text:
# Cohomology of toric bundles

## 1 Introduction

Let $`T(^{})^n`$ denote the complex algebraic torus. Let $`M=Hom_{alg}(T,^{})^n`$ and $`N=Hom_{alg}(^{},T)^n`$ denote the group of characters and the group of $`1`$-parameter subgroups of $`T`$ respectively. Note that $`M=N^{}:=Hom(N;)`$ under the natural pairing $`,:M\times N,`$ given by $`\chi ^u\lambda _v(z)=z^{u,v}`$ for all $`z^{}`$. (Here $`\chi ^u(T)=[M]`$ denotes the character corresponding to $`uM`$ and $`\lambda _v`$ the $`1`$-parameter subgroup corresponding to $`vN`$.)

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a fan in $`N`$ such that the $`T`$-toric variety $`X:=X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is complete and non-singular. Let $`p:EB`$ be a principal bundle with structure group and fibre the torus $`T`$ over an arbitrary topological space $`B`$. When the bundle $`p:EB`$ is algebraic, it is well-known that the bundle $`EB`$ is Zariski locally trivial.

Consider the fibre bundle $`\pi :E(X)B`$ with fibre the toric variety $`X`$, where $`E(X)`$ is the fibre product $`E\times _TX`$, and the projection map is defined as $`\pi ([e,x])=p(e)`$. Note that the bundle $`\pi :E(X)B`$ is Zariski locally trivial when $`p:EB`$ is algebraic. In this paper, we describe the integral singular cohomology ring $`H^{}(E(X);)`$, and the $`K`$-ring $`K(E(X))`$ when $`B`$ is a compact topological space. Also, when $`p:EB`$ is algebraic and $`B`$ an irreducible nonsingular noetherian scheme over $``$, we describe the Chow ring $`A^{}(E(X))`$, and the Grothendieck ring $`𝒦^0(E(X))`$ of algebraic vector bundles of the complex variety $`E(X)`$.

Suppose that $`q:VX`$ is a $`T`$-equivariant vector bundle over $`X`$, then we obtain a vector bundle $`E(V)`$ over $`E(X)`$ with total space $`E\times _TV`$ where the bundle projection is the map $`[e,v][e,q(v)]`$. In case $`V`$ is a $`T`$-equivariant line bundle associated to a character $`\chi ^u:T^{},`$ the bundle $`E(V)`$ is isomorphic to the pull-back bundle $`\pi ^{}(\xi _u)`$ where $`\xi _uB`$ is the line bundle got from $`EB`$ by ‘extending’ the structure group via $`\chi ^u`$. After fixing an isomorphism, $`T(^{})^n`$, $`uM`$ corresponds to an element $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)^n`$. The bundle $`E`$ is then the principal bundle associated to the Whitney sum of line bundles $`\xi _i,1in,`$ and $`E(V)`$ can then be identified with the tensor product $`\xi _1^{a_1}\mathrm{}\xi _n^{a_n}`$. (Here it is understood that, when $`a<0`$, $`\xi ^a=(\xi ^{})^a`$.)

When $`B`$ is a non-singular variety any line bundle $`\xi `$ over $`B`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪(Y)`$ for some divisor $`Y`$ in $`B`$. The divisor class $`[Y]`$ is the first Chern class $`c_1(\xi )A^1(B)`$ of $`\xi `$.

We use the notations of  throughout the paper.

For $`k1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ will denote the set of $`k`$ dimensional cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We let $`d=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$, and write $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_d`$ for the primitive elements of $`N`$ along the edges in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`\rho _j\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ be the edge $`_0v_j`$. Recall that our hypothesis that $`X`$ is smooth is equivalent to the statement that the set of the primitive vectors along the edges of any cone in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is part of a $``$-basis for $`N`$.

For a cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`U_\sigma `$ denotes the affine toric variety defined by $`\sigma `$ and $`V(\sigma )`$ denotes the closure in $`X`$ of the variety whose local equation in $`U_\sigma `$ is $`\chi ^u=0`$ for all $`u\sigma ^{}`$, $`u\sigma ^{}`$. The $`V(\sigma ),\sigma \mathrm{\Delta },`$ are the orbit closures for the action of $`T`$ on $`X`$.

For $`1jd`$ let $`L_j`$ denote the $`T`$-equivariant line bundle over $`X`$ which corresponds to the piecewise linear function $`\psi _j`$ defined by $`\psi _j(v_i)=\delta _{i,j}`$. The line bundle $`L_j`$ admits a global $`T`$-equivariant section $`s_j`$ whose zero locus is the variety $`V(\rho _j)`$.

Let $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _m`$ be an ordering of the cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$. Let $`\tau _i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the intersection with $`\sigma _i`$ of those cones $`\sigma _j`$, $`j>i,`$ such that $`dim(\sigma _i\sigma _j)=n1.`$ Thus $`\tau _1=0`$, and $`\tau _m=\sigma _m`$. Consider the condition:

$$\tau _i<\sigma _jij.$$
$`().`$
Set $`\tau _i^{}<\sigma _i`$ to be the cone such that $`\tau _i\tau _i^{}=0,dim(\tau _i)+dim(\tau _i^{})=n`$, $`1im`$. Also consider the condition

$$\tau _i^{}<\sigma _jji.$$
$`(^{})`$
Note that $`\tau _i^{}`$ is the intersection with $`\sigma _i`$ of those cones $`\sigma _j`$ with $`j<i`$ and $`dim(\sigma _i)dim(\sigma _j)=n1`$ and so condition $`(^{})`$ is the same as $`()`$ for the reverse ordering on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is well known that when $`X`$ is (nonsingular) projective, then there exists an ordering of the cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ such that both conditions $`()`$ and $`(^{})`$ hold. We shall assume that there exists an ordering of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ such that property $`()`$ holds. (See , §5.2.)

By relabelling the $`v_j`$’s if necessary, we assume that $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_nN`$ are primitive vectors along the edges of $`\sigma _m`$ and let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ be the dual basis of $`M`$.

###### Definition 1.1

. Let $`S`$ be a ring with $`1`$. Let $`r_i,1in,`$ be in the centre of $`S`$. Consider the polynomial algebra $`S[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$. We denote by $`I_S`$ the two-sided ideal generated by the following two types of elements

$$x_{j_1}\mathrm{}x_{j_k},1j_pd,$$
$`(i)`$
where $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_k}`$ do not span a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and,

$$y_i:=\underset{1jd}{}u_i,v_jx_jr_i,1in.$$
$`(ii)`$
Denote by $`_S`$ the two-sided ideal generated by elements of type $`(i)`$ above and the elements

$$z(u):=\underset{j,u,v_j>0}{}(1x_j)^{u,v_j}r(u)\underset{j,u,v_j<0}{}(1x_j)^{u,v_j},uM,$$
$`(ii^{})`$
where $`r(u)=_{1jd}r_i^{u,v_j}.`$ Define $`R=R(S,\mathrm{\Delta })=S[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]/I_S`$ and $`=(S,\mathrm{\Delta })=S[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]/_S`$.

Note that the $`S`$-algebras $`R`$ and $``$ depend not only on the fan $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but also on the the isomorphism $`N^n`$ resulting from the choice of $`\sigma _m\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the elements $`r_iS`$. The only non-commutative ring $`S`$ we need to consider is the integral cohomology ring of $`B`$.

Note that for any cohomology theory $``$, $`^{}(E(X))`$ is an $`^{}(B)`$-algebra via the induced map $`\pi ^{}:^{}(B)^{}(E(X))`$. The following is our main theorem:

###### Theorem 1.2

. Let $`\pi :EB`$ be a principal $`T`$-bundle over an arbitray topological space $`B`$. Assume that $`X`$ is a smooth complete $`T`$-toric variety and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ has been ordered so that $`()`$ holds. With above notations,
(i) The singular cohomology ring of $`E(X)`$ is isomorphic as an $`H^{}(B;)`$-algebra to $`R(H^{}(B;),\mathrm{\Delta })`$, with $`r_i=c_1(\xi _i^{})H^2(B;)`$.
(ii) When $`B`$ is compact Hausdorff, the $`K`$-ring $`K^{}(E(X))`$ of complex vector bundles over $`E(X)`$ is isomorphic as a $`K^{}(B)`$-algebra to $`(K^{}(B);\mathrm{\Delta })`$ where $`r_i=[\xi _i^{}]K(B)`$, $`1in`$.
Suppose $`p:EB`$ is algebraic where $`B`$ irreducible, non-singular and noetherian over $``$. Furthermore, assume that $`(^{})`$ also holds. Then:
(iii) The Chow ring $`A^{}(E(X))`$ of $`E(X)`$ is isomorphic as an $`A^{}(B)`$-algebra to $`R(A^{}(B),\mathrm{\Delta })`$ where $`r_i=c_1(\xi _i^{})A^1(B)`$, $`1in`$.
(iv) The ring $`𝒦(E(X))`$ is isomorphic as a $`𝒦(B)`$-algebra to $`(𝒦(B),\mathrm{\Delta })`$ where $`r_i=[\xi _i^{}]𝒦(B)`$.

We shall now briefly explain the method of proof. For the first three parts, we shall use a Leray-Hirsch type theorem to obtain the structure of $`^{}(E(X))`$ as a module over $`^{}(B)`$. Then we shall construct a $`^{}(B)`$-algebra homomorphism from the expected $`^{}(B)`$-algebra to $`^{}(E(X))`$ and verify that this algebra homomorphism is an isomorphism of $`^{}(B)`$ -modules. The “Leray-Hirsch” theorem we need in the context of Chow rings is due to D.Edidin and W.Graham . However we give a proof which is more suited to our specific situation. (See also .) The “Leray-Hirsch” in the context of $`K`$-theory of complex vector bundles that we need is theorem 1.3, Ch. IV, . (Compare Theorem 2.7.8, .) For part (iv) we use a result of Grothendieck  to prove the analogue of Leray-Hirsch theorem.

We do not know if parts (iii) and (iv) of the main theorem remain valid without the hypothesis that $`(^{})`$ hold. Neither do we know of an example where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ admits an ordering satisfying $`()`$ but no ordering that satisfies both $`()`$ and $`(^{})`$. However, there are complete nonsingular varieties $`X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ which are not projective such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ admits an ordering satisfying both $`()`$ and $`(^{})`$. The example of a complete non projective toric variety given in p. 84  is seen to be one such.

Examples of algebraic bundles $`E(X)B`$ we consider include as special cases the toric fibre bundles considered on p.41, .

We were motivated by the work of Al Amrani  who has computed the singular cohomology ring of a weighted projective space bundle. Another motivation for us was the work of H.Pittie and A.Ram  who established the Pieri-Chevalley formula in $`K`$-theory in the context of an algberaic $`G/B`$ bundle associated to a principal $`B`$ bundle where $`G`$ is a complex simple algebraic group and $`B`$ a Borel subgroup.

## 2 The rings $`R`$ and $``$

In this section we prove certain facts about the rings $`R`$ and $``$ which will be needed in the proof of the main theorem.

We keep the notations of §1. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ has been so ordered that property $`()`$ holds. Recall that $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_d`$ are the primitive vectors along the edges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ are in $`\sigma _m`$, and that $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ is the dual basis of $`M`$.

For any cone $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$, denote by $`x(\gamma )`$ the monomial $`x_{j_1}\mathrm{}x_{j_r}S[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ where $`v_{j_1}\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ are the primitive vectors along the edges of $`\gamma `$.

Recall from §1 the definition of the $`S`$-algebras $`R`$ and $``$. We shall denote by the same symbol $`x(\gamma )`$, in $`R`$ and $``$, the image of the monomial $`x(\gamma )S[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ under the canonical quotient map.

