reduces to (28).

Using (29) we will attempt to reverse the route followed in the last section. First of all, in  we identified the following elliptic superpotential for which the configurations (27) are still critical points and for which the superpotential takes the values (29) up to an additive vacuum-independent constant. The relevant expression is

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(x_a)=\frac{im^2\mu }{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\beta }\underset{ab}{}\left(\zeta (x_ax_b+i\beta )\zeta (x_ax_bi\beta )\right),$$
(31)
where $`\zeta (z)`$ is the Weierstrass zeta-function which can be defined via $`\mathrm{}(z)=\zeta ^{}(z)`$ where $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ is the Weierstrass function for the torus $`E_{\widehat{\tau }}`$ with periods $`2\omega _1=2\pi i`$ and $`2\omega _2=2\pi i\widehat{\tau }`$. (Definitions of the elliptic functions that arise can be found in standard texts, for example .)

The question is whether $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(x_a)`$ can be identified with a Hamiltonian of a known integrable system? The answer is yes, when one investigates the known integrable systems one finds a natural candidate which is a one parameter deformation of the Calogero-Moser system. It is known as the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system  or sometimes known as the relativistic elliptic Calogero-Moser system. The first and second Hamiltonians can be written

$$H_1=\underset{a}{}\rho _a,H_2=\underset{ab}{}\rho _a\rho _b\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(i\beta )\mathrm{}(x_{ab})}.$$
(32)
The $`\rho _a`$ are not directly the momenta conjugate to $`x_a`$, in fact these are $`p_a`$ defined via

$$e^{p_a}=\rho _a\underset{b(a)}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}(x_{ab})\mathrm{}(i\beta )}}.$$
(33)
In order to relate this system to our superpotential (29), we will impose the constraint

$$\underset{a}{}\rho _a=N\left(\frac{im^2\mathrm{}^{}(i\beta )}{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\beta }\right)^{1/2},$$
(34)
which along with $`_ax_a=0`$, is the analogue of freezing out the centre-of-mass motion that we did in the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ in order to describe the $`\text{SU}(N)`$, rather then $`\text{U}(N)`$, theory. Notice that this constraint is not the same as freezing out the centre-of-mass motion of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system since this would be $`_ap_a=0`$. However, we will shortly show how this constraint arises naturally.

It is then straightforward to show that $`H_2(x_a,\rho _b)`$, subject to the constraint (34), is equal to (29), up to an additive vacuum-independent constant, once the $`\rho _a`$ are integrated out. This procedure gives

$$\rho _a=\left(\frac{im^2\mathrm{}^{}(i\beta )}{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\beta }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(35)
In order to complete the equality with (29) one uses the elliptic function identity

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^{}(i\beta )}{\mathrm{}(i\beta )\mathrm{}(z)}=\zeta (z+i\beta )\zeta (zi\beta )2\zeta (i\beta ).$$
(36)
By writing

$$\rho _a=\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}^{}(i\beta )}{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\beta }\right)^{1/2}\left(m+i\stackrel{~}{p}_a\sigma (i\beta )\right),$$
(37)
for new coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$, with $`_a\stackrel{~}{p}_a=0`$, and then taking the limit $`\beta 0`$ (and $`\lambda 1`$), the $`2^{\mathrm{nd}}`$ Hamiltonian $`H_2`$ reduces to the quadratic Hamiltonian of the elliptic Calogero-Moser with momenta $`\stackrel{~}{p}_a`$. We remark that this is apparently different from the usual limit of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system that gives the elliptic Calogero-Moser system. In that limit, one takes $`p_a𝒪(\beta )`$ and it is the first Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ that gives the quadratic Hamiltonian of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system.

It is clear that these facts identify the Coulomb branch of the 3-dimemsional $`\text{SU}(N)`$ theory, i.e. the theory with tree-level superpotential

$$W_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(i\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]_\beta +m\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right),$$
(38)
as the spectral curve of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system. The latter can be constructed by a simple deformation of the Hitchin system description of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system described in the last section. The idea is to demand that the Lax matrix $`\varphi (z,\overline{z})`$ is no longer periodic on the underlying torus $`E_{\widehat{\tau }}`$ (with complex structure $`\widehat{\tau }`$) rather there is a non-trivial boundary condition:

$$\varphi (z+2\omega _1)=\varphi (z),\varphi (z+2\omega _2)=e^{i\beta }\varphi (z).$$
(39)
We can solve the $`F`$-flatness condition (14b) modulo complex gauge transformation as before but now incorporating the boundary condition (39). Choosing the gauge (15) and (17), as before, the solution for the elements of the Lax matrix is

$$\varphi _{ab}(z,\overline{z})=i(Q_am\delta _{ab})\frac{\sigma (x_{ab}i\beta +z)}{\sigma (x_{ab}i\beta )\sigma (z)}e^{\psi (z,\overline{z})x_{ab}+i\beta \zeta (\omega _1)z/\omega _1},$$
(40)
with the tracelessness constraint, since we work in $`\text{SU}(N)`$ rather than $`\text{U}(N)`$,

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}Q_a=Nm.$$
(41)
Notice that in contrast to the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ case, the diagonal elements are not constant and $`Q_a`$ is not forced to be $`m`$: in fact the $`Q_a`$ will be related to the conjugate momenta.

