text:
# UCTP-113-00 SEARCHES FOR RARE AND FORBIDDEN DECAYS OF CHARM: RECENT RESULTS FROM FNAL

## 1 Introduction

Searches for rare and forbidden decays of charm are concerned with final states containing two charged leptons. Such processes occur via flavor-changing neutral-current amplitudes, lepton-flavor-violating amplitudes (leptons belonging to different families), or lepton-number-violating amplitudes (leptons belonging to one family but having the same sign charge). Diagrams for these amplitudes typically contain new types of particles having high masses; thus, these decays probe energy scales which cannot be accessed directly. For example, the amplitude for the flavor-changing neutral-current decay $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is expected to be proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{g}^2/M_X^2\times (\mathrm{phase}\mathrm{space})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a coupling constant and $`M_X`$ is the mass of some unknown propagator (see Fig. 1). The amplitude for the Standard Model decay $`D^+\overline{K}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\mu ^+\nu `$ is proportional to $`g^2/M_W^2\times (\mathrm{phase}\mathrm{space})`$, and thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{K}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\mu ^+\nu )=\stackrel{~}{g}^4M_W^4/(g^4M_X^4)\times (\mathrm{phase}\mathrm{space}\mathrm{ratio})`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{g}g`$, then

$$M_XM_W\left[\frac{B(D^+\overline{K}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\mu ^+\nu )}{B(D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{})}\times (\mathrm{phase}\mathrm{space}\mathrm{ratio})\right]^{1/4}.$$
(1)
Inserting numbers one finds that a branching fraction $`B(D^0\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$$`10^5`$ corresponds to a mass $`M_X700`$ GeV/$`c^2`$.

Over the past year, FNAL E791 has published new limits on branching fractions for 24 different two- and three-body decay modes, and submitted for publication new limits for 27 additional three- and four-body decay modes. In most cases the E791 limits are the most stringent available. Here we review these results and also briefly discuss competitive results from other FNAL experiments.

## 2 The E791 Experiment

FNAL E791111The collaboration consists of: CBPF (Brazil), Tel Aviv, CINVESTAV (Mexico), Puebla (Mexico), U. C. Santa Cruz, Cincinnati, Fermilab, Illinois Institute of Technology, Kansas State, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Princeton, South Carolina, Stanford, Tufts, Wisconsin, and Yale. is a hadroproduction experiment studying the weak decays of charm mesons and baryons. The charm particles were produced by impinging a 500 GeV/$`c`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ beam on five thin target foils. The most upstream foil consisted of platinum; the other foils consisted of carbon (diamond). All foils were separated by about 15 mm such that $`D`$ mesons decayed predominately in the air gaps between foils. The experimental apparatus consisted of a silicon vertex detector followed by a two-magnet spectrometer, two segmented Cerenkov counters for hadron identification, an electromagnetic calorimeter for electron identification, and iron shielding followed by scintillator counters for muon identification. The downstream silicon vertex detector consisted of 17 planes of silicon and was used to reconstruct decay vertices downstream of the interaction vertex. The spectrometer consisted of 35 planes of drift chambers and two proportional wire chambers. The two dipole magnets bent particles in the horizontal plane and had $`p_T`$ kicks of +210 GeV/$`c`$ and +320 GeV/$`c`$. The Cerenkov counters contained gases with different indices of refraction; together they provided $`\pi /K/p`$ discrimination over the momentum range 6–60 GeV/$`c`$. Data were recorded using a loose transverse energy trigger. After reconstruction, events with evidence of well-separated interaction and decay vertices were retained for further analysis. The experiment took data from September, 1991 to January 1992, recording the world’s largest sample of charm decays at that time. The final number of reconstructed decays is over 200 000.

## 3 Event Selection

E791 has searched for two-, three-, and four-body $`D^0`$ decays such as $`D^0e^+e^{}`$, $`D^0\varphi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^{}e^+`$; and three-body $`D^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$ decays such as $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`D_s^+K^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. Here and throughout this paper, charge-conjugate modes are included unless otherwise noted. The sensitivity of a search is determined (or normalized) by counting events in a topologically-similar hadronic decay channel such as $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ for which the branching fraction is known. For all searches, the event selection proceeded via a “blind analysis” technique in order to avoid biasing the choice of selection criteria. This technique has three steps: (a) all events having a reconstructed mass within a mass window or “box” around $`m_D`$ are removed from the sample; (b) the selection criteria are chosen by optimizing the ratio $`S/\sqrt{B}`$, where $`S`$ is the number of signal events from a Monte Carlo simulation that pass all criteria, and $`B`$ is the number of events from data that are within a “background box” which is near – but exclusive of – the signal box; (c) the finalized selection criteria are applied to the events within the signal box to see if any candidate events remain. The selection criteria resulting from this procedure are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The most important criterion is that of $`SDZ`$, which is defined as the distance between the interaction vertex and the decay vertex divided by the error in this quantity. Values used for this criterion were 12 for $`D^0`$ and $`D_s^+`$ decays and 20 for longer-lived $`D^+`$ decays.

The mass windows chosen for the various searches depend upon the number of particles in the final state and on whether any of them are electrons. For final states not containing electrons, the windows extended $`\pm `$ 35, $`\pm `$ 30, or $`\pm `$ 20 MeV/$`c^2`$ around $`m_D`$ for $`D^0`$, $`D^+`$, and $`D_s^+`$ decays, respectively. For final states containing one or more electrons, the mass windows were asymmetric, extending 40–70 MeV/$`c^2`$ farther below $`m_D`$ than above it as the mass distributions had low-energy tails resulting from final-state bremsstrahlung. For search modes containing a $`\rho ^0`$, $`\overline{K}^0`$, or $`\varphi `$ meson in the final state, it was required that $`|m_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}m_\rho |<150`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`|m_{K^{}\pi ^+}m_K^{}|<55`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, or $`|m_{K^+K^{}}m_\varphi |<10`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, respectively.

