text:
# Interaction of a soliton with a localized gain in a fiber Bragg grating

## I Introduction

Solitons in any physical medium are subject to attenuation due to dissipation, hence it is necessary to apply gain which can support the solitons. A possibility which may find interesting physical applications is to create a localized gain, which will be a trap for solitons in a lossy medium. In terms of optical solitons, this can be easily realized for spatial solitons in a planar waveguide, where the gain may be applied to a narrow strip. However, for spatial solitons gain is a redundancy, as they are supported simply by the energy flux through the soliton itself. Besides that, in this work it will be shown that, in the simplest case when the spatial solitons are governed by the nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation, a pinned soliton supported by the localized gain can never be stable. On the other hand, realization of the local-gain trap for usual temporal solitons is impossible, as such a soliton runs (for instance, in an optical fiber Agrawal ) with the group velocity of light.

An unique possibility to create a gain-induced trap in a lossy medium is offered by a fiber grating, i.e., a Bragg grating (BG) written on an optical fiber. Fiber gratings are a basis for many photonic devices Kashyap . A challenging possibility is to use fiber gratings for the creation of pulses of slow light, which is a topic of great current interest slow . The possibility of the existence of slow pulses suggest to try a local-gain-induced trap for solitons.

In fiber gratings, solitons exist due to the interplay between the Bragg reflection and Kerr nonlinearity of the BG-carrying fiber Sterke . These solitons were predicted analytically Aceves ; Demetri , and then they were created in the experiment experiment . Except for the case in which the BG soliton is very broad Litchinitser , this species of optical solitons is distinct from the usual nonlinear-Schrödinger (NLS) solitons Agrawal  in ordinary nonlinear optical fibers.

As it was mentioned above, search for very slow solitons in fiber gratings, which were predicted long ago Demetri , is an issue of great interest slowsoliton . The standard mathematical model of the nonlinear fiber grating predicts a whole family of zero-velocity solitons Aceves ; Demetri ; Sterke , a part of which is stable Rich ; Barash . If realized experimentally, such a soliton would represent a pulse of standing light, with its left- and right-traveling components being in a permanent dynamical equilibrium.

The BG solitons which have been observed in the experiment up to date are moving ones, their velocity being $`75\%`$ of the maximum group velocity of light in the fiber experiment . The quest for zero-velocity solitons may be facilitated by means of a local defect in the BG that exerts an attractive force on a soliton, having thus a potential to be a soliton trap (note that a local defect may trap light in the fiber grating via the four-wave mixing without formation of a soliton trapping ). Besides its profound physical importance Weinstein , such a soliton trap is also promising for the fiber-sensing technology kdv .

The interaction of the soliton with an attractive defect in the form of a local suppression of BG was studied recently in Refs. Weinstein  and kdv . The latter work also considered a trap combining the local BG suppression and a change in the refractive index (these two effects may come together as a manifestation of a local inhomogeneity in the BG-carrying fiber). As a result, it has been demonstrated that a gap soliton may indeed be pinned by the local defect, and, moreover, a narrow (delta-functional) defect uniquely selects parameters of the stable trapped soliton kdv  (this feature is described in more detail below).

However, a trapped soliton will be destroyed by fiber loss. Indeed, taking into regard that the best fiber gratings (used as dispersion compensators in optical telecommunications Krug ) have the attenuation rate $`0.2`$ dB/cm (in hybrid grating waveguides, using glass and a sol-gel material, the attenuation may be lowered to $`0.1`$ dB/cm solgel ), it is easy to estimate that a standing soliton will be destroyed during the time $`{}_{}{}^{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$ ns. Therefore, it is necessary to support the trapped soliton by means of a locally applied optical gain, which is tantamount to the above-mentioned soliton trap induced by local gain. A related problem is a possibility to capture a moving soliton by the local gain. These issues are the main subjects of the present work. Besides the fundamental interest to having permanently maintained trapped optical solitons, they may also be interesting for applications, such as optical memory.

The local gain can be provided, for instance, by a short resonantly doped segment in the BG-carrying fiber. In this connection, we note that the moving BG soliton that was observed for the first time in the fiber grating had the temporal width $`200`$ ps experiment . Taking into regard the Lorentzian contraction (as it was mentioned above, the soliton was moving at a velocity equal $`75\%`$ of the maximum group velocity), the same soliton, if stopped, would have the spatial width on the order of a few centimeters. Thus, the locally pumped segment of the fiber may be approximated by a delta-function (which we assume in the analytical model below) if, roughly speaking, its size is $`1`$ mm. Note that the maximum gain that can be provided by an Er-doped amplifier is $`5`$ dB/cm Erbium . Comparing this to the above-mentioned minimum damping rate $`0.1`$ dB/cm, we conclude that the proposed scheme may be self-consistent.

Thus, the model to be formulated below assumes the local gain in the form of the delta-function (in the numerical part of the work, a smooth approximation to the delta-function is used). The model also includes an imaginary part of the localized gain, which actually accounts for a local perturbation of the fiber’s refractive index (note that the dopant, if used to induce the local gain, may indeed affect the local refractive index). The imaginary part is necessary, as it will be seen that pure gain cannot maintain a pinned soliton in a stable state. As for the size of the refractive-index perturbation $`\delta n`$, it will be seen that $`\delta n_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$ is definitely sufficient to stably trap a soliton. In this respect, it is relevant to mention that a dopant added to a silica fiber usually induces a refractive index change $`\delta n0.05`$, while in a polymer fiber it is $`0.2`$. The latter value can readily produce a stable pinned state of the soliton, and the former one may be sufficient too.

A relatively large jump of the refractive index between the doped segment and the rest of the fiber may induce an additional effect, viz., reflection of light, although the reflection may be smothered by a sufficiently smooth profile of distribution of the dopant. An additional term in the basic model \[see Eqs. (1) and (2) below\], induced by the reflection, would be the same which formally accounts for a local perturbation of the BG reflectivity. The latter type of the conservative perturbation was considered in Ref. kdv ), a conclusion being that its effect is quite similar to that directly produced by the refractive-index perturbation, which is directly included in Eqs. (1) and (2). For this reason, we do not consider the local reflection as a separate perturbation in this work (in any case, it can be easily added, if necessary).

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we formulate the model, and produce some analytical results. First of all, we consider the stability of the zero solution against small perturbations in the presence of the uniform loss and localized loss. An instability-onset threshold is found, and it is demonstrated that the instability does not take place unless the gain has an imaginary part. For the comparison’s sake, we also briefly consider an allied model problem, viz., the instability induced by a “hot spot” in the lossy NLS equation, which produces quite similar results. Then, we produce a family of exact analytical solutions for solitons pinned by the local inhomogeneity of the refractive index, in the absence of loss and gain. Another analytical result predicts what particular pinned soliton is selected by the balance of the loss and gain, provided that they are small perturbations. A soliton selected by the energy balance is also found in the lossy NLS equation with the hot spot (in that case, it is always unstable).

Section 3 reports results of direct simulations of pinned solitons, in both the conservative version of the model, and in the full one. A surprising result is that, in the conservative model, a *single* pinned soliton, out of their continuous family, is stable. If the initially created soliton has larger energy, it relaxes, via emission of radiation, to the stable one, and if the energy of the initial soliton is smaller than that of the stable one, the pulse decays into radiation; the former observation can be explained by known results for the stability of the ordinary solitons in the unperturbed BG model Rich ; Barash . A similar result is also obtained, in the framework of the conservative model, at the end of section 3 for a pair of repulsive defects: in the case when they can hold a soliton at the midpoint between them, any pulse either relaxes to a uniquely selected soliton, or decays (if the pair of repulsive inhomogeneities cannot hold a soliton, it splits the soliton in two). It is relevant to mention that a nonlinear BG structure with two local defects was very recently studied as a promising model for all-optical switching Tran .

In the full model, all the pinned solitons demonstrate persistent intrinsic vibrations; depending on the ratio of the loss and gain, and on the strength of the attractive refractive-index inhomogeneity, the amplitude of the vibrations may be small or large. In the former case, the pinned soliton may be regarded as an approximately stationary one, then the above-mentioned analytical prediction of the soliton selected by the balance between the loss and gain gives an error between $`10\%`$ and $`15\%`$, which may be explained by extra radiation loss.

In section 4, collision of a moving soliton with the hot spot is considered by means of direct simulations. As a result, regions of passage and capture are identified in the soliton’s parameter space in both the conservative and full models. In fact, the capture is incomplete: a part of the soliton’s energy gets trapped, giving rise to a pinned soliton, while the other part passes and rearranges itself into another soliton. If the inhomogeneity is strong, a conspicuous part of the energy may bounce back.

## II The model and analytical results

### II.1 The model equations

A localized gain inserted into a fiber grating is modelled by a $`\delta `$ \- function term added to the standard BG model, which includes coupled equations for the amplitudes of the right- and left-travelling electromagnetic waves, $`u(x,t)`$ and $`v(x,t)`$ Sterke . The full model is then

$`iu_t+iu_x+v+\left(|u|^2+2|v|^2\right)u`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma u+i\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (x)u,`$ (1)
$`iv_tiv_x+u+\left(|v|^2+2|u|^2\right)v`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma v+i\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (x)v,`$ (2)
where the maximum group velocity of light is normalized to be $`1`$, the nonlinear terms account for the self- and cross-phase modulation induced by the Kerr effect, the linear couplings represent the mutual conversion of the waves due to the resonant Bragg scattering (the conversion coefficient is also normalized to be $`1`$). On the right-hand side of Eqs. (1) and (2), the fiber loss parameter $`\gamma `$ is real and positive, while the local-gain strength $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be complex,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,$$
(3)
its positive real part being the gain proper, while the imaginary part accounts for a localized perturbation of the refractive index (note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$ corresponds to a local increase of the refractive index).