The quadratic Hamiltonian is extracted from the gauge invariant quantity

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^2(z)& =e^{2i\beta \zeta (\omega _1)z/\omega _1}\frac{\sigma (zi\beta )^2}{\sigma (z)^2\sigma (i\beta )^2}\underset{ab}{}(Q_am\delta _{ab})(Q_bm\delta _{ab})\frac{\mathrm{}(x_{ab})\mathrm{}(zi\beta )}{\mathrm{}(x_{ab})\mathrm{}(i\beta )}\hfill \\ & =e^{2i\beta \zeta (\omega _1)z/\omega _1}\frac{\sigma (zi\beta )^2}{\sigma (z)^2\sigma (i\beta )^2}(\mathrm{}(i\beta )\mathrm{}(zi\beta ))\hfill \\ & \times \left\{\frac{N(N1)m^2}{\mathrm{}(i\beta )\mathrm{}(zi\beta )}+\underset{ab}{}Q_aQ_b\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(i\beta )\mathrm{}(x_{ab})}\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
We now recognize the second term in braces as proportional to the Hamiltonian $`H_2`$ in (32) with

$$\rho _a=\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}^{}(i\beta )}{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\beta }\right)^{1/2}Q_a$$
(43)
and the (41) is the traceless condition (34). It is not so obvious that the Lax matrix (40) is equivalent to the more conventional form in . Firstly, we perform the diagonal gauge transformation (21). Then we notice that the part involving $`m`$ is a constant proportional to the identity matrix and so we can shift this away without affecting the spectral curve or dynamics. Next, we have to multiply by the overall factor

$$i\frac{\sigma (i\beta )\sigma (z)}{\sigma (zi\beta )}e^{i\beta \zeta (\omega _1)z/\omega _1}$$
(44)
and, finally, shift the spectral parameter $`zz+i\beta `$. The resulting Lax matrix is then the one quoted in :

$$\varphi _{ab}=Q_a\frac{\sigma (x_{ab}z)}{\sigma (x_{ab}i\beta )}.$$
(45)
We remark that our construction of the Lax matrix via a simple modification of the Hitchin system of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system would appear to be simpler than the alternative constructions in .

So we have demonstrated that the elliptic superpotential that described the Leigh-Strassler deformed $`𝒩=1^{}`$ is the quadratic Hamiltonian of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system. Furthermore, it now follows that the Coulomb branch of the four-dimensional Leigh-Strassler deformed $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory with tree-level superpotential

$$W_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(i\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]_\beta +m\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right)$$
(46)
is described by the spectral curve of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system, i.e. as in (9) but with the deformed Lax matrix (40). We can write the curve as in (13):

$$F(v,z)=v^Nf_1(z)v^{N1}+f_2(z)v^{N2}\mathrm{}+(1)^Nf_N(z)=0,$$
(47)
but with modified conditions of the $`f_a(z)`$. These functions have the same pole structure as before; however they are no longer elliptic functions rather they incorporate the non-trivial boundary conditions on $`E_{\widehat{\tau }}`$:

$$f_a(z+2\omega _1)=f_a(z),f_a(z+2\omega _2)=e^{ia\beta }f_a(z),$$
(48)
so that

$$F(v,z+2\omega _1)=F(v,z),F(v,z+2\omega _2)=F(ve^{i\beta },z).$$
(49)
As before in the $`\text{SU}(N)`$ theory $`f_1(z)=0`$. As an example, in the $`\text{SU}(2)`$ theory with a suitable re-scaling of $`v`$,

$$ve^{2i\beta \zeta (\omega _1)z/\omega _1}\frac{\sigma (zi\beta )^2}{\sigma (z)^2\sigma (i\beta )^2}v,$$
(50)
the spectral curve is

$$v^2+m^2+Q(2mQ)\frac{\mathrm{}(i\beta )\mathrm{}(zi\beta )}{\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(i\beta )}=0,$$
(51)
where $`xx_{12}`$ and $`Q=Q_1=2mQ_2`$.

From this result it is now possible to identify how one must modify Witten’s brane construction of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory  in order to incorporate the Leigh-Strassler $`q`$ deformation. As one goes around the $`x^6`$ circle one needs to incorporate a non-trivial rotation $`ve^{i\beta }v`$. However, it is not so obvious how one can decouple the overall $`\text{U}(1)`$ factor in the brane set-up.

As a final comment, it is intriguing that the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system also plays a rôle in the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory lifted to five dimensions and then compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$ . In this case, the deformation parameter $`\beta `$ is identified with $`Rm`$. However, apparently the resulting spectral curve is different because in the five-dimensional case we have the constraint $`_ap_a=0`$, where the momenta are defined in (33), rather than the constraint (34) in the Leigh-Strassler case. For example, in the case of $`\text{SU}(2)`$ the resulting spectral curve can be written as

$$v^2+2i\mathrm{cosh}p\sqrt{\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(iRm)}v+\mathrm{}(iRm)\mathrm{}(z)=0,$$
(52)
to compare with (51).