After all selection criteria were applied, no significant excess of events above the estimated background was observed. The experiment thus sets upper limits as follows:

$$UL(DX)=\left(\frac{N_X}{N_{\mathrm{norm}}}\right)\left(\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{norm}}}{\epsilon _X}\right)\times B_{\mathrm{norm}},$$
(2)
where $`N_X`$ is the 90% C.L. upper limit on the mean number of signal events as determined from the number of candidate events observed and the estimated background; $`N_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ is the number of events observed (after background subtraction) in a hadronic normalization channel such as $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$; $`\epsilon _X`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{norm}}`$ are the overall detection efficiencies for the search channel ($`DX`$) and normalization channel, respectively; and $`B_{\mathrm{norm}}`$ is the branching fraction for the normalization channel as taken from the Particle Data Book. The upper limits $`N_X`$ are calculated using the method of Feldman and Cousins in order to account for estimated background. They are subsequently increased via the prescription of Cousins and Highland to account for systematic errors.

There were eight hadronic decay channels used for normalization. These channels are listed in Table 3 along with the number of events obtained for each after background subtraction. In general, a dilepton search mode was normalized to a Cabibbo-favored hadronic mode having the same number of tracks in the final state and, whenever possible, the same daughter particles except for the substitution of pions for leptons. For example, the $`D^+K\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2`$ searches were normalized to $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays. However, the $`D^0\rho ^0\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_2^{}`$ searches were normalized to $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, as there is no published branching fraction for $`D^0\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

## 4 Background Estimate

There were two main sources of background in E791: “reflection” background arising from fully-reconstructed hadronic $`D`$ decays in which two of the tracks were misidentified as leptons, and “combinatoric” background arising from accidental combinations of tracks and vertices. Most of the reflection background was eliminated by excluding events with invariant masses (assuming all daughters to be $`\pi `$ or $`K`$) near $`m_D`$; i.e., it was required that $`|m(h_1h_2h_3h_4)m_{D^0}|>35`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`|m(h_1h_2h_3)m_{D^+}|>30`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, and $`|m(h_1h_2h_3)m_{D_s^+}|>20`$ MeV/$`c^2`$. These requirements were imposed for all $`h_1`$$`h_4`$ final states listed in Table 4, with one exception: those final states having the same number of kaons as that of the search mode were not excluded in this manner, as the acceptance loss for signal events would have been excessive. Instead, background from these modes was estimated as follows.

First, the probability for a pair of pions to be misidentified as $`\mu \mu `$, $`\mu e`$, or $`ee`$ was estimated from data. This probability was then multiplied by the number of events observed in the hadronic channel for which the reflection cut could not be applied. A factor was included to account for the fraction of these events that would reflect into the signal mass window if two daughter pions were misidentified as leptons. For example, the reflection background in the $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ sample arising from $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays is calculated as $`P_{\pi \pi \mu \mu }\times N_{\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+}\times f\times J_c`$, where $`f`$ is the fraction of $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays that would reflect into the $`D^+`$ mass window if two daughter pions were misidentified as muons (75% in this example). The factor $`J_c`$ accounts for the different ways a hadronic mode can be misidentified as a dilepton mode; e.g., there are two ways that $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ can be misidentified as $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

The misidentification probabilities for three-body decays were obtained from the final $`D^+K^{}\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_2^+`$ samples, and those for four-body decays from the final $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2^+`$ samples, where all candidates observed (after subtracting combinatoric background estimated from mass sidebands) were assumed to originate from $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ decays, respectively. For example, there were 13, 5.2, and 6 events passing all selection criteria for the $`K^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$, $`K^{}\mu ^+e^+`$, and $`K^{}e+e^+`$ samples, respectively, and 17 730 events (after background subtraction) in the $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ sample. Thus, the misidentification probabilities for three-body decays were $`P_{\mu \mu }=(7.3\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.0})\times `$$`10^4`$, $`P_{\mu e}=(2.9\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.3})\times 10^4`$, and $`P_{ee}=(3.4\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.4})\times 10^4`$. The reflection backgrounds for the $`D^+K^{}\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_2^+`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2^+`$ modes themselves were taken to be zero as there was no independent estimate of the misidentification rates. This results in conservative upper limits. Unfortunately, there were too many events observed for the $`D^+K^{}\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_2^+`$ modes (after accounting for combinatoric background – see below) to set meaningful upper limits.

After the mass reflection cuts, combinatoric background was estimated by averaging the number of events in the mass sidebands both above and below the $`D`$ signal mass window and scaling this number by the size of the signal mass window relative to that of the mass sidebands. If there were no events in the higher mass sideband, it was assumed that there were no combinatoric background events in the signal box. This assumption avoids overestimating background due to statistical fluctuations. Because it tends to underestimate background, it results in a conservative upper limit.

There were also small backgrounds to the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`D^0K^+K^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`D^0\overline{K}^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and $`D^0\varphi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ samples arising from $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\rho ^0`$, $`D^0K^+K^{}\rho ^0`$, $`D^0\overline{K}^0\rho ^0`$, and $`D^0\varphi \rho ^0`$ decays, respectively, where $`\rho ^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. These backgrounds were estimated using the branching fractions for $`D^0h_1h_2\rho ^0`$, $`D^0V\rho ^0`$, and $`\rho ^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ from the Particle Data Book.