A stationary solution, which represents a soliton trapped by the “hot spot”, is sought for as

$$u(x,t)=U(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(it\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),v(x,t)=V(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(it\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ is a parameter of the soliton family. The substitution of Eqs. (4) into Eqs. (1) and (2) leads to equations

$`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\gamma +i\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (x)+\left(|U|^2+2|V|^2\right)\right]U+V`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
$`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\gamma +i\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (x)+\left(|V|^2+2|U|^2\right)\right]V+U`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6)
### II.2 Stability of the zero solution

We start the analysis with the linearized version of Eqs. (1) and (2), in order to analyze the stability of the zero solution in the presence of the localized gain. An eigenmode of small perturbations is sough for as

$`u(x,t)=A_+\mathrm{exp}(i\chi t\kappa x)`$ , $`v(x,t)=B_+\mathrm{exp}(i\chi t\kappa x)\mathrm{at}x>0,`$ (7)
$`u(x,t)=A_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\chi t+\kappa x)`$ , $`v(x,t)=B_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\chi t+\kappa x)\mathrm{at}x<0,`$ (8)
where the frequency $`\chi `$ may be complex, its imaginary part being the instability growth rate, and $`\kappa `$ must have a positive real part. Substituting this into the linearized equations yields

$$\kappa =\sqrt{1(\chi +i\gamma )^2},$$
(9)
where the square root is defined so that its real part is positive, and $`B_\pm =\left[(\chi +i\gamma )i\kappa \right]A_\pm `$. Further, the integration of the linearized equations in an infinitesimal vicinity of $`x=0`$ yields $`A_+=A_{}e^\mathrm{\Gamma },B_+=B_{}e^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Eliminating the amplitudes $`A_\pm `$ and $`B_\pm `$ by means of these relations, we obtain an equation

$$\frac{\chi +i\gamma i\kappa }{\chi +i\gamma +i\kappa }=e^{2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)},$$
(10)
where the expression (3) was substituted for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Finally, combining Eqs. (10) and (9), we can find the eigenfrequency sought for:

$$\chi =i\gamma +\mathrm{sgn}\left(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right),$$
(11)
where the sign multiplier in front of the second term provides for the fulfillment of the above-mentioned condition $`\mathrm{Re}\kappa >0`$.

A straightforward consequence of Eq. (11) is an expression for the instability growth rate,

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi =\gamma +\left(\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2|.$$
(12)
Thus, the localized gain gives rise to the instability of the trivial solution, provided that it is strong enough:

$$\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1>\mathrm{sinh}\left(\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{cr}}\right)\frac{\gamma }{|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2|}.$$
(13)
Note that the instability is *impossible* in the absence of the local refractive-index perturbation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The instability-onset condition (13) simplifies in the limiting case when both the loss and gain parameters are small (while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is not necessarily small):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1>\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{cr}}\frac{\gamma }{|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2|}.$$
(14)
Lastly, we notice that the instability is oscillatory: as it follows from Eq. (11), $`\mathrm{Re}\chi 0`$, unless $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$.

As the onset of instability in a system combining uniform loss and local gain is a simple but new issue, for the comparison’s sake it is relevant to briefly consider it in a similar model, viz., the NLS equation:

$$iu_t+\frac{1}{2}Du_{xx}+|u|^2u=i\gamma u+\left(i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)\delta (x)u,$$
(15)
where $`D`$ is the spatial-dispersion coefficient, $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ having the same meaning as above. If the variable $`t`$ in Eq. (15) is replaced by the propagation distance $`z`$, and $`x`$ is realized as the transverse coordinate in a planar lossy waveguide, Eq. (15) may be interpreted as describing spatial solitons in the above-mentioned case when the gain is applied along a narrow strip in the waveguide. In fact, the NLS model is a limit case of the BG system for small-amplitude solitons (see, e.g., Ref. Litchinitser ); accordingly, Eq. (15) is a small-amplitude limit of Eqs. (1) and (2). Nevertheless, it is pertinent to consider the NLS model parallel to the BG one, as it will help to understand the results for the BG system.

A perturbation mode in the linearized equation (15) is sought for as \[cf. Eqs. (7 ) and (8)\]

$$u(x,t)=A_+\mathrm{exp}(i\chi t\kappa x)\mathrm{at}x>0,u(x,t)=A_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\chi t+\kappa x)\mathrm{at}x<0,$$
(16)
with $`\mathrm{Re}\kappa >0`$. The substitution of Eq. (16) into the linearized version of Eq. (15) yields

$$\chi =\left[\left(D/2\right)\kappa ^2+i\gamma \right],$$
(17)
and the integration of Eq. (15) in an infinitesimal vicinity of $`x=0`$ leads to $`A_+=A_{}`$, and

$$D\kappa =\mathrm{\Gamma }_2i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1.$$
(18)
Note that the necessary condition $`\mathrm{Re}\kappa >0`$ and Eq. (18) show that, in fact, the perturbation mode (16) exists only in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2D>0`$. It is easy to understand the meaning of the latter condition: the inhomogeneity is attractive in this case, hence it can support the local mode.

The substitution of Eq. (18) into Eq. (17) yields a final result,

$$\chi =\left[\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)^2}{2D}+i\gamma \right].$$
(19)
As it follows from Eq. (19), the instability-onset condition, $`\mathrm{Im}\chi >0`$, means, in the present case,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1>\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{cr}}D\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }_2.$$
(20)
Thus, as well as in the case of the hot spot in BG, Eq. (20) demonstrates that the hot spot in the NLS model cannot give rise to the instability, unless it contains the imaginary part. Unlike the BG model, the additional condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2D>0`$ is also necessary for the instability.

### II.3 An exact solution in the conservative model

An exact solution for the pinned soliton is available for the conservative version of the full nonlinear model, with $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$. In this case, it is easy to see that Eqs. (5) and (6) admit an invariant reduction, $`V(x)=U^{}(x)`$ (the asterisk stands for the complex conjugation), which leads to a single equation,

$$\left[i\frac{d}{dx}U+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{cos}\theta +\delta (x)\right]U+3|U|^2UU^{}=0.$$
(21)
As it follows from the integration of Eq. (21) around the point $`x=0`$, the solution must satisfy a boundary condition

$$U(x=+0)=U(x=0)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Gamma }_2).$$
(22)
An exact soliton-like solution to Eq. (21), supplemented by the condition (22), can be found, following the pattern of the exact solution for the ordinary gap soliton in the model with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$ Aceves :

$$U(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mathrm{cosh}\left[\left(x+a\mathrm{sgn}x\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{i}{2}\theta \right]},$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{sgn}x\pm 1`$ for positive and negative $`x`$, and the real parameter $`a`$ is determined by the relation

$$\mathrm{tanh}\left(a\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/2\right)}{\mathrm{tan}\left(\theta /2\right)}.$$
(24)
A corollary of the expressions (23) and (24), that will be used below, is

$$\left|U(x=0)\right|^2=\frac{2}{3}\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right).$$
(25)
From Eq. (24) it follows that the solution exists not in the whole interval $`0<\theta <\pi `$, where the ordinary gap solitons are found, but in a region determined by the constraint that $`\left|\mathrm{tanh}\left(a\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)\right|<1`$, i.e., $`\left|\mathrm{tan}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/2\right)\right|<\mathrm{tan}\left(\theta /2\right)`$, or

$$\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|<\theta <\pi $$
(26)
(which implies that the solutions exist only if $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|<\pi `$).

Although the exact solutions found above exist for either sign of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, it is expected that only in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$ they may be stable, as in this case the local inhomogeneity *attracts* the soliton (which is natural, as positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ corresponds to a local enhancement of the refractive index, and a bright soliton is always attracted to an optically denser spot) kdv . In particular, in the case of small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ the soliton may be regarded as a quasiparticle in an effective inhomogeneity-induced potential

$$W_1(\xi )=\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\xi \mathrm{sin}\theta \right)+\mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(27)
where $`\xi `$ is a displacement of the soliton’s center from the point $`x=0`$ kdv . It is obvious that this potential indeed corresponds to the attraction and repulsion in the cases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<0`$.

Note that the exact solution is a single-humped one, with a maximum at the point $`x=0`$, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$; in the opposite case, the solution is a double-humped, with a local minimum at $`x=0`$ and local maxima at $`x=\pm \left|a\right|`$, as in this case Eq. (24) gives $`a<0`$. In the limiting case $`\theta \left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|0`$ \[see Eq. (26)\], Eq. (25) shows that $`\left|U(x=0)\right|`$ vanishes, i.e., the soliton pinned by the attractive inhomogeneity, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$, reduces to zero, while the unstable two-humped state pinned by the repulsive inhomogeneity, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<0`$, goes over into a pair of two infinitely separated solitons with $`\theta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

### II.4 The first-order approximation for the full model

In the case $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$, Eqs. (1) and (2) conserve the net energy,

$$E=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left[\left|u(x)\right|^2+\left|v(x)\right|\right]^2𝑑x.$$
(28)
In the presence of the loss and gain, the exact evolution equation for the energy is

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=2\gamma E+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left[\left|u(x)\right|^2+\left|v(x)\right|^2\right]|_{x=0}.$$
(29)
If the coefficients $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ are treated as small perturbations, the balance condition for the energy, $`dE/dt=0`$, may select a particular solution, from the family of the exact solutions (23) of the conservative model, which remains, to the first approximation, a stationary pinned soliton in the full model.