I would like to thank Brett Taylor for suggesting some improvements to the original manuscript.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently a powerful technique, the $`m`$-reduction procedure , was successfully employed in  in order to construct an effective Conformal Field Theory (CFT) for a Quantum Hall system of two interacting layers at total filling $`\nu =\frac{1}{p+1}`$. In such a description, the Twisted Model (TM), the neutral current originates from a point-like interaction between the two layers, which can be attributed to the presence of a localized impurity (twist) on the edge. Localized (static) impurities, even though do not change the central charge of the CFT, strongly modify the properties of the ground state and of the spectrum. In fact for any impurities class the Hamiltonian contains a boundary interaction term, which not only determines the ground state energy shift but also gives information on its stability ($`g`$-theorem) so that different universality classes exist for a given filling. For a bilayer system, which exhibits interesting phenomena such as interlayer phase coherence , a few universality classes are known, corresponding to different values of the relevant parameters as the distance between the layers and the symmetric tunneling strength. In a CFT approach they differ in the description of the neutral modes which can be given in terms of symplectic (Haldane-Rezayi model ), Dirac (Halperin model  (H)) or Ising2 fermions (TM). While the neutral degrees of freedom contribution to the central charge is $`c=2`$ for the first model, for the other two ones its contribution is $`c=1`$ and the only difference is in their symmetry. They relate to the Moore-Read (MR) Pfaffian model in which the fundamental particles appear as p-wave BCS like paired states. Pairing symmetry also implies non-Abelian statistics as well as the presence of quasi-holes.

In the TM model the “bulk” degrees of freedom for the bilayer system are described in terms of a free compactified boson $`X`$ with a $`U(1)`$ symmetry, for the charged sector, and a $`Z_2`$-twisted $`\varphi `$ field for the neutral ones, at compactification radius $`R^2=1`$ (see  for details). On the other hand boundary conformal field theory has been successfully applied to solve quantum impurity problems. By folding a two dimensional system at the defect line, associated with the impurity, the problem is mapped to a system with a boundary. In particular, in , starting from the $`c=\frac{1}{2}`$ Ising CFT, by folding, an (Ising)2 $`c=1`$ CFT is obtained, which can be also described as a $`Z_2`$ orbifold of a free boson at compactification radius $`R^2=1`$. In such a boundary CFT, apart for a continuous boundary there are eight mixed boundaries, which are explicitly realized by the Ishibashi states and are fixed at the two ends of the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ line.

That appears then a natural framework for studying the stability of the degrees of freedom content of our model (the TM) in terms of boundary states. It is the aim of this letter to express the full set of boundary operators corresponding to the primary fields found in ref. . Indeed we can introduce the chiral partition function $`Z_{AB}=<A|e^{LH}|B>`$, where $`A`$, $`B`$ are boundary states (BS), and express it as a superposition of characters of the free bulk CFT. It turns out that the TM characters are in a simple correspondence with the nine possible boundaries of the CFT given in . Furthermore, to convince the reader of the relevance of the TM for the description of a system of highly correlated electrons in the presence of magnetic impurities, we also trace an explicit correspondence between the anisotropic two channel one impurity Kondo problem and the TM (for $`p=0`$).

The paper is organized as follows:

In sec. 2 we shortly review the construction of the effective CFT of the TM and its degrees of freedom content in terms of the allowed characters.

In sec. 3 a brief review of the boundary CFT is presented, the Ishibashi states and Cardy consistency conditions recalled and generalized to the orbifold case. The TM characters are then expressed in terms of boundary states.

In sec. 4 the $`g`$-stability of the different vacua is analyzed in the framework of the Kondo problem and the identification of the non trivial fixed point (in the Toulouse limit) with the twisted ground state shown.

In sec. 5 a quick summary with comments is presented.

## 2 The twisted model

In this section we briefly review the $`m`$-reduction procedure for the special $`m=2`$ case (see ref. for the general case), since we are interested in a system consisting of two parallel layers of 2D electrons gas in a strong perpendicular magnetic field. The filling factor $`\nu ^{(a)}=\frac{1}{2p+2}`$ is the same for the two $`a=1`$, $`2`$ layers while the total filling is $`\nu =\nu ^{(1)}+\nu ^{(2)}=\frac{1}{p+1}`$. For $`p=0`$ ($`p=1`$) it describes the $`220`$ ($`331`$) Halperin state . The CFT description for such a system can be given in terms of two compactified chiral bosons $`Q^{(a)}`$ with central charge $`c=2`$.

In order to construct the field $`Q^{(a)}`$ for the TM, let us start from the bosonic “Laughlin” filling $`\nu =1/2(p+1)`$, described by a CFT with $`c=1`$ in terms of a scalar chiral field $`Q`$ compactified on a circle with radius $`R^2=1/\nu =2(p+1)`$ (or its dual $`R^2=2/(p+1)`$). It is explicitly given by:

$$Q(z)=qiplnz+\underset{n0}{}\frac{a_n}{n}z^n$$
(1)
with $`a_n`$, $`q`$ and $`p`$ satisfying the commutation relations $`[a_n,a_n^{}]=n\delta _{n,n^{}}`$ and $`[q,p]=i`$.

The $`U(1)`$ current $`J(z)`$ is given by $`J(z)=i_zQ(z)`$ and the primary fields are expressed in terms of the vertex operators $`U^\alpha (z)=:e^{i\alpha Q(z)}:`$ with $`\alpha ^2=1,\mathrm{},2(p+1)`$ and conformal dimension $`h=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}`$.