###### Lemma 2.1

. (i) For $`u=_{1in}a_iu_iM`$, the following equality holds in $`R`$.

$$\underset{1jd}{}u,v_jx_j=r_u$$

where $`r_u=_{1in}a_ir_i.`$
(ii) If $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ is spanned by $`v_{j_1},v_{j_2},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$, then

$$x_{j_1}x(\gamma )=\underset{k}{}u,v_kx(\gamma _k)+r_ux(\gamma )$$

for some $`uM`$, where the sum on the right is over those cones $`\gamma _k`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r+1)`$ which are spanned by primitive vectors $`v_k,v_{j_1},v_{j_2},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$.
(iii) If $`\alpha <\gamma \beta `$ are cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then there exist cones $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _s\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\alpha <\gamma _k`$ such that the $`\gamma _k`$ are not contained in $`\beta `$, and

$$x(\gamma )=\underset{k}{}c_kx(\gamma _k)+cx(\alpha )$$

for some $`c,c_kS`$.
(iv) The monomials $`x(\tau _i)`$, $`1im,`$ span $`R`$ as an $`S`$-module.

Proof: Part (i) follows easily from linearity of the pairing $`,`$ with respect to the first argument.

(ii) Suppose $`\gamma \sigma `$ where $`\sigma `$ is $`n`$-dimensional. Let $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_n}`$ be the primitive vectors which span $`\sigma `$ such that the first $`r`$ elements span $`\gamma `$, with $`j_1=j`$. Let $`uM`$ be the dual basis element such that $`u,v_{j_k}=\delta _{j,j_k}`$. One has the relation:

$$x_{j_1}+\underset{kj_1}{}u,v_kx_kr_u=0.$$

Multiplying both sides by $`x(\gamma )`$, and using the type $`1`$ relations, we get

$$x_{j_1}x(\gamma )=\underset{k}{}u,v_kx(\gamma _k)+r_ux(\gamma )$$

where the sum on the right is over those cones $`\gamma _k`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r+1)`$ which are spanned by primitive the vectors $`v_k,v_{j_1}v_{j_2},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ where $`kj_1,\mathrm{},j_n`$. This proves (ii).

(iii) Suppose $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_l}`$ spans $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }(l)`$ such that the first $`r`$ of these span $`\alpha `$ and the first $`p`$ of these span $`\gamma `$, $`p>r`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\beta `$ is an $`n`$ dimensional cone so that $`l=n`$, and $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_n}`$ is a basis for $`N`$. Now let $`uM`$ be the dual basis element so that $`u,v_{j_q}=\delta _{p,q}`$. Then we have

$$x_{j_p}+\underset{kj_p}{}u,v_kx_kr_u=0.$$
$`(1)`$
Multiplying by $`x_{j_1}\mathrm{}x_{j_{p1}}`$ and observing that the coefficient of $`x_k`$ in the sum is zero for $`k\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n\}`$ and $`kj_p`$, we get $`x(\gamma )+u,v_kx(\gamma _k)r_ux(\gamma ^{})=0`$ where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is the cone spanned by $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_{p1}}`$ and the sum is over those cones $`\gamma _k\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ which are spanned by $`v_{j_1},v_{j_2},\mathrm{},v_{j_{p1}},v_k,kj_1,\mathrm{},j_n`$. Note that each of these $`\gamma _k`$ contains $`\alpha `$ but is not contained in $`\beta `$. If $`\gamma ^{}=\alpha `$, we are done. Otherwise, by an induction on the dimension of $`\gamma `$ the statement is true for $`\gamma ^{}`$. Substituting this expression for $`x(\gamma ^{})`$ in (1), we see that (iii) holds.

(iv) We first prove that the $`x(\tau _i)`$ span $`R`$. In view of (ii), it suffices to prove that for any $`\gamma `$, $`x(\gamma )`$ is in the $`S`$-submodule spanned by the $`x(\tau _i)`$. Property $`()`$ implies that given any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$, there exists a unique $`i`$ such that $`\tau _i\gamma \sigma _i`$; indeed it is the smallest $`i`$ for which $`\gamma \sigma _i`$. (See , §5.2.) We prove, by a downward induction on this $`i`$, that $`x(\gamma )`$ is in the $`S`$-span of $`x(\tau _j),ji`$. If $`i=m`$, then $`\gamma =\sigma _m=\tau _m`$ and there is nothing to prove.

Let $`\tau _i\gamma \sigma _i`$ for some $`i<m`$. Now, using (iii), we can write $`x(\gamma )`$ as an $`S`$-linear combination of $`x(\tau _i)`$ and $`x(\gamma _j)`$ where $`\tau _i<\gamma _j`$, and $`\gamma _j`$ is not contained in $`\sigma _i`$. It follows that each $`\gamma _j`$ is such that $`\tau _r\gamma _j\sigma _r`$ for some $`r`$ (depending on $`j`$) with $`r>i`$. By inductive hypothesis, each of the $`x(\gamma _j)`$ is in the $`S`$-span of $`x(\tau _q),qr`$. It follows that $`x(\gamma )`$ is in the $`S`$-span of $`x(\tau _r),ri`$, completing the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Concerning the structure of $``$ we have the following.

###### Lemma 2.2

. Assume that the elements $`r_iS,1in`$ are invertible. Then
(i) For $`u=_{1in}a_iu_iM`$ the following relation holds in $``$:

$$z_u:=\underset{j,u,v_j>0}{}(1x_j)^{u,v_j}r_u\underset{j,u,v_j<0}{}(1x_j)^{u,v_j}=0$$

where $`r_u=_{1in}r_i^{a_i}`$.
(ii) Let $`\alpha <\gamma \beta `$ be cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Suppose that $`\gamma `$ is spanned by $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_k}`$, then

$$x_{j_1}x(\gamma )=(1r_u)x(\gamma )+\underset{p}{}a_px(\gamma _p)$$

where $`a_pS`$, and $`\gamma _p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are such that $`\alpha <\gamma _p,\gamma _p`$ are not contained in $`\beta `$ and $`dim(\gamma _p)>dim(\gamma )`$.
(iii) Let $`\alpha <\gamma \beta `$ be cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then

$$x(\gamma )=\underset{p}{}b_px(\gamma _p)+bx(\alpha )$$

for some $`b_p,bS`$ and suitable cones $`\gamma _p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which contain $`\alpha `$ and are not contained in $`\beta `$. (iv) The monomials $`x(\tau _i),1im`$ span $``$ as an $`S`$-module.

Proof: Proof of (i) is an easy exercise.
(ii) Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`\beta `$ is an $`n`$-dimensional cone. We prove this by descending induction on the dimension of $`\gamma `$. Suppose that $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_n}`$ span $`\beta `$, and that $`v_{j_1}\alpha `$. Let $`uM`$ be the dual basis element such that $`u,v_{j_r}=\delta _{1,r}`$. The relation $`z_u=0`$ can be rewritten as

$$(1x_{j_1})\underset{j,u,v_j>0}{}(1x_j)^{u,v_j}=r_u\underset{j,u,v_j<0}{}(1x_j)^{u,v_j}$$

Note that none of the $`x_{j_r},2rn`$ occur in the above relation. Multiplying both sides by $`x(\gamma )`$,

$$(x(\gamma )x_{j_1}x(\gamma ))\underset{p}{}(1x_p)^{u,v_p}=r_ux(\gamma )\underset{q}{}(1x_q)^{u,v_q}$$
$`(2)`$
where the product is over those $`p`$, (resp. $`q`$) such that $`v_p`$, (resp. $`v_q`$), $`v_{j_1}\mathrm{},v_{j_k}`$ span a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`u,v_p>0,`$ (resp. $`u,v_q<0`$). In particular, if $`\gamma `$ is $`n`$-dimensional, then the above equation reads $`x_{j_1}x(\gamma )=(1r_u)x(\gamma )`$, which proves the lemma in this case. Assume that $`k<n`$ and that the statement holds for all higher dimensional cones. Then from equation (2), we see that the lemma follows by repeated application of the inductive hypothesis and by the observation that if $`\gamma ^{}<\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$ and if $`\gamma ^{}`$ is not contained in $`\beta `$, then neither is $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$.
Parts (iii) and (iv) follow from (ii) just as in the proof of lemma 2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.3

. One can show that if $`r_i=0`$ for all $`i,1in`$, then $`x_j^{n+1}=0,1jd`$ in $`R`$ and that $`x(\tau _i),1im,`$ form a basis for $`R`$ as a module over $`S`$. Similarly, if $`r_i=1`$ for all $`1in`$, then $`x_j^{n+1}=0`$ for $`1jd`$ and $`x(\tau _i),1im`$ form a basis for $``$ as an $`S`$-module.

## 3 Singular cohomology and Chow ring

In this section we shall prove parts (i) and (iii) of the Main Theorem 1.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a complete nonsingular fan in $`N`$. We assume that $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _m`$ is an ordering of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ such that property $`()`$ holds. (See §1.) This implies that the toric variety $`X=X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has an algebraic cell decomposition, namely, there exists closed subvarieties $`X=Z_1\mathrm{}Z_m`$ of $`X`$ such that $`Z_iZ_{i+1}=:Y_i^{k_i}`$ for some integers $`k_i`$. In fact, with $`\tau _i`$ as in §1, the closure of $`Y_i`$ is just the variety $`V(\tau _i)`$. See . This yields the structure of a (finite) CW complex on $`X`$ with cells only in even dimensions.

Notation: We shall denote $`V(\tau _i)`$ by $`V_i`$. If $`(^{})`$ also holds, then we set $`V_i^{}=V(\tau _i^{})`$.

Assume that $`p:EB`$ is complex algebraic and $`B`$ irreducible, nonsingular, and noetherian over $``$. Now since the varieties $`V_i`$ are stable under the $`T`$-action, one has the associated bundles $`\pi _i:E(V_i)B`$ with fibre $`V_i`$. Note that $`E(V_i)`$ is a smooth closed subvariety of $`E(X)`$. For any closed subvariety $`Z`$ in an algebraic variety $`Y`$ we denote by $`[Z]`$ its rational equivalence class in $`A_{}(Y)`$. If $`Z`$ and $`Y`$ are smooth, we denote by $`[Z]`$ the cohomology class dual to $`Z`$ in $`H^{2r}(Y;)`$ as well as the element in the Chow cohomology group $`A^r(Y)`$ where $`r`$ is the codimension of $`Z`$ in $`Y`$.

In case property $`(^{})`$ also holds, then $`[V_i].[V_j^{}]=0`$ if $`j<i`$, and $`[V_i][V_i^{}]H^{2n}(X;)`$ is the positive generator with respect to the standard orientation coming from the complex structure on $`X`$. Also, in the Chow ring, $`[V_i][V_i^{}]A^n(X)=A_0(X)`$ denotes the class of the point $`[V(\sigma _i)]`$ which generates $`A_0(X)`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

. Let $`X`$ be a complete nonsingular $`T`$-toric variety and suppose that property $`()`$ holds for an ordering of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$. Let $`\pi :EB`$ be a principal $`T`$-bundle over any topological space.Then:
(i) The bundle $`\pi :E(X)B`$ admits a cohomology extension of the fibre in singular cohomology with integer coefficients. $`H^{}(E(X);)`$ is isomorphic to $`H^{}(B;)H^{}(X;)`$ as an $`H^{}(B;)`$-module.
Assume $`\pi :EB`$ is complex algebraic where $`B`$ an irreducible, nonsingular noetherian variety over $``$. Suppose that properties $`(),(^{})`$ hold. Then:
(ii) The Chow group $`A^{}(E(X))`$ is isomorphic as an $`A^{}(B)`$-module to $`A^{}(B)A^{}(X)`$.

Proof: We shall fix a base point $`b_0B`$ and identify $`X`$ with the fibre $`\pi ^1(b_0)E(X)`$. (i). Since the $`X`$ has a CW decomposition with only even dimensional cells, its integral cohomology is isomorphic to the free abelian group with basis labelled by its cells. Indeed the dual cohomology classes $`[V_i]H^{2l_i}(X;)`$, $`l_i=dim(\tau _i),`$ form a $``$-basis for $`H^{}(X;)`$.