The balance condition following from Eq. (29) demands

$$\gamma E=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\left[\left|U(x=0)\right|^2+\left|V(x=0)\right|^2\right].$$
(30)
Substituting, in the first approximation, the unperturbed solution (23) and (24) into Eq. (30), and taking into regard the definition (28), the balance condition can be cast, after some algebra, in a simple form:

$$\frac{\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\gamma }.$$
(31)
As the pinned soliton may only be stable if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$, we consider this case. Note also that, according to Eq. (26), we should constrain the consideration to the interval $`\theta >\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, as otherwise the pinned solitons do not exist in the zero approximation ($`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$).

The pinned soliton selected by Eq. (31) is expected to appear, with the increase of the stress parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma `$, as a result of some bifurcation. The inspection of Fig. 1, which displays $`(\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma `$, as found from Eq. (31), shows that the situation is qualitatively different in the cases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<\pi /2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>\pi /2`$.

In the former case, a tangent (saddle-node) bifurcation Iooss  occurs at a minimum value $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma \right)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the stress parameter at which Eq. (31) has a physical solution for $`\theta `$, and two solutions exist for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma >`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma \right)_{\mathrm{min}}`$. An additional analysis of Eq. (31) demonstrates that, with the variation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, the value $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma \right)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ attains an absolute minimum, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma =1`$, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\pi /2`$.

With the increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma `$, the lower solution branch that starts at the saddle-node bifurcation point \[see Fig. 1(a)\] hits the limit point $`\theta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ \[see Eq. (26)\], where it degenerates into the zero solution, according to Eq. (25). Equation (31) shows that this happens at the point $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma =1/\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. On the other hand, it was shown above \[see Eq. (14)\] that, precisely at the same point, the zero solution becomes unstable, in the limit of small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\gamma `$. According to the general stability-exchange principle Iooss , the fact that the zero-solution branch gets unstable after its collision with another solution branch implies that the latter branch was already unstable. Therefore, we conclude that the branch which appears at the saddle-node bifurcation and ceases to exist hitting the zero solution, is an unstable saddle.

The other (upper) branch generated by the saddle-node bifurcation \[Fig. 1(a)\] continues until it attains the maximum value $`\theta =\pi `$ relevant to the physical solutions, which happens at

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\gamma }=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\gamma }\right)_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}.$$
(32)
This branch corresponds to the node-type solution which appears at the saddle-node bifurcation point, therefore it has a chance to be stable. However, it may be unstable against perturbations that are not taken into regard by this elementary consideration (for instance, the possibility of a shift of the soliton’s center from the point $`x=0`$ was not taken into regard). The actual situation with the stability of pinned solitons in the model including the loss and gain is rather complicated, see the next section.

In the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>\pi /2`$, the situation is different, as the saddle-node bifurcation is imaginable in this case, occurring in the unphysical region $`\theta <\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, see Fig. 1(b). The only physical branch of the solutions appears at the point $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma =1/\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, where it crosses the zero solution, lending it the instability, which the branch presumably had in the unphysical region. The stability-exchange principle which was already mentioned above suggests that, from the viewpoint of the present analysis, this branch becomes stable when it crosses into the physical region, $`\theta >\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. However, as well as the other branch considered above for the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<\pi /2`$, the present one may be subject to instabilities of other types. This branch ceases to be a physical one at the point (32).

At the border between the two generic cases considered above, i.e., at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\pi /2`$, the saddle-node bifurcation occurs exactly at the point $`\theta =\pi /2`$, see Fig. 1(c). In this case, the destabilization of the zero solution happens at the same point.

The situation is different in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$ \[see Fig. 1(d)\], when the hot spot has no refractive-index-perturbation component, and Eq. (31) takes the form

$$\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta /2\right)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{\gamma }.$$
(33)
In this case, as it was stressed above, the zero solution is never destabilized, in accordance with which the solution branches do not cross the axis $`\theta =0`$ in Fig. 1(d). The lower branch, which asymptotically approaches the $`\theta =0`$ axis, must be unstable (this is a generic feature in the case when the amplitude of the solution decreases with the increase of the stress parameter Iooss ), hence the upper branch may be stable within the framework of the present analysis. However, direct numerical simulations presented below demonstrate that, in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$, the pinned soliton is always unstable against the displacement of its center from the point $`x=0`$.

It may be relevant to compare these results with those that can be obtained for pinned solitons in the NLS model containing the loss and “hot spot”, see Eq. (15). NLS solitons may only exist if $`D>0`$, therefore we adopt the normalization $`D=1`$ in Eq. (15), and it makes sense to consider only the case when the inhomogeneity is attractive, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$, otherwise the pinned soliton has no chance to be stable. Note that, once we choose $`D>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$, the zero solution may be unstable, according to the results presented above.

In the conservative limit, $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$, the pinned NLS soliton is given by a commonly known solution,

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \mathrm{sech}\left(\eta \left(|x|+a\right)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\eta ^2t\right),`$ (34)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\right),`$ (35)
where $`\eta `$ is an intrinsic parameter of the solution family. Note that, as we assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>0`$, Eq. (35) yields $`a>0`$, hence the expression (34) has a single maximum at $`x=0`$.

If now $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are introduced as small parameters, the energy-balance condition for this solution can be easily cast in the form $`\eta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+2\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. In view of the relation (35), the actual solution exists in the region $`\eta >\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, or, eventually, in the interval

$$0<\mathrm{\Gamma }_1<\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }_2.$$
(36)
Comparing this result with the expression (20) that determines the instability threshold for the zero solution, and taking into regard that $`D=1`$, we conclude that the pinned soliton singled out by the balance condition disappears \[crosses into the unphysical region, cf. Fig. 1(a)\], with the increase of the stress parameter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma `$, exactly at the point where the zero solution loses its stability. According to the above-mentioned stability exchange principle, this implies that the zero solution inherits its instability from the soliton, hence the soliton solution, given by Eqs. (34) and (35), is definitely unstable in all the region of its existence.

This conclusion demonstrates that the above results for the pinned solitons in the BG model are nontrivial, as they give the pinned gap soliton a chance to be stable, which is not possible at all in the simpler NLS model. Actual stability of the pinned gap solitons will be studied below by means of direct simulations.

## III Numerical results for pinned solitons

### III.1 The approximation for the delta-function

For the simulations, we have to adopt a numerical form of the $`\delta `$-function in Eqs. (1),(2) and (5), (6). We use the same numerical scheme as in the recent work kdv . The scheme discretizes the coordinate $`x`$ by $`501`$ grid points $`x_j`$, $`j=250,\mathrm{},1,0,+1,\mathrm{}+250`$. As an approximation to the $`\delta `$-function, the following function is defined on a set of $`2N+1`$ grid points in the central part of the integration domain, located symmetrically around zero,

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }\left(x_{n\left(N+1\right)}\right)\begin{array}{cc}A\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{n\left(N+1\right)}{2N+1}\pi \right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}n=1,\mathrm{},2N+1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{elsewhere}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
The normalization factor $`A`$ is defined so as to maintain the canonical normalization of the $`\delta `$-function, $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x)𝑑x_j\stackrel{~}{\delta }\left(x_j\right)\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$, which yields

$$A=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }x\underset{n=1}{\overset{2N+1}{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{n\left(N+1\right)}{2N+1}\pi \right)\right]^1,$$
(38)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ being the spacing of the grid (in fact, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0.04)`$. In most cases presented below, we use $`N=2`$ \[then Eq. (38) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0.04`$ yields $`A=\left[\left(1+\sqrt{5}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }x\right]^1\mathrm{7.\hspace{0.17em}726}`$\], which makes the $`\delta `$-function quite narrow indeed.

### III.2 Stability of the pinned solitons in the conservative model

Since exact stationary solutions to Eqs. (5) and (6) for the pinned soliton are available in the case $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$, in the form of Eq. (23) supplemented by Eq. (24), numerical test of their stability is straightforward. We simulated the stability by means of the split-step method applied to Eqs. (1) and (2), employing the fast Fourier transform. The exact solution (23) was taken as the initial configuration, and the corresponding value $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ of $`\theta `$ was varied. The values $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|`$, at which the exact solution does not exist \[see Eq. (26)\] were probed too. In this case, Eq. (24) yields an imaginary value of $`a`$, and the initial configuration was taken in the form of Eq. (23) with the imaginary $`a`$. Even though the latter configuration is not a stationary solution, it is still nonsingular and localized, so it can be used to launch the PDE simulation.

As expected from what was mentioned above, in the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<0`$ all the pinned states of the solitons are found to be unstable. Solitons are pushed away from the point $`x=0`$, in accord with the expectation that the inhomogeneity is repulsive. It was also observed that, as $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|`$ increases, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ $``$ $`0.7`$ a small soliton is left behind around the point $`x=0`$ after the main pulse has separated from it; however, the residual soliton is also unstable and gradually decays into radiation.

For positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, typical results regarding the stability of the pinned solitons are displayed in Fig. 2. A conclusion is that there is a *single value* $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}\pi /2`$ of the soliton parameter $`\theta `$, such that if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, the soliton decays into radiation, as is seen in Fig. 2(a). Solitons with $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}>\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ relax into a stable one with $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, see Fig. 2(b). Finally, a soliton with $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ directly gives rise to the stable soliton, see Fig. 2(c).

The examples shown in Fig. 2 pertain to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.4`$, and similar results were obtained for other values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Available computational power imposes a limitation on accuracy with which $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ can be identified. However, it was found that, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.1`$, the decrease of the soliton’s amplitude, which is defined as $`|u(x=0)|`$, is less than $`1\%`$ after the evolution time $`T=200\pi `$, if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ is taken from the interval $`\left(0.49\pi <\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<0.52\pi \right)`$, hence, in any case, $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.1\right)`$ belongs to the same interval. For a much larger value of the perturbation parameter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=1.1`$, the corresponding interval is $`0.51\pi <\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<0.55\pi `$, hence $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=1.1\right)`$ belongs to this region. Generally, $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ slightly increases with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

Figure 3 summarizes these results in the form of a plot in the $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,\theta _{\mathrm{in}})`$ plane, which shows the regions where the initial soliton relaxes to the stable one or decays into radiation. In the region $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<`$ $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|`$, where the initial configurations are not true stationary solutions, this configuration decays into radiation immediately.

These results, obtained for the conservative model with the local inhomogeneity of the refractive index, are very similar to those reported in Ref. kdv  for the stability of the solitons pinned by an attractive inhomogeneity in the form of a local suppression of the Bragg grating. A noticeable common feature of the results is the existence of the *single* (up to the numerical accuracy available) value $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}\pi /2`$ of the parameter $`\theta `$ which the established soliton may assume. In both conservative models (the ones considered here and in Ref. kdv ), $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ relaxes to $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}>\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, and the soliton decays into radiation if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, i.e., the soliton with $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ may be called a semi-attractor. In fact, it strongly resembles semi-stable solitons, which are stable against small perturbations in the linear approximation, but may be unstable if terms quadratic in the perturbations are take into regard. Semi-stable solitons were recently studied in another context, as the so-called embedded solitons, see Ref. emb  and references therein.

The fact that all the solitons with $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}>\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ is slightly larger than $`\pi /2`$, relax to the value $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, may be related to a known property of the ordinary solitons in the unperturbed BG model ($`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$): they are unstable if $`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}^{(0)}1.011\left(\pi /2\right)`$ Barash . Thus, at least in the case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is small, it is natural to expect that any pinned soliton with $`\theta >\pi /2`$ will relax, as a result of the instability, to a value close to $`\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}^{(0)}`$. What is less obvious, is the decay of the solitons with $`\theta <\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, and the fact that $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$ so weakly depends on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ (see Fig. 3).

### III.3 The pinned soliton in the lossy medium with the localized gain

In direct simulations of the full model, which includes the loss and local gain, the exact solution (23) of the conservative version was again used as the starting point. The evolution of the solution was simulated at a fixed value of the loss parameter $`\gamma `$. The local gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ was varied in order to determine its value(s) at which the soliton settles down to a stable pinned soliton.

Figure 4 shows the evolution of the soliton’s amplitude, defined as $`\left|u(x=0)\right|`$, vs. $`t`$, when the localized gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is varied. The other parameters are fixed, so that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5,\gamma =0.0316,\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.5\pi .$$
(39)
For a small value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04208`$ in Fig. 4), which is insufficient to balance the loss, the soliton decays. For a slightly larger $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$, the soliton’s amplitude grows, then it temporarily settles down (at the value $`1.47`$ in Fig. 4), and, eventually, regular oscillations set in. A long simulation, up to $`t=600\pi `$ (see Fig. 4) shows that the intrinsic vibrations of the soliton are completely stable. The waveforms $`\left|u(x,t)\right|`$ and $`\left|v(x,t)\right|`$, obtained at the end of the simulation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$, are shown in Figure 5(a).

When the gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is further increased, the initial growth of the soliton’s amplitude is sharper; however, it is found that it again temporarily settles down to a nearly constant value close to the same level of $`1.47`$ as above, which is followed by the onset of persistent oscillations. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is still larger, the eventual oscillatory state becomes chaotic with large fluctuations. The corresponding waveforms of $`\left|u(x)\right|`$ and $`\left|v(x)\right|`$ at the end of the simulation ($`t=300\pi `$) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.057`$ are shown in Fig. 5(b). It can be seen that conspicuous radiation tails are attached to the soliton, which implies a permanent energy leakage from it. This extra loss adds up to the direct dissipative loss, both being compensated by the localized gain. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is too large, the radiation wave field outside the main pulse grows to such an extent that the resulting waveform cannot be regarded as a localized one. In fact, in this case it is observed that the main pulse separates from the point $`x=0`$, drifts away, and dies down due to the loss. However, the strong localized gain generates a new “soliton” around $`x=0`$, which later drifts away again, this process repeating itself quasi-periodically.

An important feature of these results is that a stable (even though it is vibrating) soliton is possible not at a single value of the gain, that exactly compensates the loss, but in a finite interval of values of the gain. The energy balance is maintained, in this case, through permanent emission of radiation by the soliton, which compensates the excessive gain. It is relevant to mention that a very similar mechanism, which gives rise to stable nonequilibrium solitons in an overpumped system of a different type (that, however, also originates in nonlinear optics – the so-called split-step model), was recently considered in detail in Ref. Radik . In that case too, the stability of the soliton is provided by the emission of radiation that balances the excess gain.

A further insight in sustained intrinsic vibrations of the pinned soliton, and the transition from the regular oscillations to dynamical chaos, is provided by consideration of the spectrum of the function $`\left|u(x=0,t)\right|`$. In the established oscillatory regime, the spectrum was computed at several different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, while the other parameters were kept constant as per Eq. (39). Figure 6(a) shows the spectrum for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$, which is the value barely enough to compensate the loss. It can be seen that the established oscillations are quasi-harmonic, with a single well-pronounced frequency $`2.9`$ (in arbitrary units), and an additional tiny spectral component at the frequency $`2`$ (which is, apparently, incommensurate with the main one).

Figure 6(b) shows the spectrum for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.5633`$, which is similar to that in Fig. 6(a). The main frequency shifts down to a value about $`2.8`$, with two other visible components found at the frequencies $`0.8`$ and $`1.4`$. Then, suddenly, at a slightly larger gain, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.5634`$, many new conspicuous spectral components emerge, which is shown in Fig. 6(c), and corresponds to (apparently) chaotic intrinsic vibrations of the established soliton. The same behavior is observed at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.5635`$. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.5636`$, the picture suffers another abrupt change \[see Fig. 6(d)\]: the power spectrum reverts back to the simple three-frequency-component structure reminiscent of the situation at lower $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, cf. Fig. 6(b). A transition from a chaotic behavior, (presumably) accounted for by a strange attractor, to a simple quasi-harmonic behavior is known in the theory of dynamical systems, where it is called a “boundary crisis” of the chaotic attractor Hilborn .

The picture revealed by the simulations changes the third time at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.5640`$, with reappearance of a many-component chaotic-like spectrum, similar to that in Fig. 6(c). The chaotic behavior continues to higher values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Figure 6(e) shows the spectrum at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.05690`$, where its structure is not simply a multi-component one, but continuous, which is characteristic for well-developed dynamical chaos.

Another way to describe basic properties of the pinned solitons in the full model is to identify, for various initial values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$, a minimum value $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the gain which is necessary to overcome the loss. Figure 7 shows the evolution of the soliton’s amplitudes as a function of time for $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.2\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}\pi ,`$ and $`0.9\pi `$, the corresponding minimum values being $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{min}}=0.0239`$, $`0.0133`$, and $`0.0131`$, while the other parameters are fixed, $`\gamma =0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$ \[note that all these values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ exceed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, hence the corresponding exact solitons in the conservative model do exist, according to Eq. (26)\]. Thus, unlike the conservative model, in the full model, values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ essentially smaller than $`\pi /2`$ may give rise to a stable pinned soliton (with intrinsic vibrations). However, the smaller the difference $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, the larger value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is necessary, as, according to Eqs. (29) and (25), the rate at which the localized gain supplies energy to the soliton decreases $`\left(\theta _{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)`$ as $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_20`$. On the other hand, analysis of the simulation results shows that the characteristics of the established soliton do not depend on the initial value of $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ which excited it, but solely on the values of $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$, i.e., the established soliton is a genuine  *attractor*.

Then, effects caused by varying the loss parameter $`\gamma `$ were investigated. Because of the necessity to satisfy the energy balance condition, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ needs to be changed to track the variation of $`\gamma `$. For each value of $`\gamma `$, we tried to find the minimum size of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ that supports a stable soliton. Results of these numerical experiments, obtained for fixed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=\pi /2`$, and a set of values $`\gamma =0.000316,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.001},0.00316,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0316},`$and $`0.1`$, are displayed in Fig. 8. The respective minimum-gain values were found to be $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{min}}=0.000422,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.00140},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.00422},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0133},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.04209}`$, and $`0.1327`$. It is interesting to note that, except for the second case, when the ratio $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{min}}/\gamma `$ is $`1.40`$, in all the other ones the ratio takes values between $`1.32`$ and $`1.34`$.