From such a CFT (mother theory), using the $`m`$-reduction procedure, which consists in considering the subalgebra generated only by the modes in eq.(1) which are a multiple of an integer $`m`$, we get a $`c=m`$ orbifold CFT (daughter theory, i.e. the TM) which describes the LLL dynamics. Then the fields in the mother CFT can be organized into components which have well defined transformation properties under the discrete $`Z_m`$ (twist) group, which is a symmetry of the TM. By using the mapping $`zz^{1/m}`$ and by making the identifications $`a_{nm+l}\sqrt{m}a_{n+l/m}`$, $`q\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}q`$ (see ref. ) the $`c=m`$ CFT (daughter theory) is obtained.

Its primary fields content, for the special $`m=2`$ case, can be expressed in terms of:

1) the $`Z_2`$-invariant scalar field $`X(z)`$, given by

$$X(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Q^{(1)}(z)+Q^{(2)}(z)\right)$$
(2)
corresponding to a boson compactified on a circle with radius $`R_X`$ now equal to $`R_X^2=R^2/2=p+1`$, which describes the electrically charged sector of the new filling;

2) the twisted field

$$\varphi (z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Q^{(1)}(z)Q^{(2)}(z)\right)$$
(3)
which satisfies the twisted boundary conditions $`\varphi (e^{i\pi }z)=\varphi (z)`$ and describes the neutral sector . Notice that its compactification radius is $`R_\varphi ^2=1`$ independent on the flux $`p`$.

The chiral fields $`Q^{(a)}`$, defined on a single layer $`a=1`$, $`2`$, due to the boundary conditions imposed upon them by the orbifold construction, can be thought as components of a unique “boson” defined on a double covering of the disc (layer) ($`z_i^{(1)}=z_i^{(2)}=z_i`$). As a consequence of such a construction the two layers system becomes equivalent to one-layer QHF (in contrast with the Halperin model in which they appear independent) and the $`X`$ and $`\varphi `$ fields defined in eqs. (2) and (3) diagonalize the interlayer interaction. In particular, the $`X`$ field carries the total charge with velocity vX while $`\varphi `$ carries the charge difference of the two edges with velocity $`v_\varphi `$ i.e. no charge, being the number of electrons the same for each layer (balanced system) .

Correspondingly the Virasoro generator splits into the two terms :

$$T_X(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(_zX(z)\right)^2$$
(4)
and

$$T_\varphi (z)=\frac{1}{4}\left(_z\varphi (z)\right)^2+\frac{1}{16z^2}$$
(5)
each contributing with $`c=1`$ to the central charge. The primary fields are composite operators and, on the torus, they are described in terms of the conformal blocks of the MR and the Ising model . The MR characters $`\chi _{(\lambda ,s)}^{MR}`$ with $`\lambda =0,\mathrm{}2`$ and $`s=0,\mathrm{},p`$, are explicitly given by:

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0(\tau )K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)`$ (6)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}(\tau )\left(K_{2s+1}\left(w|\tau \right)+K_{2(p+s)+3}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (7)
$`\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+\chi _0(\tau )K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right).`$ (8)
They represent the field content of the $`Z_2`$ invariant $`c=3/2`$ CFT  with a charged component ($`K_\alpha (w|\tau )=\frac{1}{\eta (\tau )}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{\alpha }{4\left(p+1\right)}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(2\left(p+1\right)w|4\left(p+1\right)\tau \right)`$) and a neutral component ($`\chi _\beta `$, the conformal blocks of the Ising Model).

The characters of the twisted sector are given by:

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\right)`$ (9)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\chi }_0+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (10)
which do not depend on the parity of $`p`$;

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\right)`$ (11)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\chi }_0\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (12)
for $`p`$ even, and

$`\chi _{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\chi _0\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(K_{2s}\left(w|\tau \right)+K_{2(p+s)+2}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (13)
$`\chi _{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}\left(\overline{\chi }_0\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(K_{2s+1}\left(w|\tau \right)K_{2(p+s)+3}\left(w|\tau \right)\right)`$ (14)
for $`p`$ odd.

Notice that the last two characters are not present in the TM partition function and that only the symmetric combinations $`\chi _{(i,s)}^+`$ can be factorized in terms of the $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`c=\frac{1}{2}`$ theory. That is a consequence of the parity selection rule ($`m`$-ality), which gives a gluing condition for the charged and neutral excitations.

Furthermore the characters of the untwisted sector are given by:

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^+(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (16)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^{}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (18)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(w|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}(w|\tau )`$ (19)
We point out that the periodic sector of the TM describes a model for the bilayer which was introduced by Ho in . In  it was observed that this sector has degeneracy $`3(p+1)`$ instead of the $`4(p+1)`$ one of the Halperin model. The difference between the Halperin and the Ho description relies in the different strength of the Coulomb interaction between the electrons in the same layer with respect to that between electrons in different ones. From the CFT point of view these effects modify the neutral sector from a Dirac to an Ising2 fermionic theory and it is a consequence of the Abelian orbifold considered there. Moreover the CFT for the Ho model, which was introduced to describe a continuous transition to a Pfaffian MR state due to the degeneracy matching, is inconsistent without the twisted sector of the TM (see ). The reduction of the degrees of freedom is basically due to the $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the TM and is closely related to its non-Abelian statistics. That seems to be a peculiarity of the TM with respect to the unorbifolded H model. Furthermore the H model has an $`U(1)`$ symmetry which is explicitly broken in the TM and an observable phase can be induced by the continuous Dirichlet BS introduced in the next section in eq.(33). As a consequence a phase coherence between the particles on the two layers takes place and a Josephson like effect is possible .