Let $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ spanned by the primitive vectors along $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$. Denote by $`L(\eta )`$ the $`T`$-equivariant bundle $`L_{j_1}\mathrm{}L_{j_r}`$, where the $`L_j`$ are as defined in §1. The class $`[V(\eta )]H^{2r}(X;)`$ equals the the Chern class $`c_r(L(\eta ))=c_1(L_{j_i})\mathrm{}c_1(L_{j_r}).`$ The bundle $`(\eta )=E(L(\eta ))`$ over $`E(X)`$ restricts to $`L(\eta )`$ over $`X`$. By the naturality of Chern classes, $`c_r((\eta ))H^{2r}(E(X);)`$ restricts to $`c_r(L(\eta ))=[V(\eta )]H^{2r}(X;)`$. In particular, it follows that $`[V(\tau _i)],1im,`$ are in the image of the restriction homomorphism $`H^{}(E(X);)H^{}(X;)`$. The lemma follows by Leray-Hirsch theorem (, p.258).

(ii) Our proof follows that of Lemma 2.8  closely. (See also Lemma 6, .) Clearly the classes $`[E(V_i)]A^{}(E(V_i)),1im`$ restrict to elements of a $``$ basis (namely $`[V_i]A^{}(X)`$). Consider the $`A^{}(B)`$-linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:A^{}(B)A^{}(X)A^{}(E(X))`$, defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\underset{1im}{}b_i[V_i])=\underset{1im}{}\pi ^{}(b_i).[E(V_i)].$$

To prove (ii) we show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an isomorphism. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }(b_i[V_j])=0A^{}(E(X))`$. Assume that $`k`$ is the smallest integer such that $`b_k0`$. Since for $`jk`$, $`V_j`$ and $`V_k^{}`$ are disjoint unless $`j=k`$ in which case they intersect transversally and $`V_jV_j^{}=V(\sigma _j)`$ scheme theoretically. We see that $`[E(V_j)].[E(V_k^{})]=0`$ if $`j>k`$, and, $`E(V_j),E(V_j^{})`$ intersect transversally and so $`E(V_j)E(V_j^{})=E(V(\sigma _j))`$ scheme theoretically (where the subvarieties are given the reduced scheme structure). Therefore, $`[E(V_j)].[E(V_j^{})]=[E(V(\sigma _j))]`$. Note that since $`V(\sigma _j)`$ is a $`T`$-fixed point, $`E(V(\sigma _j))E/T=B`$. Denote by $`\pi _j`$ the restriction of $`\pi :E(X)B`$ to $`E(V(\sigma _j))`$. Also let $`\iota _j`$ be the inclusion $`E(V(\sigma _j))E(X)`$. Note that $`[E(V(\sigma _j))]=\iota _j\pi _j^{}([B])A_{}(E(X))`$.

Now since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(_{1jm}b_j[V_j])=0`$, we get
$`0=[E(V_k^{})].\mathrm{\Phi }(_{1jm}b_j[V_j])=_{1jm}\pi ^{}(b_j)[E(V_j)].[E(V_k^{})]=\pi ^{}(b_k)[E(V(\sigma _k))]`$
$`=\pi ^{}(b_k).\iota _k\pi _k^{}([B]).`$

Applying $`\pi _{}`$ and using the projection formula we get
$`0=\pi _{}(\pi ^{}(b_k).\iota _k\pi _k^{}([B]))=b_k.\pi _{}\iota _k\pi _k^{}([B])=b_k.\pi _k\pi _k^{}([B])=b_k.[B]=b_k.`$
This contradicts our hypothesis that $`b_k0`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is injective.

We now prove surjectivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. One has the filtration $`BE(Z_m)\mathrm{}E(Z_1)=E(X)`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defines surjections

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i:A^{}(B)A^{}(Z_i)A^{}(E(Z_i))$$

for each $`i,1im`$. We prove this by downward induction on $`i`$. This is trivially true for $`i=m`$, since in this case $`E(Z_m)B`$. Consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}A^{}(B)A^{}(Z_{i+1})& & A(B)A^{}(Z_i)& & A^{}(B)A^{}(Y_i)& 0\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{i+1}& & \mathrm{\Phi }_i& & & \\ A^{}(E(Z_{i+1}))& & A^{}(E(Z_i))& & A^{}(E(Y_i))& 0\end{array}$$

where the top horizontal row is obtained from tensoring with $`A^{}(B)`$ the exact sequence $`A^{}(Z_{i+1})A^{}(Z_i)A^{}(Y_i)0`$. The homomorphism $`A^{}(B)A^{}(Y_i)A^{}(E(Y_i))`$ is an isomorphism by prop. 1.9, ch. 1, . Therefore the surjectivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ follows by a diagram chase. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.2

.  It follows from the proof of the above lemma that the classes $`c_1(_j)H^2(E(X);),1jd,`$ generate $`H^{}(E(X);)`$ as an $`H^{}(B;)`$-algebra. Similarly, when $`p:EB`$ is algebraic and $`B`$ a complete nonsingular variety, then $`[E(V(\rho _j)]A^1(E(X)),1jd,`$ generate $`A^{}(E(X))`$ as an algebra over $`A^{}(B)`$.

We now turn to the ring structure of $`H^{}(E(X);)`$ and $`A^{}(E(X))`$.

Recall from §1 that the line bundle $`L_j`$ over $`X`$ admits a $`T`$-equivariant section $`s_j:XL_j`$ whose zero locus is the divisor $`V(\rho _j)`$.

Suppose that $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ does not span a cone in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`s=(s_{j_1},\mathrm{},s_{j_r})`$ is a nowhere vanishing $`T`$-invariant section of $`L_{j_1}\mathrm{}L_{j_r}`$. By taking associated construction, we see that the bundle $`_{j_1}\mathrm{}_{j_r}`$ admits a nowhere vanishing section. This implies that

$$c_1(_{j_1})\mathrm{}c_1(_{j_r})=0$$
$`(3)`$
in $`H^{2r}(E(X);)`$.

When $`p:EB`$ is algebraic with $`B`$ nonsingular, we see that

$$[E(V(\rho _{j_1}))]\mathrm{}[E(V(\rho _{j_r}))]=0$$
$`(4)`$
in the Chow ring $`A^{}(E(X))`$.

Now, let $`uM`$ be any element. Consider the $`T`$-equivariant line bundle $`L_u`$ on $`X`$ corresponding to the principal divisor $`_{1jd}u,v_jV(\rho _j)=div(\chi ^u).`$ Clearly $`L_u`$ is isomorphic as a $`T`$-equivariant bundle to $`_{1jd}L_j^{u,v_j}`$ as both of these bundles correspond to the same piecewise linear function $`u:|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$. (See .) Hence $`E(L_u)_{1jd}_j^{u,v_j}.`$ On the other hand the bundle $`_u:=E(L_u)=E(\chi ^u)`$ is isomorphic to $`\pi ^{}(\xi _1)^{a_1}\mathrm{}\pi ^{}(\xi _n)^{a_n}`$, where $`a_i=u,v_i`$. This yields the following relations:

$$\underset{1jd}{}u,v_jc_1(_j)\underset{1in}{}u,v_ic_1(\pi ^{}(\xi _i^{}))=0$$
$`(5)`$
in $`H^2(E(X);)`$. In the case when $`p:EB`$ is algebraic and $`B`$ is nonsingular we obtain, in the Chow group $`A^1(E(X))`$,

$$\underset{1jd}{}u,v_j[E(V(\rho _j))]\underset{1in}{}u,v_ic_1(\pi ^{}(\xi _i^{}))=0.$$
$`(6)`$
Proof of Theorem 1.2 (i), (iii): We first consider part (iii). In view of equations (4) and (6) above we see that we have a well defined homomorphism of algebras: $`\psi :R(A^{}(B),\mathrm{\Delta })A^{}(E(X))`$ defined by $`\psi (x_j)=[E(V(\rho _j))],1jd`$.

Note that, by remark 3.2, $`\psi `$ is surjective. We need only prove that $`\psi `$ is $`11`$. In view of theorem 3.1, $`A^{}(E(X))`$ is a free $`A^{}(B)`$-module with basis $`[E(V(\tau _i))]`$, $`1im`$. It follows from lemma 2.1(iv) that $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism, completing the proof of 1.2(iii).

Proof of part (i) is similar. In view of equations (3), (5) above, $`x_jc_1(_j)`$ defines a homomorphism $`R(H^{}(B),\mathrm{\Delta })H^{}(E(X);)`$ which is indeed an isomorphism by 2.1(iv) and 3.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.3

.  If, instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being nonsingular, it is only assumed to be simplicial, then the toric variety $`X`$ is only an orbifold. In this case lemma 3.1 holds provided we replace integral homology by rational homology and the Chow group by the rational Chow group throughout. In this case we note that $`[V_j].[V_j^{}]=q_j[V(\sigma _j)]`$ for a rational number $`q_j`$ and $`[V_j][V_k^{}]=0`$ for $`j>k`$. Computing the integral cohomology or Chow ring when the fibre $`X`$ is only simplicial seems to be much more difficult. When $`X`$ is a weighted projective space Al Amrani  has computed the integral cohomology of $`E(X)`$ in a more general setting.

## 4 K-theory

In this section we prove parts (ii) and (iv) of the main theorem.

In view of our assumption in 1.2 (iv) that both the base space $`B`$ and the fibre $`X`$ are smooth, the Grothendieck ring $`𝒦^0(E(X))`$ of algebraic vector bundles may be identified, via the duality isomorphism, with Grothendieck ring $`𝒦_0(E(X))`$ of coherent sheaves on $`E(X)`$. We shall denote either of them by $`𝒦(E(X)`$. Also if a smooth variety $`Y`$ has an algebraic cell decomposition the forgetful map $`𝒦^0(Y)K(Y)`$ is an isomorphism of rings. In particular, this holds when $`X`$ is a complete nonsingular toric variety satisfying property $`()`$ (see §1).

Although the $`K`$ ring of a complete toric variety has been studied earlier, we could not find in the literature its description in terms of generators and relations. We obtain such a description in proposition 4.3 below. When $`X`$ is the projective space, such a description is due to Adams . The case when $`X`$ is a weighted projective space is more recent, due to Al Amrani . We refer the reader to ,  for other descriptions of the $`K`$ ring as well as the equivariant $`K`$ ring of a toric variety.

We begin with the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.1

. Suppose $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _r`$ are complex line bundles over a finite CW complex $`Y`$ which has cells only in even dimensions such that $`H^{}(Y;)`$ is generated by $`c_1(\zeta _1),\mathrm{},c_1(\zeta _r)H^2(Y;)`$. Then the ring $`K^{}(Y)=K^0(Y)`$ is generated as a ring by $`[\zeta _1],\mathrm{},[\zeta _r]K(Y).`$

Proof: Let $`f_i:Y^N`$ be a classifying map for the bundle $`\zeta _i,1ir`$ where $`N>1/2(dim(Y))`$. Consider the map $`f:Y(^N)^r`$ which is defined as $`f(y)=(f_1(y),\mathrm{},f_r(y))`$. Then $`f^{}:H^{}((^N)^r;)H^{}(Y;)`$ is easily seen to be a surjection. By the naturality of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch  spectral sequence it follows that $`f^{}`$ induces a surjection of $`K`$ groups $`K((^N)^r;)K(Y)`$. Recall from  that $`K(^N)=[z]/z^{N+1}`$ where $`z=[\omega ]1`$, $`\omega `$ being the class of the tautological line bundle on $`^N`$. Hence $`K((^N)^r)=[z_1,\mathrm{},z_r]/z_i^{N+1},1ir`$. Since $`f^{}`$ is ring homomorphism and since $`f^{}(z_i)=[\zeta _i]1`$, the lemma follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.2

. Suppose that $`Y`$ is a complete nonsingular variety over $``$ which has an algebraic cell decomposition and that $`H^{}(Y;)`$ is generated as a ring by $`H^2(Y;)`$. Then there exist algebraic line bundles $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _k`$ over $`Y`$ such that $`𝒦(Y)`$ is generated as a ring by $`[\zeta _i],1ik`$. In particular, the forgetful map $`\theta :𝒦(Y)K(Y)`$ is an isomorphism.