It is clearly seen from Fig. 8 that the amplitude of the established soliton monotonically increases with the growth of $`\gamma `$ (which is accompanied by the growth of the minimum gain necessary to support the soliton). It is also seen that it was never possible to produce a truly stationary soliton, but in some cases ($`\gamma =0.000316,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.00316},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.01},`$ and $`0.1`$) it was possible to generate nearly stationary solitons with a small amplitude of intrinsic vibrations. In other cases ($`\gamma =0.001`$ and $`0.0316`$), varying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ by steps as small as it was admitted by the numerical scheme, it was *not* possible to adjust the gain so that to suppress the internal vibrations, i.e., the established soliton remained a breather, rather than anything close to a fixed-point state.

In all the cases presented in Fig. 8, $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ are small enough to treat them as perturbations. Then, if the established soliton assumes a nearly stationary form, it is natural to expect that it must be close to the solution (23) found in the conservative model, with some value of $`\theta `$, and this $`\theta `$ must be related to $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ as per Eq. (31).

It was checked that the quasi-stationary solitons, in those cases in when they were found, are indeed close to the wave form (23). The corresponding values of $`\theta `$ were identified by means of the least-squared-error fit to the expression (23). Then, for thus found values of $`\theta `$ and given values of $`\gamma `$, the equilibrium values of the gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ were calculated as predicted by the analytical formula (31). Results of this are presented in Table 1.

A noticeable fact obvious from Table 1 is that, in all the cases, the numerically found equilibrium value of the gain exceeds the analytically predicted one by $`9`$ to $`14`$ per cent. Because in all the cases, as it was stressed above, the established solitons are not completely stationary, a natural conjecture is that the slightly vibrating soliton continuously emits energy at a low rate, and this extra energy loss makes it necessary to have the gain somewhat larger than that which compensates the direct dissipative loss as per Eq. (31).

As concerns the comparison of the full model with its conservative counterpart, we recall that, in the conservative model, the stable pinned soliton always assumes a single value of $`\theta `$ for given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ (and this value very weakly depends on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, always being slightly larger than $`\pi /2`$, see Fig. 3). On the contrary to this, in the full model the quasi-stationary soliton may be stable in a range of the values of $`\theta `$, as it is evident from Table 1.

Finally, it has also been checked whether stable pinned solitons can be found when the “hot point” does not perturb the refractive index, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$. As a result, it has been concluded that any finite positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ (the smallest value tried was $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.01`$) may support a stable soliton in the pinned state, but if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$, the pulse set at $`x=0`$ finally drifts away, and then decays due to the loss. An explanation to this finding may be that all the solitons found in the model with loss and gain emit some radiation, see above, and asymmetric fluctuations in the emission rate create a weak random force that drives the soliton away.

### III.4 Soliton pinned between two repulsive inhomogeneities

The soliton may be stably pinned not only by an attractive inhomogeneity, but also between two separated repulsive ones (in the present context, each one will represent a locally suppressed refractive index, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<0`$). The consideration of this configuration is interesting by itself, and it also may be used to design a soliton-based optical oscillator, in which the eigenfrequency is easily controlled by the choice of the separation between the two repulsive points. In particular, in the framework of the perturbation theory (for small $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|`$), the soliton may be regarded as a quasiparticle in the external potential

$$W_2(\xi )=W_1\left(\frac{1}{2}L\xi \right)+W_1\left(\frac{1}{2}L+\xi \right),$$
(40)
where the potential $`W_1(\xi )`$ is given by Eq. (27) (with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<0`$), and $`L`$ is the separation between the two defects.

We simulated the dynamics of this configuration in some detail, but only for the conservative case, $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$. First of all, if $`L`$ is smaller than the proper size of the soliton, it sees the pair of the inhomogeneities, in the first approximation, as a single repulsive center, hence stable bound states are not possible. Within the framework of the perturbation theory, Eqs. (40) and (27) make it possible to predict a critical value, $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \right)_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, at which a stable equilibrium appears for the first time at $`x=0`$. The corresponding expression is cumbersome, but it easy to verify that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \right)_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ monotonically decreases, with $`\theta `$ varying from $`0`$ to $`\pi /2`$, from $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \right)_{\mathrm{cr}}=\mathrm{}`$ to the minimum value $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \right)_{\mathrm{cr}}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{2}+1\right)0.88`$.

Direct simulations at finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ demonstrate \[see an example in Fig. 9\] that, in the case of relatively small $`L`$, when the pinned state of the soliton is unstable, the dynamical evolution does not trivially reduce to pushing the soliton aside; instead, a generic outcome is *splitting* of the soliton in two, which is accompanied by a spontaneous symmetry breaking (in some cases, for instance if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.7\pi `$, the other parameters being the same as in Fig. 9, the instability develops so slowly that it was not possible to identify the outcome).

With the increase of $`L`$, stabilization of the soliton trapped between the repulsive inhomogeneities becomes possible. The trapped states seem most stable around the value $`L=3.84`$, see an example in Fig. 10. In this case, systematic simulations reveal a feature which strongly resembles the one reported above for the single attractive inhomogeneity in the conservative model: an established trapped state is stable for a single (up to the accuracy of numerical simulations) value of $`\theta `$, which is very close to $`\pi /2`$; if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}>\pi /2`$, the soliton sheds off some radiation and eventually relaxes to the said single value of $`\theta `$ (see Fig. 10), while if $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}<\pi /2`$, the soliton gradually decays into radiation. Thus, the single-valuedness of the stable soliton in the conservative model appears to be a generic property. For still larger values of $`L`$, the pinned state is less robust; in particular, a soliton with $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}>\pi /2`$ may split, instead of relaxing to the stable one with $`\theta \pi /2`$.

## IV Collision of a moving soliton with the localized gain

Once the existence of stable pinned soliton has been established, the next natural step is to consider a possibility of capturing a free moving soliton by the “hot spot”. To this end, the soliton was first generated far from the spot by means of the Newton-Raphson method, as a stationary solution in the reference frame moving at some velocity $`c`$; a range of the velocities $`0c0.7`$ was thus investigated. Then, the collision was considered, running direct simulations of Eqs. (1) and (2).

First, the collision experiment was performed in the conservative model, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\gamma =0`$. The parameter plane $`(c,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ was explored with $`c`$ taking values $`0.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2},\mathrm{},0.7`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ taking values $`0.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2},\mathrm{},0.9`$, while $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ was kept constant at $`0.7\pi `$.

If the inhomogeneity is weak, the moving soliton passes through it, see an example in Fig. 11(a). When the inhomogeneity strength is larger, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2{}_{}{}^{>}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}`$, a part of the soliton still passes through it, but another part of the soliton’s energy is captured by the local defect to form a pinned soliton, an example of which is shown in Fig. 11(b). Some radiation bouncing in the backward direction can also be observed when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is large, or when the incident soliton is fast. Naturally, more energy is trapped by the defect if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is larger \[Fig. 11(c)\], and less energy is trapped if the soliton is faster. However, the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_20.5`$, at which the trapping begins, only weakly depends on the soliton’s velocity $`c`$. Figure 12 summarizes these results, showing a border in the $`(c,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ plane between the passage and partial-capture regions.

Next, we consider the collisions in the full model, with $`\gamma =0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ $`=0.015`$. Results reported in the previous section show that a stable pinned soliton exists at these values of the loss and gain (the collisions were simulated only for small values of $`\gamma `$, as otherwise the soliton will be strongly attenuated still before the collision). The initial value of the soliton’s parameter was again $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.7\pi `$.

The results obtained for the full model are not very different from those for the conservative one. When the gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is small, the soliton passes through, and if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is larger, a part of the energy is trapped to form a pinned soliton. A difference from the conservative model is that the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ at which the inhomogeneity starts to capture a part of the soliton’s energy in the conservative model is approximately independent of its velocity: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_20.5`$ if $`c>0.1`$, while in the lossy model, this value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ increases with $`c`$, as is seen in Fig. 12.

Another representative set of numerical data can be displayed for a fixed value of the soliton’s velocity, $`c=0.1`$, while the parameter $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ of the incident soliton takes values $`0.1\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}\pi ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.9}\pi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.9}`$. These results are presented here only for the conservative model.

Simulations show that, if the moving soliton is heavy (large $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$) or the inhomogeneity is weak, the soliton passes it. Heavier solitons can pass through a stronger defect. If the inhomogeneity is strong ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is large), the soliton gets trapped, which is always accompanied by emission of radiation in both the forward and backward directions, and the radiation can further self-trap into secondary solitons. At small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, little energy is scattered away in either direction. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is larger, more energy is scattered forward, and when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is still larger ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_20.9`$), more energy is scattered backwards, cf. Fig. 11(c). Figure 13 summarizes the results obtained for the interaction of the moving soliton and the localized attractive defect in the conservative model for the fixed velocity, $`c=0.1`$

It is natural to compare the results obtained for the conservative model with those reported in Ref. kdv  for the interaction of the moving gap soliton with an attractive inhomogeneity in the form of a local suppression of the Bragg grating. In that case, when the soliton was heavy (large $`\theta `$), the interaction effectively reverted from attraction to repulsion, so that the incident soliton could bounce back. In the present model, this unusual behavior has never been observed.