## 3 Boundary CFT and the twisted model

Homogenous systems are in many cases idealizations of real systems, which in general present disomogeneities or defects. Boundary Conformal Field Theory (BCFT) has been developed in the last few years to solve such problems. In particular an interesting relationship has been traced between the BCFT and the Kondo effect, where the interaction energy of the conduction electrons with the quantum impurity internal degrees of freedom results, at large distances, into a boundary condition for the fields describing the electrons in the bulk. Furthermore such a non trivial boundary condition in most cases turns out to be conformally invariant. More recently BCFT has been applied to the two dimensional Ising model with a defect line . By folding the system at the defect line, a mapping can be made to a boundary problem and the BS can be identified in the $`c=1`$ $`Z_2`$ orbifold CFT of a free boson. The construction of the BS goes basically through two consistency requirements: the Ishibashi and the Cardy conditions . In order to classify boundary conditions let us consider a cylinder with a periodic direction of length $`1/T`$ and of length $`L`$ in the axis direction. If we indicate with A, B the boundary conditions on the cylinder edges we can evaluate the partition function $`Z_{AB}`$ for such a configuration in two ways:

* $`Z_{AB}=tre^{\frac{H_{AB}}{T}}`$\- that is the cylinder surface may be viewed as swept by an open string (with boundary conditions A, B at its end points) which propagates in a closed loop of length $`1/T`$, $`H_{AB}`$ being its Hamiltonian depending on the boundary conditions A, B;
* $`Z_{AB}=<A|e^{LH}|B>`$ \- that is the closed string boundary state $`|B>`$ propagates along L with a periodic Hamiltonian $`H`$ turning into a boundary state $`|A>`$.

The corresponding expressions are given in terms of characters of the bulk theory: $`Z_{AB}=_{ij}n_{AB}^iS_i^j\chi _j(q)`$, where $`S`$ gives the modular transformations of the characters $`\chi `$ and $`n_{AB}^i`$ is the number of times the irreducible representation of highest weight $`i`$ appears in the spectrum of the crossed-channel Hamiltonian between the boundary A and B.

The BS must satisfy the condition: $`\left(L_n\overline{L}_n\right)|B>=0`$, required by conformal invariance or a stronger condition $`\left(a_n\pm \overline{a}_n\right)|B>=0`$ where $`a_n`$, $`\overline{a}_n`$ are free oscillators. The BS satisfying the above equation (Dirichlet for the $``$ sign, Neumann for the $`+`$ sign) are defined up to a normalization constant which is fixed by the Cardy condition rising from equating $`Z_{AB}`$ in two descriptions given before. The duality between the electric charge and the magnetic flux also exchange Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. The folding procedure is used in the literature to map a problem with a defect line (as a bulk property) into a boundary one, where the defect line appears as a boundary state of a theory which is not anymore chiral and its fields are defined in a reduced region which is one half of the original one. Our approach in  is a chiral description of that, where the chiral $`\varphi `$ field defined in ($`L/2`$, $`L/2)`$ describes both the left moving component $`\varphi _L`$ and the right moving one $`\varphi _R`$ defined in ($`L/2`$, $`0`$), ($`0`$, $`L/2`$) respectively, in the folded description. Furthermore to make a connection with the TM we consider more general gluing conditions:

$`\varphi _L(x=0)=\varphi _R(x=0)\phi _0`$

the $``$($`+`$) sign staying for the twisted (untwisted) sector. We are then allowed to use the boundary states given in  for the $`c=1`$ orbifold at the Ising2 radius. The $`X`$ field, which is even under the folding procedure, does not suffer any change in boundary conditions and remains always in the Dirichlet state.

The orbifold nature of this CFT allows us to make contact with the BCFT as described in  for the $`m=2`$ case. In this case the defect lines in the Ising model can be seen as BS in the folded model (i.e. the $`c=1`$ orbifold or equivalently Ising2). They are given in terms of the Ising ones as:

$`|>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(||I>>+||ϵ>>)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}}}||\sigma >>`$ (20)
$`|>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(||I>>+||ϵ>>){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}}}||\sigma >>`$ (21)
$`|f>`$ $`=`$ $`||I>>||ϵ>>`$ (22)
where $`||I>>`$, $`||ϵ>>`$ and $`||\sigma >>`$ are the standard Ishibashi states of the Ising model . The partition function of an Ising model with defects has been considered in . There are three independent possibilities:

$`Z_{0,\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\chi }_0\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}+c.c.)+\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}\chi _{\frac{1}{16}}`$ (23)
$`Z_{\frac{1}{16},0}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\chi }_{\frac{1}{16}}(\chi _0+\chi _{\frac{1}{2}})+c.c`$ (24)
$`Z_{\frac{1}{16},\frac{1}{16}}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{0,\frac{1}{2}}+Z_{\frac{1}{16},0}`$ (25)
In the orbifold model there are nine BS given by the product of the two Ising BS and two continuous ones which cannot be related to the Ising model. These boundaries fall into $`3`$ classes with different boundary entropy $`g_I=1`$, $`1/2`$, $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ respectively and their stability under the boundary perturbation is obtained according to the “$`g`$ theorem”, with $`g`$ decreasing along a renormalization group trajectory connecting two conformally invariant boundary conditions. Nevertheless, while in  the two Ising are equivalent in our case the coupling to the charged sector of the even Ising breaks this $`Z_2`$ symmetry.