Proof: Since $`Y`$ has an algebraic cell decomposition, the Chow ring is isomorphic to the cohomology ring $`H^{}(Y;)`$, which is isomorphic as an abelian group to $`^m`$ where $`m`$ is the number of cells in $`Y`$.

Since $`A^{}(Y)`$ is torsion free, it follows that $`𝒦(Y)`$ is also torsion free. One has the “topological filtration” on $`𝒦(Y)`$ and $`Gr(𝒦(Y))`$ denotes the associated graded group of $`𝒦(Y)`$. See 15.1.5, . Since the map $`\phi :A^{}(Y)Gr(𝒦(Y))`$, defined as $`[V][𝒪_V]`$, is a surjective homomorphism of groups, it follows that $`𝒦(Y)`$ is a finitely generated abelian group of rank at most $`m`$.

Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ be a $``$-basis for $`H^2(Y;)`$. Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_k`$ be divisors on $`Y`$ such that $`[D_i]A^1(Y)`$ maps to $`a_iH^2(Y;)`$, $`1ik`$. Since the first Chern class of $`𝒪(D_i)`$ is $`a_iH^2(Y;)`$, for $`1im`$, it follows that $`[𝒪(D_i)]K(Y)`$ generate $`K^(Y)`$ as a ring. Thus, the forgetful homomorphism $`\theta :𝒦(Y)K(Y)`$ is surjective.

Since the $`K(Y)`$ is a free abelian group of rank $`m`$, it follows that $`\theta `$ is an isomorphism. In particular, $`𝒦(Y)`$ is generated as ring by $`[𝒪(D_i)]𝒦(Y)`$, $`1ik`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Examples of varieties which satisfy the hypothesis of the above lemma are (complete nonsingular) toric varieties $`X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies $`()`$, the flag variety $`SL(n,)/B`$, where $`BSL(n,)`$ is the group of upper triangular matrices, and smooth Schubert varieties in $`SL(n,)/B`$.

Our next result gives a description of the $`K`$-ring of $`X`$. We keep the notations of the introduction.

Recall the definition of $``$ from §1.

###### Proposition 4.3

. Let $`X=X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a nonsingular complete toric variety where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies the property $`()`$. The following relations hold in $`𝒦(X)`$ and $`K(X)`$:
(i) $`[𝒪_{V(\rho _{j_1})}]\mathrm{}[𝒪_{V(\rho _{j_r})}]=0`$ if $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ do not span a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,
(ii) $`_{1jd}[L_j]^{u,v_j}=1,`$
(iii) Set $`r_i=1,1in`$. The homomorphism of rings $`\theta :=(,\mathrm{\Delta })𝒦(X)K(X)`$ defnied by $`x_i[𝒪_{V(\rho _i)}]=(1[L_i^{}])`$ is an isomorphism.

Proof: Recall that $`[𝒪_Y].[𝒪_Z]=[𝒪_{YZ}]`$ if $`Y,Z`$ are closed irreducible subvarieties of $`X`$ which meet transversally. Relation (i) follows from the fact that $`V(\rho _{j_1})\mathrm{}V(\rho _{j_r})=\mathrm{}`$ if $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ does not span a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since for any $`uM`$ we have $`u,v_j=_{1pd}u,v_p\psi _p(v_j)`$, it follows that one has a $`T`$-equivariant isomorphism of bundles $`_{1pd}L_p^{u,v_p}L_u`$, where $`L_u`$ is the line bundle corresponding to the piecewise linear function $`u:|\mathrm{\Delta }|=N_{}`$. But $`L_u`$ is isomorphic to the trivial line bundle and so (ii) follows.

Now the section $`s_j:XL_j`$ vanishes to order $`1`$ on $`V(\rho _j)`$. Hence we have an exact sequence of coherent sheaves for $`1jd`$: $`0L_j^{}𝒪_X𝒪_{V(\rho _j)}0`$. Thus $`[𝒪_{V(\rho _j)}]=(1[L_j^{}])`$ in $`𝒦(X)`$, i.e., $`(1[𝒪_{V(\rho _j)}])=L_j^{}`$. Hence $`x_j[𝒪_{V(\rho _j}]`$ defines a ring homomorphism $`\theta :𝒦(X)`$. Since $`𝒦(X)`$ is free abelian of rank $`m`$ and since by lemma 2.2 $``$ is generated by $`m`$ elements $`x(\tau _i),1im`$, it follows that $`\theta `$ is an isomorphism, completing the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.4

.  Suppose $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k`$ are line bundles over $`Y`$ such that their Whitney sum $`\eta :=_{1ik}\eta _i`$ admits a nowhere vanishing section, then, applying the $`\gamma ^k`$-operation, we obtain $`\gamma ^k(\eta k)=0`$. On the other hand, $`\gamma ^k([\eta ]k)=\gamma ^k(_{1ik}([\eta _i]1))=([\eta _i]1)`$. Hence, $`(1[\eta _i])=0`$. Thus, one can avoid the use of the coherent sheaves in the proof of (i) above in the case of $`K(X(\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ since we know that the section $`s=(s_{j_1},\mathrm{},s_{j_r})`$ of the bundle $`_{1pr}L_{j_p}`$ is nowhere vanishing whenever $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ does not span a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Corollary 4.5

. (i) The elements $`[𝒪_{V(\tau _i)}]𝒦(X),1im`$, form a $``$-basis for $`𝒦(X)`$.
(ii) Let $`L(\tau _i)=_{j,v_j\tau _i}L_j`$ for $`1im`$. Then $`[L(\tau _i)],1im,`$ form a $``$-basis for $`K(X)`$.

Proof: This follows from the proof of 4.3 (iii). $`\mathrm{}`$

Recall that $`_j=E(L_j)`$ is the line bundle over $`E(X)`$ with total space $`E\times _TL_j`$. Denote by $`(\tau _i)`$ the line bundle $`E(L(\tau _i))=_{j_1}\mathrm{}_{j_r}`$, where $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ are the primitive vectors along the edges of $`\tau _i`$. In view of proposition 4.5 (ii), the restriction of the bundles $`(\tau _i),1im,`$ to the fibre $`X`$ form a $``$-basis for $`K^{}(X)=K^0(X)`$. Hence, by theorem 2.7.8 , it follows that $`K(E(X))`$ is a free $`K^{}(B)`$-module with basis $`(\tau _i),1im`$. Suppose $`v_{j_1},\mathrm{},v_{j_r}`$ do not span a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The $`T`$-equivariant section $`s=(s_{j_1},\mathrm{},s_{j_r})`$ of $`L_{j_1}\mathrm{}L_{j_r}`$ is nowhere vanishing and extends to a nowhere vanishing section $`E(s):E(X)_{i_1}\mathrm{}_{i_r}.`$ Hence by remark 4.4,

$$\underset{1pr}{}(1_{j_p})=0.$$
$`(7)`$
Now assume that $`p:EB`$ is algebraic and $`B`$ irreducible, nonsingular and noetherian over $``$. Since the $`T`$-equivariant sections $`s_j`$ are algebraic, equation (7) holds in $`𝒦(E(X))`$ as well.

For any $`uM`$, the $`T`$-equivariant isomorphism of bundles $`_{1jd}L_j^{u,v_j}L_u`$ yields an isomorphism of vector bundles $`_{1jd}_j^{u,v_j}E(L_u).`$ Since $`E(L_u)=_{1in}\xi _i^{u,v_i}`$, we get

$$\underset{1jd}{}_j^{u,v_j}\pi ^{}(\xi _u^{})$$
$`(8)`$
where $`\xi _u=_{1in}\xi _i^{u,v_i}`$.

We are now ready to prove the remaining parts of 1.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.2(ii), (iv): To prove (ii), we first show that $`K^{}(E(X))`$ is a free $`K^{}(B)`$-module of rank $`m`$, the number of $`n`$-dimensional cones in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`X=X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. With notations as in §4, the restriction of $`[(\tau _i)],1im,`$ to the fibre $`X`$ forms a $``$-basis for $`K^{}(X)`$. Since $`B`$ is compact Hausdorff, it is locally compact and normal. Therefore $`B`$ can be covered by finitely many compact subsets $`W_1,\mathrm{},W_k`$ such that the bundle $`\pi |W_r`$ is trivial for $`1rk`$. Let $`Y`$ be any closed subset of $`W_r`$. Now using Künneth theorem for K- theory (cf. ), we see that $`K^{}(\pi (Y))`$ is a free $`K^{}(Y)`$-module with basis $`[(\tau _i)|Y]`$, $`1im`$. Applying Theorem 1.3, Ch. IV, , we conclude that $`K^{}(E(X))`$ is a free $`K(B)`$-module with basis $`[(\tau _i)],1im`$.

In view of equations (7) and (8), one has a well-defined homomorphism of $`K(B)`$-algebras $`\mathrm{\Psi }:=(K^{}(B),\mathrm{\Delta })K^{}(E(X))`$ defined by $`x_j(1[_j]),1jd.`$

Since the $`x(\tau _i),1im`$ span $``$ by lemma 2.2 (iv) and since $`K^{}(E(X))`$ is a free $`K^{}(B)`$ module of rank $`m`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an isomorphism, completing the proof of (ii).

Now let $`B`$ be an irreducible, nonsingular, noetherian variety over $``$ and let $`p:EB`$ be algebraic. Equations (7) and (8) still hold in $`𝒦(E(X))`$ since the equivariant sections $`s_j`$ are algebraic. Proceeding as above, we see that to complete the proof of 1.2 (iv), we need only show that $`[𝒪_{E(V_i)}]`$, $`1im,`$ form a basis for $`𝒦(E(X))`$ as a $`𝒦(B)`$-module, where $`V_i`$ stands for $`V(\tau _i)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒦(B)𝒦(X)𝒦(E(X))`$ be the $`𝒦(B)`$-linear map defined by $`_{1im}b_i[𝒪_{V_i}]_{1im}\pi ^{}(b_i)[𝒪_{E(V_i)}]`$, $`1im`$. In view of 4.5(i), we need only show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an isomorphism.

We first prove surjectivity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is proved by induction on the dimension of $`B`$, assuming only that $`B`$ is noetherian over $``$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`B`$ is irreducible. If $`B`$ is a point, then the result is obvious. Suppose that $`dim(B)>0`$. Let $`U`$ be an affine open set in $`B`$ over which the $`T`$-bundle $`p:EB`$ is trivial and let $`Z=BU`$ (with its reduced scheme structure). Note that $`Z`$ may not be irreducible but $`dim(Z_k)<dim(B)`$ for each irreducible component $`Z_k`$ of $`Z`$. By inductive hypothesis, $`𝒦_0(Z)𝒦(X)𝒦(\pi ^1(Z))`$ is surjective homomorphism of abelian groups. Consider the commuting diagram of abelian groups and their homomorphisms:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}𝒦_0(Z)𝒦(X)& & 𝒦_0(B)𝒦(X)& & 𝒦_0(U)𝒦(X)& & 0\\ & & & & & & \\ 𝒦_0(\pi ^1(Z))& & 𝒦_0(E(X))& & 𝒦_0(\pi ^1(U))& & 0\end{array}$$

where the horizontal rows are exact. The top horizontal row is got by tensoring with $`𝒦(X)`$ the exact sequence $`𝒦_0(Z)𝒦_0(B)𝒦_0(U)0`$. By prop. 2.13, ch. II, (Exp. 0-App.), p.60, , the homomorphism $`𝒦(U)𝒦(X)𝒦(\pi ^1(U))`$ is surjective. It follows that the homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒦_0(B)𝒦(X)𝒦_0(E(X))`$ is a surjection.

Now we prove that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a monomorphism. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }(_{1im}b_i[𝒪_{V_i}])=0`$ where $`b_i`$ is non-zero for some $`i`$. Let $`p1`$ be the least so that $`b_p0`$. Then, writing $`V_p^{}`$ for $`V(\tau _p^{})`$, we have
$`0=[𝒪_{E(V_p^{})}].(_{1im}\pi ^{}(b_i).[𝒪_{E(V_i)}])=_{pim}\pi ^{}(b_i)[𝒪_{E(V_p^{})E(V_i))}]`$
$`=\pi ^{}(b_p)[𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}],`$
since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies property $`(^{})`$.

Denote by $`\pi _p`$ the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`E(V(\sigma _p))`$ and by $`\iota _p`$ the inclusion $`E(V(\sigma _p))E(X)`$. Then the homomorphism $`\iota _p:𝒦(E(V(\sigma _p)))𝒦(E(X))`$ maps $`[𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}]=1𝒦(E(V(\sigma _p)))`$ to $`[𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}]𝒦(E(X))`$. Also, $`\pi _p`$ is an isomorphism of varieties. Therefore, applying $`\pi _{}`$ to the expression $`0=\pi ^{}(b_p)[𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}]`$ and using the projection formula (§15.1, ) we get

$$0=\pi _{}(\pi ^{}(b_p)[𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}])=b_p.\pi _{}\iota _p([𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}])=b_p.\pi _p([𝒪_{E(V(\sigma _p))}])=b_p[𝒪_B]=b_p.$$

This contradicts our choice of $`p`$. Hence we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a monomorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

Concluding remark 4.6. Parts (iii) and (iv) of the main theorem also hold when the base field $``$ is replaced by any algebraically closed field $`k`$. Namely, let $`B`$ be an irreducible nonsingular noetherian variety over $`k`$ and let $`\pi :EB`$ be a principal $`T`$ bundle where $`T=Spec(k[M])`$. Since any toric variety is defined over the integers the fan $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defines a nonsingular complete $`k`$-scheme $`X=X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Again $`E(X)B`$ is a Zariski locally trivial bundle with fibre $`X`$. Then $`𝒦(E(X))`$ and $`A^{}(E(X))`$ are isomorphic to $``$ and $`R`$ respectively.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Phase Transition in the SU(4) Spin-Orbital Model on the Triangular Lattice

## Abstract

Motivated by the absence of cooperative Jahn-Teller effect in LiNiO2 and BaVS3, two layered oxides with triangular planes, we study the SU(4) symmetric spin-orbital model on the triangular lattice. Upon reducing the next-nearest neighbour coupling, we show that the system undergoes a quantum phase transition to a liquid phase. A variational approach to this liquid phase shows that simple types of long-range correlations are suppressed, suggesting that it is stable against lattice distortions.

The possibility to enhance quantum fluctuations and destroy magnetic long-range order by orbital fluctuations was first proposed a few years ago in the pioneering work of Feiner et al feiner . A careful analysis of the spin-orbital model of cubic perovskites with two-fold orbital degeneracy revealed the presence of spin liquid phases in which orbital degrees of freedom form valence-bond patterns. The search for experimental realizations of this intriguing physics has been going on since then, but the best candidate remains the old system LiNiO2 linio , a layered S=1/2 system which does not undergo any phase transition down to the lowest temperatures. In this system, Ni3+ ions are arranged in triangular layers, and since the SU(2) Heisenberg model on a triangular lattice is now believed to sustain long-range order QDJS , the origin of this behaviour has logically been attributed to the two-fold orbital degeneracy of Ni3+ in the low spin state. However, the absence of any structural distortions, which one would expect e.g. from a valence bond-ordered spin liquid of Ref. feiner , is still a mystery. Similar physics seems to be present in BaVS3 bavs , a $`3d^1`$ system with stacked triangular planes: Between 30K and 70K it develops a spin gapped phase, again without significant lattice distortions. We believe that essential aspects of this intermediate phase are also describable in terms of a triangular spin-orbital model with twofold orbital degeneracy.

On the theory side, it has become clear since the work of Feiner et al feiner  that states in which orbitals form valence-bond dimer patterns do not exhaust the possibilities of spin liquid states. In particular, an increasing attention has been devoted to the SU(4) symmetric Kugel-Khomskii model kk , where the orbital and spin degrees of freedom play symmetric roles. In terms of spin-1/2 operators $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ for the spins and pseudo-spin 1/2 operators $`\stackrel{}{\tau }_i`$ for the orbitals, this model is defined by the Hamiltonian:

$$=\underset{(i,j)}{}J_{ij}(2\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i.\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j+\frac{1}{2})(2\stackrel{}{\tau }_i.\stackrel{}{\tau }_j+\frac{1}{2})$$
(1)
This Hamiltonian can be rewritten as $`=_{(i,j)}J_{ij}P_{i,j}`$, where $`P_{i,j}`$ permutes the states of the four-dimensional fundamental representations of SU(4) at sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. In 1D, this model has a gapless spectrum with a fourfold periodicity of correlation functions 1Dsu4 . The investigation of this model on other simple lattices has revealed that, whenever possible, there is a tendency to form four-site plaquettes to accommodate SU(4) singlets lima , in contrast to the orbital valence bond solids. These plaquettes have been unambiguously shown to form a well defined pattern in the case of ladders vdb , and evidence that this might also be the case for the square lattice has been put forward RVBsu4 ; fermiMF . Alternatively, long range order has been proposed in Ref. shen . It is interesting to note that this SU(4) model is also a good starting point to describe CeB6 (e.g. Ref. thalmeier ), while the other version with conjugate representations on different sublattices is more appropriate in the context of strong coupling to the lattice lattice , or to perform a $`1/N`$ expansion sachdev .

In this Letter, we present strong evidence, all based on arguments that respect the underlying SU(4) symmetry, that the SU(4) model on a triangular lattice with nearest-neighbour (NN) exchange $`J>0`$ only is also a spin liquid, but unlike previous suggestions lima ; fermiMF , we put forward detailed variational arguments that go against the presence of plaquette order in the ground state. Extending the model by including a coupling $`J^{}>0`$ between next-nearest neighbours (NNN), we prove that the model undergoes a quantum phase transition between a disordered state for $`J^{}=0`$ and an ordered state for large enough $`J^{}`$. The emerging picture of the disordered phase is that of a true liquid both in spin and orbital sector, with accordingly no tendency to undergo any distortion when coupled to the lattice.

Spin-waves.–The infinite degeneracy of the antiferromagnetic, four-state Potts model on the triangular lattice is lifted by $`J^{}>0`$, leading to a unique, four-sublattice ordering pattern (see Fig. 1(a)). Once the classical state is ordered, quantum fluctuations can be analyzed within a flavor-wave theory spinwave , which is a generalization of the standard SU(2) linearized spin-wave theory. First, one extends the fundamental representation on a single site into a Young diagram with a single row and M columns (the fully symmetric representation). The SU(4) operators can be conveniently expressed by a generalized Holstein-Primakoff transformation, where the fluctuations on each site are described by three different bosons $`b_n^m(l)`$ with $`mn`$, for which the vacuum state is the $`M`$-fold direct product of the state $`|m`$ associated with the particular sublattice (Fig. 1(a)). Following the standard procedure spinwave , i.e. expanding in $`1/M`$ and keeping the quadratic bosonic terms, the Hamiltonian can be diagonalized and, up to a constant, is given by:

$$_{\mathrm{FW}}=\underset{𝐤\mathrm{RBZ}}{}\underset{m,n}{}\omega _{mn}(𝐤)\left[\alpha _{m,𝐤}^n\alpha _{m,𝐤}^n+\frac{1}{2}\right]$$
(2)
The energies of the flavour modes are given by

$$\omega _{mn}(k)=2\sqrt{(J+J^{})^2[J\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}_{mn})+J^{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}_{mn}^{})]^2}$$
(3)
where $`𝐫_{mn}`$ and $`𝐫_{mn}^{}`$ are the NN and NNN distances between sublattices $`m`$ and $`n`$. There are 12 branches in the reduced Brillouin zone (RBZ, Fig. 1(b)), which is equivalent to 3 in the normal Brillouin zone. The operators $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ are related through a Bogoljubov transformation.

In Fig. 2 we show a plot of the flavour dispersion for some arbitrary value of $`J^{}/J`$. For $`J^{}=0`$, the energy of the flavour excitations becomes effectively one-dimensional spinwave  (e.g. $`\omega _{12}(𝐤)=2J|\mathrm{sin}k_x|`$, with zero energy node along the $`k_x=0`$ line). These low energy quantum fluctuations destroy the 4-sublattice long-range order. Including $`J^{}`$, the magnons along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ line acquire finite dispersion $`\sqrt{JJ^{}}`$, and this will reduce the fluctuations and stabilize the LRO state. Quantitatively the fluctuations are reflected in the effective staggered moment $`M=M_{im}b_i^m(l)b_i^m(l)`$, which reads

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{J+J^{}}{\omega _{mn}(𝐤)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{\mathrm{RBZ}}`$ (4)
$``$ $`M+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{J^{}}{16J}}+𝒪(J^{}/J).`$
The logarithmic divergence is the manifestation of the low energy modes. The $`M`$ for $`M=1`$ is finite when $`J^{}/J0.12`$ (inset in Fig. 2), and we take this criterium for the stability of the LRO. Note that, within the linear flavor wave theory, the staggered moments and the energy are symmetric in $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$. So we expect LRO to be stable for $`0.12J^{}/J8`$ (for $`J=0`$ we have four decoupled intercalated triangular lattices).

Tower of states.– To assess the validity of these results in the extreme quantum limit of the fundamental representation, we have looked for signatures of the quantum phase transition in the exact spectrum on a finite system. Specifically, we have numerically diagonalized a 12-site cluster defined by the lattice vectors $`𝐓_1=2𝐮_1+4𝐮_2`$ and $`𝐓_2=4𝐮_1+2𝐮_2`$. This particular cluster inherits the $`D_6`$ symmetry of the triangular lattice, and it is also compatible with the 4-sublattice ordering. Our aim was to identify the existence of the so-called Anderson tower spectrum, a set of states well separated from the others, which become degenerate and give rise to a linear combination with LRO in the thermodynamic limit QDJS ; andersontower . For SU(2) models, their energy for an $`N`$-site system, measured from the ground state, is proportional to $`𝐒^2/N`$, where the total spin $`S`$ is the addition of sublattice spins which maximize the sublattice magnetizations andersontower2 . In the SU(4) case, the same formula is expected to hold if $`𝐒^2`$ is replaced by the first Casimir operator $`C`$ of the SU(4) algebra (see Ref. RVBsu4  for definition and convention).

These states can be easily identified in Fig. 3(a), which shows the spectrum for $`J^{}/J=0.2`$. In particular, the degeneracies and the symmetry properties are in complete agreement with group theoretical calculations further . This structure is also present in the spectra obtained for for all values of $`J^{}/J`$ larger than $`0.2`$ up to $`J^{}=J`$, including $`J^{}=J/2`$, a special point for the 12-site cluster where the tower structure can be explicitly proven further . By contrast, the spectrum for $`J^{}=0`$ is shown in Fig. 3(b). Clearly, the tower structure is lost: The excitation energies are not aligned on a straight line, and the symmetry and degeneracy of the corresponding excited states do not agree with group theory. This behaviour is consistent with a quantum phase transition between $`J^{}/J=0`$ and $`0.2`$. Due to the very rapid increase of the size of the Hilbert space, we could not study larger systems to check that the tower structure is still there for large enough $`J^{}/J`$, and to perform a finite-size scaling of the slope. Still, the comparison of the spin-wave results, obtained in the thermodynamic limit, with these exact diagonalization results gives a very strong indication that there is a quantum phase transition between a four-sublattice ordered state for large enough $`J^{}/J`$ and some kind of spin liquid for $`J^{}=0`$.

Variational approach.– What is the nature of this disordered ground state? For SU(2) models, experience with frustrated systems has shown that it is useful to look at the structure of the low-lying singlet spectrum of a finite system, which can contain a single state in valence bond solids with no lattice-symmetry breaking, four states for true spin liquids on a torus (topological degeneracy topdeg ), a finite number of states in valence bond solids with lattice-symmetry breaking, or a proliferation of low-lying singlets, as in the spin-1/2 kagome antiferromagnetlhuillier . In the present case, exact diagonalization results on finite-size clusters with 12 and 16 sites show that there are 4 (resp. 6) singlets before the first multiplet, but no clear tendency can be identified.

To reach larger system sizes, we have decided to resort to variational calculations in the spirit of the RVB approach to frustrated SU(2) magnets RVBsu2 . There are significant differences though. First, one needs at least four sites to make an SU(4) singlet. Now, among all possible 4-site clusters, the particular role of the singlet plaquettes was pointed out by Li et al. lima : On a triangular lattice, each plaquette has a diagonal energy of $`(13/4)J`$, which is much lower than the diagonal energy of the LRO state (which is 0). Thus the singlet plaquettes are a good starting point for a variational calculation. To implement the method, we define a Hilbert space which is spanned by the different coverings $`|\psi _j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N_{\mathrm{cov}}`$) of the finite size cluster with singlet plaquettes. The eigenenergies are then solution of the generalized eigenvalue problem $`det(EO_{ij}H_{ij})=0`$, where $`O_{ij}=\psi _i|\psi _j`$ and $`H_{ij}=\psi _i||\psi _j`$. A systematic way to improve the method is to double the Hilbert space by including the states $`|\psi _j^{}=H|\psi _j`$, which leads to the

$$\left|\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{ij}& H_{ij}^{(2)}\\ H_{ij}^{(2)}& H_{ij}^{(3)}\end{array}\right)E\left(\begin{array}{cc}O_{ij}& H_{ij}\\ H_{ij}& H_{ij}^{(2)}\end{array}\right)\right|=0$$
(5)
$`2N_{\mathrm{cov}}\times 2N_{\mathrm{cov}}`$ eigenvalue problem, where $`H_{ij}^{(n)}=\psi _i|^n|\psi _j`$. This step can be repeated to include matrix elements of further powers of $`^n`$. The efficiency of the method is illustrated in Table. 1.

The advantage of the variational approach is that we could perform calculations for much larger clusters, up to 36 sites with 2 additional steps, 48 sites with 1 additional step, and 64 sites with no additional step. For clarity, we concentrate the discussion on two natural possibilities: i) The singlet plaquettes form a pattern with long-range order, the most natural candidate being then the static covering (plaquette array) as in the square lattice RVBsu4  (See Fig. 4(a)); ii) The plaquettes undergo strong resonances between configurations that differ only locally, the smallest pattern that allows such a resonance being the diamond depicted in Fig. 4(b).

The first possibility is definitely not favoured by our variational results: For both the 36-site and the 48-site clusters, the plaquette covering which has the largest weight in the ground state wave function is not the square covering, but a diamond covering (see Fig. 5). This fact is actually easy to understand: The matrix elements corresponding to the resonance of Fig. 4(b) dominate the secular equation, and they are completely suppressed in the square pattern of Fig. 4(a).

The effect of these resonances on the ground state correlations is a delicate issue. The ground states of the 36-site and 48-site clusters are consistent with a long-range pattern for the diamond covering of the triangular lattice, but given the very small sizes from that point of view (the 36 and 48 site cluster can accommodate 3 and 4 diamonds respectively) this result is probably not significant. What is likely to be more relevant is the amplitude of the processes that would enter a description in terms of an effective Hamiltonian. The two plaquette coverings inside a diamond can be described by an Ising variable, and the resonance gives rise to a transverse field of order $`J/2`$. The spectrum obtained for the 36-site and 48-site clusters are then consistent with a very small potential energy term with two and three body interactions. A detailed analysis of this model lies beyond the scope of the present paper, but given the prominence of the kinetic energy term, it is very likely that the system is in the equivalent of the disordered phase of the Ising model in a transverse field moessner .

In summary, this variational approach strongly suggests that the ground state is a plaquette liquid with no four-site plaquette long-range order, and with strong local resonances between the configurations of Fig. 4(b). The presence of long-range order associated to a specific pattern of diamond covering can neither be ascertained nor excluded on the basis of the present results. We just note that, if no longer range correlations are present, this plaquette liquid is expected, as its SU(2) counterparts, to exhibit topological degeneracy topdeg .

Conclusion.– To conclude, we have shown that it is possible to order the SU(4) Heisenberg model for sufficiently large nearest neighbor repulsion, without the need to introduce anisotropy, and we have identified a quantum phase transition around $`J^{}/J=0.12`$. For $`J^{}=0`$, which corresponds to a minimal model of LiNiO2, we have shown that the ground state is a spin and orbital liquid, and we have shown that simple objects like dimers of plaquettes do not develop long-range order. These results are consistent with the absence of any kind of phase transition in LiNiO2. More generally, Mott insulators with orbital degeneracy and the appropriate geometry emerge as potential candidates for completely order-free spin liquids with topological degeneracy.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Hungarian OTKA T038162, D32689, Bolyai 118/99, and of the Swiss National Fund.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, Dijkgraaf and Vafa have proposed  a method for computing perturbatively the effective glueball superpotential of $`𝒩=1`$ theories with fields transforming in the adjoint and bifundamental representations of the gauge group. According to this proposal, the planar free energy of the matrix model whose potential is the tree-level superpotential of the $`𝒩=1`$ theory yields the effective superpotential of this theory.

When fields transforming in the fundamental representation of the gauge group (quarks) are present, one only needs to include the planar free energy coming from diagrams with one quark boundary . More explicitly, the gauge theory effective superpotential is proposed to be

$$W_{\text{eff}}(S,\mathrm{\Lambda })=N_cS\left(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)+N_c\frac{_{\chi =2}}{S}+N_f_{\chi =1}.$$
(1)
This prescription was successfully used to compare matrix model predictions with known gauge theory results for theories with massive and massless flavors, with $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry -.

For theories with fields transforming in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, proofs that planar graphs are the only ones which contribute to the matrix effective superpotential were presented in  (based on the analysis of superspace Feynman diagrams) and  (based on holomorphy and symmetries). The latter arguments were extended in  to the case of theories with fields transforming in the fundamental representation of the gauge group and it was shown that only planar diagrams with one (appropriately generalized) quark boundary contribute to the gauge theory effective superpotential. Other interesting related work has appeared in -.

The correspondence between gauge theories and matrix models has been pushed very far for superpotentials depending only on the adjoint fields. However, these checks have only been performed in the simplest cases of theories with fields transforming in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. While it seems reasonable that the arguments of  and  generalize to generic superpotentials, it would be interesting to perform some explicit checks, along the lines of  and  .

In this paper we work out the details of the matrix model and the gauge theory for the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }^nQ`$ coupling. With these results as a starting point, we then outline how a polynomial of generalized Yukawa couplings $`\stackrel{~}{Q}P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)Q`$ can be analyzed. We find complete agreement between the matrix model with one boundary and the gauge theory. The Coulomb branch of such theories was discussed in detail in . However, the Higgs branch seems largely unexplored. The matrix model computations suggest a simple way for analyzing it.

In the next section we use the matrix model to compute the effective superpotential of this theory. Since the adjoint field does not interact with itself, this superpotential is just the sum of a Veneziano-Yankielowicz piece (coming from the dynamics of the gauge field) and the free energy given by diagrams with one quark boundary.

We find that the sum of these diagrams gives a free energy identical to that of a theory containing an adjoint and $`n`$ quarks with regular Yukawa couplings $`g_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\mathrm{\Phi }Q_i`$, where the coupling constants $`g_i`$ are proportional to the $`n`$ roots of the unity. We then show that one can go from the second theory to the first by simply integrating out certain combinations of the $`n`$ quarks until only one quark and the adjoint are left.

We then discuss the gauge theory origin of the matrix model results. The nonperturbative contribution to the effective superpotential of the theory with a $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }^nQ`$ coupling is hard to obtain by symmetry and holomorphy arguments. One might hope that integrating $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ out might make things better, since only quarks will be left and the nonperturbative contribution to the superpotential would be of Affleck-Dine-Seiberg type . Nevertheless, after integrating out $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, one is left with a “tree level” superpotential which contains the coupling constant to a negative power. Since this term does not have a well defined limit as $`g0`$, one can no longer argue that this term cannot mix with the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg contribution. Therefore, one expects nonperturbatively generated terms which contain combinations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`g`$. These nonperturbative terms cannot be easily found using analyticity and charge conservation.

It appears therefore that in order to find the nonperturbatively generated contribution to the superpotential one has to find a theory (related to the theory of interest by integrating in and integrating out) where the nonperturbative contribution has a simple form. Fortunately, as the matrix result hints also, the theory with Yukawa coupling $`\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ can be obtained by integrating out $`n1`$ nontrivial linear combinations of quarks in a theory with an adjoint, $`n`$ quarks, and Yukawa couplings $`_{l=1}^ne^{2\pi il/n}\text{Tr}\left[Q_l\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_l\right]`$. At this stage one can integrate out the adjoint field and find a theory with $`n`$ quarks and interactions of the form $`\text{Tr}\left[\left(_lg_lQ_l\stackrel{~}{Q}_l\right)^2\right]`$. For this theory one can use the usual holomorphy and charge conservation arguments  to show that the only nonperturbatively generated superpotential is the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg one.

Once we have the full gauge theory effective potential it is not hard to integrate out all the fields and relate the resulting effective superpotential $`W_{\text{eff}}(\mathrm{\Lambda },m_i,g_i)`$ with the matrix model computation. The Higgs branch of the original theory can also be analyzed.

We emphasize that his effective superpotential is the same, regardless of the order in which one integrates out the fields444We are grateful to Eric D’Hoker for pointing this out to us., and thus regardless of the hierarchy of the $`m_i`$. This is quite obvious from the matrix model perspective: by summing all (planar) Feynman diagrams one obtains the same function of mass parameters, regardless of their hierarchy.

One can also see this in the gauge theory. The physical mass of a field depends both on its superpotential mass parameter $`m`$, and on the Kähler potential. Since by adjusting the latter any hierarchy can be achieved (regardless of the magnitudes of the $`m`$’s), and since this adjustment does not affect the superpotential, it follows that the final result is independent on the mass hierarchy and on the order one integrates fields out.

Therefore, the effective superpotential $`W_{\text{eff}}(\mathrm{\Lambda },m_i,g_i)`$ one finds after integrating out all the fields is the same if the theories we start from can be related to each other by integrating in or integrating out. In the case of the theory we discuss, this effective superpotential is most easily obtained by considering the related theory with $`n`$ quarks and simple Yukawa interactions, finding its nonperturbatively generated superpotential, and integrating out all the quarks. This computation appears in the last section of this note.

Note Added: When this work was near completion we received the preprint  which, while having a different focus, overlaps with the technical details of our work.

## 2 Matrix model

As we recalled in the Introduction, the part of the matrix model free energy $`\left(S\right)`$ which is related to gauge theory via extensions of the DV prescription is computed by summing all the planar Feynman diagrams with one quark boundary. If the quark-adjoint interaction is of the form $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\mathrm{\Phi }Q_i`$, the necessary combinatorics of the Feynman diagrams was described in : a diagram with $`2k`$ vertices comes with a factor of $`\frac{1}{\left(2k\right)!}`$ from the exponential; then, the different ways of contracting the quarks produce a factor of $`\left(2k1\right)!`$; the number of ways of connecting, in a planar manner, the boundary points with adjoint propagators give rise to a factor $`\frac{\left(2k\right)!}{\left(k+1\right)!k!}`$. Since each diagram contains $`2k`$ quark propagators, $`k`$ adjoint propagators, and $`2k`$ vertices, it is multiplied by $`\left(\frac{g^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }m_Q^2}\right)^k`$. Finally, the external flavor loop gives a factor of $`N_f`$, while the $`k+1`$ color loops give a factor of $`S^{k+1}`$, where $`S`$ is the ’t Hooft coupling of the matrix model, and becomes identified under the correspondence with the gauge theory glueball superfield.

Thus, the free energy contribution of these diagrams is

$$_{\chi =1}^{n=1}=N_f\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2k1\right)!}{\left(k+1\right)!k!}S^{k+1}\left(\frac{g^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }m_Q^2}\right)^k$$
(2)
In the case of diagrams with a $`g_n\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\mathrm{\Phi }^nQ_i`$ interaction, it is necessary to distinguish between the case of odd and even $`n`$. If $`n`$ is odd, only diagrams with even numbers of insertions contribute. The combinatorial factors coming from the quarks are unchanged. Nevertheless since now there are $`nk`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ lines, there will be $`\frac{\left(2nk\right)!}{\left(nk+1\right)!\left(nk\right)!}`$ different ways of connecting them, and the overall power of $`S`$ will be $`nk+1`$. Thus

$$_{\chi =1}^{\text{odd}}=nN_f\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2nk1\right)!}{\left(nk+1\right)!\left(nk\right)!}S^{nk+1}\left(\frac{g_n^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^nm_Q^2}\right)^k$$
(3)
If $`n=2p`$ is even, diagrams with any number of insertions contribute. The free energy is

$$_{\chi =1}^{\text{even}}=2pN_f\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(2pk1\right)!}{\left(pk+1\right)!\left(pk\right)!}S^{pk+1}\left(\frac{g_n}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^pm_Q}\right)^k$$
(4)
One might have also expected extra factors of $`n!`$ coming from the different orderings of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s originating from one vertex. However, since the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s are matrices, one cannot interchange them at a vertex because this would make the diagrams nonplanar. Thus, the diagrams give the same answers as if the $`n`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s originating at one interaction vertex were separated by tiny propagators of some auxiliary quarks. This is depicted in Figure 1, and is a hint toward the equivalence of our theory to a theory with $`n`$ quarks and simple Yukawa couplings, equivalence which will be discussed in the next section.

If one introduces the new variable $`p`$, such that $`p\kappa =n`$ where

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`2\text{if }n\text{ is even},`$
$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`1\text{if }n\text{ is odd},`$ (5)
it is not hard to see that the free energy for both even or odd $`n`$ is given by:

$$_{\chi =1}=\kappa pN_f𝒦_p,$$
(6)
where $`𝒦_p`$ is the value of the sum in (3).

The radius of convergence of the sum $`𝒦_p`$ can be easily found to be $`S_c=\frac{1}{4\alpha }`$. For $`S<S_c`$ the sum is:

$$𝒦_p=\frac{1}{p}\underset{l=0}{\overset{p1}{}}S\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4()^{2\frac{l}{p}}\alpha S}\left[\sqrt{14()^{2\frac{l}{p}}\alpha S}1\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{14()^{2\frac{l}{p}}\alpha S}\right)\right]$$

and $`\alpha ^n=\left(\frac{g_n^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^nm_Q^2}\right)`$.

For $`SS_c`$ the sum is divergent, and one must find its value by analytical continuation . Since (2) contains square roots, one expects branch cuts in the complex $`S`$ plane starting from the points where the square roots become zero and ending at infinity.

Moreover, since we have $`n`$ square roots, each comes with a choice of branch. Therefore, for $`S`$ outside the radius of convergence, the sum (2) has $`2^n`$ values, depending on the choice of branch for each square root. Furthermore, since the sum (2) applies separately for each of the flavors, there will be a total of $`2^{nN_f}`$ branches for the free energy. The result is:

$$𝒦_p\left(ϵ\right)=\frac{1}{p}\underset{l=0}{\overset{p1}{}}S\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4()^{2\frac{l}{p}}\alpha S}\left[ϵ_{l,f}\sqrt{14()^{2\frac{l}{p}}\alpha S}1\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+ϵ_{l,f}\sqrt{14()^{2\frac{l}{p}}\alpha S}\right)\right]$$

with $`ϵ_{l,f}=\pm 1`$ with $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`f=1,\mathrm{},N_f`$ .

For the example discussed in , the choice of branch in the matrix integral was matched in gauge theory with the choice of roots of a certain the second order equations. However, one can choose the parameters of the theory such that all relevant values of $`S`$ lie inside the radius of convergence. We limit ourselves to showing agreement in this regime. We will show that the convergence of (2) for $`S<S_c`$ has a precise meaning in gauge theory. The branch structure and the corresponding phase structure of the theory  follows from the careful analytical continuation of our results.

To evaluate the superpotential (1) at its critical point we begin by constructing a single formula which covers both cases $`\kappa =1`$ and $`\kappa =2`$. Since the set of odd roots of unity goes to itself when squared, it is not hard to see that the free energy can be expressed solely in terms of $`n`$:

$$_{\chi =1}=N_f\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}S\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\alpha S}\left[\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\alpha S}1\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\alpha S}\right)\right]$$
(7)
Since all roots of order $`n`$ of unity appear in the above expression, it is clear that all phases in the definition of $`\alpha `$ below equation (2) are equivalent.

It is quite easy to see that each term in the sum in equation (7) reproduces the 1-boundary free energy of a theory with a single quark and a regular Yukawa coupling. The ratios of the coupling constants of these theories are $`n`$-th roots of unity. In the next section we will show how this comes about in the gauge theory.

Using (7), the critical points of the effective superpotential (1) are given by the solution of the equation:

$$\frac{N_c}{N_f}\mathrm{ln}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\alpha S}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\alpha S}\right),$$
(8)
which can be trivially transformed into:

$`y^{\frac{N_c}{N_f}}={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\beta y}\right),`$ (9)
with $`y=\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}`$ and $`\beta =\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$.

Then, the values of the superpotential at its critical points are given by

$$W|_{\text{crit}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left[N_c\frac{n}{2}N_f+N_f\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\beta y}}\right]y$$
(10)
where we have to replace $`y`$ by a solution of (9). This is the result that we will compare with the gauge theory predictions. We stress that this equation is valid only in the limit of small $`\beta `$, i.e. far from branch points of the series (2).

For generic $`\beta `$ the critical values of the superpotential are given by

$$W|_{\text{crit}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left[N_c\frac{n}{2}N_f+\underset{f=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{1+ϵ_{i,f}\sqrt{14e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\beta y}}\right]y,$$
(11)
where $`y`$ is given by an equation similar to (9), except that the square roots are dressed with $`ϵ`$ coefficients.

## 3 Gauge theory

Let us begin the gauge theory analysis by showing that the generalized Yukawa coupling $`\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ is equivalent to a set of $`n`$ ordinary $`\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ terms whose strenghs differ by $`n`$-th roots of unity. To this end we notice that, by starting with the superpotential

$$W_{\text{tree}}=\frac{1}{2}M\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+m\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\text{Tr}\left[Q_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\right]+g_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\text{Tr}\left[Q_i\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_{i+1}\right]\mathrm{with}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{n+1}\stackrel{~}{Q}_1$$
(12)
and integrating out $`Q_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ for all $`i=2,\mathrm{}n`$ we recover

$$W_{\text{tree}}=\frac{1}{2}M\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+m\text{Tr}\left[Q\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]+g\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]$$
(13)
provided that $`m^{n1}g_0^n=g`$.

Equation (12) can be rewritten as

$$W_{\text{tree}}=\frac{1}{2}M\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+m\underset{i}{}\text{Tr}\left[Q_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\right]+m^{\left(n1\right)/n}g_0\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\text{Tr}\left[Q_i\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_j\right]𝒫_{ij}$$
(14)
with the matrix $`𝒫`$ being given by

$$𝒫=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ .& .& .& \mathrm{}& .& .\\ .& .& .& \mathrm{}& .& .\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
Since we chose the mass matrix of the $`nN_f`$ quarks to be proportional to the identity matrix, it is clear that the Yukawa and the mass terms can be simultaneously diagonalized. Noticing that eigenvalues of $`𝒫`$ are given by the roots of unity, we can immediately rewrite (14) as

$$W_{\text{tree}}=\frac{1}{2}M\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+m\underset{i}{}\text{Tr}\left[Q_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\right]+\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _lg_0\text{Tr}\left[Q_l\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_l\right]\mathrm{with}\omega _l=e^{2\pi i\frac{l}{n}}.$$
(16)
We have thus shown that the coupling $`\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ is equivalent to a set of diagonal Yukawa couplings whose strengths differ by roots of unity.

Unlike equation (12), the superpotential (16) is invariant under global $`SU\left(N_f\right)^n`$ transformations. In constructing the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential it is useful to think of (16) as a particular case of

$$W_{\text{tree}}=\frac{1}{2}M\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+m\text{Tr}\left[𝒬\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\right]+\text{Tr}\left[G𝒬\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\right],$$
(17)
where now $`𝒬`$ are in $`SU\left(nN_f\right)`$ and $`G`$ is a diagonal matrix. The $`SU\left(nN_f\right)`$ invariance if broken either by having different coupling constants or by having different masses for the $`n`$ sets of $`N_f`$ quarks.

Since we are interested in comparing this gauge theory to the matrix model of the previous section, we first integrate out the adjoint fields. The effective superpotential is given by:

$$W_{\text{tree}}=m\text{Tr}\left[𝒬\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\right]\frac{1}{2M}\text{Tr}\left[G𝒬\stackrel{~}{𝒬}G𝒬\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\right].$$
(18)
We will later identify the coupling constant matrix with the one given by equation (16), but we will derive the formulae for an arbitrary diagonal $`G=\mathrm{diag}(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)`$.

To this tree level superpotential we have to add the nonperturbative contributions. It is not hard to see that they are given by the ADS superpotential for $`𝒬`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$. Indeed, in the limit of vanishing $`m`$ and $`G`$ this is the only possible term. Demanding analyticity as well as preservation of the symmetries leads to the conclusion that no corrections are possible.