## 5 Upper Limits

The final event samples after all selection criteria were applied and signal boxes “opened” are shown in Figs. 23. The number of background events estimated, the number of candidate events observed, the overall systematic error, and the resultant 90% C.L. upper limits are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The systematic errors arise mainly from four sources: errors resulting from the fits to the normalization channels, statistical errors on the number of Monte Carlo events generated and accepted (used to calculate acceptance), uncertainties in the amounts of reflection and combinatoric background, and uncertainties in the relative detection efficiencies between the search modes and their normalization channels. The upper limits on the branching fractions are compared to (previous) limits from the Particle Data Book in Fig. 4. Of the 51 decay modes listed, all but six have upper limits more stringent than previously published results. For 26 of these modes, the E791 limits are the first such limits reported.

## 6 Other Experiments

There are five published limits that remain superior to those obtained by E791, and one published limit that is equivalent. These were obtained by the CLEO experiment ($`D^0\rho ^0e^+e^{},\rho ^0\mu ^\pm e^{},\varphi e^+e^{},\varphi \mu ^\pm e^{}`$), by the BEATRICE experiment ($`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$), and by FNAL E687 ($`D^+K^+e^+e^{}`$). This last experiment used a photon beam of mean energy $``$ 220 GeV to photoproduce charm, and a silicon strip vertex detector (like E791) to reconstruct $`D`$ decay vertices. The experiment ran concurrently with E791 and obtained an upper limit for $`B(D^+K^+e^+e^{})`$ identical to that from E791.

Another hadroproduction experiment, FNAL E771, also ran concurrently with E791 but used an 800 GeV/$`c`$ proton beam. This experiment obtained an upper limit for $`B(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ remarkably close to that obtained by BEATRICE. In fact, the 90% C.L. upper limits from BEATRICE, E771, and E791 are within about 25% of each other: $`B(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<4.1`$, 4.2, and 5.2 $`\times 10^6`$, respectively. Assuming these results uncorrelated, we combine them to obtain $`B(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<1.5\times 10^6`$ at 90% C.L. This limit is still many orders of magnitude larger than the Standard Model expectation (dominated by long-distance effects) of $``$$`10^{15}`$.

For the future, we expect greater sensitivity than that of the above experiments from FNAL E831 (FOCUS), a photoproduction experiment that is an upgraded version of E687. The E831 detector employed more muon counters than did E791 and also used a finer-grained electromagnetic calorimeter. The experiment took data in 1996–97, recording a charm sample approximately four times larger than that of E791. The analysis of this data set is underway.

## 7 Summary

In summary, E791 has completed an extensive search for flavor-changing neutral-current, lepton-flavor-violating, and lepton-number-violating processes and sees no evidence for these decays. The experiment has set upper limits on 51 different decay modes; all limits but six are improvements over previously published results. Many of these limits are at the $`10^5`$ to $`10^6`$ level and can constrain various extensions to the Standard Model. We anticipate even more stringent limits (or possibly signals) from E831, which has a “cleaner” data sample due to the photoproduction process, superior muon and electron identification, and approximately four times as many reconstructed charm decays.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Attempts to extend the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence to non-supersymmetric and/or non-conformal theories have been presented in the last years. Possible string duals of nonconformal theories can be obtained in a supersymmetric context by considering deformations of conformal backgrounds  or using fractional branes . These backgrounds are dual to strongly coupled gauge theories. The IR dynamics of such theories can be different from the familiar one of their weakly coupled cousins, but they are nevertheless expected to exhibit familiar phenomena as confinement, chiral symmetry breaking etc. The IR region of the supergravity background, which should describe these phenomena, is generically plagued with naked singularities, but regular solutions are known nowadays .

Type 0 theory could provide the natural arena to extend these constructions to non-supersymmetric theories. In , for example, a Type 0 regular solution was found which is a possible non-supersymmetric version of the one presented in .

Type 0 closed strings have a doubled set of RR fields compared to their type II cousins, hence they also possess twice as many D-branes . For example, type 0B contains a RR 4-form gauge potential whose field strength is not restricted to be selfdual. This implies that there are two types of D3-branes: those that couple electrically to this gauge potential, and those that couple magnetically.

In the closed string spectrum there is also a tachyon of $`m^2=\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}`$ which is not removed by the non-chiral GSO projection $`(1)^{F+\stackrel{~}{F}}=1`$ responsible for the absence of spacetime supersymmetry in the theory.

Despite the presence of a tachyon in the bulk we can construct stable D-branes in Type 0 (see for example  for a boundary state construction and  for a study of intersecting Type 0 branes). Here “stable” means that open strings starting and ending on these branes do not contain tachyons. This means that no evident instability appears for the gauge theories living on the D-brane worldvolume. In  it was argued that this may imply a nonperturbative stabilization from the string theory side.

The first attempts to construct Type 0 duals of large $`N`$ nonsupersymmetric 4-dimensional gauge theories were presented in . There, a stack of $`N>>1`$ parallel electric (or magnetic) branes is considered. The worldvolume gauge theory is $`SU(N)`$ coupled with 6 adjoint scalars. The tachyon may be stabilized by RR flux. The conjectured dual gravity background asymptotes to $`AdS_5\times \widehat{S}^5`$ in the UV. In this region the tachyon is supposed to relax towards a constant value and the dilaton runs logarithmically. This corresponds to the expected asymptotic freedom of the gauge theory. In the IR we can have a fine tuned conformal solution  or a more general one  which could correspond to a confining gauge theory.

An important question upon such a construction, is how can we construct the background. In fact we can consider the branes stacked parallel to each other as a stable configuration if, for example, no repulsive force is experienced by them. In ,  the force between electric branes was extrapolated from the gauge theory scalar potential at 1-loop. Clearly this kind of analysis is valid only in the UV region (long distances from the branes).