## V Conclusion

In this work, we have introduced a model of a lossy nonlinear fiber grating with a “hot spot” combining the localized gain and attractive inhomogeneity of the refractive index; the spot can be created by means of doping a short segment of the fiber. In the absence of the loss and gain, a family of exact solutions for pinned solitons was found. In the full model including loss and gain, the instability threshold for the zero solution was found; it was concluded that the instability is not possible without the presence of the imaginary part of the local gain, i.e., a localized perturbation of the refractive index. Further, for small values of the loss and gain, it was predicted what soliton is selected by the energy-balance condition. Parallel to this, it was shown that, in the simpler model based on the NLS equation, the pinned soliton can never be stable in the presence of the loss and local gain.

In direct simulations, we have found that a single pinned soliton is stable in the conservative fiber-grating model. It is a semi-attractor: solitons with a larger energy relax to it via emission of radiation, while the ones with smaller energy completely decay into radiation. The same conclusion is obtained for solitons trapped between two repulsive inhomogeneities. In the full model with the loss and gain, all the stable pinned pulses demonstrate persistent internal vibrations and emission of radiation. Sometimes, they are almost stationary solitons, and in these cases the prediction based on the energy balance underestimates the necessary gain by $`9\%`$ to $`14\%`$, which is explained by the extra radiation loss. If the loss and gain increase, the intrinsic vibrations become chaotic.

Collisions of free moving solitons with the “hot spot” were simulated too. The passage and capture regimes were identified for the solitons in the conservative and full models; the capture is only partial, which actually implies splitting of the soliton. If was also found that, if a large part of the soliton’s energy is radiated away, it may self-trap into secondary solitons.

## Acknowledgement

B.A.M. appreciates hospitality of the Optoelectronic Research Centre at the City University of Hong Kong.

## Tables

| $`\gamma `$ | $`\theta `$ | $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{num}}`$ | $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{anal}}`$ | $`\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{num}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{anal}}}{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{anal}}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0.000316`$ | $`0.5\pi `$ | $`0.000422`$ | $`0.000386`$ | $`0.0944`$ |
| $`0.00316`$ | $`0.595\pi `$ | $`0.0042`$ | $`0.00369`$ | $`0.1373`$ |
| $`0.01`$ | $`0.608\pi `$ | $`0.01333`$ | $`0.01165`$ | $`0.1442`$ |
| $`0.1`$ | $`0.826\pi `$ | $`0.1327`$ | $`0.121`$ | $`0.0967`$ |

Table 1. Values of the loss parameter $`\gamma `$ at which quasi-stationary stable pinned solitons were found by the adjustment of the gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ (see Fig. 8), while the refractive-index perturbation is fixed, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$. The corresponding values of the gain, $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{num}}`$, are also included, together with the values of the soliton parameter $`\theta `$ which provide for the best fit of the quasi-stationary solitons to the analytical solution (23). The values $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\right)_{\mathrm{anal}}`$ are those predicted, for given $`\gamma `$ and $`\theta `$, by the energy-balance equation (31), which does not take the radiation loss into account.

## Figure captions

Fig. 1. Analytically predicted solution branches for the pinned soliton in the case of weak loss and gain. Shown is $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ vs. the stress parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma `$. (a) An example of the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2<\pi /2`$ is displayed with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\pi /4`$; (b) an example of the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2>\pi /2`$ is displayed with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=3\pi /4`$; (c) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\pi /2`$; (d) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$. In the last case, nontrivial solutions appear at the point $`\theta =0.7442\pi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma =1.3801`$, and at large values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\gamma `$ the continuous curve asymptotically approaches the horizontal axis. In all the panels, the dashed lines show a formal continuation of the solutions in the unphysical regions, $`\theta <\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, and $`\theta >\pi `$. In the panels (a), (b), and (c), the trivial solution, $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0`$, is shown by the solid line where it is stable; in the case corresponding to the panel (d), all the axis $`\theta =0`$ corresponds to the stable trivial solution. (Note that all quantities plotted are dimensionless.)

Fig. 2. Typical results illustrating the stability and instability of pinned solitons in the case $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.4`$. Each panel shows the evolution of $`|u(x,t)|`$, starting with the exact pinned-soliton configuration (the evolution of $`|v(x,t)|`$ is quite similar.) (a) $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.4\pi `$ is smaller than $`\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$: the soliton decays into radiation. (b) $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.8\pi >\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$: the initial soliton transforms itself into a stable one, shedding off excess energy in the form of radiation. (c) $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.5\pi \theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$. Direct appearance of the stable soliton.

Fig. 3. A summary of results obtained for the stability of pinned solitons, plotted in the $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,\theta _{\mathrm{in}})`$ plane, in the conservative model with $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$. In the upper region, where $`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, initial solitons evolve into the stable one, shedding off extra energy. In the lower region, where $`\theta <\theta _{\mathrm{stab}}`$, solitons completely decay into radiation. Beneath the lower solid line, which borders the region where $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right|<\theta <\pi `$, see Eq. (26), stationary solutions for the pinned solitons do not exist. Accordingly, an initial pulse taken as a formal “soliton”, with an imaginary root of Eq. (24) substituted for $`a`$ (see the text), is immediatley destroyed.

Fig. 4. Evolution of the amplitude of the pinned soliton in the full model with loss and gain, in the case with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$, $`\gamma =0.0316`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.5\pi `$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04208`$, the gain is insufficient to balance the loss, and the soliton decays. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$, the soliton initially grows, and its intrinsic vibrations develop. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ takes a slightly larger value, $`0.04215`$, the initial growth of the amplitude is steeper, which again results in the establishment of regular intrinsic vibrations (in this case, the oscillations are very similar to those supported by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$). When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is essentially larger, for instance, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.057`$, interal vibrations of the pinned soliton become chaotic (the latter case shown by the dotted line).

Fig. 5. The profiles of $`\left|u(x,t)\right|`$ (solid lines) and $`\left|v(x,t)\right|`$ (dashed lines) at the end of the simulation (narrow peaks placed at $`x=0`$ mark the “hot spot”). The values of $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, and $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ are the same as in Fig. 4. (a) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$ is barely enough to support the soliton against the loss. In this case, the soliton emits radiation at a low rate. (b) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.057`$. The soliton emits radiation at a high rate.

Fig. 6. The frequency spectrum of the time-dependent amplitude $`|u(x=0,t)|`$ of the pinned soliton at different values of the local gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, after persistent vibrations set it: (a) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.04209`$, (b) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.05633`$, (c) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.05634`$, (d) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.5636`$, and (e) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.05690`$. In all the cases, $`\gamma =0.0316`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$, and $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.5\pi `$.

Fig. 7. The soliton’s amplitude $`\left|u(x=0,t)\right|`$ vs. $`t`$ for three different values of the initial amplitude $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}`$. In each case, the value of the gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is chosen as the minimum one which can support the establishment of a soliton. Other parameters are fixed: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$, and $`\gamma =0.01`$.

Fig. 8. The amplitude of the soliton, $`\left|u(x=0,t)\right|`$, vs. $`t`$ for different values of the loss parameter $`\gamma `$. Each time, the value of the gain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is chosen as the smallest one which leads to the establishment of the soliton. Other parameters are fixed: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$, and $`\theta _{\text{in}}=0.5\pi `$.

Fig. 9. The interaction of a soliton with a pair of repulsive points ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.7`$), with a relatively small separation between them, $`L=1.84`$, in the conservative model. (a) The initial configuration, with $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=\pi /2`$. (b) The result of the interaction: splitting of the soliton into two pulses, which is accompanied by a spontaneous symmetry breaking. The solid lines show $`|u|`$, and the dashed lines show $`|v|`$. Note that, in the initial configuration, $`|u|`$ and $`|v|`$ are indiscernible.

Fig. 10. Stable soliton captured between the repulsive points ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$) with the separation $`L=3.84`$ between them, in the conservative model. Shown is the evolution of the field $`|u(x,t)|`$. The initial value of the soliton parameter is $`\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=0.7\pi `$.

Fig. 11. Collision of a moving soliton, with fixed values $`\theta =0.7\pi `$ and $`c=0.4`$, and the inhomogeneity in the conservative model (the inhomogeneity is shown by a narrow peak which, for an unessential reason, is shifted from the point $`x=0`$). The lower and upper panels show, respectively, the evolution of the field $`|u(x,t)|`$ in terms of the contour plots, and the waveforms $`|u(x)|`$ and $`|v(x)|`$ (solid and dashed lines) at the end of the simulation (note that the $`u`$\- and $`v`$-components are asymmetric in the moving solitons). (a) The soliton passes through a weak defect with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.2`$. (b) A stronger defect, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.5`$, captures a part of the energy of the passing soliton, to form a small-amplitude pinned one. Another small part of the energy bounces back in the form of radiation. (c) If the defect is still stronger, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=0.9`$, the shares of the trapped and bounced energy are larger.

Fig. 12. Borders in the parametric plane ($`c,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$) between regions in which the moving soliton with fixed $`\theta =0.7\pi `$ passes the defect or gets partially trapped. The solid line is the border in the conservative model, with $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0`$. The dashed line is the border in the full model with $`\gamma =0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.015`$.