Next we want to integrate out all quarks. The easiest way to find the result is to rewrite the above superpotential in terms of mesons and notice that, since the mass matrix as well as $`G`$ are diagonal, all off-diagonal components of the mesons are constrained to vanish. Writing the remaining components of the meson field as $`X_{ii}=Q_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i=x_i1\mathrm{l}_{N_f}`$ the remaining effective superpotential is:

$`W_{\text{eff}}=N_fm{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}x_iN_f{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a_ix_i^2+\left(N_cnN_f\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cnN_f}}{_{i=1}^nx_i^{N_f}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{N_cnN_f}},`$ (19)
where $`a_i=\frac{g_i^2}{2M}`$. Minimizing this superpotential gives

$$mx_i2a_ix_i^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_cnN_f}{N_cnN_f}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i^{\frac{N_f}{N_cnN_f}}=0$$
(20)
To compare with the matrix model, it is useful to make the following change of variables:

$$y=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_j^{\frac{N_f}{N_cnN_f}},$$
(21)
in terms of which the equations of motion can be rewritten as:

$$y_i\beta _iy_i^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_j^{\frac{N_f}{N_cnN_f}}=0$$
(22)
where we defined

$$\beta _i=\frac{2a_i}{m}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_cnN_f}{N_cnN_f}}}{m}\right]^{\frac{N_cnN_f}{N_c}},$$
(23)
and we recall that $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ labels the different types of quarks. This gives a system of $`n`$ coupled non-linear equations. To proceed it is helpful to introduce a “radial” variable:

$$y=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_j^{\frac{N_f}{N_cnN_f}}.$$
(24)
The equation of motion becomes

$$y_i\beta _iy_i^2y=0.$$
(25)
We can solve for each individual $`y_i`$ in terms of the couplings and the radial variable:

$$y_i=\frac{1}{2\beta _i}\left[1+\epsilon _i\sqrt{14\beta _iy}\right],$$
(26)
where $`\epsilon _i=\pm 1`$. Each choice of $`\epsilon `$-s one finds an equation for $`y`$:

$$y^{\frac{N_c}{N_f}n}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{2\beta _i}{1+\epsilon _i\sqrt{14\beta _iy}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}2\beta _i\frac{1+\epsilon _i\sqrt{14\beta _iy}}{4\beta _iy}.$$
(27)
Bringing factors of $`y`$ together, we get the following equation:

$$y^{\frac{N_c}{N_f}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\epsilon _i\sqrt{14\beta _iy}\right)$$
(28)
This algebraic equation can be solved numerically for various values of $`n`$ and the couplings. Once one has a solution of this equation, one can obtain the $`y_i`$’s from equation (26) for each of the $`2^n`$ choices of $`ϵ_i`$.

We next compute the effective superpotential at the minimum:

$`W|_{\text{crit}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_fm{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}x_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2N_cnN_f\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cnN_f}}{_{i=1}^nx_i^{N_f}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{N_cnN_f}}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`m^{\frac{nN_f}{N_c}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_cnN_f}{N_c}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_f{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}y_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2N_cnN_f\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}y_i^{\frac{N_f}{N_cnN_f}}\right].`$
In fact, the superpotential can be written in terms of the variable $`y`$ alone by using equation (26)

$`W|_{\text{crit}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2N_cnN_f\right)y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_f{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta _i}}\left(1+\epsilon _i\sqrt{14\beta _iy}\right)\right]`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3\left[N_c{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}N_f+N_f{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\epsilon _i\sqrt{14\beta _iy}}}\right]y`$
where the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3=m^{\frac{nN_f}{N_c}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_cnN_f}{N_c}}$$
(31)
which is the correct relation between scales when all $`nN_f`$ quarks are integrated out.

So far the discussion was for general $`\beta _l`$. Now, when all of the couplings $`\beta _l`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$, are different, the number of solutions to the system (25) is $`2^n`$ times the number of solutions of equation (25). If we chose a more general form of the meson, $`X_{ii}=\mathrm{diag}(x_i^1,\mathrm{},x_i^{N_f})`$, the number of different vacua would increase to $`2^{nN_f}`$ times the number of solutions of the apropriately modified equation (28). This matches the total number of branch cuts in the matrix model computation. Furthermore, it is easy to see that specializing the coupling constants $`g_l`$ to the ones implied by the equation (16) we find

$$a_l=e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}a=e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\frac{g_0^2}{m^{2/n}}\frac{m^2}{2M^2}\beta _l=e^{2\pi i\frac{2l}{n}}\beta .$$
(32)
Therefore, the gauge theory and the matrix model results match in the region where the series (2) develops branch cuts. However, since for $`y\beta <\frac{1}{4}`$ the series leading to (2) is convergent, all $`ϵ_{i,f}`$ coefficients are fixed to unity, while in gauge theory the choice of signs $`ϵ_{i,f}`$ seems to persist for all values of $`y`$.

To understand the solution of this apparent discrepancy we should note that the appearance of different branch points leads to a spontaneous breaking of the $`U\left(N_f\right)`$ flavor symmetry in a theory with $`N_f`$ identical quarks. In the regions of parameters where both $`ϵ_{i,f}=+1`$ and $`ϵ_{i,f}=1`$ are allowed, there exist vacua with broken flavor symmetry. However, one expects that, as the coupling constant is reduced, the flavor symmetry will be restored. Indeed, by taking the small $`\beta _i`$ limit on equation (26) we find that, for any $`i`$, the solution corresponding to $`ϵ_i=1`$ moves off to infinity while the one corresponding to $`ϵ_{i,f}=+1`$ remains at finite distance. Thus, in the small coupling limit, only the choice $`ϵ_i=+1`$ is allowed.

This has definite meaning in the matrix model computation. In the small coupling limit the radius of convergence of the series (2) becomes very large. Therefore, all branch points move off to infinity and there remains a unique choice for the free energy $`_{\chi =1}`$.

We are therefore led to interpret the appearance of branch cuts in the series (2) as the matrix model version of transitions between domains of the Higgs branch with different flavor symmetry.

## 4 More generic quark-adjoint interactions

We can generalize the techniques we developed for $`\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^k\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ interaction to study theories with superpotentials of the form $`\text{Tr}\left[QP\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$, where $`P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ is an arbitrary polynomial of finite degree.

The matrix prescription is obvious. One must compute quark contribution to the free energy by summing all the one boundary Feynman diagrams with arbitrary types of insertions. The vertices are given by the monomials appearing in $`P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$, and the quark and adjoint propagators are the inverse of their masses.

While a formal expression for the free energy of the matrix model can be written for a generic $`P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$, it does not seem of any particular use. Let as only illustrate the procedure by considering a theory with an interaction term of the form

$$\text{Tr}\left[Q\left(g_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{2p_1}+g_2\mathrm{\Phi }^{2p_2}+g_3\mathrm{\Phi }^{2p_3}\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}\right],$$
(33)
where we have chosen the powers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be even in order to keep the counting easy. A general diagram containing $`k_i`$ vertices of type $`i`$ comes with a factor of $`1/\left(k_1!k_2!k_3!\right)`$ from the expansion of the exponential; the different ways of contracting the quarks give a factor of $`\left(k_1+k_2+k_31\right)!`$; the different ways of connecting the boundary points with non-intersecting adjoint propagators give  a factor

$$\frac{\left(2k_1p_1+2k_2p_2+2k_3p_3\right)!}{\left(k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3+1\right)!\left(k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3\right)!}.$$
(34)
Since each diagram contains $`k_1+k_2+k_3`$ quark propagators, $`k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3`$ adjoint propagators, and $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$, and respectively $`k_3`$ vertices, it is multiplied by

$$\frac{g_1^{k_1}g_2^{k_2}g_3^{k_3}}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^{k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3}m_Q^{k_1+k_2+k_3}}.$$
(35)
Finally, the external flavor loop gives a factor of $`N_f`$, while the $`\left(k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3+1\right)`$ color loops give the appropriate power of the glueball superfield. Thus, the 1-boundary contribution to the free energy of this model is simply

$`_{\chi =1}=N_fS{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{k_1,k_2,k_3=0}{k_1+k_2+k_30}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(k_1+k_2+k_31\right)!}{\left(k_1!k_2!k_3!\right)}}\times `$ (36)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left(2k_1p_1+2k_2p_2+2k_3p_3\right)!}{\left(k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3+1\right)!\left(k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3\right)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_\varphi }}\right)^{k_1p_1+k_2p_2+k_3p_3}{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^{k_1}g_2^{k_2}g_3^{k_3}}{m_Q^{k_1+k_2+k_3}}}`$
For odd monomials the above sums have to be only over combinations of terms which give an even number of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagators. It is quite easy to see that in general such sums are hard to compute explicitly.

Nevertheless, it is possible to obtain this free energy by using the vertex splitting procedure we used in section 3. A vertex of the form $`g_n\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ can be thought of as arising from a theory with $`n`$ quarks and off diagonal Yukawa interactions $`g\text{Tr}\left[𝒬_n\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_n𝒫_n\right]`$ of the type (14) by integrating out the auxiliary quarks $`Q_i`$.

Therefore, the matrix model of the theory with a polynomial interaction $`\text{Tr}\left[QP\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ can be related to that of a theory with interactions linear in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ if one introduces $`n1`$ auxiliary quarks for each monomial $`g_n\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$ coming from $`P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$. One obtains an off-diagonal interaction matrix whose dimension is the sum of the powers of the monomials in $`P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ minus the number of monomials plus one. Since the auxiliary quarks have the same mass as $`Q`$ 555As we explained, this does not affect integrating them out., one can diagonalize the interaction matrix and obtain a theory with diagonal Yukawa interactions $`\lambda _j\text{Tr}\left[Q_j\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_j\right]`$, where the $`\lambda _j`$ are the eigenvalues of the interaction matrix.

As in the case discussed in section 2, the partition function will be the sum of 1-quark regular Yukawa partition functions with couplings $`\lambda _j`$. The only difference from the equation (2) will be that the couplings will not be proportional to the roots of unity, but will have a more complicated form.

To treat this theory correctly in the gauge theory, one must perform the same steps, by integrating in the auxiliary quarks and obtaining a theory with only linear couplings of the adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. One can then integrate out $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and obtains a theory with only quarks. For this theory it is possible to determine that only the regular Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential is generated nonperturbatively; one can then integrate out all the quarks and obtain a superpotential which can be related to the matrix one.

It appears therefore that since integrating in and out work identically on the two sides, the equivalence of the matrix result and the gauge theory result is ensured by the equivalence of these results for theories with quarks with equal mass and different Yukawa couplings. This equivalence is obvious from the computations in sections 2 and 3, and follows also from the results of  by making particular choices for the mass parameters and rescaling the quarks.

## 5 Conclusions

We have investigated an $`U\left(N\right)`$ gauge theory with adjoint and fundamental matter interacting via a coupling of the form $`\text{Tr}\left[Q\mathrm{\Phi }^n\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$. We have solved the matrix model and found the exact low energy effective superpotential. This effective superpotential is identical to that of a theory with $`n`$ quarks minimally coupled to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, with coupling constants proportional to the $`n`$’th roots of unity. As expected, these two theories are related by integrating in/out $`n1`$ quarks.

On the gauge theory side we argued that in order to determine unambiguously the nonperturbatively generated contribution to the superpotential one needs to first integrate in these auxiliary $`n1`$ quarks, obtain a theory with minimal couplings between the quarks and the adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and then integrate out $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to obtain a theory with $`n`$ massive quarks and a quartic tree-level superpotential. One can then use standard holomorphy and symmetry arguments to argue that the only nonperturbative superpotential in this theory is the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg one. By integrating out all the quarks we obtained the low energy effective superpotential of our theory, and we found it agrees with the one computed in the matrix model.

We also described a method to investigate theories with more complicated adjoint-quark couplings, of the form $`\text{Tr}\left[QP\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]`$, where $`P\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ is a generic polynomial of finite degree. We illustrated this technique by writing down the matrix free energy for a polynomial $`P`$ built out of three monomials of arbitrary even powers. While the generalization is straightforward, the perturbation theory is difficult to resume. It is also possible to further generalize this discussion by adding an arbitrary superpotential depending only on the the adjoint field.

We then presented a method to solve these theories by relating them to gauge theories with many quarks but only minimal couplings $`\lambda _i\text{Tr}\left[Q_i\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\right]`$. When the polynomial contains just one monomial of order $`n`$ (this is the case discussed in the first two sections of this note), the $`\lambda _i`$ are proportional to the $`n`$’th roots of unity. For more complicated polynomials, the $`\lambda _i`$ are the eigenvalues of the quark interaction matrix.

## Acknowledgments

We would like thank Eric D’Hoker, Joe Polchinski and Per Kraus for useful discussions and support. The work of I.B. and S.dH. was supported in part by the NSF under Grant No. PHY00-99590. The work of R.R. was supported in part by the DOE under Grant No. 91ER40618 and in part by the NSF under Grant No. PHY00-98395. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.