In  it was considered a stack of $`N`$ electric and $`N`$ magnetic D3-branes . For such a stack the net tachyon tadpole cancels so that there exists a classical solution with $`T=0`$. In fact, since the stack couples to the selfdual part of the 5-form field strength, the type 0B 3-brane classical solution is identical to the type IIB one. This may suggests that the low-energy field theory on $`N`$ electric and $`N`$ magnetic D3-branes is dual to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background of type 0B theory and is therefore conformal in the planar limit. This theory is the $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ gauge theory coupled to 6 adjoint scalars of the first $`SU(N)`$, 6 adjoint scalars of the second $`SU(N)`$, and fermions in the bifundamental representations (4 Weyl fermions in the $`(N,\overline{N})`$ and 4 Weyl fermions in the $`(\overline{N},N)`$). This theory is a regular $`Z_2`$ orbifold projection of the $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(2N)`$ gauge theory , . The conjectured dual background is stable for small or intermediate values of the ‘t Hooft coupling, which corresponds to large curvature from the gravity side. The AdS/CFT correspondence applied to this particular case implies  that, as $`\lambda =g_{YM}^2N`$ is increased, a phase transition should happen at a critical value $`\lambda _c`$ rendering the theory unstable. In  the stability of this “selfdual” stack was considered, again extracting informations from the UV gauge theory.

In this paper we try to extend these constructions to the general case in which N electric and M magnetic branes are stacked parallel to each other. The field theory living on their worldvolume has gauge group $`SU(N)\times SU(M)`$ with adjoint scalars and bifundamental fermions in the $`(\overline{N},M)`$, and in the $`(N,\overline{M})`$. This theory is not expected to have asymptotic freedom.

In sections 2 and 3 we examine , from the AdS/CFT point of view, the IR of the theory, showing that a fine tuned gravity solution exists, corresponding to an IR isolated conformal fixed point.

This opens the question upon the possibility of extending AdS/CFT techniques to these particular cases. In the selfdual case in which $`N=M`$ we have a line of fixed points. We can apply the standard techniques to extract, for example, the conformal dimensions of the gauge theory operators corresponding to the gravity fields. In the general case we find that a certain regular behaviour seems to be present (despite the fact that the dilaton blows up). This could be helpful in trying to calculate correlator functions and operator dimensions also in the case of the isolated CFT. For related issues on RG flows in Type 0 contexts, see .

In section 4 we examine the stability of our gravity solution and of the ones presented in , which cover the $`M=0`$ case. D-branes as probes will serve this purpose. In this way we will try to compute the force felt by a brane due to the interaction with the others in a string context, so extending the results in . We will show that, as expected, Type 0 D-brane stacks are in general IR instable configurations, due to the repulsive nature of the forces between branes of the same type. This fact may suggest that configurations of branes more complicate than the simple stack of parallel ones could take part in the game. We will also show that for a particular confining solution found in  the stack could instead be stable. Clearly, the absence of supersymmetry and the fact that string loop corrections could become important in the IR regime, render this kind of analysis speculative.

Using D-branes as probes will also furnish us the natural arena for discussing some issues related to holography and radius/energy relation in nonconformal contexts.

## 2 Gravity duals of non-susy $`SU(N)\times SU(M)`$ gauge theories

Let us consider the classical background produced by a stack of parallel $`N`$ electric and $`M`$ magnetic $`D3`$-branes in Type $`0B`$. The world-volume supports the gauge theory $`SU(N)\times SU(M)`$ with bifundamental fermions in the $`(\overline{N},M),(N,\overline{M})`$ and adjoint scalars.

We use the conventions in  for the string frame metric ansatz:

$$ds^2=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi 5\eta }d\rho ^2+e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi }dx_{||}^2+e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi \eta }d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right),$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are functions of $`\rho `$ only (the same applies to $`T`$ and $`C_4`$). From this we can rewrite the ten dimensional equations of motion for the metric, dilaton, RR fields, and tachyon so that they can be deduced from the subsequent effective action (the dots stands for derivatives with respect to $`\rho `$):

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\rho \left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\xi }^2+\frac{1}{4}\dot{T}^25\dot{\eta }^2V(\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,T)\right]},`$ (2)
$`V(\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`g(T)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\xi 5\eta }+20e^{4\eta }h(T)e^{2\xi },`$ (3)
and the constraint:

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\xi }^2+\frac{1}{4}\dot{T}^25\dot{\eta }^2+V(\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,T)=0.$$
(4)
Here:

$$g(T)=\frac{1}{4}m^2T^2\lambda T^4+O(T^6);(m^2=\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}),$$
(5)
is the tachyon potential, and

$$h(T)=Q^2f(T)^1+P^2f(T)$$
(6)
is the RR-tachyon coupling( $`QN`$ and $`PM`$ are the electric and magnetic charges, respectively).

In  was found that, near $`T=0`$,

$$f(T)=1+T+\frac{1}{2}T^2+O(T^3).$$
(7)
Recently it was argued in  that in the low energy effective action of Type 0 string theory no non-derivative contributions to the tachyon potential appear, leaving us with only the mass term ($`\alpha ^{}=1`$):

$$g(T)=\frac{1}{2}T^2.$$
(8)
Now we attempt to study the possible ( asymptotic) solutions of the equations of motion deduced from the action (3). We find a gravity solution which could correspond to an IR fixed point from the gauge theory side.

It is understood that in the UV, where the gravity approximation is no longer valid ($`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections are not negligible in general), results must be taken cum grano salis.