Fig. 13. Regions in the parametric plane ($`\theta ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$) of the conservative model in which the moving soliton with fixed $`c=0.1`$ passes the defect or gets partially trapped.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction and Conclusions

## 1 Introduction and Conclusions

In the last two years, an extension of the AdS/CFT  correspondence to gauge field theories with less than maximal supersymmetry has been achieved via wrapped branes, and many supergravity duals have been constructed -. Gauged supergravities provided a useful tool to construct such configurations since they geometrically implement the twisting  of the field theories in a natural way. On the other hand, supergravity duals of noncommutative (NC) theories with maximal supersymmetry had also been constructed  by turning on a background $`B`$-field. See  for a summary of all flat Dp-brane solutions.

In , both ideas were joined and the dual of a $`U(N)`$ NC field theory $`𝒩`$=2 in 2+1 dimensions was constructed. Unlike most cases of wrapped branes obtained before, the noncommutative problem had to be analysed directly in 11d supergravity, since it was shown that reducing the background to 8d gauged supergravity would have destroyed all supersymmetry. In this work, we will review the original construction of these backgrounds, emphasising more on the phenomenon of supersymmetry without supersymmetry .

We will also illustrate some of the field theory physics that can be extracted from the supergravity side by obtaining the moduli space on the Coulomb branch. In the commutative case, this corrects the calculation originally performed in , where supersymmetry had actually been lost in the reduction from eleven to ten dimensions. We obtain a two-dimensional moduli space which is Kähler (as demanded by supersymmetry, and in agreement with ) and which, in fact, looks very much like a resummation of all the perturbative contributions of the quantum field theory. This is not in contradiction with the known fact that non-abelian gauge theories with $`𝒩`$=2 and without matter fields develop a non-perturbative potential that completely lifts the Coulomb branch . Such effects are not expected to be seen in the gravity side, since they are exponentially suppressed at large $`N`$.

We reanalysed the same problem in the noncommutative case and we found exactly the same results, i.e. the moduli space and its metric coincide with the commutative ones, in agreement with the discussion in . Other non-perturbative properties of a NC SYM theory with $`𝒩`$=1 in 3+1 dimensions were studied in .

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we review how the noncommutative duals were constructed in , simplifying the discussion of which compactifications are compatible with supersymmetry. In section 3 we calculate the moduli spaces of the commutative and the noncommutative theories, and we compare them with the field theory results.

## 2 Supergravity duals

Since the appearance of , gauged supergravities became a systematic tool to obtain supergravity solitons describing the near horizon of wrapped branes. Essentially, one chooses a domain-wall kind of ansatz (with the expected isometries of the configuration) in the appropriate gauged supergravity. Then, imposing that some supersymmetry is preserved automatically leads to a system of first order BPS differential equations. The solutions are then lifted to ten or eleven dimensions giving the corresponding sugra dual.

In , such method was used to obtain the dual of an $`𝒩`$=2 field theory in 2+1 dimensions by wrapping D6-branes on Kähler four-cycles inside Calabi-Yau three-folds. We used 8d gauged supergravity , which is a compactification of the eleven-dimensional one on an $`SU(2)`$ manifold. When trying to perform a noncommutative deformation on such solution, one could naively try to repeat the mentioned process, but now extending the 8d ansatz to incorporate the modifications. To illustrate why this method would fail we will briefly analyse the much simpler case of the NC deformation of a flat (not wrapped) D6-brane. Such a configuration was already known, and its lift to 11d  is

$$ds_{11}^2=h^{1/3}\left[dx_{0,4}^2+h^1dx_{5,6}^2+dy^2+\frac{y^2}{4}\left(d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(2)}^2+h^1[d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi ]^2\right)\right]$$
(1)
$$A_{[3]}=\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{Ng_{YM}^2}{Hh}dx^5dx^6\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi \right)h(y)=1+\mathrm{\Theta }^2H^1H(y)=\frac{4N^2g_{YM}^4}{y^2}.$$
(2)
A way to analyse which of the possible reductions would preserve supersymmetry is to compute the associated Killing spinors in the appropriate vielbein base. For example, to reduce back to 10d along the $`U(1)`$ isometries generated by $`_\psi `$ or by $`_\varphi `$, we need to take the first ten vielbeins to be independent of $`\psi `$ or $`\varphi `$ respectively. A good choice for both could be

$$e^a=h^{1/6}dx^a,a=0,..,4e^i=h^{1/3}dx^i,i=5,6e^7=h^{1/6}dy,$$
(3)
$$e^8=\frac{y}{2}h^{1/6}\stackrel{~}{e}^1e^9=\frac{y}{2}h^{1/6}\stackrel{~}{e}^2e^T=\frac{y}{2}h^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{e}^3,$$
(4)
with $`\stackrel{~}{e}^i`$ the typical vielbeins of a round $`S^3`$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}^1=d\theta \stackrel{~}{e}^2=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi \stackrel{~}{e}^3=d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi .$$
(5)
On the other hand, if we want to reduce to 8d gauged sugra, we need to use the $`SU(2)`$ left-invariant one-forms for the $`S^3`$, so we have to replace (5) by

$$w^1=\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi d\varphi w^2=\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi d\varphi w^3=d\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi .$$
(6)
We will call (5) the $`e`$-base and (6) the $`w`$-base. Since the relation between them is just a local Lorentz rotation, the Killing spinors in both bases are simply related by its spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ representation. Explicit calculation yields the following 16 spinors

$$ϵ_{(\mathrm{e}\mathrm{base})}=h^{\frac{1}{12}}(y)e^{\frac{\alpha (y)}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}}e^{\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}}e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{89}}ϵ_0,$$
(7)
$$ϵ_{(\mathrm{w}\mathrm{base})}=e^{\frac{\psi }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{89}}e^{\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T8}}ϵ_{(\mathrm{e}\mathrm{base})}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T8}e^{\frac{\psi }{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{89}}ϵ_{(\mathrm{e}\mathrm{base})}.$$
(8)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0123456}ϵ_0=ϵ_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha =h^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }(Hh)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(9)
Based on the fact that both compactifications assume that the spinors are independent of the coordinates of the compact manifold, it is immediate to see that: (i) Supersymmetry is preserved under compactification to IIA along $`\psi `$ but completely destroyed under compactification along $`\varphi `$; (ii) Supersymmetry is completely destroyed under compactification to 8d gauged sugra.

These conclusions were explicitely checked. Indeed, since all fields but the Killing spinors fit in the corresponding reduction ansatze, the wrong compactifications produced good solutions of the equations of motion, despite being non-supersymmetric.

With this experience in mind, it was natural to construct the NC deformation of the wrapped D6 directly in eleven dimensions . We solved the BPS equations for our ansatz and obtained the Killing spinors. Just like before, by analysing them in the correct reduction base, we could show that: (i) A reduction to 8d sugra would not have been supersymmetric; (ii) A reduction to IIA along $`\varphi `$ would preserve supersymmetry, but a reduction along $`\psi `$ would destroy it.

Finally, the correct reduction to IIA (along $`\varphi `$) gave the true supergravity dual of the NC $`𝒩`$=2 gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions. After introducing the factors of the number $`N`$ of D6-branes, and the string coupling constant $`g_s`$, the background is111The various definitions appearing here are: $`U(r)=\frac{3r^4+8l^2r^2+6l^4}{6(r^2+l^2)^2};f(r,\theta )=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +U\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ;m(r,\theta )=(U^1+\mathrm{cot}^2\theta )^1;B_{[1]}=d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2;\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{4}{r^2f};\stackrel{~}{h}=1+\mathrm{\Theta }^2\stackrel{~}{H}^1`$. For simplicity, the four-cycle will be taken to be $`S^2\times S^2`$ in all this work.

$$ds_{IIA}^2=\left(g_sN\stackrel{~}{H}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[dx_0^2+\stackrel{~}{h}^1dx_{1,2}^2\right]+\left(g_sN\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{3}{2}(r^2+l^2)ds_{cycle}^2+U^1dr^2+\frac{r^2}{4}[d\theta ^2+mB_{[1]}^2]\right]$$
(10)
$$e^{4\mathrm{\Phi }/3}=g_s^{\frac{1}{3}}N^1\stackrel{~}{h}^{\frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{H}^1B_{[2]}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{g_sN}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{h}}dx^1dx^2$$
(11)
$$C_{[1]}=NUf^1\mathrm{cos}\theta B_{[1]}C_{[3]}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{g_s\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{h}}Uf^1\mathrm{cos}\theta dx^1dx^2B_{[1]}.$$
(12)
and describes a non-threshold bound state of D6 and D4 branes, all of them wrapping the Kähler four-cycle, and with the D4 spread in the flat part of the D6. This can be best described with the following array

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{IIA}& x^0& x^1& x^2& \theta _1& \theta _2& \varphi _2& \varphi _1& r& \theta & \psi \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{D6}& & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{D4}& & & & & & & & & & \\ B_{[2]}& & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(13)
Note that the metric has cohomogeneity two. The function $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ depends, after a suitable change of variables, on the transverse coordinate inside the Calabi-Yau three-fold, and on the transverse one to the D6-branes and the Calabi-Yau.