The Ishibashi states for the TM are easily obtained as combinations of the BS of the charged and neutral sector.

The most convenient representation of such BS is the one in which they appear as a product of Ising and MR BS:

$`|\chi _{(0,s)}^{MR}`$ $`>=|2s>|>+|2(s+p)+2>|>`$ (26)
$`|\chi _{(1,s)}^{MR}`$ $`>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}}}\left(|2s+1>+|2(s+p)+3>\right)|f>`$ (27)
$`|\chi _{(2,s)}^{MR}`$ $`>=|2s>|>+|2(s+p)+2>|>`$ (28)
Such a factorization naturally arises already for the TM characters . In the above equation the MR BS are given in terms of the BS $`|\alpha >`$ for the charged boson (see ref. for details) and the Ising ones.

The vacuum state for the TM model corresponds to the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,0)}`$ character which is the product of the vacuum state for the MR model and that of the Ising one. As we can see in eqs.(15,17) the lowest energy state appears in two characters. As it has been already shown that is a characteristics of the orbifold construction and a linear combination of them must be taken in order to define a unique vacuum state (see ref. for a generalization of the Cardy condition). So the correct BS in the untwisted sector are:

$`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((0,s),0)}`$ $`>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^+>+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^{}>)=\sqrt{2}(|2s>|\overline{}>+|2(s+p)+2>|\overline{}>)`$ (29)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((0,s),1)}`$ $`>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^+>|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}^{}>)=\sqrt{2}(|2s>|\overline{}>+|2(s+p)+2>|\overline{}>)`$ (30)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((1,s),0)}`$ $`>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^+>+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^{}>)=\sqrt{2}(|2s>|\overline{}>+|2(s+p)+2>|\overline{}>)`$ (31)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((1,s),1)}`$ $`>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^+>|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)}^{}>)=\sqrt{2}(|2s>|\overline{}>+|2(s+p)+2>|\overline{}>)`$ (32)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(\phi _0)`$ $`>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}}}\left(|2s+1>+|2(s+p)+3>\right)|D_0(\phi _0)>`$ (33)
where we also added the states $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(\phi _0)>`$ in which $`|D_0(\phi _0)>`$ is the continuous orbifold Dirichlet boundary state defined in ref.. For the special $`\phi _0=\pi /2`$ value one obtains:

$$|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}>=\frac{1}{2^{1/4}}\left(|2s+1>+|2(s+p)+3>\right)|ff>$$
(34)
We briefly discuss the relevance of such a continuous state in sec.(5).

For the twisted sector we have:

$`|\chi _{(0,s)}^+>`$ $`=(|2s>+|2(s+p)+2>)(|\overline{f}>+|\overline{f}>)`$ (35)
$`|\chi _{(1,s)}^+>`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}}}\left(|2s+1>+|2(s+p)+3>\right)(|f\overline{}>+|f\overline{}>)`$ (36)
On the other hand the modular transformations for the characters $`\chi _{(i,s)}^{}`$ depend on the parity of $`p`$, and as a consequence the BS also depends on it:

for $`p`$ even

$`|\chi _{(0,s)}^{}`$ $`>`$ $`=(|2s>|2(s+p)+2>)(|\overline{f}>|\overline{f}>)`$ (37)
$`|\chi _{(1,s)}^{}`$ $`>`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}}}\left(|2s+1>+|2(s+p)+3>\right)(|f\overline{}>|f\overline{}>)`$ (38)
for $`p`$ odd

$`|\chi _{(0,s)}^{}`$ $`>`$ $`=(|2s>+|2(s+p)+2>)(|\overline{f}>|\overline{f}>)`$ (39)
$`|\chi _{(1,s)}^{}`$ $`>`$ $`=\left(|2s+1>|2(s+p)+3>\right)(|f\overline{}>|f\overline{}>)`$ (40)
In order to compare the relative stability of the previous boundary states, let us define the $`g`$ entropy function for the TM. In general, under boundary RG flow, the central charge $`c`$ stays fixed. The flow takes place in the space of boundary conditions of the bulk theory and a quantity analogous to $`c`$ can be defined, that is the boundary entropy $`g`$ . It measures the “number of boundary degrees of freedom” and decreases along the RG flow. Such a quantity can be defined as the term in the annulus partition function which is independent of the width $`L`$ of the strip in the thermodynamic $`L`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ limit or, equivalently, as the disk partition function $`g_B=<0||B>`$ of the boundary state $`|B>`$ associated to the perturbed theory. In our case it can be explicitly evaluated as $`g_a=<\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((0,0),0)}||\chi _a>`$ for any boundary state $`|\chi _a>`$. Furthermore these BS satisfy a generalized Cardy condition  and the $`g`$ function is expressed as $`g=g_{MR}g_{\overline{I}}`$ where $`g_{MR}=\sqrt{2(p+1)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{4}(\lambda +1)`$.

By using the vacuum state given in eq.(29) we found the following values of $`g`$ for the different classes of boundary conditions:    TM $`g`$    $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((i,s),f)}>`$ $`\frac{\sqrt{p+1}}{2}`$  $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}>`$ $`\sqrt{2(p+1)}`$  $`|\chi _{(i,s)}^\pm >`$ $`\sqrt{\frac{p+1}{2}}`$

## 4 Twisted BS and stability

In order to understand more on the stability of the BS just given before, it is crucial to view our approach within the framework of the Kondo and related problems. The low $`T`$ behavior of a system in the presence of an impurity is described by an effective CFT in which the impurity disappears (it is screened) but certain interactions between the quasi-particles are generated in the screening process. We first discuss the class of impurities in the even interaction channel which produces a two-channel Kondo like interaction. In this case only the symmetric boundary terms give contribution to the dynamics. In general we can introduce two parameters $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ for the boundary potential for the up and down layer respectively which can be also written in the even (odd) basis as: $`V=\left(V_1+V_2\right)/2`$ ($`\overline{V}=\left(V_1V_2\right)/2`$). The relevant quantum number $`\lambda _I`$ of the impurity gets hybridized with that of the fluid (see the definition of $`\lambda `$ in sec.(3)), as it appears in the boundary state, $`\lambda _I`$ being equivalent to the $`su(2)`$ spin of the Kondo problem 333Notice that the quantum number $`s`$ defined in sec.(3), describing flux addition, plays no role in the stability of the ground state and then can be taken equal to zero. In such a case a diagonal form of the partition function is recovered.. The $`\lambda _I=0`$ value corresponds to the free case (no interactions between the Hall fluid electrons and the impurity), while $`\lambda _I=1`$ and $`\lambda _I=2`$ correspond to the overscreened and the exactly-screened Kondo interaction respectively. From the QHE point of view $`\lambda _I`$ describes a paired ($`\lambda _I`$ even) or unpaired ($`\lambda _I`$ odd) impurity. An impurity with $`\lambda _I=1`$ induces a breaking of the pairing symmetry and a flow which changes the boundary conditions. Indeed our description adapts very closely to a system of two interacting Luttinger liquids coupled resonantly through an impurity placed in between. Such a system is described by the tunneling term:

$$H_V=V\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha X(0)\mathrm{cos}\varphi (0)d_x^{\lambda _I}+\mathrm{sin}\alpha X(0)\mathrm{cos}\varphi (0)d_y^{\lambda _I}\right)\stackrel{~}{V}d_z^{\lambda _I}X(0)$$
(41)
where $`\alpha =\sqrt{2/(p+1)}`$ and $`V`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $`=\left(\stackrel{~}{V}_1+\stackrel{~}{V}_{2\text{ }}\right)/2`$ are coupling constants and $`d_x^{\lambda _I},d_y^{\lambda _I},d_z^{\lambda _I}`$ ($`\lambda _I=1`$ here) describe the impurity “spin” placed at the origin. The above Hamiltonian is similar to that of the closely related problem of a resonant tunneling junction between quantum wires or hopping of electrons in Quantum Hall bars coupled to a dot or anti-dot (see ref. for details). In the framework of the Kondo problem such an interaction term is equivalent to the anisotropic two-channel one impurity Hamiltonian  and for $`V=\stackrel{~}{V}`$ it reduces to the isotropic case. The $`V=0,\pm \mathrm{}`$ conformal fixed points are unstable and flow to an intermediate stable point $`V^{}`$. For the isotropic Kondo problem, i.e. $`p=0`$, and $`m`$ channels it is always possible to “complete the square” at the special value $`V^{}=\frac{2}{2+m}`$, where the complete Hamiltonian reduces to its free form after a shift of the current operators by $`𝕕^{\lambda _I}`$ which preserves the $`su(2)_m`$ Kac-Moody algebra. That corresponds to the “absorption” of the impurity and in such a case the system renormalizes to the intermediate fixed point $`V^{}`$(“fusion rules hypothesis”).