### 2.1 IR solution

The equations of motion derived from the action (3) are:

$`\ddot{\xi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(T)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\xi 5\eta }+2h(T)e^{2\xi }=0,`$
$`\ddot{\eta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(T)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\xi 5\eta }+8e^{4\eta }=0,`$
$`\ddot{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g(T)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\xi 5\eta }=0,`$
$`\ddot{T}+2g^{}(T)e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\xi 5\eta }2h^{}(T)e^{2\xi }=0.`$ (9)
Now let us look for IR asymptotic solutions of these equations which are fine tuned so to have $`T0`$ as asymptotic solution. Note that $`T=0`$ cannot be an exact solution like in the dyonic case . This is because we are considering the most general case in which $`QP`$. In fact we have:

$$h^{}(T)=\left[\frac{Q^2}{f(T)^2}+P^2\right]f^{}(T)$$
(10)
and, because near $`T0`$ we have $`f^{}(T)1`$, we find

$$h^{}(T0)(P^2Q^2).$$
(11)
So we find that we can have $`T=0`$ as an exact solution of the equations of motion only if $`Q=P`$ which is the case considered in . It corresponds to an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background which is conjectured to be dual to a large N non-supersymmetric conformal field theory with gauge group $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$.

In the most general case $`QP`$, we can have a zero tachyon as asymptotic solution in the regime in which:

$$e^{2\xi }0,$$
(12)
which corresponds to taking $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ (IR limit from the gauge theory point of view).

In fact a consistent set of asymptotic solutions of (9) is:

$`\xi \mathrm{log}\sqrt{2(Q^2+P^2)}+\mathrm{log}\rho ,`$
$`\eta \mathrm{log}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\rho ,`$
$`\varphi \mathrm{log}\sqrt{2(Q^2+P^2)}+2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}\rho ),`$
$`T{\displaystyle \frac{16}{\mathrm{log}\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{(Q^2P^2)}{(Q^2+P^2)}}.`$ (13)
They reduce to the first terms of the solutions found in ,  in the case $`P=0`$. When $`P=Q`$ we find a zero tachyon which is also an exact solution . Just like in  we obtain here ,in the IR, a solution which becomes $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and in which the dilaton blows up (string loop corrections are not negligible). We could interpret this, as in , as an isolated CFT at infinite coupling.

The situation in the UV is much less under control in the sense that we need to know the details of the coupling function $`f(T)`$ and of the tachyon potential $`g(T)`$.

## 3 Asymptotically $`AdS`$ backgrounds and RG flows

In this section we comment about the possibility of extending the techniques developed in  and , to RG flows towards IR isolated fixed points. The gravity solution we consider here is the general Type 0 one previously discussed.

First of all we perform a change of variables in order to write the 10-dimensional metric (1) in the Einstein frame in the following form (we are using here the same notations as in ):

$$ds^2=e^{5q(\tau )}\left[d\tau ^2+e^{2A(\tau )}dx^\mu dx^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }\right]+e^{3q(\tau )}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(14)
This is realized by defining:

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\eta ,`$
$`q{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{3}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{d\rho }}=e^{4A}.`$ (15)
In this way we can rewrite the radial effective action (3) as:

$$S_5=4𝑑\tau e^{4A}\left[3\dot{A}^2\frac{1}{2}G_{ab}\varphi ^a\varphi ^bV(\varphi )\right],$$
(16)
where:

$$G_{ab}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b=15\dot{q}^2+\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{4}+\frac{\dot{T}^2}{8},$$
(17)
$$V(\varphi )=5e^{8q}+\frac{h(T)}{4}e^{20q}\frac{T^2}{8}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi 5q},$$
(18)
and

$$\varphi ^a=(q,\varphi ,T).$$
(19)
As a difference with  the theory is now non-supersymmetric and we are not able to find any superpotential. By shifting $`q`$, $`\tau `$ and $`\varphi `$ as

$`q\sqrt{15}q{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{15}}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{log}(Q^2+P^2)\mathrm{log}2\right),`$
$`\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{log}(Q^2+P^2)3\mathrm{log}2\right),`$
$`\tau 2(Q^2+P^2)^{\frac{1}{3}}\tau ,`$ (20)
we can put the potential in the form (we use the same symbols for the new variables):

$$V=5e^{8q}+2e^{20q}\left(1+T\frac{P^2Q^2}{P^2+Q^2}+\frac{1}{2}T^2+\mathrm{}\right)\frac{T^2}{8}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi 5q}.$$
(21)
Consider first the dyonic case of ; for $`P=Q`$, $`T=0`$, $`\varphi =const`$ and we have the $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ CFT with a line of fixed points. Expanding the action (16) near $`q=0`$, which is a critical point for the potential, we can deduce for $`q`$ the effective lagrangian:

$$L_q\frac{1}{2}\dot{q}^2+3\frac{1}{2}32q^2.$$
(22)
In the normalizations where $`V_{min}=3`$, the relation mass/conformal dimension is:

$$m^2=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }4).$$
(23)
From (22) we get $`m_q^2=32`$: thus $`q`$ corresponds via the $`AdS/CFT`$ map (23) to the source for a 4d operator of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=8`$, which we identify with $`tr(F^2\overline{F}^2)`$. Analogous results were found in the conifold case of . As usual  $`\varphi `$ is the source for $`F_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ while $`T`$ is the one for $`F_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. For the mass squared of $`T`$ we get:

$$m_T^2=(162\sqrt{x}),e^\varphi =x$$
(24)
which is the result in , showing that the tachyon is unstable for large ’tHooft couplings.

For $`PQ`$ we have an asymptotic solution corresponding to (13): $`\varphi 2\mathrm{log}|\tau |`$, $`T\tau ^1`$ for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. Notice that the dilaton diverges, but $`T^2exp(\frac{1}{2}\varphi 5q)0`$, showing that the potential is finite in the limit. Here $`q=0`$ is still an $`AdS_5`$ minimum, suggesting the existence of a CFT in the IR at strong coupling.

Little is known about $`AdS/CFT`$ in the case of isolated fixed points in four dimensions at strong coupling. It would be interesting to understand better the rules of $`AdS/CFT`$ in the case here examined. In particular it would be interesting to compute the correlation functions and the spectrum. $`V(q)`$ is regular in the limit $`T0`$, $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$, so we could extract $`m_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=32`$. It would be interesting to compute the dimension of the operators corresponding to $`T,\varphi `$ whose fields diverge.

## 4 D3-branes as probes of Type 0 backgrounds

Previously we considered gravity solutions taking the hypothesis that they are generated by a stack of parallel branes. This assumption has a sense only if we can construct such a configuration, or, in other words, if that configuration is stable. In  the interaction force between electric (or magnetic) branes was estimated by using the gauge theory approximation at one loop. So those results should be taken seriously only in the UV region, in which the gauge theory is weakly coupled. Here we reproduce those results and try to extend them to the IR region following another strategy.

We perform, in fact, an analysis of the backgrounds in ,  which cover the $`M=0`$ case, and of the general one previously discussed, using D-branes as probes.

We start by reviewing some general technical details and examine the relations between the UV probe calculations and the ones examined in . Then we examine the IR region of the backgrounds cited above and show that the stacks of parallel branes are in general plagued by instabilities due to the repulsive nature of the force felt by the probe. This suggests that the branes could be assembled in more complicate configurations (such as spherical shells) than the simplest one in which they are stacked parallel to each other. We will also suggest that for a particular confining solution found in  the stack of parallel branes could be instead a stable configuration.

For a review of D-branes as probes of (super)gravity backgrounds see .

### 4.1 General considerations

The DBI and CS parts of the action for a D3-electric brane probe (in a background in which no 3-form RR or NSNS field strength is turned on) are :

$$S_p=\tau _p𝑑\xi ^4e^\varphi K(T)\sqrt{\widehat{G}}+\mu _p\widehat{C}_4,$$
(25)
where:

$$\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{x^M}{\xi ^\alpha }\frac{x^N}{\xi ^\beta }g_{MN},$$
(26)
is the induced metric on the D-brane ($`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,3`$ are the worldvolume coordinates while $`M,N=0,\mathrm{},9`$ are the spacetime ones). Here $`g_{MN}`$ is the string frame metric (1). The function $`K(T)`$ which couples the probe to the bulk tachyon has the following expansion near $`T=0`$ :

$$K(T)=1+\frac{T}{4}+\frac{3}{32}T^2+O(T^3).$$
(27)
We now use the static gauge: $`x^0=t;x^{1,2,3}=\xi ^{1,2,3};x^m=x^m(t),m=4,\mathrm{}9`$, so that we can rewrite (25) as:

$$S_p=\tau _pV_p𝑑tK(T)g_{00}^2\sqrt{1+\frac{g_{mn}}{g_{00}}\dot{x}^m\dot{x}^n}+\mu _pV_p𝑑t\widehat{C}_4,$$
(28)
Now we can rewrite the metric (1) in the Einstein frame, in the more familiar form:

$$ds^2=e^{2A(u)}dx^\mu dx^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }+e^{2B(u)}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),$$
(29)
where

$$\frac{\rho }{logu}=e^{2\eta },$$
(30)
and

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{4}},`$
$`B{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\mathrm{log}u.`$ (31)
From (28) we can thus extract the effective lagrangian:

$$L=mc^2\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}V,$$
(32)
where $`v`$ is the transverse velocity and

$`ce^{AB},`$
$`m\tau _pK(T)e^{2(A+B)},`$
$`V\mu _p\widehat{C}_4,`$ (33)
are all functions of $`u`$.

As usual in D-brane probe analysis we will take the low velocity limit $`\frac{v}{c}<<1`$. As pointed out in  this requires some care being the function $`c`$ not constant (this is true also in the supersymmetric BPS case). With this in mind, we find the low velocity lagrangian:

$$L=E_kV,$$
(34)
where the effective kinetic energy is:

$$E_k=\frac{1}{2}\tau _pK(T)\frac{e^\eta }{u^2}v^2.$$
(35)
To write explicitly the potential, let us consider for example the $`M=0`$ case. In the ansatz of , we have, for the electric RR 5-form field strength:

$`F_5(\rho )=d[A(\rho )dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3]`$ (36)
$`\dot{A}(\rho )=g_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}2Qe^{2\xi }f^1(T).`$ (37)
By using this result, we see that the potential term in (34) takes the form ($`\tau _p=g_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mu _p`$):

$$V=\tau _p\left[K(T)e^\xi +2Q𝑑\rho e^{2\xi }f^1(T)\right],$$
(38)
which we shall rewrite as a function of $`u`$.

Let us end this introductory section with a series of observations. In static gauge, the probe effective action may be written as (let us take $`\dot{\theta }_i=0`$):

$$S\tau _pV_p𝑑t\left[K(T)e^\varphi \left[\frac{e^{\varphi \eta }}{u^2}(u)^2+F^2\right]V(u)\right],$$
(39)
where we have inserted explicitly the U(1) field strength living on the brane. From this we could extract the formal gauge theory lagrangian:

$$L=\frac{1}{g_{}^{2}{}_{YM}{}^{}}\left[(\mathrm{\Phi })^2+F^2V_f(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]$$
(40)
after having defined:

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi \eta )}}{u}du$$
(41)
with the identifications:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{}^{2}{}_{YM}{}^{}}}=K(T)e^\varphi ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{}^{2}{}_{YM}{}^{}}}V_f=V.`$ (42)
#### 4.1.1 Matching with gauge theory results in the UV

In order to review the physical relevance of the considerations above, let us briefly recall the details of the UV ( $`\rho 0`$) solution corresponding to a stack of N parallel electric D3-branes . Here we take $`g(T)=\frac{1}{2}T^2`$ and suppose f(T) has a minimum for $`T=T_{UV}`$. <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 For example this could be obtained with:
$$f(T)=e^{T\frac{T^3}{3}}$$
(43)  which has a minimun for $`T=1`$ and reproduce the near $`T=0`$ behaviour (7). So, with $`\rho =e^y`$, we have :

$`T=T_{UV}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{T_{UV}y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{y^2}}\left(39\mathrm{log}y+k20\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}\right),`$
$`\xi =\mathrm{log}\sqrt{2f^1(T_{UV})}Qy+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y^2}}\left(39\mathrm{log}y+k104\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}\right),`$
$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y+\mathrm{log}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y^2}}\left(39\mathrm{log}y+k38\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}\right),`$
$`\varphi =2\mathrm{log}(C_0Q)2\mathrm{log}y+15\mathrm{log}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\left(39\mathrm{log}y+k\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}\right).`$ (44)
In the near UV we thus have:

$$\mathrm{log}\rho +\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}\rho )^24\mathrm{log}u,u\mathrm{}(\rho 0).$$
(45)
The kinetic term thus asymptotes to:

$$dE_k=\frac{1}{2}\tau _pK(T)4\mathrm{log}u\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{2}{}_{5}{}^{}\right).$$
(46)
The behaviour of this term depends also from that of $`K(T)`$. If $`K(T)`$ is asymptotically constant in the UV we get a divergent kinetic term. But what is the real behaviour of $`K(T)`$? At this stage of approximations nothing sensible can be said about that. Nevertheless, if we argument, as in , that gravity approximation could capture some gauge theory physics, we can tentatively extract some informations from the gauge theory side. For example we know that  :

$$g_{YM}^2logu.$$
(47)
By using the relation in (42) and observing that $`e^\varphi (\mathrm{log}u)^2`$ we can tentatively predict $`K(T)(\mathrm{log}u)^1`$. <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3If, for example $`K(T)=sinh[a(TT_{UV})]`$, we could have this asymptotic behaviour in the UV and a near $`T=0`$ behaviour similar to that in (27). From this we could have a constant kinetic term for the probe.

For the potential term (38) in the probe effective action we have the following near UV behaviour:

$$V\frac{\tau _p}{Q}\left[\frac{K(T)\sqrt{2f^1(T_{UV})}}{\sqrt{2f^1(T_{UV})}}\right]u^4\mathrm{log}^2u,$$
(48)
which tends to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ for $`u\mathrm{}`$, depending on the details of $`K(T)`$ and $`f(T)`$. From these details, thus depends the nature of the force that the probe experts (if attractive or repulsive). By identifying $`V`$ with the scalar potential term in the dual field theory as in (42) we can predict the following functional form for $`V_f(\mathrm{\Phi })`$:

$$V_f(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }^4\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(49)
a result which was obtained from 1-loop calculations in field theory .

Let us finally observe that the slow velocity limit for the probe action, is a sensible one in the UV because, from (44) and (33), we can deduce that $`c\mathrm{}`$ when $`u\mathrm{}`$. This could be responsible for the correct behaviour of the potential term for scalars fields, despite the gravity approximation is not valid in the UV.

### 4.2 Probing the $`M=0`$ IR solutions

Let us now analyse the IR solutions discussed in  and  for the case $`M=0`$. In the first case we have a fixed point at infinite coupling , while in the latter we have a confining solution. In the conformal case  the IR behaviours are ($`\rho =e^y\mathrm{}`$):

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{16}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{y^2}}(9\mathrm{log}y3)+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}),`$
$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(2Q^2)+y+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2y^2}}(9\mathrm{log}y{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}})+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}),`$
$`\eta =\mathrm{log}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y^2}}(9\mathrm{log}y2)+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}^2y}{y^3}}),`$
$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(2Q^2)+2\mathrm{log}y{\displaystyle \frac{9}{y}}\mathrm{log}y+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}y}{y^2}}).`$ (50)
It the IR thus $`TT_{IR}=0`$. The Einstein-frame metric asymptotes to $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ at $`\rho =\mathrm{}`$ and evolves into a metric with negative Ricci scalar at smaller $`\rho `$.

From the IR behaviour of $`\eta `$ we can deduce that:

$$\mathrm{log}\rho \mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}\rho )^24\mathrm{log}u.$$
(51)
From this, the subsequent asymptotic behaviour for the effective kinetic term in the probe action, follows:

$$dE_k\frac{1}{2}\tau _p\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}u}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right).$$
(52)
From this we see that in the IR case , the kinetic term tends to zero. This reflects the fact that the coupling of the gauge theory tends to infinity. The contributions to $`E_k`$ coming from $`K(T)`$, do not modify the asymptotic behaviour (52), but they are crucial in determining the sign of the kinetic term. Moving a little away from the IR extremum, it is possible to verify that the kinetic term does not become negative. This depends crucially on the coefficient $`\frac{3}{32}`$ which multiplies the $`T^2`$ term in $`K(T)`$ (27).

Now let us examine the potential term for the probe. We get the following near IR behaviour:

$$V\frac{\tau _p}{Q}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}1\right)\frac{u^4}{(\mathrm{log}u)^2}.$$
(53)
So the potential energy tends to zero from negative values. This means that probe calculations give a repulsive force between the sources and the probe in the IR. We can thus imagine that a distribution of branes more complicate than the simple stack of parallel ones is the source of our bakground. The solution we are discussing here is conformal in the IR, which corresponds to fine tune the gravity solution so to have that the scalars remain massless. This should correspond to taking the D-branes forming an $`SO(6)`$ shell in the transverse space. We will see however that the low velocity limit do not seem to be a sensible one for this IR solution. So all these considerations must be taken with caution. Let us only outline that eq. (53) could give indicative suggestions about the scalar potential in the IR.

