format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A while ago Polchinski and Strassler  found a string theory dual of a four dimensional SYM theory with reduced supersymmetry. They perturbed the $`𝒩=4`$ theory by giving mass to the hypermultiplets. In the dual bulk theory this corresponded to turning on transverse RR and NS 3 form field strengths which polarized  the D3 branes into D5 or NS5 branes. This extension of the original AdS/CFT duality  had implications in both directions. It allowed for a detailed string theory interpretation of domain walls, baryon vertices, confinement, etc., and it illustrated a way in which string theory can cure some singularities in supergravity.

Since then, papers have appeared generalizing the PS construction to theories in other dimensions (M2 branes , D2 branes ), as well as to 4 dimensional theories on orbifolds , with temperature , even less susy , etc.

One of the possible extensions of  left unexplored has been to the $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ geometry. In the same line of thought from  one would expect the dual of a little string theory with reduced supersymmetry to be given in terms of an M theory bulk containing polarized M5 branes. It is the purpose of this paper to explore this possibility.

Since the degrees of freedom of a large number of M5 branes are not known, giving a matrix description to this polarization (like in the D-brane $``$ D-brane polarization) is not possible. The only way to describe this polarization is thus to find the action of the object in which the M5 branes are polarized, and to show that there exists a configuration with nonzero radius which is energetically stable.

In order to understand which operators one needs to turn on to obtain polarized M5-branes, and find what they might polarize into, it is worth thinking about the polarization of a large number of D4 branes into D6 branes. These configurations exist and are understood very well (they are T-dual to the D3 $``$ D5 system discussed in ). They are produced by turning on a fermion scalar bilinear on the worldvolume of the D4 branes, which corresponds to a combination of RR 1 form and NS-NS 2 form on the transverse space We should note, however, that the naive expectation that the D4-D6 polarization configuration is still supersymmetric fails..

One expects upon lifting this polarized configuration to M theory to obtain a configuration in which M5 branes polarize into Kaluza-Klein monopoles (KKM). One of the directions of the M5 brane is special in that it is along the isometry direction of the monopole. The fermion scalar bilinear on the D4 brane can come from the dimensional reduction of a fermion scalar or a fermion vector bilinear oriented in the M-theory direction. The bulk RR 1 form and NS-NS 2 form come from a graviton with one leg on the 11’th direction (the graviphoton) and respectively from a 3 form potential with one leg on the 11’th direction. Since these bulk fields transform as vectors under the Lorentz SO(5,1) group, we expect them to correspond to a fermion bilinear which is a vector oriented in the 11’th direction. This same polarization configuration can be obtained by T-dualizing the D3 $``$ NS5 polarization of  and obtaining a D4 brane polarized into a IIA KK monopole. The D4 $``$ IIA KKM configuration lifts to the same configuration as above, with the M-theory direction identified differently.

One might wonder whether there are other possible polarizations for M5 branes. It appears possible to polarize it into a codimension 4 higher object, namely an M9-brane. However, since we are interested in M-theory configurations only, and the M9 is a brane solution of massive 11d supergravity (sugra), we shall not explore this possibility.

Nevertheless, it does not appear possible to polarize the M5’s into a KKM which does not have its isometry direction along the brane, simply because the original M5 branes do not have that isometry.

There are however a few problems which an astute reader might already be concerned with. The first one has to do with the tension of the KK monopole. As we shall discuss, the tension of the KKM is proportional to the square of the length of the 11’th dimension. Thus, as we open up the 11’th dimension the monopole becomes more and more massive. If for example in IIA we had $`N`$ D4 branes polarizing into one D6 brane, as we open the 11’the dimension the ratio of the charges changes, and at one point the KKM in which the M5 branes polarize will be heavier than the 5-branes, in which case it will not be treatable as a probe. We will address these problems in due time.

While this paper was being completed,  appeared, in which the polarization of M5 branes into KKM’s was also suggested.

## 2 Perturbing the $`AdS_7\times S_4`$ background

### 2.1 The sugra set-up

The 11 dimensional supergravity bosonic Lagrangian is

$$=R1\frac{1}{2}F_4F_4+\frac{1}{6}F_4F_4C_3$$
(2.1)
where $`F_4=dC_3`$, and $``$ is the 11-dimensional Hodge star. One can define the 6 form potential $`C_6`$ as the Poincaré dual of $`C_3`$

$$F_7dC_6=F_4+\frac{1}{2}C_3F_4$$
(2.2)
The M5 brane is a soliton solution of 11d sugra

$`(ds^2)^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{1/3}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +Z^{1/3}dx_{11}^2+Z^{2/3}dx^idx^j\delta _{ij}`$ (2.3)
$`F_7^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`_iZ^1dx^0\mathrm{}dx^4dx^{11}dx^i`$ (2.4)
where the brane is aligned along $`\mu =0,1,2,3,4,11`$, the transverse coordinates are $`i=5\mathrm{}9`$, and $`Z`$ is the harmonic function on the transverse space.

It is well known that the background geometry of a large number of coinciding M5 branes is $`AdS_7\times S_4`$, and that 11d sugra compactified on $`AdS_7\times S_4`$ gives a dual description to the 6d (2,0) CFT theory living on the worldvolume of the M5 branes. For $`N`$ coincident M5 branes the harmonic function is

$$Z=\frac{R^3}{r^3},r^2=x^ix^i,R^3\pi Nl_p^3$$
(2.5)
The $`AdS_7\times S_4`$ geometry becomes transparent if we redefine $`r=4R/z_0^2`$. The $`AdS_7`$ radius is thus twice the $`S_4`$ radius. For later need, we give the Poincaré dual of (2.4)

$$F_4^\mathrm{𝟎}=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ_{ijklm}_mZdx^idx^jdx^kdx^l$$
(2.6)
where $`ϵ_{ijklm}`$ is the flat antisymmetric tensor restricted to the transverse coordinates.

We want to perturb this background with a non-normalizable mode of the field which is dual to a fermion mass operator in the CFT. The fermions of (2,0) CFT transform in the $`\underset{¯}{4}`$ spinor representation of the R-symmetry group $`SO(5)`$. Thus a fermion bilinear which is a $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ of $`SO(5)`$ corresponds to a 2-form (or by Poincaré duality a 3-form) field strength perturbation in the space transverse to the branes. Since 11d SUGRA has only a 4-form field strength and a graviton, the only way to obtain a transverse 3-form is to consider a 4 form with a leg along one of the longitudinal directions. Similarly the transverse 2-form is the field strength of the graviphoton.

We can see that only a fermion bilinear which is a Lorentz vector is a chiral primary. Thus, to turn on a fermion bilinear which is chiral we need to break Lorentz covariance and introduce a preferred direction, or equivalently, a Killing vector. We shall see later that this breaking of Lorentz covariance is the key to the construction in which the M5 branes polarize into Kaluza-Klein monopoles.

The background geometry admits a Killing vector

$$D_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{𝟎}k_{\mathrm{\Pi })}=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0\mathrm{}9,11$$
(2.7)
with $`k_\mathrm{\Lambda }=Z^{1/3}\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }11}`$. We note that the contravariant Killing vector is simply $`k^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\delta ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }11}`$. From now on we will use 0 to denote background fields and 1 to denote perturbed fields.

We want to turn on the nonnormalizable modes of the perturbations $`\delta g_{i11}g_{i11}^\mathrm{𝟏}h_{11i}`$ and $`\delta C_{11ij}^\mathrm{𝟎}C_{11ij}^\mathrm{𝟏}`$ which only depend on the transverse coordinates. The metric perturbation is related to the 3-form perturbation by

$`\delta R_{11i}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(F_{11\mathrm{}}F_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_{11i}F_\mathrm{}.F^\mathrm{}.)\right\}.`$ (2.8)
The variation of the Ricci tensor

$$\delta R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{1}{2}\left(h_{\mathrm{\Lambda };\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Omega }}^\mathrm{\Omega }+h_{\mathrm{\Pi };\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }}^\mathrm{\Omega }h_{;\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }}\mathrm{}h_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }}\right)$$
(2.9)
in the background (2.3) is

$$\delta R_{11i}=\frac{1}{2}_j\left(Z^1_j(h_{11i}Z^{1/3})Z^1_i(h_{11j}Z^{1/3})\right)\frac{1}{24}h_{11i}_mZ_mZZ^{8/3}$$
(2.10)
Combining this with (2.8) we obtain

$$d[Z^1(_5d(hZ^{1/3})+G_3)]=0$$
(2.11)
where $`_5`$ denotes the flat Hodge dual in the transverse space, $`G_3(1/3!)F_{11ijk}^\mathrm{𝟏}dx^idx^jdx^k`$, and $`hh_{11i}dx^i`$.

Similarly, from the first order variation of the $`F_4`$ field equation:

$$d^\mathrm{𝟎}F_4^\mathrm{𝟏}+d^\mathrm{𝟏}F_4^\mathrm{𝟎}=0$$
(2.12)
we can obtain after a few straightforward steps:

$$d[Z^1(d(hZ^{1/3})+_5G_3)]=0.$$
(2.13)
In order to find the exact form of the bulk 2 and 3-forms corresponding to the fermion bilinear we need to relate them to transverse tensors, and to solve (2.11) and (2.13).

### 2.2 Fermion bilinears and transverse tensors

The fermion R-current can be related to a tensor on the transverse space by analyzing their properties under the action of the R-symmetry group. We pair the 4 worldvolume fermions and 4 of the transverse space coordinates into complex variables

$`z_1=x^5+ix^6z_2=x^8+ix^9`$ (2.14)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\lambda _1+i\lambda _3\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\lambda _2+i\lambda _4`$ (2.15)
and we notice that under an SO(5) rotation $`z_ie^{i\varphi ^i}z_i`$, the fermions transform as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1e^{i(\varphi ^1\varphi ^2)/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ (2.16)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2e^{i(\varphi ^1+\varphi ^2)/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ (2.17)
Thus, a diagonal fermion “mass” term behaves in the same way under SO(5) rotations as

$$T_2=\mathrm{Re}[m_1dz_1d\overline{z}_2+m_2dz_1dz_2]$$
(2.18)
To make $`T_2`$ a Lorentz vector on the worldvolume all we have to do is tensor it with $`dx^{11}`$. We can also define on the transverse space the Hodge dual to $`T_2`$

$$T_3=_5T_2=\mathrm{Re}[m_1dz_1d\overline{z}_2+m_2dz_1dz_2]dx^7.$$
(2.19)
Note that if we set either fermion mass to zero, there is a remaining global $`U(1)`$ symmetry.

### 2.3 The first order perturbation

A general bulk 3-tensor with the SO(5) transformation properties of a fermion bilinear will be a combination of $`T_3`$ and $`V_3`$, multiplied by a power of $`r`$, where $`V_3`$ is given in the Appendix. Thus, we can express the bulk 3-tensor $`H_3`$ and 2-tensor $`F_2d(hZ^{1/3})`$ as

$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}}\right)^p(aV_2+bT_2)`$
$`G_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}}\right)^p(AV_3+BT_3)`$ (2.20)
where $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$ were found above, and $`V_2`$, $`V_3`$ together with some useful identities are given in the Appendix. Using the Bianchi identities for the field strengths $`F`$ and $`G`$ we get the constraints

$`pb`$ $`=`$ $`2a,`$
$`pB`$ $`=`$ $`3A.`$ (2.21)
Substituting (2.20), (2.21) into the harmonic form eq. (2.11), (2.13) we obtain the system:

$`(p+3)(b+pb/2+B)3(pB/3pb/2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(p+3)(b+B+pB/3)2(pB/3pb/2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.22)
which admits four real solutions: $`(p=0,b/B=1),(p=8,b/B=1);(p=5,b/B=2/3),(p=3,b/B=2/3)`$.

To interpret these modes, we need to know their conformal dimensions. To translate $`G_3=(1/3!)_iC_{11jk}^\mathrm{𝟏}dx^idx^jdx^k`$ to an inertial frame, we multiply (2.20) with $`\sqrt{G^{11,11}G^{ii}G^{jj}G^{kk}}=Z^{5/6}r^{5/2}`$.

Remembering that in AdS coordinates $`z_0r^{1/2}`$, we find that the modes of $`G_3`$ corresponding to $`p=3`$ and $`p=5`$ behave near the boundary as $`z_0`$ and $`z_0^5`$ respectively. Thus, they are the non-normalizable and respectively normalizable solutions corresponding to an operator of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=5`$, which is our fermion bilinear. By matching the $`R`$-symmetry representation and conformal dimension with the table of CFT operators given in , we find that the CFT operator is indeed a Lorentz vector, bilinear in fermions - the $`R`$-symmetry current. In previous situations , the CFT operator corresponding to perturbations in the bulk matching the $`R`$-symmetry representation of a fermion bilinear was always a Lorentz scalar. In our case, the only bilinear in fermions which is a chiral primary operator is the $`R`$-current. The corresponding bulk perturbations are vectors under the $`SO(5,1)`$ Lorentz group, as anticipated. The non-normalizable mode $`p=3`$ corresponds to the fermion “mass” perturbation, while the normalizable mode $`p=5`$ corresponds to the vev $`<\psi \psi >`$ . Thus an R-current corresponds to the bulk perturbation:

$$Z^1[_5d(hZ^{1/3})+G_3)]=\xi T_3$$
(2.23)
where $`\xi `$ is a numerical constant which relates the physical mass of the fermions to the coefficient of the bulk mode. From now on we will absorb $`\xi `$ in the fermion mass, and thus set it to 1 in the bulk Let us briefly discuss how one can relate the fermion “mass” term of the theory living on the boundary of $`AdS_7`$ to the mass parameter of the bulk perturbations (2.23, 2.18, 2.19). We start with the action of the M5-brane in an arbitrary sugra background . After fixing the $`\kappa `$-symmetry, half of the $`\theta `$ superspace coordinates are eliminated, while the other half become fermions on the worldvolume. Thus, by specifying our perturbed $`AdS_7`$ background, we can search for terms bilinear in fermions. For instance, a Lorentz vector “mass” term comes from the WZ term (specifically from the pull-back of $`C_6(X,\theta )`$, where $`E_M^{\underset{¯}{A}}`$ is no longer zero by gauge choice). However, since the only parameter we introduced is the bulk mass (in units where the AdS radius is one), this implies that we have at most a numerical constant relating the boundary mass to the bulk mass. . We only wrote down the combination of modes which later will appear in the KKM Lagrangian. It is interesting to notice that this particular combination is a harmonic function (as one can easily see from (2.11) and (2.13)). Therefore, it is determined by its value at the boundary (2.23), and does not depend on the particular form of $`Z`$.

Similarly, the modes with $`p=8`$ and $`p=0`$ correspond to a boundary operator of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=11`$. We can identify this operator to be $`HH\psi \psi `$, where $`H`$ is the selfdual 3-form of the 6d (2,0) tensor multiplet.

One might wonder if our perturbation (2.23) does not become stronger than the background is some regime. We will discuss this possibility in section 3.2.

## 3 Polarizing the M5 branes into KK Monopoles

We would like to investigate whether a large number of M5 branes can polarize into KK monopoles. If the self-interacting potential of a KKM wrapped on a 2 sphere, with a very large M5 charge has a minimum when the 2-sphere radius is nonzero, polarization occurs. In order to find this self interacting potential we first find the action for a test KKM with large M5 charge ($`n`$), in the potential created by a very large number $`N>>n`$ of M5 branes. Anticipating, this test potential will be found to be independent of the positions of the $`N`$ M5 branes. The full self interacting potential can be found by bringing from infinity test KKM/M5 shells. Since the potential of these shells does not depend on the positions of the other M5 branes, the probe calculation with $`n`$ replaced by $`N`$ will give the full self-interacting potential.

### 3.1 The KKM action

As we explained in the introduction, a Kaluza-Klein monopole in 11d supergravity is an object which has 7 longitudinal directions, 3 transverse, as well as a special isometry direction. When one compactifies along this isometry direction one obtains a D6 brane in IIA. If we express the D6 brane tension in terms of the radius of the 11’th direction ($`R_{11}`$) and the 11’th dimensional Planck length $`l_P`$, we find that it is proportional to $`R_{11}^2`$:

$$T_{D6}=\frac{1}{g(2\pi )^6\alpha ^{7/2}}=\frac{R_{11}^2}{l_P^9(2\pi )^6}.$$
(3.1)
Therefore, the KKM cannot be thought of as some 7 brane wrapped on the isometry direction. This direction is special, and gets special treatment in the action.

The action for a Kaluza-Klein monopole (KKM) was given by . As expected, it depends on the background geometry Killing vector $`k^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponding to the isometry direction.

In the unperturbed $`AdS_7\times S_4`$ background this Killing vector was found to be $`k_{}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}=\delta ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }11}`$. In the perturbed background, the variation $`\delta k^\mathrm{\Lambda }k_{}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ can be found by solving

$$D_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mathrm{𝟎}k_{\mathrm{\Pi })}^\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{1}{2}(h_{11\mathrm{\Lambda };\mathrm{\Pi }}+h_{11\mathrm{\Pi };\mathrm{\Lambda }}h_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi };11})$$
(3.2)
It may not come as a surprise that $`k^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is still proportional with $`\delta ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }11}`$, as one can easily check. However, since this Killing vector measures the length of the isometry direction at infinity, we normalize it as

$$k^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{R_{11}}{l_P}\delta ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }11}$$
(3.3)
The KKM action is the sum of a Born-Infeld (BI) and a Wess-Zumino (WZ) piece. The BI part (in an 11-dimensional sugra background) reads Identifying the reduced KKM action with the D6 action, not only allows us to relate their tensions, but the BI actions as well. As a consequence, the factor $`2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ appears in the KKM action, with the understanding that it is a parameter which depends on $`l_P`$ and $`R_{11}`$ as specified in (3.1).

$$S_{BI}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}d^7\xi k^2\sqrt{|det(D_aX^\mathrm{\Lambda }D_bX^\mathrm{\Pi }g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }}+(2\pi \alpha ^{})k^1_{ab})|}$$
(3.4)
where the covariant derivative is defined with respect to a gauge field $`D_aX^\mathrm{\Lambda }=_aX^\mathrm{\Lambda }+A_ak^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is not an independent field: $`A_a=k^2_aX^\mathrm{\Lambda }k_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The field strength of the one-form field $`b=b_ad\xi ^a`$ living on the worldvolume is

$$_{ab}=_ab_b_bb_a+1/(2\pi \alpha ^{})_aX^\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX^\mathrm{\Pi }k^\mathrm{\Sigma }C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }}$$
(3.5)
The WZ piece is

$$S_{WZ}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}K_7$$
(3.6)
where the $`K_7`$ is the field strength of a non-propagating worldvolume 6-form

$`K_7`$ $`=`$ $`d\omega _6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}(i_kN_8)+(i_kC_6)`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}}{(3!)^2}}DX^\mathrm{\Lambda }DX^\mathrm{\Pi }DX^\mathrm{\Sigma }C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i_kC_3)(i_kC_3)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}DX^\mathrm{\Lambda }DX^\mathrm{\Pi }DX^\mathrm{\Sigma }C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }}(i_kC_3)db`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{23!}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})DX^\mathrm{\Lambda }DX^\mathrm{\Pi }DX^\mathrm{\Sigma }C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }}dbdb`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2Adbdbdb`$
where, following  we wrote explicitly the pull-backs only when the covariant derivatives where involved. The 8-form $`N_8`$ is by definition the Poincaré dual of the Killing 1-form.

The action of the KKM is invariant under certain gauge transformations. We list only the ones which are relevant for this paper:

$`\delta C_3=d\chi _2`$ (3.8)
$`\delta i_kC_6=di_k\chi _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}di_k\chi _2C_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\chi _2i_kC_3`$ (3.9)
$`\delta i_kN_8=di_k\chi _5(i_kC_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}d\chi _2i_kC_3i_kC_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}di_k\chi _2C_3i_kC_3`$ (3.10)
From (3.10) we infer a gauge invariant definition of the field strength of $`i_kN_8`$:

$$di_kN_8=i_kdki_kC_6i_kF_4\frac{1}{6}C_3i_kC_3i_kF_4\frac{1}{6}i_kC_3i_kC_3F_4$$
(3.11)
We can convince ourselves that by varying (3.11) we get the same contributions we obtain by taking an exterior derivative in (3.10).

### 3.2 The KKM probe

We begin by testing the perturbed background geometry with a KKM probe. The monopole is wrapped on a 2-sphere in the (578) plane (anticipating, this will be one of the planes where polarization is most likely to occur) has 5 flat directions along $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^4`$, and has an M5 charge $`nN`$. The potential for more general orientations of the two-sphere will be considered in the following sections. The isometry direction is $`k^\mathrm{\Lambda }=(R_{11}/l_P)\delta ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }11}`$. As discussed in the previous subsection this is a Killing vector of the perturbed $`AdS_7\times S_4`$ geometry.

As one can see from the WZ term (3.7), the monopole will have M5 charge $`n`$ if we turn on its worldvolume 2-form field strength $`F_2`$:

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}\frac{R_{11}}{l_P}_{S_2}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F_2=(2\pi R_{11})T_{M5}n=\frac{2\pi R_{11}}{(2\pi )^5l_P^6}n,$$
(3.12)
which gives

$$(2\pi \alpha ^{})F_2=(2\pi \alpha ^{})F_{\theta \varphi }d\theta d\varphi =\frac{1}{2}2n\pi l_P^2\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi $$
(3.13)
We work in the regime in which the M5 contribution to the BI action of the probe monopole is dominant. Since we know the form of $`F_2`$, we can rewrite the BI action as

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}_{S_2}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi k^2\sqrt{detG_{||}}\sqrt{detG_{ab}+det\left(\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})_{ab}}{k}\right)}$$
(3.14)
where $`G_{||}`$ denotes the induced metric on the 5 space-time directions common to the KKM and the M5 brane, and $`a,b`$ are coordinates on the 2-sphere. We have assumed the integration over $`dx^0\mathrm{}dx^4`$ to be implicit, and we will assume this throughout this section. Using the induced metric $`G_{ab}=\{G_{\theta \theta }=Z^{2/3}r^2,G_{\varphi \varphi }=Z^{2/3}r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \}`$, we find the condition that the M5 contribution to the BI action dominates to be

$$det\left(\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})_{ab}}{k}\right)=\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{2k^2}det(G_{ab})_{ab}^{ab}detG_{ab},$$
(3.15)
or

$$\frac{(2\pi )^2l_P^6n^2Z^{4/3}r^4Z^{1/3}}{4R_{11}^2}1.$$
(3.16)
Under this assumption we can Taylor expand the BI action

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}_{S_2}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi k^2\sqrt{detG_{||}}\sqrt{det\left(\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})_{ab}}{k}\right)}\left[1+\frac{k^2detG_{ab}}{2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2det_{ab}}\right]$$
(3.17)
and find the leading contribution

$$\frac{R_{11}}{2(2\pi )^5l_P^6}_{S_2}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi Z^1n\mathrm{sin}\theta =\frac{R_{11}}{(2\pi )^4l_P^6}Z^1n$$
(3.18)
and the subleading one

$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{11}^3}{(2\pi )^7l_P^{12}}}{\displaystyle _{S_2}}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi Z^{1/2}Z^{5/6}{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{4/3}r^4\mathrm{sin}\theta }{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{2R_{11}^3}{(2\pi )^6l_P^{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{n}}.`$ (3.19)
The leading terms in the BI and WZ actions represent M5-M5 interaction, and cancel as expected. More explicitly, the WZ leading contribution is

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}i_kC_6^\mathrm{𝟎}(2\pi \alpha ^{})F_2=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^5l_P^6}\frac{R_{11}}{2}_{S_2}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi Z^1n\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(3.20)
and cancels against (3.18).

The subleading contribution to the WZ term comes from $`i_kN_8`$. When the bulk graviphoton and three form perturbation is turned on, several terms in (3.11) ($`i_k^\mathrm{𝟎}dk^\mathrm{𝟏}+i_k^\mathrm{𝟏}dk^\mathrm{𝟎}+i_kC_6^\mathrm{𝟎}i_kF_4^\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ) become nonzero. We find

$$di_kN_8=\frac{R_{11}^2}{l_P^2}\left[Z^1(_5d(hZ^{1/3})+G_3)\right)]dx^0\mathrm{}dx^4$$
(3.21)
which has the solution $`i_kN_8=(1/3!)(R_{11}^2/l_P^2)T_{mnp}x^mdx^ndx^pdx^0\mathrm{}dx^4`$. It is interesting to notice that $`i_kN_8`$ only depends on the combination $`Z^1[_5d(hZ^{1/3})+G_3)]`$, which is independent of the distribution of the M5 branes, as we discussed in section 2.2.

We can see from (2.19) that the WZ subleading contribution is the largest if the 2 sphere is in the (578) or the (679) planes (depending on the signs and magnitudes of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$). We will assume from now on that both $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are positive, and call their sum $`m`$. Thus the test brane will have a local minima in both the (578) and (679) planes when $`m_20`$, and only in the (578) for $`m_2m_1`$.

Thus, the WZ contribution to the action is

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^6l_P^7}i_kN_8=m\frac{4\pi R_{11}^2}{(2\pi )^6l_P^9}r^3.$$
(3.22)
Besides the BI and the WZ contributions found above there is yet another contribution of the same order which comes from the second order perturbation to the fields, and which will be discussed in the next chapter. The polarization radius $`r_0`$ is of the same order as the radius where $`V_{BI}+V_{WZ}`$ is minimized. Thus

$$r_0\frac{nml_P^3}{R_{11}}.$$
(3.23)
Substituting in (3.16) we find that we can treat the KKM as a probe if

$$nR_{11}mN.$$
(3.24)
We can also ask if the strength of the perturbation is anywhere larger than the energy density in the unperturbed AdS background

$$\frac{|F_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟏}}|^2}{|F_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}|^2}\frac{r^1Rm^2}{R^2}\frac{m^2l_P^3N}{r}$$
(3.25)
The fraction (3.25) grows as $`r`$ decreases towards $`r_0`$. Nevertheless, inside the shell we expect this ratio to be of the same order as at $`r_0`$. By estimating (3.25) at the polarization radius we can see that the perturbation is always small if (3.24) holds.

We would like to examine more the physical implications of (3.24), which is necessary for this polarization picture to be correct. Since in the final computation $`n`$ will be replaced by $`N`$, (3.24) is equivalent to $`R_{11}m1`$, which seems to imply that we are in fact describing only 5-dimensional physics. What we are describing is in fact the perturbed (2,0) theory compactified on a circle of radius $`R_{11}`$.

We can estimate the effective radius of the 11’th dimension $`R_{11}^{physical}=R_{11}Z^{1/6}`$ we find its lowest bulk value to be $`N^{1/3}(mR_{11})^{1/2}l_p`$ (except very near the KKM shell, when physics is described by the theory living on the KKM). In the spirit of , this implies that for $`N(mR_{11})^{3/2}`$ (which is the regime we will be considering), the 10 dimensional string coupling constant is large everywhere in the bulk, and thus 11 dimensional supergravity is the appropriate perturbative description. For smaller energy scales the perturbative description of our theory will be described by a IIA supergravity in the bulk, and for even smaller energy scales $`R_{11}m1/N`$ the super-Yang Mills theory on the D4 branes. We will also find that the bulk describes the properties of the objects living in this theory, which are the objects living on coincident M5 branes.

The fact that we can only have a polarization state in the regime $`mR_{11}<1`$ seems puzzling if the theory we are dealing with is supersymmetric. Indeed, one does not expect a vacuum to just go away, as we increase adiabatically $`m`$ or $`R_{11}`$. Nevertheless, this is exactly what happens. The answer to this puzzle will be found in the next chapter - in order to polarize the branes one needs to break all supersymmetry.

### 3.3 The full problem

We use the results of the previous section to solve the full problem of a self-interacting KKM with large M5 charge. The self-interaction potential can be found by bringing from infinity probe KKM’s with M5 charge in the background of polarized M5 branes. As we will immediately show, the potential these probes feel is unaffected by the distribution of the M5 branes. Therefore, the total self-interaction potential will be the same as the potential of a single shell, with $`n`$ replaced by $`N`$.

The geometry of a distribution of M5 will still be given by (2.4), but the warp factor $`Z`$ is a superposition of harmonic functions. For the case of $`N`$ M5 branes uniformly distributed on a 2-sphere of radius $`r_0`$ in the (578) hyperplane, the warp factor is

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{R^3\mathrm{sin}\theta }{(r_0^2+r_1^2+r_2^22r_0r_1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{3/2}}}`$ (3.26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^3}{2r_0r_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(r_0r_1)^2+r_2^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(r_0+r_1)^2+r_2^2}}}\right)`$
where $`r_1`$ is the radius in the (578) hyperplane and $`r_2`$ is the radius in the (69) plane. For large $`r_1,r_2`$ we recover the $`AdS_7`$ warp factor. If the M5 branes are distributed on several shells, then the total warp factor will be the sum of each shell $`Z`$ factor.

As we explained in Section 2, equations (2.11) and (2.13) imply that $`Z^1[_5d(hZ^{1/3})+G_3)]`$ is a harmonic function, and therefore it is given by its value at infinity, regardless of the value of $`Z`$. This is exactly the combination that enters the WZ term of the KKM. Also, in the large $`N`$ limit, the BI term can be expanded as in (3.17), and the cancellation of the leading WZ and BI takes place as before. The subleading terms are unchanged, and have no $`Z`$ dependence. We thus conclude, that for each M5 shell the potential is the same as the probe potential.

The most general polarized configuration consistent with the symmetries is a KKM wrapped on a two-ellipsoid:

$$x_7=\underset{¯}{x_7}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,z_1=\underset{¯}{z_1}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta ,z_2=\underset{¯}{z_2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta ,$$
(3.27)
where $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are defined in (2.15), $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ parameterize the embedding, and $`\underset{¯}{x_7},\underset{¯}{z_1}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{z_2}`$ give the length and orientation the semiaxes. It is a straightforward exercise to express the contribution of the BI and WZ potentials in terms of the semiaxes of the probe ellipsoid

$`V_{BI+WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2R_{11}^3}{3n(2\pi )^6l_P^{12}}}(|z_1|^2x_7^2+|z_2|^2x_7^2+|z_1|^2|z_2|^2)`$ (3.28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi R_{11}^2}{(2\pi )^6l_P^9}}\mathrm{Re}(m_1z_1\overline{z}_2x_7+m_2z_1z_2x_7),`$
where we have dropped the subscripts on the semiaxes to keep notation simple. From now and throughout this chapter we will denote the semiaxes by $`x_7,z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ without an underline.

There is another term in this potential which comes from a second order correction to the background. This term has the same relevance as the first two, and is hard to compute explicitly (it has been done in ). We have already discussed that by giving masses to either of the two fermions we break half of the original amount of supersymmetry ((2,0) in 6 dimensions). Thus, when one of the fermion masses ($`m_2`$ in this case) is zero, we can use supersymmetry to complete the squares in (3.28). This gives the complete effective potential

$`V_{total}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2R_{11}^3}{3n(2\pi )^6l_P^{12}}}[(|z_1|^2x_7^2+|z_2|^2x_7^2+|z_1|^2|z_2|^2){\displaystyle \frac{6\pi nl_P^3}{R_{11}}}\mathrm{Re}(m_1z_1\overline{z}_2x_7)`$ (3.29)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi nl_P^3}{2R_{11}}}\right)^2m_1^2(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)],`$
is derived in the usual way from the superpotential $`W`$

$$W=\sqrt{\frac{2R_{11}^3}{3n(2\pi )^6l_P^{12}}}\left[z_1z_2x_7\frac{3n\pi l_P^3}{4R_{11}}m_1(z_1^2+z_2^2)\right]$$
(3.30)
The potential (3.29) has only one minimum at $`x_7=z_1=z_2=0`$. We conclude that the polarization of M5 branes into a wrapped KKM is not possible if we have any supersymmetry left.

We remember that in , one had to give mass to at least 3 of the 4 complex Weyl fermions in order for polarization to occur. In our case (as well as in the D4-D6 case), we only have two fermions, so one can either give mass to one (1/2 of the fermions) which preserves $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry but is not enough for polarization, or give mass to both fermions, break supersymmetry completely, and polarize the branes \**\**\**Naively one might think that by T-dualizing the D3-D5 polarization of  to a D4-D6 configuration we do not lose supersymmetry. We can see that this is not the case, both by investigating the theory on the brane (one needs to pair the D3 fermions two by two to obtain D4 brane fermions, and thus cannot consistently give mass to one fermion and a half), or by realizing that the bulk in  has no isometry along the T-duality direction..

There are two ways one can bypass this problem ††††††Similar methods and a more thorough discussion can be found in .. The first one is to consider an “almost supersymmetric” situation, when the susy breaking mass $`m_2`$ is far smaller than $`m_1`$. One can still use supersymmetry to complete the squares in (3.28), and find the potential to be

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2R_{11}^3}{3n(2\pi )^6l_P^{12}}}[(|z_1|^2x_7^2+|z_2|^2x_7^2+|z_1|^2|z_2|^2){\displaystyle \frac{6\pi nl_P^3}{R_{11}}}\mathrm{Re}(m_1z_1\overline{z}_2x_7+m_2z_1z_2x_7)`$ (3.31)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3nl_P^3}{2R_{11}}}\right)^2(m_1^2|z_1|^2+m_1^2|z_2|^2+4m_2^2x_7^2)].`$
In this case, the M5 branes will polarize into a monopole wrapped on an ellipsoid. The new potential has a minimum at

$`z_1=z_2=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi nl_P^3}{R_{11}}}=x_5=x_8,x_7={\displaystyle \frac{3\pi nl_P^3}{2R_{11}}}m_1`$ (3.32)
Clearly, the ellipsoid is very elongated in the $`x_7`$ direction, and in the supersymmetric case it degenerates into a line.

The second way to find the last term of the potential (3.28) is to consider an SO(3) invariant nonsupersymmetric configuration. The last term of (3.29) represents a mass given to 4 of the 5 scalars in our theory. The most general scalar mass term can be written as:

$$m^2(\mathrm{\Phi }_5^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_6^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_8^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_9^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_7^2)+\mu _{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j,$$
(3.33)
where the first piece is an $`L=0`$ combination and the second one is a combination of various $`L=2`$ modes. In the supersymmetric case $`\mathrm{\Phi }_7`$ is part of the same multiplet as the self-dual 3-form and half of the fermions, and remains massless, while the other 4 scalars receive identical masses. Thus, supersymmetry constraints the last term of (3.33) to be

$$\mu _{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j=\frac{m^2}{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }_5^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_6^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_8^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_9^24\mathrm{\Phi }_7^2)$$
(3.34)
In the nonsupersymmetric case only the $`L=0`$ mode is determined by the back reaction of the first order fields. The $`L=2`$ modes can be specified independently in the boundary theory (this issue is discussed very briefly here, for a more thorough treatment we refer the reader to ). Let us consider the case when both fermions have equal masses $`m_1=m_2=m`$. We can turn off (3.34) to restore the SO(5) symmetry between $`x_5,x_6,x_8,x_9`$ and $`x_7`$, and turn on an $`L=2`$ mode which preserves the SO(3) symmetry in the polarization plane spanned by $`x_5,x_8,x_7`$.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi }_5^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_8^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_7^2\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_6^2\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_9^2)$$
(3.35)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of order $`m^2`$ or higher, a state in which the KKM is wrapped on a sphere of radius of order $`r_0`$ will have energy less than the vacuum energy. Thus, the M5 branes will polarize into a KKM wrapped on a 2-sphere of radius of order $`r_0(nml_P^3)/R_{11}`$, in the $`578`$ hyperplane.

When there is more than one shell, the potential is the sum of individual pieces of the form (3.28). One can also estimate the polarization potential for $`Q`$ coincident KKM shells and find that $`r_{polarization}r_0/Q`$. This configuration should also be part of the many vacua the perturbed theory should have.

Thus, the vacua of the theory will consist of multiple M5-KKM (ellipsoidal or spherical) shells. We will concentrate in the rest of this paper on the SO(3) invariant nonsupersymmetric theories which correspond to polarization into a 2-sphere. The generalization to the almost supersymmetric theories can be easily done.

### 3.4 The near shell solution

The KK monopole solution without M5 charge, is given by the $`R^7\times `$ Taub-NUT space,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +V(r)(dx^{11}+4M(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\varphi )^2`$
$`+`$ $`V(r)^1(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)`$
$`V(r)^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{r}}.`$ (3.36)
Near $`r=0`$ the metric $`ds^2(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+r^2(dx^{11}/4M)^2)`$ has a nut singularity which is removed only if $`x^{11}`$ has period $`16\pi M=2\pi R_{11}`$. Thus the charge of the monopole is proportional to the length of the periodic isometry coordinate. This explains why the effective tension of the monopole scales with $`R_{11}^2`$. The requirement for the periodicity of $`x^{11}`$ can also be extracted from the requirement that there is no Dirac string singularity (this is explained in more detail in ).

One might be worried that upon adding a very large M5 charge to the monopole, the metric would be changed and the condition for not having a Dirac string would change from $`R_{11}M`$, to some formula which also includes the M5 charge. We thus need to examine the metric of a flat KKM with large M5 charge. This metric can be easily found  by lifting the D4-D6 metric  obtained by T-dualizing smeared tilted D5 branes. If we call $`\alpha `$ the original D5 tilting angle, and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ the original number of D5 branes, we obtain the flat KKM/M5 metric to be:

$`ds^2=`$ $`h^{1/3}dx_{}^2+h^{2/3}(dx_7^2+dx_8^2)+Zh^{1/3}(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)`$ (3.37)
$`+h^{2/3}Z^1(dx^{11}+\stackrel{~}{N}l_P\mathrm{cos}\alpha (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\varphi )^2,`$
where

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{N}l_P}{r}},`$ (3.38)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\stackrel{~}{N}l_P/r}{1+\stackrel{~}{N}l_P\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha /r}}`$ (3.39)
We can see that when $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =0`$, $`h`$ and $`Z`$ are equal and we recover the metric of multiple M5 branes smeared on a 2-plane. When $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =1,h=1`$ and we recover the plain KKM solution (3.36). By comparing (3.37) with (3.26) near the shell we can identify the coordinates $`r`$ and $`\rho =\sqrt{(r_0r_1)^2+r_2^2}`$. We can also express the dummy coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\alpha `$ in (3.39) in terms of our physical near shell parameters by comparing (3.37) with (3.26) and (3.36). We find the near horizon limits of $`Z`$ and $`h`$:

$$Z=\frac{\pi l_p^3N}{2r_0^2\rho },h=\frac{\pi l_p^3N}{2r_0^2\left(\rho +\frac{R_{11}^2r_0^2}{2\pi l_p^3N}\right)}$$
(3.40)
We can also express the factor $`\stackrel{~}{N}\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ from (3.37) as:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}l_P\mathrm{cos}\alpha =R_{11}/2.$$
(3.41)
Thus, $`dx^{11}`$ and $`d\varphi `$ appear with the same relative coefficient as in in (3.36) and therefore the condition for no Dirac string is unaffected by the presence of M5 charge.

The KKM contribution to the metric becomes important only very close to the shell, at $`\rho \frac{R_{11}^2r_0^2}{2\pi l_P^3N}Nm^2l_P^3\rho _{crossover}`$. We can see from (3.23) that $`\frac{\rho _{crossover}}{r_0}mR_{11}1`$, and thus the picture of the KKM wrapped on a 2-sphere is consistent.

We can find the range of validity of the supergravity approximation by comparing $`l_P`$ to the radius of the transverse sphere in (3.37). We find supergravity valid if

$$\left(\frac{\rho }{\rho _{crossover}}\right)^{3/2}Nm^2R_{11}^21,$$
(3.42)
which is easily satisfied at large $`N`$, even for $`\rho <\rho _{crossover}`$. We also know that for $`\rho <\rho _{crossover}`$ the geometry becomes that of a KKM, which is regular everywhere. Thus, if supergravity is valid at $`\rho \rho _{crossover}`$, it is valid everywhere.

## 4 The properties of the vacua of the perturbed theory

We are now at the stage to begin exploring the properties of the M5-KKM vacua we found above. We know that the original (2,0) theory has little strings, and “baryon vertices”. We expect to find these objects in the perturbed theory as well. Moreover, since now we have many vacua we expect to have domain walls separating them. We would like to find the bulk M-theory configurations corresponding to these objects.

### 4.1 Little strings

The nonperturbed (2,0) theory has two types of little strings. The “quark” little strings are massive, and correspond to M2 branes lowered from infinity and ending on the stack of M5 branes. The other little strings are M2 branes going from one M5 brane to another, and are massless when the M5 branes are coincident.

The interaction energy between two “quark” little strings can be found by estimating the energy of the bulk M2 brane whose boundary the strings are . In the UV, the M2 brane stays very near the AdS boundary, and thus does not know that the M5 branes sourcing the geometry are polarized. This is expected - giving a small mass to massless fields should not affect UV physics. In the infrared, the M2 brane gets near the M5-KKM shell and interacts with it, and thus the physics will change.

Let us consider two largely separated parallel strings which are the boundary of an M2 brane which comes very near the KKM-M5 shell. In the limit when the strings are very far apart, the largest contribution to the interaction energy comes from the part of the M2 brane which is parallel to the shell.

Since we have broken Lorentz invariance by turning on an R-current, the interaction energy will depend on the orientation as well as on the direction of separation of the little strings.

For the sake of clarity, let us explain in a bit more detail what the setup is. The polarized M5’s span the $`0,1,2,3,4,11`$ directions, with the 11th direction compactified on a circle of radius $`R_{11}`$. The KKM in which the M5’s polarize has the topology $`R^4\times S_2`$, with the 11th direction being the isometry direction. If we use polar coordinates in the plane of the $`S_2`$, the KKM is aligned along $`0,1,2,3,4,\theta ,\varphi `$. The geometry at infinity is still $`AdS_7\times S_4`$, with the boundary of $`AdS_7`$ spanned by $`0,1,2,3,4,11`$. The radial coordinate of $`AdS_7`$ is $`r`$.

We distinguish two possible situations, depending on the orientation and separation of the “quark” little strings:

i) None of the directions of the M2 brane is 11. This corresponds to non-11 strings separated along any direction but 11. The action of the M2 brane is proportional to the square root of the determinant of the induced metric. From (3.37) we find this to be $`\sqrt{det(G_{\mathrm{induced}})}=h^{1/2}`$. Since $`h`$ remains finite as we approach the shell ($`\rho 0`$), the interaction energy of two little strings is proportional to their separation. Thus the strings are confined.

One can easily estimate the tension of the confining “flux tube”, However, there is a caveat - the supergravity approximation is valid at $`\rho \rho _{crossover}`$ only for $`Nm^2R_{11}`$ large enough (3.42). Unless this condition is satisfied, we cannot use (3.37) at $`r\rho _{crossover}`$ to reliably compute this tension. Thus,

$$T=T_{M2}h^{1/2}|_{min}\frac{r_0^2R_{11}}{l_p^6N}\frac{m^2N}{R_{11}}.$$
(4.1)
ii) One of the direction of the M2 brane is 11. This corresponds to either non-11 strings separated along the 11’th directions, or to (0,11) strings separated along any other direction. In this case $`det(G_{\mathrm{induced}})=Z^{1/2}`$. Since $`Z^1`$ goes to zero as $`r0`$, it does not cost any energy to take the strings further apart. Thus the strings are “screened”. The M-theory explanation of this phenomenon is that the 2 sides of the M2 brane attach to the shell, and they are free to move apart.

We also expect the tensionless strings to get an effective tension as we turn on $`m`$. We can use a naive argument to estimate this tension. The original tensionless strings come from M2 branes stretched between coincident M5 branes. When the $`N`$ M5 branes are spread on a 2-sphere of radius $`r_0`$, the average separation between them will be of order $`r_0N^{1/2}`$, which will give an effective tension of order

$$T_{effective}r_0N^{1/2}(G_{55}G_{00}G_{ii})^{1/2}=r_0N^{1/2}$$
(4.2)
for (0,i) little strings, and

$$T_{effective}r_0N^{1/2}(G_{55}G_{00}G_{11,11})^{1/2}=r_0N^{1/2}hZ^1$$
(4.3)
for (0,11) little strings. It appears that the (0,11) strings remain massless. However, more is happening. At the KKM core the size of the 11’th dimension is zero, and thus a string originally winding on the 11’th direction disappears from the spectrum.

### 4.2 Domain walls

The perturbed theory has many isolated vacua, which must be separated by domain walls. If the two vacua have the same number of KKM’s but different distributions of M5 charge, the KKM’s will generically intersect on a 2 sphere on which they will exchange M5 charge. This bulk configuration is dual to the boundary theory domain wall. The tension of the domain wall is given by the bending tension of the configuration.

If the vacua have different numbers of KKM’s, $`Q_1Q_2`$, the monopoles intersect again on a 2-sphere where they exchange M5 charge. By KKM charge conservation, a KKM with charge $`Q_2Q_1`$ will fill the 3-ball whose boundary the 2-sphere is. The tension will have an extra piece coming from the energy of the KKM’s which fill the 2-sphere.

If we do not have any supersymmetry, the two vacua separated by the domain wall will have generically different energies, and thus the domain wall will be moving. In the limit in which supersymmetry is restored, the energies of the vacua are almost the same, and the domain walls will be almost stationary

### 4.3 Baryon vertices

In the unperturbed $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ background the string baryon vertex is an M5 brane wrapped on $`S_4`$, with $`N`$ M2 branes lowered from the boundary ending on it. This configuration has been discussed thoroughly in .

Let us analyze what happens to the baryon vertex in the background of polarized M5’s. In the UV the physics is not affected by the perturbation, and thus the baryon vertex corresponds to an M5 brane wrapped on $`S_4`$. As we flow to the IR, the wrapped M5 eventually reaches the KKM shell and crosses it. In order to see if any objects are created via the Hanany-Witten effect , let us “zoom in” on a region near the shell where the branes look almost flat and $`\widehat{r}\widehat{x}_5`$.

Since the 11’th direction was made special by turning on an R-current, we will first analyze a baryon vertex which is not extended along the 11’th direction, and then analyze one which is. Let us consider a baryon vertex M5 brane locally extended along the $`0,1,6,7,8,9`$ directions, and a KKM locally extended along $`0,1,2,3,4,6,7`$. We claim that when we bring the M5 brane along $`x_5`$ and cross the KKM another M5 brane is created, extended in the $`0,1,5,6,7,11`$ directions. It appears puzzling that the new brane is extended along the 11’th direction. Nevertheless, we believe that this is indeed the case. There are three arguments one can give to support this. The first is that one obtains this configuration by lifting to 11 dimensions the Hanany-Witten effect at the crossing of an NS5-brane and a D6-brane, when a D4-brane is created transverse to the other two. The second is that, the KKM end of the created brane is magnetic with respect to the 2-form field strength on the monopole, as it should be. The third one will follow when we investigate the properties of the new baryon vertex.

As one brings the wrapped M5 through the KKM shell, the M2 branes hanging from the boundary will end on the intersection of the created M5 with the KKM, and there will be nothing preventing the original wrapped M5 to shrink to zero size.

Thus, the bulk dual of the new baryon vertex is an M5 brane which fills the 3-ball whose boundary the KKM 2-sphere is, and which has one direction along the isometry direction. To justify the baryon vertex name, we look at the KKM action (3.7) term

$$d^7\xi Dx^\mathrm{\Lambda }Dx^\mathrm{\Pi }Dx^\mathrm{\Sigma }C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }}dbdb$$
(4.4)
where $`b`$ is the one-form on the worldvolume of the monopole. Let us denote $`db`$ by $`F_2`$. Due to the magnetic ending of the created M5, the Bianchi identity gets modified and this term will no longer be gauge invariant under the background gauge transformation $`\delta C_3=d\chi _2`$:

$$\delta F_2(\mathrm{monopole})\mathrm{F}_2(\mathrm{dissolved})\mathrm{C}_3=\mathrm{dF}_2(\mathrm{monopole})\mathrm{F}_2(\mathrm{dissolved})\chi _2$$
(4.5)
unless $`N`$ M2’s descend from the boundary to the M5-KKM junction.

One might also be worried that the new baryon vertex is extended along three directions (0,1,11), and might have a higher energy than the original baryon vertex which is only extended along (0,1). We can calculate this energy using the induced metric (3.26)

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_P^6}}R_{11}4\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑x^0𝑑x^1𝑑r_1r_1^2Z^{1/2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi R_{11}}{l_P^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^0𝑑x^1_0^{r_0}𝑑r_1r_1^2\sqrt{\frac{R^3}{2r_0r_1}\left(\frac{1}{r_0r_1}\frac{1}{r_0+r_1}\right)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x^0𝑑x^1\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2R_{11}(Rr_0)^{3/2}}{l_P^6}}`$ (4.6)
Substituting $`r_0`$ we obtain the new baryon vertex energy:

$$E𝑑x^0𝑑x^1\sqrt{N}m^{3/2}R_{11}^{1/2}$$
(4.7)
The energy of an M5 brane wrapped on $`S^4`$ of radius $`\rho _{crossover}`$, namely the old baryon vertex at the point where M-theory phenomena like the Hanany-Witten effect described above appear, is

$$ET_{M5}𝑑x^0𝑑x^1Z(\rho )\rho _{crossover}^4𝑑x^0𝑑x^1N^2m^4R_{11}^2$$
(4.8)
where we used the near shell metric to compute the induced metric on $`S^4`$.

Thus the condition that the new configuration has a lower energy is

$$1N^{3/2}(mR_{11})^{5/2}$$
(4.9)
which is easily satisfied for sufficiently large $`N`$.

When the UV baryon vertex is extended along $`x_{11}`$, there does not seem to be any object created when it passes through the KKM shell. This is consistent with the fact that strings extended along $`x_{11}`$ are screened. Once the baryon vertex gets near the KKM shell these strings can attach to the it, and there is nothing to prevent the M5 brane from collapsing. Thus the baryon vertex extended along $`x_{11}`$ disappears in the IR.

## 5 Conclusions and future directions

We investigated the effect of a fermion R-current perturbation on the (2,0) theory living on the worldvolume of $`N`$ coincident M5 branes. We found the dual M-theory background to contain the M5-branes polarized into Kaluza-Klein monopoles, with the isometry direction of the monopoles on the worldvolume of the M5-branes. However, we showed that polarization is possible only when all the supersymmetry is broken.

We examined the properties of the vacua of the perturbed theory. We discovered that (0,i) tensionless little strings acquire a tension, while the (0,11) tensionless little strings disappear from the spectrum.

The “quark” little strings extended along the isometry directions are screened, and the strings which are not extended along $`x^{11}`$ are confined. We also found the tension of the confining flux tube

We also found the new IR description of the string baryon vertex, by flowing the UV baryon vertex (which is an M5-brane wrapped on $`S_4`$) to the IR. A new M5-brane is formed when the UV vertex crosses the M5-KKM shell. This new baryon vertex fills the 3-ball whose boundary the KKM is, and is extended along the isometry direction. The remaining confined little strings will have precisely this baryon vertex. We checked that the new baryon configuration is energetically preferred to the old one. We have also given an M-theory description to the domain walls in the perturbed theory.

This paper completes a missing piece in the understanding of brane polarization, by showing that M5 branes can and do polarize into Kaluza-Klein monopoles. The new configuration might be a good setup for an entropy computation in the spirit of  to see if the correction to the entropy has $`N^3`$ behavior.

It is also interesting to ask if the M5 $``$ KKM polarization exhausts the series of possible brane polarizations. Besides the Dp $``$ D(p+2), the D2,D3 $``$ NS5 polarizations explored in , and the F1 $``$ D4 polarization which is the reduction of the M2 $``$ M5 polarization studied in , it looks like type IIA F1 strings and D4 branes might polarize into D2 branes and respectively NS5 branes, wrapped on a one-sphere. This is supported by the fact that a D2/NS5 brane wrapped on a one-sphere can have quantized F1/D4 charge. These possible polarizations would be however different from the ones studied so far, for two reasons.

First, the F1 string and the D2 brane come from the same object in M-theory. Lifting a D2 wrapped on a one sphere with a large F1 charge to 11 dimensions one obtains a helix shaped M2 brane wrapped on the 11’th direction. Even if this configuration might be stable in a perturbed theory, it is quite unlikely that it will be an isolated vacuum like before.

Second, one can also find the powers of $`r`$ which appear in the polarization potential (the equivalent of 3.29) ‡‡‡‡‡‡We thank W. Taylor for bringing this to our attention.. The potential will contain three $`r^2`$ terms. Thus, in the supersymmetric case this potential will either vanish (in which case we expect to have a moduli space of possible polarization vacua) or have only one minimum at $`r=0`$ (which means no polarization). In the nonsupersymmetric case a static configuration might exist at a nonzero radius (determined by the balance of potential terms from other sources). We believe it is worth investigating whether these polarization states exist at all, and what are their properties.

Acknowledgments: We are very grateful to Joe Polchinski for numerous discussions and reading the manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge useful conversations with Aleksey Nudelman, Alex Buchel, Wati Taylor, and Radu Roiban. The work of I.B. was supported in part by NSF grant PHY97-22022 and the work of D.V. by NSF grant 9722101.

## 6 Appendix

We list several properties of the antisymmetric 2- and 3-tensors which form a basis for forms on the transverse space.

$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}({\displaystyle \frac{x^qx^m}{r^2}}T_{qnp}+2\mathrm{more})dx^mdx^ndx^p`$ (6.1)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}({\displaystyle \frac{x^qx^i}{r^2}}T_{qj}+1\mathrm{more})dx^idx^j`$ (6.2)
$`T_2V_2`$ $`=`$ $`_5V_3`$ (6.3)
$`d(\mathrm{ln}r)V_3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (6.4)
$`d(\mathrm{ln}r)_5V_3`$ $`=`$ $`d(\mathrm{ln}r)_5T_3`$ (6.5)
$`d(V_3)`$ $`=`$ $`3d(\mathrm{ln}r)T_3`$ (6.6)
$`d(_5V_3)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}r_5T_3`$ (6.7)


text:
# Infinite Volume and Continuum Limits of the Landau-Gauge Gluon Propagator

## I Introduction

There has long been interest in the infrared behavior of the gluon propagator as a probe into the mechanism of confinement  and lattice studies focusing on its ultraviolet behavior have been used to calculate the running QCD coupling . In this report we use the propagator as a test-bed for an improved action and also as a means to investigate a general tree-level correction technique.

The infrared part of any lattice calculation may be affected by the finite volume of the lattice. Larger volumes mean either more lattice points (with increased computational cost) or coarser lattices (with corresponding discretization errors). Improved actions have been shown to be effective at reducing discretization errors at a given lattice spacing in studies of the static quark potential  and the hadron spectrum  and have become a necessary part of finite temperature studies . The desire for larger physical volumes thus provides strong motivation for using improved actions. We study the gluon propagator, in Landau gauge, in quenched QCD (pure SU(3) Yang-Mills), using the mean-field (tadpole) improved  version of the tree-level, $`𝒪(a^2)`$ Symanzik improved gauge action .

To assess the effects of finite lattice spacing, we calculate the propagator on a set of lattices from $`8^3\times 16`$ at $`\beta =3.75`$ having $`a=0.413`$ fm to $`16^3\times 32`$ at $`\beta =4.38`$ having $`a=0.167`$ fm. To assist us in observing possible finite volume effects, we add to this set a $`16^3\times 32`$ lattice at $`\beta =3.92`$ with $`a=0.353`$, which has the very large physical size of $`5.65^3\times 11.30\text{ fm}^4`$. Some preliminary results of this work were reported in Ref. .

We will show that tree-level correction reduces rotational symmetry breaking and dramatically improves the ultraviolet behavior of the propagator and thus the approach to the continuum limit. For lattices as coarse as 0.17 fm the gluon propagator has surprisingly good behavior for the entire range of available momenta. The infrared behavior of the gluon propagator is robust even with an extremely coarse lattice spacing of 0.41 fm. Our calculations on a lattice with a large volume indicates that finite volume effects are small. The Landau gauge gluon propagator is again found to be infrared finite, in agreement with earlier studies. The combination of an improved action with appropriate tree-level correction appears to be a powerful tool. The generalization of these methods to the study of other Green’s functions will be discussed in a forthcoming work .

## II The Landau gauge gluon propagator

We employ the tree-level, mean-field improved gauge action of Lüscher and Weisz

$`S_\text{l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5\beta }{3N_c}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{pl}}{}}\text{Tr}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(P_{\mu \nu }+P_{\mu \nu }^{}\right)\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{12N_cu_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{rect}}{}}\text{Tr}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(R_{\mu \nu }+R_{\mu \nu }^{}\right)\right\}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`S_{\text{cont}}+𝒪(a^4)+𝒪(a^2g^2),`$ (2)
where $`P_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ are the usual plaquette and rectangle operators

$$P_{\mu \nu }(x)=U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x)$$
(3)
and

$`R_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\nu (x+\widehat{\nu }+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+2\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x)`$ (5)
$`+U_\mu (x)U_\mu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\nu (x+2\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x),`$
and $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors. We use the plaquette definition for the tadpole factor

$$u_0=\left(\frac{1}{N_c}e\mathrm{Tr}P_{\mu \nu }\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(6)
Our gauge field configurations were generated using the Cabbibo-Marinari  pseudo-heatbath algorithm with appropriate link partitioning .

Given that the gauge links $`U_\mu (x)`$ are expressed in terms of the continuum gluon fields as

$$U_\mu (x)=𝒫e^{ig_0^1A_\mu (x+at\widehat{\mu })𝑑t},$$
(7)
the dimensionless lattice gluon field $`A_\mu (x)`$ may be obtained from

$$A_\mu (x+\widehat{\mu }/2)=\frac{1}{2igu_0}\left\{U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)\right\}_{\text{traceless}}$$
(8)
which is accurate to $`𝒪(a^2)`$. This is, of course, only one of many possible ways to calculate the gluon field on the lattice. In Eq. (8), $`A_\mu `$ is calculated at the midpoint of the link to remove $`𝒪(a)`$ terms. Note that we have also included the tadpole factor to improve the normalization.

We calculate the gluon propagator in coordinate space

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(x,y)A_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(y),$$
(9)
using Eq. (8). To improve statistics, we use translational invariance and calculate

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(y)=\frac{1}{V}\underset{x}{}A_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(x+y).$$
(10)
The quantity that will be of interest to us is the scalar part of the propagator in momentum space, so first we take the trace over color components

$$D_{\mu \nu }(y)=\frac{1}{N_c^21}\underset{a}{}D_{\mu \nu }^{aa}(y),$$
(11)
then sum over the Lorentz components***The Landau gauge condition in momentum space, $`q_\mu D_{\mu \nu }(q)=0`$ places a constraint on the Lorentz components of the propagator so that, for non-zero momentum, there are $`N_d1`$ degrees of freedom . of the Fourier transform

$$D(\widehat{q})=\frac{1}{N_d1}\underset{\mu }{}\underset{y}{}e^{i\widehat{q}y}D_{\mu \mu }(y)$$
(12)
and

$$D(0)=\frac{1}{N_d}\underset{\mu }{}\underset{y}{}D_{\mu \mu }(y).$$
(13)
$`N_d`$ is the number of space-time dimensions and the available momentum values, $`\widehat{q}`$, are given by

$$\widehat{q}_\mu =\frac{2\pi n_\mu }{aL_\mu },n_\mu (\frac{L_\mu }{2},\frac{L_\mu }{2}].$$
(14)
The range of $`\widehat{q}`$ is determined by the fact that our lattices have an even number of points in each direction and that we use periodic boundary conditions. In the continuum, the scalar propagator is related to the full propagator by

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(q)=(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2})\delta ^{ab}D(q^2)$$
(15)
in Landau gauge.

Landau gauge is a smooth gauge that preserves the Lorentz invariance of the theory, so it is a popular choice. We work in Landau gauge for ease of comparison with other studies, and because it is the simplest covariant gauge to implement on the lattice. All configurations were gauge fixed by maximizing an $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved Landau gauge fixing functional using Conjugate Gradient Fourier Acceleration  as described in Ref. .

## III Tree-level Correction

One thing that is known about the gluon propagator is its perturbative, asymptotic behavior. In the spirit of improvement, we can use this knowledge to augment our lattice results and make better contact with the continuum. In the continuum, as $`p^2\mathrm{}`$, the propagator has the form

$$D(p)=\frac{1}{p^2}$$
(16)
up to logarithmic corrections. A well known artifact of the lattice is that for a free massless boson with an unimproved action the lattice propagator has the form

$$D(\widehat{q})=\frac{1}{\frac{4}{a^2}_\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}\right)}.$$
(17)
It has been argued, in Ref.  and elsewhere, that the correct momentum variable to use when examining the gluon propagator on the lattice, with the Wilson action, is not Eq. (14), butMany authors have $`q`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$ defined the other way around, but in this context our terminology is more natural.

$$q_\mu \frac{2}{a}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}.$$
(18)
It has been observed that this choice ensures that the propagator takes its asymptotic form at large lattice momenta .

The improved action Eq. (2) together with the gluon field defined in Eq. (8) has the $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved tree-level behavior

$$D^1(\widehat{q})=\frac{4}{a^2}\underset{\mu }{}\left\{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^4\left(\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}\right)\right\},$$
(19)
and we will use Eqs. (17) and (19) to obtain the correct momentum variable for each action. To emphasize the nonperturbative aspects of the propagator, we divide it by its perturbative, $`1/q^2`$ result. Hence, all figures are plotted against $`q^2D(q^2)`$, which is expected to approach a constant up to logarithmic corrections as $`q^2\mathrm{}`$. We will see that this also makes for a stringent test of the ultraviolet behavior of the propagator. We will work with the momentum variables defined as

$$q_\mu ^W\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2},$$
(20)
and

$$q_\mu ^I\frac{2}{a}\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^4\left(\frac{\widehat{q}_\mu a}{2}\right)},$$
(21)
for the Wilson and improved actions respectively. A similar momentum variable was used in the study of the gluon propagator in Ref. .

In the language of continuum physics

$$p^2D(p^2)=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)}=\frac{D(p^2)}{D^{\text{tree}}(p^2)}$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$ is the scalar vacuum polarization. In the asymptotic region, $`1/[1+\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)]1`$ up to logarithmic corrections. We argue that it is the lattice version of $`D(p^2)/D^{\text{tree}}(p^2)`$ that will most rapidly approach its continuum form as the lattice spacing is reduced and we will later graphically demonstrate this. The essential point is that at large momenta the lattice gluon propagator will experience asymptotic freedom just as in the continuum, i.e., the ultraviolet propagator will approach its tree-level form. Thus on the lattice we expect to find $`D(p^2)/D^{\text{tree}}(p^2)1`$ for large $`p^2`$ even though the ultraviolet lattice artifacts in both $`D(p^2)`$ and $`D^{\text{tree}}(p^2)`$ may themselves be large. We will refer to this procedure for minimizing ultraviolet lattice artifacts as *tree-level correction*. This philosophy is similar to that applied in recent studies of the quark propagator . In figures where $`q^2D(q^2)`$ is plotted vs. $`q`$, the “$`q`$” in $`q^2D(q^2)`$ (plotted on the y-axis) is always the same as the $`q`$ that is used on the x-axis, where $`q=\widehat{q}`$, $`q^W`$ or $`q^I`$ as described in the text.

The bare, dimensionless lattice gluon propagator $`D(qa)`$ is related to the renormalized continuum propagator $`D_R(q;\mu )`$ by

$$a^2D(qa)=Z_3(\mu ,a)D_R(q;\mu ),$$
(23)
for momenta, $`q`$, sufficiently small compared to the cutoff, $`\pi /a`$. $`D_R(q;\mu )`$ is independent of $`a`$ for sufficiently fine lattices; i.e. in the scaling regime. The renormalization constant $`Z_3(\mu ,a)`$ is determined by imposing a renormalization condition at some chosen renormalization scale $`\mu `$, e.g.,

$$D_R(q)|_{q^2=\mu ^2}=\frac{1}{\mu ^2}.$$
(24)
The renormalized gluon propagator can be computed both nonperturbatively on the lattice and perturbatively in the continuum for choices of the renormalization point in the ultraviolet. It can then be related to the propagator in other continuum renormalization schemes such as $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$.

## IV Results

### A Analysis Overview

The gluon propagator has been calculated on seven different lattices, the details of which are listed in Table I. Note that the first two are labeled “1w” and “1i”. These have the same number of lattice points at almost the same spacing (hence approximately the same physical volume), but 1w was generated with the standard, Wilson gauge action, while 1i used the $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved action (2). Lattice 6 was generated with the Wilson action and used to study the gluon propagator in Ref. . A value for the tadpole factor has been obtained for $`\beta =6.0`$ of $`u_0=0.878`$ and this has been used to normalize the propagator with respect to the other lattices. It will be used here for comparison purposes as it is finer than the other lattices. Configurations on lattices 2–5 were generated with the $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improved action. All of the propagators are plotted in physical units, where the scale has been determined by the static quark potential with a string tension of $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV. Details of this calculation may be found in Ref. .

Data points that come from momenta lying entirely along a spatial Cartesian direction are indicated with a square while points from momenta entirely in the temporal direction are marked with a triangle. As the time direction is longer than the spatial ones any difference between squares and triangles may indicate that the propagator is affected by the finite volume of the lattice. Data points from momenta entirely on the four-diagonal are marked with a diamond. Systematic separation of data points taken on the diagonal from those in other directions indicates violation of rotational symmetry.

In the continuum, the scalar function is rotationally invariant. Although the hypercubic lattice breaks O(4) invariance, it does preserve the subgroup of discrete rotations Z(4). In our case, this symmetry is reduced to Z(3) as one dimension will be twice as long as the other three in each of the cases studied. We exploit this discrete rotational symmetry to improve statistics through Z(3) averaging. This is best explained through a simple example. Consider the propagator at momentum $`q=(3,2,1,4)`$ (say). Z(3) symmetry means that

$$D(3,2,1,4)=D(2,3,1,4)=D(2,1,3,4)=D(1,2,3,4)=D(1,3,2,4)=D(3,1,2,4)$$
(25)
so we calculate the propagator for each of these values of momentum, and then average the results.

### B Tree-Level Correction and Rotational Symmetry

The “raw” gluon propagator from lattices 1w and 1i is shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. Both of these have been plotted as functions of $`\widehat{q}`$, Eq. (14), for all available momenta, and both show severe ultraviolet noise. We may take some comfort from the observation that the signal degradation is not as bad in the improved case where the finite spacing errors do not exceed the infrared peak and the UV tail is generally flatter. However, neither result looks at all satisfactory at large momenta. No data cuts or tree-level correction have yet been used.

The most obvious way to deal with this noise is to apply an ultraviolet cut, considering only momenta out to half of the Brillouin zone. For each of the four Cartesian directions,

$$\widehat{q}\frac{\pi }{2a}.$$
(26)
We refer to this as the “half-cut” and in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we see that this removes the worst of the artifacts. The two propagators, show plausible asymptotic behaviors, but there are still clear signs of lattice artifacts and we have lost a lot of data in the ultraviolet. While neither of these shortcomings is a significant problem for studies of the infrared, we will show that something as crude as the half-cut is not necessary and we can do much better at minimizing lattice artifacts.

We have already argued the case for applying a tree-level correction through the use of the alternative momentum variables derived from the tree-level behavior of the actions. The effect of doing this is seen in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, where the Wilson propagator has been plotted as a function of $`q^W`$ ($`q^WD(q^W)`$ vs. $`q^W`$) and the improved propagator as a function of $`q^I`$ ($`q^ID(q^I)`$ vs. $`q^I`$) for all momenta of the Brillouin zone. Comparing these to Figs. 1 and 2, we see an excellent restoration of rotational symmetry all the way to the edge of the Brillouin zone. This is especially true of the improved action case in Fig. 6. The propagators also appear to be approaching their asymptotic, perturbative values. Later, momentum cuts will be applied to the data to further eliminate lattice artifacts, but for the moment it is interesting to keep all data, as they provide insight into the behavior of lattice simulations.

Both Figs. 5 and 6 are consistent with the study of Ref. , but the discrepancy between diagonal and Cartesian points in Fig. 5 is a clear sign of rotational symmetry breaking in the unimproved case. With the Wilson action, the quality of the data is suffering from the coarseness of the lattice. As we might hope, the improved propagator in Fig. 6 shows excellent agreement between diagonal and Cartesian points, and the data is generally less spread. The propagator from the improved action has better rotational symmetry at the same lattice spacing. Less easy to understand is the slight suppression of the temporal points (triangles) in the Wilson case, Fig. 5. The time axis of this lattice (as with all the lattices considered here) is twice as long as the other three axes, so different values for the points along the long axis would normally be interpreted as a finite volume effect, yet there is no sign of it in the improved case (which has approximately the same physical volume). There is a difference between the improved and unimproved cases in the amplitudes of the propagators, but this is accounted for by renormalization and will be discussed below.

Out of curiosity the gluon propagator from lattice 1i has also been examined as a function of $`q^W`$, which we have already argued to be inappropriate. Not surprisingly, this leads to a “propagator” that suffers badly from lattice artifacts. We have not included a figure here, but the resulting propagator droops strongly in the ultraviolet. This is clearly a poor choice of momentum variable for this action as expected on the basis of our tree-level correction. For best results at finite lattice spacing, the correct momentum variable is determined by the appropriate tree-level behavior, which in turn is defined by the choice of action and gluon field definition. For the rest of this report it shall be implicit that when discussing quantities from the Wilson action, $`q^W`$ is used, and $`q^I`$ is used with the improved action.

### C Lattice Spacing Dependence

At this point it is interesting to explore the effect of making the lattice coarser. Figures 78 and 9 show the uncut, tree-level corrected propagator on progressively coarser lattices ($`a=`$ 0.27, 0.35 and 0.41 fm respectively). Consider the most extreme case, shown in Fig. 9. This very coarse lattice has spacing $`a=0.41\text{ fm}`$, which is more than twice as coarse as the previous lattices. Any sign of a perturbative tail has been lost, as the UV cutoff has been lowered, but the infrared behavior remains. There is no sign of any qualitative change, which appears to indicate that even on such a coarse lattice we are not losing information vital to the infrared physics of the gluon propagator.

This gives us great confidence in the use of improved actions on coarse lattices for the probing of nonperturbative physics. This is the motivation for creating lattice 4 at $`a=0.35`$ on a very large volume. Fig 10, which shows the results from this large lattice, shows no signs of significant finite volume artifacts when compared with Fig. 8 which has the same lattice spacing, but a smaller volume.

### D Data Cuts

Having identified possible lattice artifacts, cuts may be applied to clean up the data, making it easier to draw conclusions about continuum physics. Data at large momenta will of course be most susceptible to finite lattice spacing errors. We choose to prefer data from momentum points near the four-diagonal, as this evenly samples all Cartesian directions, i.e., for a given momentum squared ($`q^2`$) it has the smallest values of each of the Cartesian components $`q_\mu `$. This should minimize finite lattice spacing artifacts.

We calculate the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{q}`$ of a momentum vector $`\widehat{q}`$ from the diagonal using

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{q}=|\widehat{q}|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\widehat{q}},$$
(27)
where the angle $`\theta _{\widehat{q}}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\widehat{q}}=\frac{\widehat{q}\widehat{n}}{|\widehat{q}|},$$
(28)
and $`\widehat{n}=\frac{1}{2}(1,1,1,1)`$ is the unit vector along the diagonal. In this way we ignore data points that are potentially most affected by hypercubic artifacts. We call this cut the *cylinder cut* . From this point on, we exclude points greater than two spatial momentum unitsA spatial momentum unit is $`2\pi /aL_s`$ where $`L_s`$ is the number of lattice sites in the spatial directions ($`L_s=L_x=L_y=L_z`$).  from the four-diagonal. Furthermore, the point at zero four-momentum has been cut from all the following plots of $`q^2D(q)`$. On any finite lattice, $`D(0)`$ must be finite, hence $`q^2D(q)=0`$ for $`q=0`$. This point is therefore trivial when plotting $`q^2D(q)`$. When the scalar function, $`D(q)`$, itself is considered we can make a study of $`D(0)`$ by considering it on lattices of differing volumes and then making an infinite volume extrapolation. We will perform this extrapolation below.

### E Action Dependence

Once again we compare the gluon propagator generated with the Wilson action to that generated with the improved action after tree-level correction, this time applying the cylinder cut. To make the comparison in Fig. 11, we note that there is of course a small difference in normalization. This is the difference in the $`Z_3`$ renormalization between the Wilson and improved propagators. As the relative renormalization is $`q^2`$ independent, the unimproved propagator has been multiplied by a relative renormalization of 1.09 to make direct comparison possible. This factor is deduced by adjusting the vertical scales of the two data sets until they agreed. Apart from the superior performance of the improved propagator, which has already been discussed, the two actions produce the same result.

We push our results further by comparing the improved $`\beta =4.38`$ propagator with that from lattice 6 (Wilson action), which is finer ($`a=0.1\text{ fm}`$), has more points ($`32^3\times 64`$) and is a little larger. Both data sets are cylinder cut, and each is tree-level corrected according to its action. The relative renormalization has been determined to be $`Z_3(\text{improved})/Z_3(\text{Wilson})=1.08`$. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that not only are the two propagators consistent, but that the ultraviolet performance of lattice 1i is remarkable. The propagator from Ref.  had the momentum half-cut applied, whereas our improved propagator with lattice spacing $`a=0.17\text{ fm}`$ is shown for the entire Brillouin zone. We have calculated the propagator over the same range of momenta as Ref. , despite using a much coarser lattice.

### F Scaling Analysis

Next, we consider the propagator on the coarser lattices. Fig. 13 shows the propagator from lattices 1i, 2, 3 and 5. Examining Figures 11 and 13 we see that the Wilson $`\beta =5.7`$ and improved $`\beta =4.10`$ and $`\beta =4.38`$ results all agree well, which suggests that these are “fine enough” lattices. We see that the $`\beta =3.75`$ and $`\beta =3.92`$ propagators do not quite line up with the others, but instead the UV tail rises slightly as the lattice becomes coarser. This is an indication of a loss of scaling. The lattices at $`\beta =3.92`$ and $`\beta =3.75`$ having $`a=0.35`$ and 0.41 fm respectively are too coarse for the tree-level correction to completely correct the entire Brillouin zone, which is not surprising. We have placed extraordinary demands on our simulations by examining them near the cutoff. The conclusion is that such coarse lattices should be half-cut. Nevertheless, the propagators all agree in the infrared. Now that we have an understanding of the dependence of lattice propagator on the lattice spacing, we can study the effect of the finite volume.

### G Volume Dependence

Results from lattices 2 and 4 have already been reported in Ref.  and are presented again here for completeness and ease of comparison. They have same lattice spacing, but different numbers of lattice points, and hence different physical volumes. The gluon propagator has been calculated on each lattice, and the results compared in Fig. 14. The two propagators are consistent in this figure, despite the fact that one lattice has sides 60% longer in all four directions. This shows that finite volume effects are small compared to the statistical errors. The turn over seen in the gluon propagator in lattice studies is certainly not a finite volume effect. Note that $`5.65^3\times 11.30\text{ fm}^4`$ is a very large volume by the standards of present day lattice studies, and gives us an unprecedented look at the behavior of QCD in the deep infrared.

Fig. 15 shows the cylinder-cut data for the scalar function $`D(q^2)`$ for each of the improved lattices. This plot provides a dramatic demonstration of lattice artifacts. In this way of plotting our results, the five lattices appear in very good agreement in the ultraviolet and through intermediate momenta. When plotted in this way, we can see that below $`500\text{ MeV}`$ the propagators do begin to differ due to finite volume effects. As the volume increases, the low momenta data points drop, until we can see the infrared flatten off. The grouping of points around 400 MeV suggest that we have, for the two largest lattices, results indicative of the infinite volume limit. At $`250\text{ MeV}`$, the results for the two largest lattices (both $`\beta =3.92`$) are consistent, and in particular the fact that the small difference between them is produced by such a large difference in volume gives us confidence in the results. For comparison, the tree-level, perturbative expression $`D(q^2)=1/q^2`$ is also shown, suitably normalized.

It is interesting to note that the disagreement in the propagators above 1 GeV or so revealed in Fig. 13 is hidden by the scale of the vertical axis in Fig. 15. Multiplication of the propagator by $`q^2`$ is required to amplify this region and critically examine the extent to which lattice spacing artifacts are removed by $`𝒪(a^2)`$ improvement terms. A failure to do this could lead to incorrect conclusions being drawn on the effectiveness of improvement in the gluon propagator. Thus it is always best to plot $`q^2D(q^2)`$ versus $`q^2`$, when the hypercubic artifacts are of interest.

### H Asymptotic Behavior

For further comparison with perturbation theory, we have chosen to show the gluon propagator from 1.5 to 5.5 GeV, in Fig. 16. In this window, the transition from perturbative to nonperturbative physics can be clearly seen. As well as the lattice gluon propagator and the tree-level, continuum propagator, we show a perturbative, three-loop calculation . We used parameters obtained from Ref. , where at the renormalization point, $`\mu =5.48`$ GeV, the strong coupling constant was found to be $`\alpha (\mu )=0.255`$. That was a quenched calculation, so this number should not be compared directly with experiment. The data agree very well with three-loop perturbation theory down to $`q2.5`$ GeV. Below 2 GeV we see that three-loop perturbation theory begins to fail.

### I Propagator at Zero Four-Momentum

Values for the gluon propagator at zero four-momentum are shown in Table II for each of the lattices created in this investigation. Statistical errors are given in parentheses. The renormalization condition of Eq. (24) is enforced at the renormalization point $`\mu =4.0`$ GeV, which sets the scale for $`D(q^2)`$. We see that as the volume of the lattice increases, $`D(0)`$ becomes smaller. In Fig. 17 we plot the infrared behavior of the renormalized gluon propagator for five lattices and we include the points calculated at zero momentum in this plot. We see that the the infrared behavior is quite smooth and reasonably consistent for our two largest volume lattices ($`\beta =3.92`$, small and large). Fig. 18 illustrates the data with a linear fit in the inverse volume according to

$$D(0)=c\frac{1}{V}+D_{\mathrm{}}(0)$$
(29)
We find a reasonable fit with parameter values $`c=245(22)\mathrm{fm}^4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{}}(0)=7.95(13)`$ GeV-2, where $`D_{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ is the infinite volume limit of the zero-momentum gluon propagator. Fig. 18 strongly supports the hypothesis that the gluon propagator is finite in the infrared. It is also clear that the results of our largest physical volume lattice are very close to the infinite volume limit.

Note that a complete systematic extrapolation to the infinite volume limit remains to be carried out in the future. Ideally, one performs a number of calculations at fixed volume and various lattice spacings and then performs a continuum limit extrapolation for that fixed volume. This continuum limit extrapolation would be done for each of a variety of lattice volumes and then finally an infinite volume extrapolation performed on those results. This procedure corresponds to the axiomatic field theory prescription of taking the continuum limit before the infinite volume limit. Given this caution, the finite precision of this study, and the fact that the linear ansatz above may be incorrect, we can not completely exclude the possibility that the deep infrared (i.e., below $``$ 350 MeV) behavior of $`D(q^2)`$ may very slowly decrease toward zero as the infinite volume limit is taken.

It is interesting to compare our results with a recent calculation of the gluon propagator in Laplacian gauge , which is expected to be free of gauge ambiguity. In that gauge, the propagator takes its perturbative, Landau-gauge value in the asymptotic region and is also infrared finite. The Laplacian gauge propagator is seen to have a behavior similar to that seen here.

## V Conclusions

The gluon propagator has been calculated on a set of lattices with an $`𝒪(a^2)`$ mean-field improved action, in $`𝒪(a^2)`$ mean-field improved Landau gauge. Tree-level correction has been shown to reduce rotational symmetry breaking and dramatically improve the ultraviolet behavior of the propagator.

For $`\beta 4.10`$ ($`a0.27`$ fm) the tree-level corrected improved propagator displays scaling over the entire Brillouin zone. At $`\beta =4.38`$ ($`a=0.166`$ fm), the gluon propagator has excellent behavior for the entire range of available momenta in the Brillouin zone, reproducing the anticipated UV behavior of perturbation theory to three-loops.

The infrared behavior of the gluon propagator is robust even with a lattice spacing of 0.41 fm. Calculation on a lattice with a large volume indicates that finite volume effects are small. In particular, the turn over observed in previous studies of the Landau gauge gluon propagator is not a finite volume artifact. We conclude that the propagator is almost certainly infrared finite, in agreement with earlier studies. A significant volume dependence is revealed only at the smallest non-trivial momenta. An extrapolation of $`D(0)`$ via a linear ansatz inversely proportional to the physical lattice volume provides a reasonable fit. Moreover, results from our largest volume lattice reside very close to the infinite volume limit. We have probed the approach to the infinite volume limit by first determining a range of $`\beta `$ in which the propagator scales for $`q<0.7`$ GeV on similar finite volumes. Physically large volumes are accessed by decreasing $`\beta `$ within the scaling range on large lattices. A more complete study of the infinite volume limit should be undertaken in the near future.

The tree-level corrected results from our $`\beta =3.92`$ ($`a=0.353`$ fm) $`16^3\times 32`$ lattice with a physical volume of $`5.65^3\times 11.30=2038`$ fm4 may be regarded as an excellent estimate of the infinite volume, continuum limit Landau-gauge gluon propagator for $`q<0.7`$ GeV. The tree-level corrected results from our $`\beta =4.38`$, ($`a=0.166`$ fm) results presented here are an excellent estimate of the infinite volume, continuum limit of the Landau-gauge gluon propagator for $`q>0.7`$ GeV. We have seen that these two sets of data smoothly match in the intermediate regime ($`q0.7`$ GeV) and are entirely consistent with each other in this region. The possible effects of lattice Gribov copies remains a very interesting question and we plan to extend this study to Laplacian gauge and other related gauge-fixing schemes in the near future.

## Acknowledgments

POB would like to acknowledge helpful conversations with Urs Heller and correspondence with Phillippe Boucaud. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council and by grants of supercomputer time on the CM-5 made available through the South Australian Centre for Parallel Computing. The work of POB was supported in part by DOE contract DE-FG02-97ER41022.