In the more general $`V\stackrel{~}{V}`$ case instead, by performing the rotation $`U=e^{i\stackrel{~}{V}d_z^{\lambda _I}X(0)}\sigma `$, ($`\sigma `$ being the twist operator of the Ising model) $`H_V`$ reduces to $`H_V=V_{eff}\mathrm{cos}\varphi (0)d_x^{\lambda _I}\stackrel{~}{V}d_z^{\lambda _I}X(0)`$. After such a transformation the boundary conditions for both the charged and neutral bosons are changed according to the “fusion principle” (see ref. ). The $`X`$ boson acquires a phase shift at the impurity location while the neutral one gets both twisted and shifted. These new boundary conditions are consistent with the parity rule for the bulk CFT discussed in . The boundary equation of motion can be obtained by varying the action with respect to all the fields, including $`d_x^{\lambda _I}`$,$`d_y^{\lambda _I}`$, which are dynamical variables. The vacuum states corresponding to these fixed points belong to the twisted sector as it can be easily understood by noticing that the $`U`$ operator corresponds to the $`\lambda =1`$ representation of the MR model. The total dimension of $`U`$ is: $`h=\frac{1}{8(p+1)}+\frac{1}{16}=\frac{3+p}{16(p+1)}`$. At the Toulouse point the last term cancels out with a term generated by the rotation $`U`$ in the free Hamiltonian obtaining $`H_V=V_{eff}\mathrm{cos}\varphi (0)d_x^{\lambda _I}`$, with the resulting decoupling of the charged field $`X`$ from the neutral field $`\varphi `$. Notice that the above transformation changes the reference state from $`<\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{((0,0),0)}|`$ to $`<\chi _{(1,0)}^+|`$ (see eqs.(29,36)) and at the same time the bare coupling constant ($`V`$) appearing in eq.(41) is mapped to the new effective one ($`V_{eff}`$). In fact from the RG equation for the boundary entropy a stable fix point is reached at a finite value of $`V`$ which is mapped into an infinite $`V_{eff}`$ fixed point after the $`U`$ rotation. As for the isotropic case, the new interaction becomes that of a $`\lambda _I=1`$ exactly-screened problem.

In particular to the $`V_{eff}=0`$ value corresponds the unstable boundary state $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}>`$ with $`g=\sqrt{2(p+1)}`$ while to the $`V_{eff}=\pm \mathrm{}`$ limit the stable $`|\chi _{(1,s)}^+>`$ ones with $`g=\sqrt{\frac{p+1}{2}}`$. In such ground states only one component of the impurity enters the Hamiltonian while the other one describes non dynamical fermionic degrees of freedom. That describes a non-Fermi liquid fixed point for the neutral sector which generalizes the $`p=0`$ case.

As it is well known for the Kondo problem, under a flavour symmetry breaking perturbation the fixed point is unstable . An asymmetric local tunneling term in the Hamiltonian induces a flow to one of the two stable points in which the impurity hybridizes with one channel only. The same structure exists in the present system. A schematic RG flow in terms of the two coupling constants $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ of the layers is given in fig:(1).

The new perturbation gives rise to a flow from the unstable intermediate fixed point $`V^{}`$ to the states given by $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(0,s)}>`$, $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(1,s)>},`$ which are the most stable ones with a value of $`g`$ given by $`g=\frac{\sqrt{p+1}}{2}`$. That is close to the case of a one-channel Kondo problem for the layer interacting with the impurity while the other one remains completely free. We observe that no quasi-holes are present in the stable state and by taking a linear combination it is easy to see that there is a complete factorization of the charged and neutral degrees of freedom, that is Abelian statistics is recovered!

It is worthwhile to comment briefly on the cocycles here, which have to be handled with great care in problems with several fermion species. In addition to the exponential of a free boson, each fermion requires a cocycle. We also notice that the Kondo analysis should be restricted to the fermionic case (i.e. for $`p`$ odd) for which the Pauli principle is at work. However that does not modify our analysis.

## 5 Summary and comments

As it has been seen in this letter, the possibility of viewing the TM degrees of freedom in terms of BS has allowed us to establish a close relation of the twisted theory, previously used for describing a Quantum Hall system of two interacting layers, with the two-channel one impurity Kondo problem. In such a context the different possibilities for the bulk electrons of exactly-screening or overscreening the impurity spin have been identified. On the other hand such an identification has allowed us to understand the degree of stability of the different TM boundary states. In particular it has been shown that the two layers resonant case corresponds to the situation in which the impurity spin couples with the same strength to the electrons of the two different channels, i.e. the layers in the Quantum Hall bilayer ( $`V_1=V_2`$). Then the two layers are completely balanced and the ground state shows non-Abelian statistics due to the existence of quasi-holes states. From the analysis of the flow of the boundary entropy $`g`$ such a vacuum is not stable under antisymmetric perturbations (it is a saddle point). For strong coupling of the impurity spin with the bulk electrons belonging to only one of the two layers ($`|V_1|`$ or $`|V_2|\mathrm{}`$) the system degenerates towards the most stable ground state with no quasi-holes to condense, the degrees of freedom left being only electrons and anyons states with Abelian statistics. Therefore we conjecture that non-Abelian statistics can be realized only in an extremely clean sample while in the presence of impurities the statistics reduces to the Abelian one. Furthermore the twist at the origin couples the two layers in a topological way, with a consequent phase shift between electrons in the up and down layer which is constant. Such a phase difference fixed to $`\pi `$ for the twisted sector ground state, can be deformed to a continuous value $`\phi _0`$ in the boundary state $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(s)}(\phi _0)>`$ allowing for a Josephson like effect, which is at the moment under study. Another interesting problem to study is the case in which there are both boundary and bulk perturbations. In this case the flow can act also on the central charge of the CFT and the reduction to a pure MR model could be realized. Due to the analogy with the string and D-brane dynamics, the present analysis also applies to D-branes systems as it was done in . Finally we notice that for an impurity with quantum number $`s_I0`$ the scattered particle might change statistics and at the same time the partition function would be in a non-diagonal form.

Acknowledgments \- We thank M. Huerta, A. Cappelli and G. Mussardo for useful comments and for reading the manuscript.