The supergravity approximation is valid where the curvature and the dilaton remain small. In this case, these restrictions imply

$$\frac{1}{(g_sN)^{1/6}}r\frac{N^{1/4}}{g_s^{1/12}}.$$
(14)
## 3 Analysis of the moduli spaces

In this section we use the constructed supergravity duals of the $`𝒩`$=2 theories to extract some physics. In particular, we will obtain and discuss the moduli spaces on the Coulomb branch in both the commutative and the noncommutative cases, and we will compare them with the expected results from the field theory side.

### 3.1 The commutative moduli space from supergravity

Ley us first concentrate on the commutative theory. The supergravity background is just obtained by sending $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ in (10), and is dual to an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with $`𝒩`$=2 in 2+1 dimensions, without any matter multiplet.

We will analyse the Coulomb branch of this theory by giving a non-zero vacuum expectation value to the scalars in a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of $`SU(N)`$. As is well known, this is easily implemented in the supergravity side by pulling one of the $`N`$ D6-branes away from the others. The $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom on the probe brane can be effectively described by the DBI action, where the rest of the branes are substituted by the background that they create

$$\mu _6^1S=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_7}d^7\xi e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det[G+B_{[2]}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{[2]}]}+_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_7}[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F+B)_nC_{[n]}]$$
(15)
Here $`\mu _6^1=(2\pi )^6\alpha ^{7/2}`$, $`F_{[2]}=dV_{[1]}`$ is the worldvolume Abelian field-strength, $`B_{[2]}`$ is the NS two-form, $`C_{[n]}`$ the RR $`n`$-forms, and all fields are understood to be pulled-back to the seven-dimensional worldvolume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_7=^{1,2}\times S^2\times S^2`$.

If we want to break the gauge group without breaking supersymmetry, we must make sure that no potential is generated. So the first thing to look at is the vacuum configuration of the probe brane. With this purpose, we take the static gauge where the first seven space-time coordinates are identified with the worldvolume ones, and all the rest, i.e. $`\{r,\theta ,\psi \}`$, are taken to be constant. In this way, only the potential is left in the DBI action. It is not possible to give a closed analytic expression for it but, numerically, it is easy to see that it vanishes only at $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$, independently of $`r`$ and $`\psi `$.

We therefore locate the probe brane at such values of $`\theta `$ and look at the low energy effective action for its massless degrees of freedom. This is accomplished by allowing $`\{r,\psi \}`$ and the worldvolume field-strength $`F_{[2]}`$ to slowly depend on the worldvolume coordinates, so that only the terms quadratic in their derivatives a kept in the expansion of the DBI action. Indeed, in the limit in which the four-cycle is taken to be small, one can simply consider excitations about the flat non-compact part of the worldvolume. Both locus $`\theta =0,\pi `$ give the same effective action:

$$S_{probe}=d^3x\left[a^2N(g_sN)^{3/2}C^2(r)r^2(r)^2+\frac{1}{g_sN^2}\frac{1}{4C^2(r)}(y)^2\right]$$
(16)
where $`a^2=2\pi ^2\mu _6`$, $`C(r)=\frac{1}{4}(r^2+l^2)`$ and $`y`$ is the compact scalar of period $`2\pi `$ that one obtains after dualising the gauge field $`V_{[1]}`$.

The moduli space is therefore two-dimensional and, after glueing the two locus at the origin, it turns out to have the topology of a cylinder. The metric is just

$$ds^2=a^2N(g_sN)^{3/2}C^2(r)r^2dr^2+\frac{1}{g_sN^2}\frac{1}{4C^2(r)}dy^2=d\rho ^2+\frac{4a}{ag_sN^2l^4+16(g_sN^3)^{1/4}\rho }dy^2$$
(17)
In the last step we redefined the radial coordinate $`\rho =\frac{ag^{3/4}N^{5/4}}{16}r^2\left(r^2+2l^2\right)`$ in order to put the metric in a more standard form. It is easy to prove that this metric is Kähler by explicitely constructing the Kähler potential. In order to do so, first define complex coordinates

$$z=y+i\chi (r)\chi (r):=\frac{a}{48}N(g_sN)^{5/4}\left(r^6+3l^2r^4+3l^4r^2\right)$$
(18)
One can then show that $`ds_{\mathrm{moduli}}^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}g_{z\overline{z}}dzd\overline{z}`$ with $`g_{z\overline{z}}=_z_{\overline{z}}\phi `$ and

$$\phi =\frac{a^{2/3}}{128}g_s^{1/2}N^{5/6}\left(ag_s^{3/4}N^{5/4}l^6+\frac{48}{g_s^{1/2}N}\frac{z\overline{z}}{2i}\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}=\frac{a^2N(g_sN)^{3/2}}{128}(r^2+l^2)^4$$
(19)
The fact that $`\phi `$ is a real function completes the proof that the metric is Kähler (see  for similar results using different branes) .

### 3.2 Comparison with the field theory results

We shall now compare the results obtained using supergravity with the ones that are known from the field theory. The first immediate comment is that in the absence of matter multiplets, instantons of non-abelian gauge theories with $`𝒩`$=2 in 2+1 dimensions develop a superpotential that completely lifts the Coulomb branch . This is not in contradiction with our result, since this contributions are exponentially suppressed with $`N`$, so they are not expected to be visible in the supergravity side.

On the other hand, $`𝒩`$=2 supersymmetry implies that the moduli space must be a 2d Kähler manifold, as we have seen from supergravity. Furthermore, it typically has the topology of a cylinder, with the compact direction coming from the dualised scalar, and the non-compact one coming from the vacuum expectation value of the other scalar in the multiplet. The one loop corrected metric for an $`SU(2)`$ theory  looks like

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{e^2}\frac{2}{r}\right)dr^2+\left(\frac{1}{e^2}\frac{2}{r}\right)^1dy^2$$
(20)
and it is valid for $`r2e^2`$. Asymptotically, it tends to the classical prediction which, after generalising to $`SU(N)`$, is just a flat cylinder with metric

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{4e^2}dr^2+\frac{e^2}{N}dy^2$$
(21)
In order to compare these metrics with our supergravity result (17) we shall perform a change of variables in (20) so that the metric is in the standard form $`ds^2=d\rho ^2+f(\rho )dy^2`$. Unfortunately, the change of variables is not expressible in terms of elementary functions. Anyway, we can solve numerically for $`f(\rho )`$ and plot the two moduli spaces, as we have done in figure 1.

The plot on the left shows the one-loop corrected moduli space predicted by field theory calculations. At very large values of the non-compact scalar, it tends to flat cylinder with radius proportional to $`|e|/\sqrt{N}`$. As this $`vev`$ decreases higher loop corrections are needed. In particular, the one loop calculation diverges at $`r=2e^2`$.

On the other hand, the figure on the right shows the moduli space predicted by supergravity. It also tends to a cylinder with vanishing radius at large values of the non-compact scalar, so it agrees with the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of the field theory. It also smooths the divergence of the one loop calculation, which could maybe correspond to a resummation of infinite loops contributions. Strictly speaking, we see from (14) that the supergravity approximation is not valid at $`r=0`$, where the curvature of our background blows up. In any case, we can still use it as close to the origin as needed by taking $`g_sN`$ large enough.

Finally, we shall make more explicit the relation between the parameters in supergravity ($`g_s`$, $`N`$ and $`l`$) and in the field theory ($`e`$ and $`N`$). As usual, the number $`N`$ of D6-branes is the rank of the gauge group. On the other hand, in the supergravity side, a non-zero value for $`l`$ prevents the radius from diverging as we approach the origin. Nevertheless, it is difficult to make the dictionary more precise. In any case, one can read the gauge coupling for the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom at a certain point of the moduli space by identifying the coefficient in front of the $`F^2`$ term in the DBI action of probe. The result is

$$\frac{1}{g_{U(1)}^2}=4\pi ^2\mu _6g_sN^2(r^2+l^2)$$
(22)
### 3.3 The noncommutative moduli space

Exactly the same method used to obtain the moduli space of the commutative field theory can be used to study the noncommutative one. In this case we have to use the full NC background (10). The vacuum of the probe brane is the same. This is due to the fact that, in the static gauge, and without exciting the fields on the probe, one can verify that our background satisfies

$$e^{\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Theta }}\sqrt{det[G^\mathrm{\Theta }]}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}}\sqrt{det[G^{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}]},C_{[7]}^\mathrm{\Theta }+B_{[2]}^\mathrm{\Theta }C_{[5]}^\mathrm{\Theta }=C_{[7]}^{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}$$
(23)
In superscripts we indicate whether the field is written at finite or at zero value for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and pullbacks are to be understood where needed. Since the DBI lagrangian is unchanged, the supersymmetric loci are still at $`\theta =0,\pi `$.

When we look for the low energy excitations of the fields on the brane, we find again the same metric on the moduli space. This time, the relevant property of the background is

$$e^{\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Theta }}\sqrt{det[G^\mathrm{\Theta }+B_{[2]}^\mathrm{\Theta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{[2]}]}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{[2]}C_{[5]}^\mathrm{\Theta }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}}\sqrt{det[G^{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{[2]}]}$$
(24)
where the equality is to be understood only between the terms which are quadratic in the derivatives on both sides.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Jaume Gomis, Jorge Russo, Luca Tagliacozzo and Paul Townsend for useful discussions. This work is partially supported by MCYT FPA, 2001-3598, and CIRIT, GC 2001SGR-00065, and HPRN-CT-2000-00131. T.M. is supported by a grant from the Commissionat per a la Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya. J.B. is supported by a grant from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología.