text:
# The mean king’s problem: Prime degrees of freedom

## 1 Introduction

In 1987, one of us (YA) co-authored a paper  with the somewhat provocative title “How to ascertain the values of $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, and $`\sigma _z`$ of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle.” It reports the solution of what later became known as *The King’s Problem*: A mean king challenges a physicist, who got stranded on the remote island ruled by the king, to prepare a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ atom in any state of her choosing and to perform a control measurement of her liking. Between her preparation and her measurement, the king’s men determine the value of either $`\sigma _x`$, or $`\sigma _y`$, or $`\sigma _z`$. Only after she completed her control measurement, the physicist is told which spin component has been measured, and she must then state the result of that intermediate measurement correctly. How does she do it?

This thought experiment has not been realized as yet. But recently an optical analog has been formulated , and experimental data should be at hand shortly. Somewhat unexpectedly, and rather rewardingly, the photon version of the king’s problem suggested a new scheme for quantum cryptography .

Also very recently, we reported a generalization of the king’s problem  where, instead of the traditional spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ atom, a spin-$`1`$ atom is used. This generalization required answers to two questions: What are the appropriate spin-$`1`$ analogs of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ observables $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, $`\sigma _z`$? And, how does the physicist rise to the challenge now?

In the present paper we deal with the further generalization to arbitrary prime degrees of freedom, where measurements can have at most $`p`$ different outcomes, $`p`$ being any prime number. Of course, the situations of Refs.  and , spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ($`p=2`$) and spin-$`1`$ ($`p=3`$), respectively, are particular realizations of the prime case. We believe that this extension of the idea of Ref.  teaches us a potentially important lesson about the mathematical structure of quantum kinematics.

In Sec. 2 we answer the general-prime version of the first question asked above. The analogs of the three spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ observables are identified as complete sets of mutually complementary observables. Then the answer to the second question is given in Sec. 3; it employs essentially the same strategy that works in the cases of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ and spin-$`1`$, so that we have a genuine generalization indeed. We leave it as a moot point whether generalizations to non-prime degrees of freedom are possible, or if there are analogs of the variants of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ problem that were found by Ben-Menahem  and Mermin . Also, we do not address the intriguing question of whether the geometrical reasoning that works so well in the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ case  lends itself to generalizations for spin-$`1`$ or richer degrees of freedom.

## 2 Pairwise complementary observables

The three spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ observables $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, $`\sigma _z`$ are *complete* in the sense that the probabilities for finding their eigenvalues as the results of measurements specify uniquely the statistical operator that characterizes the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ degree of freedom of the ensemble under consideration. They are not overcomplete because this unique specification is not ensured if one of the spin components is left out.

In addition to being complete, the observables $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, $`\sigma _z`$ are also pairwise *complementary*, which is to say that in a state where one of them has a definite value, all measurement results for the other ones are equally probable. For example, if $`\sigma _x=1`$ specifies the ensemble, say, then the results of $`\sigma _y`$ measurements are utterly unpredictable: $`+1`$ and $`1`$ are found with equal frequency; and the same is true for $`\sigma _z`$ measurements.

What is essential here are not the eigenvalues of $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, $`\sigma _z`$, but their sets of eigenstates. In technical terms, the fact that the transition probabilities

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left|\right||\sigma _x=\pm 1|\sigma _y=\pm 1\left|\right||^2& =& \frac{1}{2},\hfill \\ \hfill \left|\right||\sigma _y=\pm 1|\sigma _z=\pm 1\left|\right||^2& =& \frac{1}{2},\hfill \\ \hfill \left|\right||\sigma _z=\pm 1|\sigma _x=\pm 1\left|\right||^2& =& \frac{1}{2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
do not depend on the quantum numbers $`\pm 1`$, is the statement of the pairwise complementary nature of $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, and $`\sigma _z`$. Their algebraic completeness is then an immediate consequence of the insight that a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ degree of freedom can have at most three mutually complementary observables.

More generally, there can be no more than $`p+1`$ such observables for a degree of freedom with a $`p`$-dimensional space of state vectors . Following Weyl  and Schwinger , we’ll find it convenient to deal with unitary operators, rather than the hermitian operators to which they would be closely related. Thus the $`p+1`$ observables $`U_0,U_1,\mathrm{},U_p`$ are unitary and of period $`p`$,

$$U_m^p=1,U_m^r1\text{if}r=1,2,\mathrm{},p1,$$
(2)
for $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$. The eigenvalues of each $`U_m`$ are powers of

$$q\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/p},$$
(3)
the basic $`p`$-th root of unity, and we denote by $`|m_k`$ the $`k`$-th eigenstate of $`U_m`$, so that

$$U_m|m_k=|m_kq^k$$
(4)
for $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},p`$.

Both the orthonormality of the $`|m_k`$’s for each $`m`$ and the mutual complementarity for different $`m`$’s are summarized in

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left|\right||m_k^{}|m_k^{}^{}\left|\right||^2& =& \delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{kk^{}}+\frac{1}{p}\left(1\delta _{mm^{}}\right)\hfill \\ & =& \{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _{kk^{}}\text{if}& m=m^{},\hfill \\ \hfill p^1\text{if}& mm^{},\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
for $`m,m^{}=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`k,k^{}=1,2,\mathrm{},p`$. With

$$U_m=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}|m_kq^km_k|$$
(6)
this implies

$$p^1\mathrm{tr}\left\{U_m^rU_m^{}^s\right\}=\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{r,s}^{(p)}+\left(1\delta _{mm^{}}\right)\delta _{r,0}^{(p)}\delta _{s,0}^{(p)},$$
(7)
where $`m,m^{}=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`r,s=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, and

$$\delta _{rs}^{(p)}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if}q^r=q^s\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}\right\}=\frac{1}{p}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}q^{(rs)k}$$
(8)
is the appropriate $`p`$-periodic version of Kronecker’s delta symbol. The reverse is also true: (7) implies (5), as can be shown with the aid of

$$|m_km_k|=\frac{1}{p}\underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(q^kU_m\right)^r.$$
(9)
Thus, given a set of $`p+1`$ unitary operators of period $`p`$, we can verify the defining property (5) of their pairwise complementarity by demonstrating that (7) holds.

Repeated measurements of the observables $`U_m`$ (on identically prepared systems) eventually determine the probabilities $`w_k^{(m)}`$ for finding their eigenstates $`|m_k`$. As a consequence of their mutual complementarity, knowledge of the probabilities for one $`U_m`$ contains no information whatsoever about the probabilities for any other one. These $`(p+1)\times p`$ probabilities represent $`p^21`$ parameters in total, since

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}w_k^{(m)}=1$$
(10)
for each of the $`p+1`$ measurements. The statistical operator that characterizes the ensemble of identically prepared systems,

$$\rho =\underset{m=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}|m_k\left(w_k^{(m)}\frac{1}{p+1}\right)m_k|,$$
(11)
is therefore uniquely determined by the probabilities $`w_k^{(m)}=m_k\left|\rho \right|m_k`$. Indeed, the $`U_m`$’s constitute a complete set of pairwise complementary observables for the prime degree of freedom under consideration.

Actually, the prime nature of $`p`$ has not been significant so far, but it is for the explicit construction of the set $`U_0,U_1,\mathrm{},U_p`$ that we turn to now. We pick an arbitrary period-$`p`$ unitary operator for $`U_0`$. The unitary operator that permutes the eigenvectors of $`U_0`$ cyclically is used for $`U_p`$. Its eigenvectors in turn are cyclically permuted by $`U_0`$, so that $`U_0`$ and $`U_p`$ are jointly characterized by

$$0_k\left|U_p=0_{k+1}|,U_0\right|p_k=|p_{k+1}$$
(12)
for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$ and, to complete the cycle,

$$0_p|U_p=0_1|,U_0|p_p=|p_1.$$
(13)
The fundamental Weyl commutation relation

$$U_0U_p=q^1U_pU_0$$
(14)
is an immediate consequence of this reciprocal definition of $`U_0`$ and $`U_p`$. The other $`U_m`$’s are chosen as

$$U_m=U_0^mU_p.$$
(15)
Since $`p`$ is a prime — what follows is not true for composite numbers; try $`p=6`$, for instance, to see what goes wrong — the powers of the $`U_m`$’s that appear in (9) comprise all products of powers of $`U_0`$ and $`U_p`$, and since the unitary operators

$$U_0^rU_p^s\text{with}r,s=1,2,\mathrm{},p,$$
(16)
which are $`p^2`$ in number, are a basis in the $`p^2`$ dimensional operator algebra , the $`p^21`$ unitary operators

$$U_m^r\text{with}r=1,2,\mathrm{},p1,$$
(17)
supplemented by $`1=U_0^p=U_1^p=\mathrm{}=U_p^p`$ are also such an operator basis. As it should be, these bases are complete, but not overcomplete; none of the basis operators is superfluous.

As a consequence of (12) and (13) all operators in (16) are traceless with the sole exception of the identity operator that obtains for $`r=s=p`$. It is then a matter of inspection to verify that the $`U_m`$’s thus constructed obey (7) and are, therefore, a set of pairwise complementary observables, indeed. From the point of view of the information-theoretical approach to quantum mechanics that is being developed by Brukner and Zeilinger , the $`U_m`$’s form a complete set of mutually complementary propositions.

## 3 The mean king’s problem generalized

In the generalized version of *The King’s Problem* then, either one of the observables $`U_0,U_1,\mathrm{},U_p`$ is measured by the mean king’s men, on a $`p`$-system suitably prepared by the physicist. Without knowing which measurement was done actually, the physicist performs a subsequent measurement of her own, and — after then being told which $`U_m`$ was measured by the king’s men — she has to state correctly what they found: $`|m_1`$, or $`|m_2`$, …, or $`|m_p`$.

The physicist solves the problem by first preparing a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ in which the given $`p`$-system, the *object*, is entangled with an auxiliary $`p`$-system, the *ancilla*, whose operators and states are barred for distinction. For the ancilla, there are analogs $`\overline{U}_0`$ and $`\overline{U}_p`$ of the fundamental Weyl operators $`U_0`$ and $`U_p`$ that we have for the object. It is advantageous, however, to interchange the roles of $`\overline{U}_0`$ and $`\overline{U}_p`$ in their reciprocal definition. So, rather than just copying the object relations (12) and (13), we write for the ancilla

$$\overline{U}_p|\overline{0}_k=|\overline{0}_{k+1},\overline{p}_k|\overline{U}_0=\overline{p}_{k+1}|$$
(18)
for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$ and

$$\overline{U}_p|\overline{0}_p=|\overline{0}_1,\overline{p}_p|\overline{U}_0=\overline{p}_1|,$$
(19)
and the corresponding analog of (15) is

$$\overline{U}_m=\overline{U}_p\overline{U}_0^m$$
(20)
for $`m=1,\mathrm{},p1`$. Then the transition amplitudes $`0_j|m_k`$ and $`\overline{0}_j|\overline{m}_k`$ between the eigenstates of $`U_0`$ and $`U_m`$ and between those of $`\overline{U}_0`$ and $`\overline{U}_m`$, respectively, obey recurrence relations,

$$\frac{0_{j+1}|m_k}{0_j|m_k}=q^{jm+k},\frac{\overline{0}_{j+1}|\overline{m}_k}{\overline{0}_j|\overline{m}_k}=q^{jmk}$$
(21)
(for $`m0`$, of course), which allow and invite to choose the phase conventions such that

$$0_j|m_k=\overline{m}_k|\overline{0}_j.$$
(22)
We note in passing that the $`|m_k^{}s`$, or the $`|\overline{m}_k`$’s, are essentially identical with the states found by Wootters and Fields  if one opts for the solutions

$$0_j|m_k=p^{1/2}q^{jkj(j1)m/2}=0_j|\overline{m}_k^{}$$
(23)
of the recursions (21).

Joint states in which the object is in $`|m_k^{}^{}`$ and the ancilla in $`|\overline{m}_k`$ are denoted by $`|m_k^{}^{}\overline{m}_k^{}`$. Then

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=p^{1/2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}|m_k\overline{m}_k$$
(24)
is the entangled object-ancilla state that the physicist prepares. Thanks to the phase conventions (22), the $`m`$ dependence is only apparent. For either value of $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ we get the same $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$.

If the king’s men then measure the object observable $`U_m`$ and find the eigenvalue $`q^k`$, the resulting object-ancilla state is $`|m_k\overline{m}_k`$. After their measurement, there are thus all together $`p+1`$ sets (labeled by $`m`$) of $`p`$ possible object-ancilla states each. These $`(p+1)\times p`$ states cannot be linearly independent because the state space is only $`p^2`$-dimensional. Indeed, each of the $`p`$-dimensional subspaces spanned by the $`p+1`$ sets contains $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ by construction. In addition, there are $`(p+1)\times (p1)=p^21`$ other states, and we now proceed to show that they *are* linearly independent.

Consider $`mm^{}`$ and any pair of values for $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$. Then

$$m_k\overline{m}_k|m_k^{}^{}\overline{m^{}}_k^{}=p^1$$
(25)
as a consequence of (5) and (22), and the definition (24) of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ implies

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0|m_k\overline{m}_k=p^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Psi }_0|m_k^{}^{}\overline{m^{}}_k^{}.$$
(26)
The two vectors

$$|m_k\overline{m}_kp^{1/2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,|m_k^{}^{}\overline{m^{}}_k^{}p^{1/2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0$$
(27)
are therefore orthogonal to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and orthogonal to each other. Accordingly, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ together with the $`p^21`$ vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,|\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Psi }_{p^21}`$ that are defined by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(p1)m+j}=p^{1/2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}|m_k\overline{m}_kq^{jk}$$
(28)
for $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$ constitute an orthonormal basis,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}=\delta _{nn^{}}\text{for}n,n^{}=0,1,\mathrm{},p^21,$$
(29)
in the $`p^2`$-dimensional object-ancilla state space.

Two $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$’s that have the same $`m`$ value in (28) are orthogonal by construction. And if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}`$ belong to different $`m`$ values, their orthogonality follows immediately as soon as one replaces $`|m_k\overline{m}_k`$ in (28) by the difference of (27), which does not alter the value of the sum.

Let us now see how all of this helps the physicist to meet the mean king’s challenge. She will be able to state correctly the measurement result found by the king’s men if she can find an object-ancilla observable $`P`$ with eigenstates $`|P_1,\mathrm{},|P_{p^2}`$ such that each $`|P_n`$ is orthogonal to $`p1`$ members each of the $`p+1`$ sets of states that are potentially the case after the measurement by the king’s men. We characterize the looked-for eigenstates of $`P`$ by an ordered set of numbers $`k_0,k_1,\mathrm{},k_p`$ that indicate which members they are *not* orthogonal to, so that

$$|\left[k_0k_1\mathrm{}k_p\right]$$
(30)
has the defining property of being orthogonal to the object-ancilla states that result when measurements of $`U_m`$ do *not* give the eigenvalue $`q^{k_m}`$.

Suppose the physicist finds the state $`|\left[325\mathrm{}7\right]`$. She then knows that if the king’s men had measured $`U_0`$, $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$, or $`U_p`$, the respective results must have been $`q^3`$, $`q^2`$, $`q^5`$, and $`q^7`$, because she would never find $`|\left[325\mathrm{}7\right]`$ for other measurement results.

Accordingly, all that is needed to complete the solution of the generalized mean king’s problem is the demonstration that we can have a complete orthonormal set of object-ancilla states of the kind (30). First note that the expansion of $`|\left[k_0k_1\mathrm{}k_p\right]`$ in the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ basis is given by

$$|\left[k_0k_1\mathrm{}k_p\right]=\frac{1}{p}\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\underset{m=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p1}{}}q^{jk_m}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{(p1)m+j}\right).$$
(31)
Then observe that

$$\left[k_0^{}k_1^{}\mathrm{}k_p^{}\right]|\left[k_0^{}k_1^{}\mathrm{}k_p^{}\right]=\frac{1}{p}\underset{m=0}{\overset{p}{}}\delta _{k_m^{},k_m^{}}\frac{1}{p},$$
(32)
so that two such states are orthogonal if $`k_m^{}=k_m^{}`$ for one and only one $`m`$ value. Therefore, a possible choice of basis states for the physicist’s final measurement is given by those $`p^2`$ states for which $`k_0,k_1=1,2,\mathrm{},p`$ and

$$k_m=(m1)k_0+k_1(\mathrm{mod}p)$$
(33)
for $`m=2,3,\mathrm{},p`$ . The prime nature of $`p`$ is crucial for the otherwise straightforward demonstration of the orthogonality of two such states that differ in their values of $`k_0`$, or $`k_1`$, or both.

So, the physicist just has to choose her object-ancilla observable $`P`$ such that it distinguishes the states specified in (33). After being told which measurement the king’s men performed on the object, she can then infer their measurement result correctly, and with certainty, in the manner described above for $`|[325\mathrm{}7]`$.

## Acknowledgments

YA gratefully acknowledges the kind hospitality extended to him by Herbert Walther during a visit at the MPI für Quantenoptik in Garching. BGE would like to thank Wolfgang Schleich and the University of Ulm for financial support while part of this work was done, and he expresses his sincere gratitude for the hospitable environment provided by Gerald Badurek and Helmut Rauch at the Atominstitut and for the financial support by the Technical University of Vienna. YA’s research is supported in part by Grant No. 471/98 of the Basic Research Foundation (administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities) and NSF Grant No. PHY-9971005.


format: text

text:
# 1 Flavor-Topology Duality

## 1 Flavor-Topology Duality

Through the work of ’t Hooft we know that the low-energy limit of QCD is dominated by light flavors and topology . We expect that the same will be the case for the low-lying eigenvalues of the Dirac operator. Indeed, for massless flavors, the fermion determinant results in the repulsion of eigenvalues away from $`\lambda =0`$. It is perhaps less known that the presence of exactly zero eigenvalues has the same effect. The reason is the repulsion of eigenvalues which occurs in all interacting systems and has probably best been understood in the context of Random Matrix Theory where the eigenvalues obey the Wigner repulsion law .

In QCD, the fluctuations of the low-lying eigenvalues of the Dirac operator are described by chiral Random Matrix Theory (chRMT) . This is a Random Matrix Theory with the global symmetries of the QCD partition function. It is characterized by the Dyson index  $`\beta `$ which is equal to the number of independent variables per matrix element. For QCD with fundamental fermions we have $`\beta =1`$ for $`N_c=2`$ and $`\beta =2`$ for $`N_c>2`$. For QCD with adjoint fermions and $`N_c2`$ the Dirac matrix can be represented in terms of self-dual quaternions with $`\beta =4`$. The main ingredient of the chRMT partition function is the integration measure which includes the Vandermonde determinant. In terms of Dirac eigenvalues $`i\lambda _k`$ it is given by $`_{k<l}\left|\lambda _k^2\lambda _l^2\right|^\beta \lambda _k^{\beta \nu +\beta 1}`$. Therefore, the presence of $`N_f`$ massless flavors, with fermion determinant given by $`_k\lambda _k^{2N_f}`$, has the same effect on eigenvalue correlations as $`\nu =2N_f/\beta `$ zero eigenvalues. More precisely, the joint eigenvalue distribution only depends on the combination $`2N_f+\beta \nu `$ . Based on the conjecture  that the zero-momentum part of the QCD partition function, $`Z_{N_f,\nu }(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{N_f})`$, is a chiral Random Matrix Theory, it was suggested  that its mass dependence obeys the duality relation

$`Z_{N_f,\nu }(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{N_f}){\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}m_f^\nu Z_{N_f+\nu ,0}(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{N_f},0,\mathrm{},0).`$ (1)
This relation, which is now known as flavor topology-duality, is a trivial consequence of the flavor dependence of the chRMT joint eigenvalue distribution.

The mass dependence of the chRMT partition function can be reduced to a unitary matrix integral which is known from the zero momentum limit of Chiral Perturbation Theory . Starting from this representation of the low energy limit of the QCD partition function, also known as the finite volume partition function, flavor-topology duality was first proved for $`N_f=2`$ in . However, its generalization to arbitrary $`N_f`$ and $`\nu `$ has only been achieved for $`\beta =2`$ . The relation (1) has been particularly useful for establishing relations between correlation functions of Dirac eigenvalues and finite volume partition functions .

For $`\beta =2`$ the unitary matrix integral, which represents the low-energy limit of the QCD partition function, is also known as the one-link integral of two-dimensional QCD (see for example ) or the Brezin-Gross-Witten model . For zero topological charge it can also be represented as a generalized Kontsevich model  with potential $`𝒱\left(X\right)=1/X`$. This model has been discussed extensively in the context of topological gravity (for reviews see .) In this case the one-link integral has been analyzed  by means of Virasoro constraints which are based on its invariance properties. The main issue we wish to address in this article is whether flavor-topology duality of the one-link integral can be understood without relying on its chRMT representation. We will do this by deriving Virasoro constraints for arbitrary topological charge. For $`\beta =2`$ we find a nonperturbative solution of these constraints in the form of a generalized Kontsevich model.

In section 2 we will derive the Virasoro constraints for arbitrary $`\nu `$ and three different values of $`\beta `$. We observe that they satisfy the flavor-topology duality relations. A recursive solution of these relations is presented in section 3. It also provides us with an efficient derivation of sum-rules for the inverse Dirac eigenvalues to high order. In the second part of this section we discuss the uniqueness of the nonperturbative solution of the Virasoro constraints for $`\beta =2`$. Concluding remarks are made in section 4.

## 2 Virasoro Constraints

In the simplest case, $`\beta =2`$ and vanishing topological charge $`\nu =0`$, the small-mass Virasoro constraints were first found in  after an identification of the appropriate unitary integral and the corresponding Generalized Kontsevich Model (GKM). Here we work entirely in the context of unitary integrals and derive a simple form of the Virasoro constraints valid for arbitrary topological charge and $`\beta `$. They are obtained by expanding the partition function in powers of the masses.

### 2.1 $`\beta =2`$

The low energy limit of QCD in the phase of broken chiral symmetry is a gas of weakly interacting Goldstone bosons. Its partition function is determined uniquely by the invariance properties of the Goldstone fields. For quark masses $`m`$ and space-time volume $`V`$ in the range

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}V^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\pi }},`$ (2)
(where $`m_\pi =\sqrt{2m\mathrm{\Sigma }/F^2}`$ is the mass of the Goldstone modes with $`F`$ the pion decay constant and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the chiral condensate) the partition function for the Goldstone modes factorizes  into a zero-momentum part, also known as the finite volume partition function, and a nonzero momentum part. For fundamental fermions and a gauge group with $`N_c3`$, the finite volume partition function in the sector of topological charge $`\nu `$ is given by the following integral over the unitary group

$`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})={\displaystyle _{UU\left(N_f\right)}}𝑑U\left(detU\right)^\nu e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U^{}+^{}U\right)},`$ (3)
where $`=MV\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Here and below we always take $`\nu 0`$. The quantity $`M`$ stands for the original unscaled quark mass matrix. The partition function is normalized such that $`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})det^\nu \left(\right)`$ for $`0`$.

Especially for $`\nu =0`$, the integral (3) has been studied extensively in the literature. In the context of lattice QCD it is known as the one-link integral  (see also  for a review). Of particular interest is the fact that for $`N_f\mathrm{}`$ the partition function $`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}`$ undergoes a phase transition  from a small mass phase ( $`0`$) to a large mass phase ( $`\mathrm{}`$ ). The large mass expansion is asymptotic and its coefficients can be calculated, even for finite $`N_f`$, by expanding about a flavor-symmetric saddle-point. For $`\mathrm{Re}\left(\right)\mathrm{}`$ such expansion can be carried out in a efficient way by means of the the (large-mass) Virasoro constraints found in . For $`\mathrm{Im}\left(\right)\mathrm{}`$, at fixed value of $`\mathrm{Re}\left(\right)`$, other flavor-nonsymmetric saddle points contribute to the partition function as well, and it is not known whether the expansion can be carried out by means of Virasoro constraints (for an explicit calculation including nonsymmetric saddle-points see ). On the other hand, the small-mass expansion has a non-zero radius of convergence, and it can be determined by different methods for any finite $`N_f`$. For example, one can expand the exponential in (3) and calculate the corresponding unitary integrals systematically using a character expansion . Another efficient technique is again the use of the (small-mass) Virasoro constraints found in . By generalizing such constraints to arbitrary topological charge $`\nu `$ we will show that they naturally lead to flavor-topology duality.

First of all, using the unitary invariance of the measure in (3) we can deduce the covariance properties of the partition function under a redefinition of the mass matrix $`V^1`$,

$`\left(det\right)^\nu 𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})=\left(detV^1\right)^\nu 𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(V^1,^{}V).`$ (4)
This equation implies that $`\left(det\right)^\nu 𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})`$ is a symmetric function of the eigenvalues of the hermitean matrix $`L_{ab}\left(^{}\right)_{ab}`$. Following  we can introduce the infinite set of variables

$`t_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^{}}{4}}\right)^k,k1,`$ (5)
which are explicitly symmetric with respect to permutations of the eigenvalues and write

$`\left(det\right)^\nu 𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})=G_\nu \left(t_k\right),`$ (6)
where $`G_\nu \left(t_k\right)`$ has the Taylor expansion

$`G_\nu \left(t_k\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+a_1t_1+a_2t_2+a_{11}t_1^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (7)
A simple consistency check on (6) is that unitary integrals are only nonvanishing if the powers of $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are equal. Following  we can find the coefficients of the Taylor expansion (7) from the differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}}{_{ba}_{ac}^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{cb}}{4}}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2},`$ (8)
which follows directly from (3). AS a consequence, $`G_\nu \left(t_k\right)`$ satisfies the equation

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{_{ba}_{ac}^{}}}+\nu _{ab}^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{_{ac}^{}}}\right]G_\nu \left(t_k\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{cb}}{4}}G_\nu \left(t_k\right).`$ (9)
Using the chain rule

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{_{ac}^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(^{}\right)^{k1}}{4^k}}\right]_{ca}_k,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{_{ba}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^{}\left(^{}\right)^{k1}}{4^k}}\right]_{ab}_k,`$ (10)
with $`_k=/t_k`$ we immediately obtain from (7)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^{}}{4}}\right)_{cb}^{s1}\left[_s^{\beta =2}\delta _{s,1}\right]G_\nu \left(t_k\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (11)
where

$`_s^{\beta =2}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}_k_{sk}+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}kt_k_{s+k}+\left(N_f+\nu \right)_s,s1,`$ (12)
and our convention throughout this paper is that terms like the first one in the expression for $`_s`$ vanish for $`s=1`$. The operators $`_s`$ obey a sub-algebra of the Virasoro algebra

$`[_r,_s]=\left(rs\right)_{r+s}`$ (13)
without central charge and $`r,s1`$.

At fixed value $`N_f`$ the $`t_k`$ are not independent, and the coefficients of the expansion (7) are not determined uniquely111Of course, they are determined uniquely up to the order that the $`t_k`$ are independent.. In (11) the matrix elements of $`^{}`$ and the $`t_k`$ are not independent so that we cannot conclude from (11) that the coefficients of $`\left(^{}\right)^s`$ vanish. Indeed, the corresponding equations for $`N_f=1`$ and $`\nu =0`$ are inconsistent. However, in order to fix the coefficients in (7) uniquely, we may supplement (11) with additional equations. We do that by requiring that all coefficients of $`\left(^{}\right)^s`$ vanish,

$`\left[_s^{\beta =2}\delta _{s,1}\right]G_\nu \left(t_k\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},s1.`$ (14)
This procedure is justified provided that the all equations are consistent. Indeed, for $`N_f\mathrm{}`$ the matrix elements and the $`t_k`$ are independent so that (14) must be valid. By inserting the Taylor expansion (7) into (14) we obtain an inhomogeneous set linear equations for the coefficients which depend on the parameter $`N_f+\nu `$. Inconsistencies can only arise for isolated values of $`N_f+\nu `$ for which the homogeneous part of the equations becomes linearly dependent. This is indeed what happens in the example $`N_f=1`$ and $`\nu =0`$.

Because of the commutation relations (13) the constraints for $`s3`$ follow from the constraints for $`s=1`$ and $`s=2`$. The coefficients of the Taylor expansion (7) can be found recursively by solving the constraints for $`s=1`$ and $`s=2`$. This will be carried out in section 3 after deriving the Virasoro constraints for $`\beta =4`$ and $`\beta =1`$.

### 2.2 $`\beta =4`$

Similarly, we now derive the Virasoro constraints for adjoint fermions ($`\beta =4`$). For fermions in the adjoint representation, the zero-momentum Goldstone modes belong to the coset space $`SU\left(N_f\right)/SO\left(N_f\right)`$. These Goldstone fields are conveniently parameterized by $`UU^T`$ with $`USU\left(N_f\right)`$. In the sector of topological charge $`\nu `$, we thus find the finite volume partition function ,

$`𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}(_S,_S^{})={\displaystyle _{UU\left(N_f\right)}}𝑑U\left(detU\right)^{2\overline{\nu }}e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(_S\left(UU^t\right)^{}+_S^{}UU^t\right)},`$ (15)
where $`\overline{\nu }=N_c\nu `$ and $`_S=M\mathrm{\Sigma }V`$. In this case the mass matrix $`_S`$ is an arbitrary symmetric complex matrix. From $`_SV^t_SV`$ we obtain the transformation law

$`\left(det_S\right)^{\overline{\nu }}𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}(_S,_S^{})=\left(detV^t_SV\right)^{\overline{\nu }}𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}(V^t_SV,V^1_S^{}\left(V^t\right)^1).`$ (16)
This implies that $`\left(det_S\right)^{\overline{\nu }}𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}(_S,_S^{})`$ is a symmetric function of the eigenvalues of $`_S_S^{}`$. We thus have that

$`\left(det_S\right)^{\overline{\nu }}𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}(_S,_S^{})=G_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}\left(t_k^S\right)=1+a_1^St_1^S+a_2^St_2^S+a_{11}^S\left(t_1^S\right)^2+\mathrm{},`$ (17)
where in analogy with (5) we have defined

$`t_k^S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_S_S^{}}{4}}\right)^k,`$ (18)
and $`G_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}\left(t_k^S\right)`$ will be determined by the differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}}{_{Sba}_{Sac}^{}}}=\delta _{bc}𝒵_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4},`$ (19)
After substituting the expansion (17) we obtain a differential equation for $`G_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}\left(t_k^S\right)`$ which can be written in the form of the Virasoro constraints,

$`\left[_s^{\beta =4}2\delta _{s,1}\right]G_{\overline{\nu }}^{\beta =4}\left(t_k^S\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},s1,`$ (20)
where

$`_s^{\beta =4}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}_k^S_{sk}^S+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}kt_k^S_{s+k}^S+\left(N_f+2\overline{\nu }+s\right)_s^S,`$ (21)
and $`_k^S=/t_k^S`$. One can easily check that $`_s^{\beta =4}`$ and $`_s^{\beta =2}`$ satisfy the same algebra.

### 2.3 $`\beta =1`$

For QCD with fundamental fermions and $`N_c=2`$ the Lagrangian can be written in terms of fermion multiplets of length $`2N_f`$ containing $`N_f`$ quarks and $`N_f`$ anti-quarks. The chiral symmetry is thus enhanced to $`SU\left(2N_f\right)`$. Since the fermion condensate is anti-symmetric in this enlarged flavor space, the coset space of the Goldstone modes is given by $`SU\left(2N_f\right)/Sp\left(2N_f\right)`$. This coset manifold is parameterized by $`UIU^t`$ where $`USU\left(2N_f\right)`$ and $`I`$ is the $`2N_f\times 2N_f`$ antisymmetric unit matrix

$`I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
The partition function in the sector of fixed topological charge $`\nu `$ is then given by integrating over the group manifold $`U\left(2N_f\right)`$ instead of $`SU\left(2N_f\right)`$,

$`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}(\stackrel{~}{}_A,\stackrel{~}{}_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{})={\displaystyle _{UU\left(2N_f\right)}}𝑑U\left(detU\right)^\nu e^{\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{}_A^{}UIU^t+\stackrel{~}{}_A\left(UIU^t\right)^{}\right)},`$ (25)
where the mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}_A=MV\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an arbitrary anti-symmetric complex matrix. In addition to the usual mass-term given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (28)
it contains di-quark source terms in its diagonal blocks. Below, in the calculation of the mass dependence of the partition function, the di-quark source terms will be put equal to zero. The covariance properties of $`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}`$ are given by

$`\left(det\stackrel{~}{}_A\right)^{\nu /2}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}(\stackrel{~}{}_A,\stackrel{~}{}_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{})=\left(detV^t\stackrel{~}{}_AV\right)^{\nu /2}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}(V^t\stackrel{~}{}_AV,V^1\stackrel{~}{}_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V^{t1}).`$ (29)
We thus have that $`\left(det\stackrel{~}{}_A\right)^{\nu /2}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}(\stackrel{~}{}_A,\stackrel{~}{}_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ is a symmetric function of the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{}_A\stackrel{~}{}_A^{}`$. This results in the expansion

$`\left(det\stackrel{~}{}_A\right)^{\nu /2}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}(\stackrel{~}{}_A,\stackrel{~}{}_A^{})=G_\nu ^{\beta =1}\left(t_k^A\right)=1+a_1^At_1^A+a_2^At_2^A+a_{11}^A\left(t_1^A\right)^2+\mathrm{},`$ (30)
where

$`t_k^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}_A\stackrel{~}{}_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{4}}\right)^k.`$ (31)
The factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the above definition of $`t_k^A`$ takes into account that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a $`2N_f\times 2N_f`$ matrix for $`\beta =1`$. Substituting (30) in the differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1}}{\stackrel{~}{}_{Aba}\stackrel{~}{}_{Aac}^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{bc}}{4}}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =1},`$ (32)
we deduce the differential equations for $`G_\nu ^{\beta =1}\left(t_k^A\right)`$ in the form of Virasoro constraints:

$`\left(_s^{\beta =1}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{s,1}}{2}}\right)G_\nu ^{\beta =1}\left(t_k^A\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (33)
with

$`_s^{\beta =1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}_k^A_{sk}^A+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}kt_k^A_{s+k}^A+\left(N_f+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\right)_s^A,`$ (34)
and $`_k^A=/t_k^A`$. The $`_s^{\beta =1}`$ satisfy the same algebra as the two other values of $`\beta `$ discussed in previous sections.

## 3 Solving the Constraints

In the first part of this section we discuss the recursive solution of the Virasoro constraints. Flavor-topology duality and nonperturbative solutions are discussed in the second part of this section.

### 3.1 Recursive Solution of Virasoro Constraints

Remarkably, in all three cases, $`\beta =1`$, $`\beta =2`$ and $`\beta =4`$, the constraints (14) , (20) and (33) can be written in the unified form:

$`\left(_s^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\delta _{s,1}\right)G(\alpha ,\gamma )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (35)
where (see (12), (21) and (34))

$`_s^\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}_k_{sk}+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}kt_k_{s+k}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\left[\alpha +\gamma \left(2s\right)+s1\right]_s,`$ (36)
and, motivated by ChRMT results of , we have introduced the notation

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left(N_f2\right)2/\beta +\nu +1,`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/\beta .`$ (37)
The $`t_k`$ are defined as in (5), (18) and (31) for $`\beta =2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, respectively. From (35) we conclude that in all three cases the Virasoro constraints only depend on $`N_f`$ and $`\nu `$ through the combination $`N_f+\beta \nu /2\left(\nu \overline{\nu }\mathrm{for}\beta =4\right)`$. Proceeding further, we can recursively solve (36) by substituting the Taylor expansion of the form (7) for $`G(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ in (35). By treating the $`t_k`$ as independent variables, we find the following relations between the expansion coefficients:

$`\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k\left(n_{k+1}+1\right)a_{n_1\mathrm{}n_k1n_{k+1}+1n_{k+2}\mathrm{}}+\left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(n_1+1\right)a_{n_1+1n_2\mathrm{}}=a_{n_1n_2\mathrm{}},`$ (38)
for $`s=1`$ and

$`\left(n_1+2\right)\left(n_1+1\right)a_{n_1+2n_2\mathrm{}}`$ $`+`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k\left(n_{k+2}+1\right)a_{n_1\mathrm{}n_k1n_{k+1}n_{k+2}+1\mathrm{}}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`\left(\alpha +1\right)\left(n_2+1\right)a_{n_1n_2+1n_3\mathrm{}}=0,`$
for $`s=2`$. (The subscript $`n_1n_2\mathrm{}`$ of the coefficients $`a_{n_1n_2\mathrm{}}`$ is a shorthand for the partition $`1^{n_1}2^{n_2}\mathrm{}`$.) All higher order Virasoro constraints are satisfied trivially through the Virasoro algebra. If we denote the level of the coefficients by $`n_kkn_k`$ and and the total number of partitions of $`n`$ by $`p\left(n\right)`$, the total number of unknown coefficients at level $`n+2`$ is equal to $`p\left(n+2\right)`$ whereas the total number of inhomogeneous equation (for $`s=1`$) is equal $`p\left(n+1\right)`$ and the total number of homogenous equations (for $`s=2`$) is equal to $`p\left(n\right)`$. The total number of partitions satisfies the recursion relation

$`p\left(n+2\right)=`$ $`p\left(n+1\right)+p\left(n\right)p\left(n3\right)p\left(n5\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (40)
$``$ $`\left(1\right)^kp\left(n+2{\displaystyle \frac{3k^2k}{2}}\right)\left(1\right)^kp\left(n+2{\displaystyle \frac{3k^2+k}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$
Since the number of partitions is a monotonic function of $`n`$, we have that

$`p\left(n+2\right)p\left(n+1\right)+p\left(n\right),`$ (41)
and the number of equations is always larger than or equal to the number of coefficients. In Table 1 we give the total number of coefficients and the total number of equations up to level $`n=10`$.

From normalization condition $`a_0=1`$ we conclude that $`a_1=1/\left(\alpha +\gamma \right)`$. At level $`n=2`$ we obtain one equation each from (38) and (39), respectively,

$`\left(\alpha +1\right)a_2+2a_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\gamma a_2+2\left(\alpha +\gamma \right)a_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1=1/\left(\alpha +\gamma \right),`$ (42)
which are solved by

$`a_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\alpha \right)}{2\alpha \left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)}},`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)}}.`$ (43)
Up to order $`\left(^{}\right)^4`$ we find

$`𝒵_{\nu ,N_f}^\beta (,^{})=(det)^\nu \times `$
$`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)}{4\left(\alpha +\gamma \right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha +1\right)\left(\mathrm{Tr}^{}\right)^2}{32\alpha \left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^2}{32\alpha \left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left(^{}\right)^3}{4^33\alpha \left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha \gamma +2\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^2}{4^32\alpha \left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\left(\alpha \gamma \right)\left(\alpha +3\right)+2\right]\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)\right]^3}{4^36\alpha \left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\gamma 5\alpha 6\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^4}{4^5\alpha \left(\alpha +1\right)\left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +3\right)\left(\alpha 2\gamma \right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\alpha ^24\alpha \left(\gamma 2\right)7\gamma +6\right]\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^3}{4^43\alpha \left(\alpha +1\right)\left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +3\right)\left(\alpha 2\gamma \right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\alpha ^2+\alpha \left(53\gamma \right)+2\gamma ^2\gamma +6\right]\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^2\right]^2}{4^52\alpha \left(\alpha +1\right)\left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +3\right)\left(\alpha 2\gamma \right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[3\alpha ^2\left(\gamma 2\right)\alpha ^364\gamma ^2+13\gamma +\alpha \left(11+14\gamma 2\gamma ^2\right)\right]\left(\mathrm{Tr}^{}\right)^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^2}{4^5\alpha \left(\alpha +1\right)\left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +3\right)\left(\alpha 2\gamma \right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[6+\alpha ^4+\alpha ^3\left(73\gamma \right)25\gamma +18\gamma ^2+\alpha ^2\left(1721\gamma +2\gamma ^2\right)+\alpha \left(1743\gamma +14\gamma ^2\right)\right]\left(\mathrm{Tr}^{}\right)^4}{4^56\alpha \left(\alpha +1\right)\left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +3\right)\left(\alpha 2\gamma \right)}}`$
$`+𝒪\left(\left(^{}\right)^6\right)].`$ (44)
For $`\beta =1`$ the mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ has been expressed in terms of the standard $`N_f\times N_f`$ mass matrix that occurs in the QCD partition function (see eq. (28)). For $`\beta =2`$ and $`\beta =4`$ the matrix $``$ is a complex $`N_f\times N_f`$ matrix as well, but for $`\beta =4`$ it is symmetric. We have checked that all coefficients in (44) agree with the corresponding expansion for $`\beta =2`$ obtained in . When the masses are degenerate $`\left(^{}\right)_{ab}=\mu ^2\delta _{ab}`$ exact expressions for $`𝒵_{\nu ,N_f}^\beta `$ are known for all three values of the Dyson index. For instance, in the special case $`N_f=2`$ and $`\beta =1`$ the finite volume partition function is given by

$`𝒵_{\nu ,2}^{\beta =1}=2{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{4}}\right)^{\left(\nu +k\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2\left(\nu +k\right)\right]!}{k!\left(\nu +k\right)!\left(\nu +k+2\right)!\left(2\nu +k\right)!}},`$ (45)
which is a convergent series for $`𝒵_{\nu ,2}^{\beta =1}`$. The reader can check that (44) only differs from (45) by the overall normalization factor $`2^{12\nu }/\left(\nu !\left(\nu +2\right)!\right)`$. We have also made similar checks for $`\beta =4`$. The poles that appear in the expansion (44) at finite $`N_f`$, the so called de Wit-’t Hooft poles , cancel after rewriting the expansion in powers of products of the eigenvalues of $`^{}`$. They can be regulated by choosing a noninteger value for the topological charge .

The expansion in terms of traces of the quark mass matrix can be directly compared with $`_{a=1}^{N_f}det\left(D+m_a\right)_{\mathrm{Yang}\mathrm{Mills}}`$ from which we derive spectral sum-rules for inverse powers of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator . With $`\zeta _k`$ related to the eigenvalues $`\pm i\lambda _k`$ of the Dirac operator through $`\zeta _k=V\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda _k`$, the first six sum rules for $`m_a=0`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _n^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\left(\alpha +\gamma \right)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _n^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\alpha \left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)}},`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _n^2}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{16\alpha \left(\alpha +\gamma \right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _n^6}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\alpha \left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _n^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _m^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \gamma +2}{64\alpha \left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)}},`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _n^2}}\right)^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha \gamma \right)\left(\alpha +3\right)+2}{64\alpha \left(\alpha ^2\gamma ^2\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +1\right)\left(\alpha +\gamma +2\right)}}.`$ (46)
The sum is over the positive eigenvalues only. It is clear that all sum-rules will depend on the topological charge through the combination $`N_f+\beta \nu /2`$. The first formula in (46) had already been obtained in  from the low-energy QCD finite volume partition functions. For $`\beta =2`$ our sum-rules agree with the ones derived in  obtained by means of Virasoro constraints and flavor-topology duality. The remaining sum-rules have never been derived before from the finite volume partition functions for $`\beta =1,4`$, but all except the fourth one have been obtained from ChRMT by means of Selberg integrals for arbitrary $`\beta `$ .

### 3.2 Flavor-Topology Duality

So far for the sum-rules, we now return to the flavor-topology duality relations which is our main result. To this end we construct a $`\left(N_f+\beta \nu /2\right)\times \left(N_f+\beta \nu /2\right)`$ matrix $`\overline{}`$ from the $`N_f\times N_f`$ original mass-matrix $``$ by adding zeros. We thus have that $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(^{}\right)^k=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{}\overline{}^{}\right)^k`$. The flavor-topology duality relation then follows from the observation that all coefficients in the small-mass expansion (44) depend on the number of flavors explicitly through the combination $`N_f+\beta \nu /2`$ and can be written as

$`𝒵_{\nu ,N_f}^\beta (,^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(det\right)^\nu 𝒵_{0,N_f+\beta \nu /2}^\beta (\overline{},\overline{}),`$ (47)
where $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ for $`\beta =4`$. For the cases where $`\beta \nu /2`$ is not an integer, the flavor-topology duality should be understood as an analytical continuation222The analytical continuation in $`\nu `$ is subtle. The correct continuation is obtained by  expressing the finite volume partition function in terms of modified Bessel functions and make an analytical continuation in the index of the Bessel functions. in $`\nu `$. Strictly speaking, we have only shown the duality relation (47) for the recursion relations for the coefficients of the small-mass expansion of the partition functions. To complete our proof we have to show that the Virasoro constraints uniquely determine all coefficients and that the expansion is a convergent series. The convergence of the small mass expansion follows immediately from the compactness of the unitary group. Indeed, for $`\beta =2`$, the small-mass expansion can be resummed to the $`\tau `$-function of a KP-hierarchy . This result can also be obtained from an exact reconstruction of $`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}`$  from the character expansion  which is an alternative to the small-mass expansion derived here. The uniqueness of the solution of the Virasoro constraints is a much more difficult question . We have checked explicitly to the order $`\left(^{}\right)^8`$ that this is indeed the case for all values of the parameters.

For $`\beta =2`$, however, the uniqueness follows from the explicit solution  of the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{_{ba}_{ab}^{}}}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})={\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{4}}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{}),`$ (48)
obtained from the trace of (8) or the Schwinger-Dyson equation

$`_{cd}^{}_{db}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{_{ba}_{ac}^{}}}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})=_{ba}^{}_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{4}}𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{}),`$ (49)
obtained by contracting (8) with $``$ and $`^{}`$. In both cases, the invariance of the partition function can be used to reduce the equations to a separable differential equation in the the eigenvalues of $`^{}`$. Because we are looking for a solution that is symmetric in the eigenvalues satisfying the boundary condition $`G_\nu \left(0\right)=1`$, it is determined uniquely by the solution of the single particle equation which happens to be the Bessel equation.

Let us discuss this in more detail for (48). The first step is to write the partition function as

$`𝒵_\nu ^{\beta =2}(,^{})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{det}{det^{}}}\right)^{\nu /2}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),`$ (50)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ is a function of the eigenvalues $`x_k`$ of $`^{}`$ only ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{diag}(x_1,\mathrm{}x_{N_f}`$)). It satisfies the differential equation

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{_{ba}_{ab}^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{4x_k^2}}\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)={\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{4}}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).`$ (51)
This equation can be further simplified by introducing the reduced partition function

$`z_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x_k^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{x}_k\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),`$ (52)
where the Vandermonde determinant is defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(x_k^2\right)=_{k<l}\left(x_k^2x_l^2\right)`$. We thus have that $`z_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ is a completely antisymmetric function of the eigenvalues with boundary condition such that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)_kx_k^\nu `$ for $`x_k0`$. The reduced partition function satisfies the separable differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[_k^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\nu ^21}{4x_k^2}}\right]z_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=N_fz_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).`$ (53)
The solution can thus be expressed as a Slater-determinant

$`z_\nu \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{kl}{det}\left[\varphi _k\left(x_l\right)\right],`$ (54)
where the $`\varphi _k`$ are the regular solutions of the single particle equation up to terms that vanish in the determinant. This requires further discussion. The solution of the single particle equation

$`D_B\varphi _k\left(x\right)\left[_x^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\nu ^21}{4x^2}}\right]\varphi _k\left(x\right)=\omega _k^2\varphi _k\left(x\right),`$ (55)
is the modified Bessel function

$`\varphi _k\left(x\right)=\sqrt{x}I_\nu \left(\omega _kx\right).`$ (56)
In order to cancel the Vandermonde determinant for $`x_k0`$ we necessarily have that all $`\omega _k^2`$ are equal and thus $`\omega _k=1`$. Because of the antisymmetry of the columns in the Slater determinant (54) we can allow for single particle solutions that satisfy the equations

$`D_B\varphi _1\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1\left(x\right),`$
$`D_B\varphi _2\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2\left(x\right)+\mu _{21}\varphi _1\left(x\right),`$
$`D_B\varphi _3\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _3\left(x\right)+\mu _{31}\varphi _1\left(x\right)+\mu _{32}\varphi _2\left(x\right),\mathrm{etc}..`$ (57)
By redefining $`\varphi _3,\varphi _4,\mathrm{}`$ we obtain the equations (for $`k2`$)

$`D_B\varphi _k\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _k\left(x\right)+\mu _{kk1}\varphi _{k1}\left(x\right),`$ (58)
where the $`\mu _{kk1}\varphi _{k1}\left(x\right)`$ cancel in the expression for the Slater determinant. The solution of these equations follows immediately from the recursion relation

$`D_B\left[x^{k+\frac{1}{2}}I_{\nu +k}\left(x\right)\right]=x^{k+\frac{1}{2}}I_{\nu +k}\left(x\right)+2kx^{k\frac{1}{2}}I_{\nu +k1}\left(x\right).`$ (59)
We thus find that

$`\varphi _k=x^{k+\frac{1}{2}}I_{\nu +k}\left(x\right).`$ (60)
and $`\mu _{kk1}=2k`$. Since the Bessel equation has only one regular solution, we conclude that this solution is unique. The Virasoro constraints together with the boundary conditions determine the partition function uniquely and is given by a Slater-determinant of modified Bessel functions (54) which agrees with the known result for the one-link intergral .

Actually the solution of the Virasoro constraints, although not its uniqueness can be obtained in a simpler way by identifying them with constraints which are satisfied by the Generalized Kontsevich Model (GKM). By changing variables from the matrix elements of $``$ and $`^{}`$ to the matrix elements of the hermitean matrix $`L\left(^{}/4\right)`$ we can rewrite (9) as

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{L_{be}}}L_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{}{L_{dc}}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{L_{bc}}}\right]G_\nu \left(L\right)=\delta _{bc}G_\nu \left(L\right).`$ (61)
This equation admits a solution in the form of a GKM with potential $`𝒱\left(X\right)=1/X`$ where $`X`$ is a $`N_f\times N_f`$ normal matrix. More explicitly we have333 The contour of integration is such that the integral converges for all values of $`L`$, and that an integral over a total derivative of $`X`$ vanishes.,

$`G_\nu \left(L\right)={\displaystyle \frac{dX}{\left(detX\right)^{N_f\nu }}e^{\mathrm{Tr}\left[LX+\frac{1}{X}\right]}},`$ (62)
which is a simple modification of the $`\nu =0`$ case studied in . In order to verify that (62) is a solution of (61) we have to insert a total derivative in the integral over $`X`$ and multiply it by a second order differential operator as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{L_{be}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{L_{dc}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑X\frac{}{X_{ed}}\left(\frac{1}{\left(detX\right)^{N_f\nu }}e^{\mathrm{Tr}\left[LX+\frac{1}{X}\right]}\right)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (63)
Concluding, for $`\beta =2`$ the Virasoro constraints naturally lead to a simple and rigorous proof of flavor-topology duality (47) which is an alternative to the proof presented in . For $`\beta =1`$ and $`\beta =4`$ a direct solution of the Virasoro constraints is not known, although we believe that further progress can be achieved at least in the case of equal quark masses where exact formulas for the partition function are known . For non-degenerate masses the obstacle is the lack of a generalization of the Itzykson-Zuber formula for integrals over unitary matrices. Therefore our proof of flavor-topology duality for $`\beta =1`$ and $`\beta =4`$ is only valid under the assumption of the uniqueness of the solution of the Virasoro constraints.

## 4 Conclusions

In a parameter range where the main contribution to the QCD partition function comes from the zero-momentum component of the Goldstone modes, the partition functions reduce to zero-dimensional integrals over the group manifolds $`SU\left(N_f\right)`$ , $`SU\left(N_f\right)/O\left(N_f\right)`$ and $`SU\left(2N_f\right)/Sp\left(2N_f\right)`$, for fermions in the fundamental representation and $`N_c3`$ ($`\beta =2`$), $`N_c=2`$ ($`\beta =1`$), and adjoint fermions with $`N_c2`$ ($`\beta =4`$), respectively. In the sector of fixed topological charge $`\nu `$ we have shown that these partition functions satisfy differential equations in the form of Virasoro constraints which determine the small-mass expansion for arbitrary values of the topological charge. We have calculated the coefficients of the small mass expansion recursively up to the order $`m^8`$ and have obtained new spectral sum rules for inverse powers of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator for $`\beta =1`$, $`\beta =2`$ and $`\beta =4`$. For all three values of $`\beta `$ the constraints depend on the topological charge through the combination $`N_f+\beta \nu /2`$ which demonstrates flavor-topology duality for the corresponding small-mass ($`m0`$) expansions. For the special case of $`\beta =2`$ the uniqueness of the solution of the Virasoro constraints and the convergence of the small mass expansion implies flavor-topology duality for the full (finite $`m`$) partition function. In this case, we have found a non-perturbative solution of the Virasoro constraints in the form of a Generalized Kontsevich Model for arbitrary topological charge $`\nu `$ which complements the $`\nu =0`$ results of . We have not been able to find an analogous solution for $`\beta =1`$ and $`\beta =4`$. Based on numerical evidence we believe that for these two cases the solution of the Virasoro constraints is unique as well, but a rigorous proof could not be given. The existence of exact expressions for partition functions with degenerate masses $`\left(^{}\right)_{ab}=\mu ^2\delta _{ab}`$ indicates that further progress is possible.

It is worth commenting that, even for $`\beta =2`$, although order by order the character expansion is equivalent to the perturbative solution of the small-mass Virasoro constraints, it does not provide us with a natural proof of flavor-topology duality (see ). It should also be pointed out that the GKM are known to satisfy both small-mass and large-mass Virasoro constraints. Thus, in view of our results, we also expect to find large-mass constraints for $`\nu 0`$ at least for $`\beta =2`$. Indeed we have explicitly obtained such constraints entirely within the context of unitary integrals and they depend quadratically on the topological charge $`\nu `$, contrary to the linear dependence of the small-mass constraints. The generalization of the large-mass constraints to $`\beta =1`$ and $`\beta =4`$ seems to be within reach. Due to the absence of an explicit $`N_f`$ dependence of the expansion coefficients they are the most relevant ones from the point of view of both the replica limit  and the classification of universality classes . In particular, for applications in 2D-gravity they correspond to the continuum Virasoro constraints which appear after the double scaling limit.

## 5 Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the US DOE grant DE-FG-88ER40388. The work of D.D. is supported by FAPESP (Brazilian Agency). Gernot Akemann, Poul Damgaard, Kim Splittorff and Dominique Toublan are acknowledged for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of tachyon condensation  provides us many insights into the off-shell dynamics of string theory. It has been established that open string tachyon is stabilized by acquiring a nonzero vev. As a result of this condensation, an unstable D-brane system decays into the vacuum. The occurrence of this phenomenon is shown by calculating the tachyon potential by using string field theory (SFT)  or boundary string field theory (B-SFT) . In addition, the notion of the D-brane charge is refined by regarding the D-brane as a remnant of the decay. The study of the unstable D-brane system leads us to introduce K-theory into string theory .

Suppose that the effective field theory of the unstable D-brane system is known. Then the action should have nontrivial solutions which describe a lower dimensional D-brane system. So it is expected that the effective theory can be used to describe various D-brane systems as classical solutions of the theory.

The unstable D-brane system can also decay into a BPS D-brane system. For example, Dp-$`\overline{\text{D}}`$p system can decay into a D(p$``$2)-brane. Therefore the effective theory of the brane-antibrane system should have a BPS vortex solution corresponding to the D(p$``$2)-brane. So the search for such solution is an interesting check for the validity of the action of the effective theory.

Recently, the effective action of the brane-antibrane system is derived by using B-SFT . The leading order terms in the derivative expansion are the followings,

$`S_{p\overline{p}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\tau _9{\displaystyle }d^{10}xe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}|T|^2}[1+8\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}2|D_\mu T|^2`$ (1.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{8}}(F_{\mu \nu }^+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{8}}(F_{\mu \nu }^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{8}}(\alpha ^{})^2|T|^2(F_{\mu \nu }^+F_{\mu \nu }^{})^2],`$
where $`F_{\mu \nu }^+`$ is the field strength of the gauge field $`A_\mu ^+`$ on the D-brane and $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is the one on the $`\overline{\text{D}}`$-brane. The covariant derivative of the tachyon field $`T`$ is defined as

$$D_\mu T=_\mu Ti(A_\mu ^+A_\mu ^{})T.$$
(1.2)
There is another progress on the configuration of $`T`$ and $`A_\mu ^\pm `$ . It is shown from the worldsheet analysis that $`T`$ must be holomorphic on the associated line bundle in order to preserve worldsheet supersymmetry, i.e.

$$D_{\overline{a}}T=0,$$
(1.3)
where $`a`$ is an index for the complex coordinates. So this implies that one of the vortex equation is (1.3).

In this paper we will investigate an action which resembles the above action (1.1) and find a set of BPS solutions with smooth behavior, which corresponds to codimension two D-branes. It seems natural to identify these solutions with BPS D-branes since they saturate the Bogomol’nyi bound. It should be noted that these solutions are, in fact, not the classical solutions of the action (1.1). They are the solutions of the action with slightly different potential. This can be explained as follows. The exact vortex solution would depend on higher derivative terms which we will omit throughout this paper. So the action (1.1) not necessarily has BPS vortex solutions. It is nonetheless interesting that an action with nontrivial metric in kinetic terms and a run-away potential has regular BPS vortex solutions.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we will review our previous work on a description of BPS D-brane systems . We will discuss an action which resembles the action (1.1) in section 3 and find a set of first order equations. The properties of the solution are investigated in section 4.

## 2 BPS D-branes as vortices

In this section, we will review our previous work  and show a description of BPS D-brane systems. We consider the effective field theory of D9-$`\overline{\text{D}}`$9 system. The bosonic part consisting of terms which are leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the following ,

$$S_{boson}=\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}d^{10}x\left[\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }|D_\mu T|^2\frac{1}{2}(|T|^2\zeta )^2\right],$$
(2.1)
where $`D_\mu T=_\mu TiA_\mu T`$. The gauge field $`A_\mu `$ corresponds to a linear combination $`A_\mu ^+A_\mu ^{}`$ of the gauge fields in the action (1.1). We will find BPS solutions of this action and show the correspondence to the BPS D-brane systems.

It should be noted that when one considers the leading terms in the derivative expansion, each kinetic term would have a nontrivial metric. These metrics are important when one discusses the dynamics around the vacuum configuration . On the other hand, for the discussion of the D-brane these metrics are not so important since the worldvolume of the D-brane corresponds to the zero set of $`T`$. Around $`T=0`$ the metrics do not vanish and can be approximated by constants. So we expect that the worldvolume of the D-brane system can be described, at least qualitatively, by a solution of the action (2.1).

The action (2.1) has BPS solutions satisfying the following equations.

$`D_{\overline{a}}T=0,F_{\overline{a}\overline{b}}=0`$ (2.2)
$`ig^{a\overline{b}}F_{a\overline{b}}+|T|^2\zeta =0`$ (2.3)
We have introduced the complex coordinates

$$z^a=x^{2a1}+ix^{2a}$$
(2.4)
and $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The case $`n=1`$ corresponds to the Nielsen-Olesen vortex equations . The cases $`n=2,3`$ describe intersecting branes each of which has codimension two.

The BPS equations (2.2)(2.3) are well-studied when they are defined on a compact Kähler manifold $`M`$ . There is one-to-one correspondence between the set of solutions of the BPS equations and the set of holomorphic sections $`T`$ of the line bundles on $`M`$. The zero set of $`T`$ is an effective divisor of $`M`$, so the solutions describe various BPS D-brane systems wrapped on the divisor of $`M`$ . Thus this description can apply to multiple branes and intersecting branes as well as a single brane.

## 3 BPS equations

In this section we will discuss a more general action.

$$S=\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}d^{10}x\left[e^{a|T|^2}|D_\mu T|^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{b|T|^2}(1+c|T|^2)F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+V(T)\right]$$
(3.1)
We assume that $`a,b,c`$ are positive constants. As will be shown below, for special form of $`V(T)`$ this action has BPS solutions which satisfy a set of first order equations.

We will look for the solutions which depends only on two spatial coordinates, say, $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$. The energy density of the solution is as follows,

$$=\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}d^2x\left[e^{a|T|^2}|D_\alpha T|^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{b|T|^2}(1+c|T|^2)F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+V(T)\right],$$
(3.2)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$.

The following identity holds.

$`e^{a|T|^2}|D_\alpha T|^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{a|T|^2}|D_1T+iD_2T|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\left(e^{a|T|^2}1\right)F_{12}`$ (3.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \left\{(e^{a|T|^2}1){\displaystyle \frac{D_\beta T}{T}}\right\}`$
This identity is proved in Appendix A. Therefore the energy density (3.2) can be rewritten as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle }d^2x[e^{a|T|^2}|D_1T+D_2T|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{b|T|^2}(1+c|T|^2)(F_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ab)|T|^2}}{1+c|T|^2}})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}F_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \left\{(e^{a|T|^2}1){\displaystyle \frac{D_\beta T}{T}}\right\}+V(T){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(2ab)|T|^2}}{1+c|T|^2}}].`$
So when the potential takes the following form

$$V(T)=\frac{1}{2a^2}\frac{e^{(2ab)|T|^2}}{1+c|T|^2},$$
(3.5)
one can find a set of first order equations

$`D_1T+iD_2T=0,`$ (3.6)
$`F_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ab)|T|^2}}{1+c|T|^2}}=0,`$ (3.7)
whose solutions saturates the Bogomol’nyi bound. As will be shown in the next section, the energy density of the BPS solution is quantized.

An interesting case in relation to the brane-antibrane system is the case $`a=b`$. In this case the action (3.1) resembles the one derived from the B-SFT , and has BPS solutions which satisfy

$`D_1T+iD_2T=0,`$ (3.8)
$`F_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(1+c|T|^2)}}=0.`$ (3.9)
## 4 Properties of the solutions

We will focus on the case $`a=b`$. Equation (3.8) can be solved by parametrizing $`T`$ and $`A_\alpha `$ as follows.

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\omega }`$ (4.1)
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_2\mathrm{log}\rho +_1\omega `$ (4.2)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_1\mathrm{log}\rho +_2\omega `$ (4.3)
Another equation (3.9) is rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\rho =\frac{1}{a(1+c\rho )}.$$
(4.4)
We will take the polar coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ and look for radially symmetric solutions. If $`\rho `$ does not depend on the angle variable $`\theta `$, equation (4.4) is

$$\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right]\mathrm{log}\rho =\frac{1}{a(1+c\rho )}.$$
(4.5)
It is convenient to make a change of variables

$$u=\mathrm{log}\rho ,t=\mathrm{log}r.$$
(4.6)
Then equation (4.5) is a bit simplified.

$$\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}=\frac{2}{a}\frac{e^{2t}}{1+ce^u}$$
(4.7)
We have to specify the boundary condition of the solution to solve the equation (4.7). From the form of the potential, one can see that the minima of the potential correspond to $`|T|\mathrm{}`$. So we have to impose $`u+\mathrm{}`$ at infinity $`(t+\mathrm{})`$ for a localized solution. On the other hand, the core of the solution $`(r=0)`$ should correspond to $`|T|=0`$, so $`u\mathrm{}`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The asymptotic behavior of the solution can be derived from equation (4.7),

$$u\{\begin{array}{cc}2At\hfill & (t+\mathrm{}),\\ 2nt\hfill & (t\mathrm{}),\end{array}$$
(4.8)
where $`A1`$ and $`n`$ is a positive integer. So there exist solutions which satisfy the desired boundary condition. The form of a solution is shown in fig.1,2. For details see Appendix B.

There is one exceptional case; $`n=1`$. Since $`\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}<0`$ everywhere, the coefficient $`A`$ is restricted so that $`A<n`$. So in the case $`n=1`$ there is no solution with the desired boundary behavior.

The energy density of the solution is

$$=\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2a}d^2x\left[F_{12}+iϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \left\{(e^{a|T|^2}1)\frac{D_\beta T}{T}\right\}\right].$$
(4.9)
Since $`|T|\mathrm{}`$ at infinity, $``$ is finite. In fact,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2a}}\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S_R^1}}𝑑x^\alpha \left[A_\alpha +i(e^{a|T|^2}1){\displaystyle \frac{D_\alpha T}{T}}\right]`$ (4.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2a}}\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S_R^1}}𝑑x^\alpha \left[A_\alpha i{\displaystyle \frac{D_\alpha T}{T}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2a}}\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S_R^1}}𝑑x^\alpha \left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_\alpha \mathrm{log}\rho +_\alpha \omega \right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2a}}\left[2\pi niA\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{S_R^1}}𝑑x^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{x^\alpha }{r^2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g_{YM}^2a}}n,`$
where $`S_R^1`$ denotes a circle with radius $`R`$. Therefore $``$ is positive and quantized. So the BPS solutions are stable which is appropriate for the correspondence to the BPS D-branes.

As shown above, there are stable solutions labelled by $`n`$. However the flux is not quantized and depends on the behavior of $`T`$ at infinity. So it is hard to interpret the flux as the number of codimension two branes. It would be rather appropriate for equations (3.8)(3.9) to be defined on a compact surface. Then the flux is automatically quantized. Since the second term in (4.9) vanishes, the energy density is still quantized and the solutions are stable. It is very interesting to show the existence of the solutions on the compact surface.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank H. Itoyama, H. Kawai and T. Matsuo for valuable discussions. This work is supported in part by JSPS Reseach Fellowships.

Appendices

## Appendix A Proof of the identity

One can easily see that

$$|T|^{2k}|D_\alpha T|^2=|T|^{2k}|D_1T+D_2T|^2i|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha T^{}D_\beta T.$$
(A.1)
The second term in the RHS is rewritten as,

$`i|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha T^{}D_\beta T`$ $`=`$ $`ik|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha T^{}D_\beta T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }|T|^2F_{\alpha \beta }`$ (A.2)
$`i_\alpha \left(|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }T^{}D_\beta T\right).`$
Thus

$`i|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha T^{}D_\beta T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(k+1)}}|T|^{2(k+1)}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$ (A.3)
$`i_\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }T^{}D_\beta T\right).`$
This identity can be used to prove the identity (3.3).

$`e^{a|T|^2}|D_\alpha T|^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{a|T|^2}|D_1T+iD_2T|^2i{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)^k}{k!}}|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha T^{}D_\beta T`$ (A.4)
$`=`$ $`e^{a|T|^2}|D_1T+iD_2T|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)^k}{(k+1)!}}|T|^{2(k+1)}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$
$`i_\alpha \left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)^k}{(k+1)!}}|T|^{2k}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }T^{}D_\beta T\right)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{a|T|^2}|D_1T+iD_2T|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}\left(e^{a|T|^2}1\right)ϵ_{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \left\{(e^{a|T|^2}1){\displaystyle \frac{D_\beta T}{T}}\right\}`$
## Appendix B Asymptotic behavior of the solutions

Solving equations (3.8)(3.9) is reduced to solving the equation

$$\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}=\frac{2}{a}\frac{e^{2t}}{1+ce^u}.$$
(B.1)
First consider the region $`u\mathrm{}`$. Then $`e^u`$ in the RHS can be neglected and the solution behaves as

$$u\frac{1}{2a}e^{2t}+Ct+D.$$
(B.2)
So $`u`$ is linear in $`t`$ at $`t\mathrm{}`$. This means that $`\rho `$ behaves as

$$\rho r^C$$
(B.3)
near the origin. The regularity and the single-valuedness of the solution require that

$$\omega =n\theta ,C=2n.$$
(B.4)
Next consider the region $`u+\mathrm{}`$. In this region equation (B.1) is

$$\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}=\frac{2}{ac}e^{2tu}.$$
(B.5)
One can easily integrate this equation and obtains

$$\left(\frac{dv}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{4}{ac}e^v+\xi ,$$
(B.6)
where $`v=u2t`$ and $`\xi `$ is an integration constant. This equation can be solved exactly,

$$e^{u+2t}=\{\begin{array}{cc}ac\xi e^{\sqrt{\xi }(tt_0)}(1e^{\sqrt{\xi }(tt_0)})^2,\hfill & (\xi >0)\\ ac(tt_0)^2,\hfill & (\xi =0)\\ \frac{\xi ac}{4}\mathrm{sec}^2\frac{\sqrt{|\xi |}}{2}(tt_0),\hfill & (\xi <0)\end{array}$$
(B.7)
where $`t_0`$ is another integration constant. The solution for $`\xi <0`$ is singular and this is not appropriate for the asymptotic solution. The other solutions behave at $`t+\mathrm{}`$ as

$$u(2+\sqrt{\xi })t.$$
(B.8)
Therefore $`u`$ is also linear in $`t`$ at $`t+\mathrm{}`$ although its slope is restricted.