The IR solution proposed for the confining case  has instead the following behaviour:

$`\varphi \alpha _0\rho +\varphi _0,`$
$`\xi \alpha _1\rho +\xi _0,`$
$`\eta \alpha _2\rho +\eta _0,`$
$`\alpha _i>0,i=0,1,2`$ (54)
with the tachyon exponentially relaxing to zero and with:

$$\frac{1}{2}\alpha _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}5\alpha _2=0.$$
(55)
In  was showed that the particular solution with $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _0=3\alpha _1`$ could receive mild corrections from string loops, so that the corresponding gravity solution could be used to study the conjectured dual field theory. Wilson loop calculations showed that the solution in (54) can give confinement from the gauge theory side. Here we want to discuss this background from the point of view of the probe effective action.

Let us consider the solution with $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2,\alpha _0=3\alpha _1`$. The relation between $`\rho `$ and $`u`$ now reads:

$$\mathrm{log}ue^{2\alpha _1\rho }.$$
(56)
Just note that now, with $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`u1`$. This is an IR limit from the gauge theory side. In fact what we call “energy” $`E`$ in the field theory context, is a parameter which, naively, can be read from the tension of a string stretched between the sources at $`u=1`$ and a D3 probe at a generic $`u`$ . Thus if we consider a string stretched along $`u`$ direction, we get ($`\tau =x_0;\sigma =u`$):

$$E𝑑ue^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }\sqrt{g_{00}g_{uu}}=𝑑u\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi \eta )}}{u}.$$
(57)
Just note that this is the same relation (with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ prae E) between the new variable and $`u`$ which was found in writing the gauge theory lagrangian in canonical form (see eq. (41)). For the solutions (54) with $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2,\alpha _0=3\alpha _1`$, this gives:

$$E\sqrt{\mathrm{log}u}.$$
(58)
So from these naive considerations it could be argued that $`E0`$ when $`u1`$. The fact that the background has a singularity in $`u=1`$ , renders impossible a stronger motivation for eq. (58), which we take only as an indicative relation.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4It is quite simple to verify that for the UV and the IR conformal solutions previously discussed, we (asymptotically) have $`uE`$. The same relation can be obtained from holographic considerations, following the prescriptions of  and  for relating energy and radius. The same prescriptions fail however in the nonconformal case just as was noted in .

The kinetic term for the probe has now the following near IR behaviour:

$$dE_k\tau _p\sqrt{\mathrm{log}u}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right).$$
(59)
We see that this term goes to zero in the IR. For the leading terms in the potential energy we find:

$$V\tau _p\sqrt{\mathrm{log}u}E.$$
(60)
The force the probe experts is thus attractive, with a modulus which tends to infinity when $`u1`$. This seems to imply that for the particular solution of  the stack of parallel branes could be a stable configuration, differently from the fine tuned conformal ones.

It is interesting to note that $`c`$, the “speed of light in transverse space”, goes to zero in the IR conformal case (thus requiring a little of justification in taking the slow velocity limit), while for the confining solutions in (54) it has the following behaviour:

$$c^2(\mathrm{log}u)^{\frac{(\alpha _2\alpha _1)}{2\alpha _2}}u^2.$$
(61)
For the particular solution with $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2`$ we have considered here, we have $`c0`$ in the IR, which could make the slow velocity limit more sensible.

### 4.3 Probing the $`N+M`$ IR conformal solution

Let us now try to extend the previous considerations to the IR conformal solution discussed at the beginning of this work. Suppose having constructed a background generated by N+M sources and moving towards them a dyonic D3 probe. The effective action for this probe reads:

$$S_p=2\tau _pd^4\xi e^\varphi \sqrt{\widehat{G}}2g_s^1\mu _pd^4\xi \left[Q𝑑\rho e^{2\xi }f^1(T)+P𝑑\rho e^{2\xi }f(T)\right].$$
(62)
We have used here the fact that the terms proportional to T in $`K_{el}(T)`$ and $`K_{mag}(T)`$, cancel each other (see ). Moreover, as argued in , we have set $`f_{el}^1(T)=f_{mag}(T)`$.

From (62) we immediately see that the kinetic term for this probe is simply two times the one in (52). For the potential energy we get, using (13):

$$V\frac{\sqrt{2}\tau _p}{\sqrt{(Q^2+P^2)}}\left[1\frac{(Q+P)}{\sqrt{2(Q^2+P^2)}}\right]\frac{u^4}{(\mathrm{log}u)^2}.$$
(63)
In the dyonic case $`Q=P`$ of , in which the background is exactly $`AdS_5\times S^5,T=0`$, the effective mass of a dyonic probe is constant and the potential is zero. For $`QP`$, $`V`$ is always positive, unlike in the purely electric case. This implies that the dyonic probe experts an attractive force.

If we consider just an electric probe we get, for the potential:

$$V\frac{\tau _p}{\sqrt{2(Q^2+P^2)}}\left[1\frac{2Q}{\sqrt{2(Q^2+P^2)}}\right]\frac{u^4}{(\mathrm{log}u)^2}.$$
(64)
So we can have $`V>0`$ only if $`P>Q`$. For a magnetic probe the same is true if $`Q>P`$. Thus the stack of $`N+M`$ branes is unstable with respect to moving off an electric or magnetic brane.

There exist thus instabilities in the fine tuned background we have constructed. This suggests that a different assumption, instead of the naive one in which the branes are taken parallel to each other, should be taken.

## 5 Discussion

It would be interesting to extend this kind of analysis to orbifolds and orientifolds of Type 0 string theory. For example a modified $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ projection exists, which removes the closed string tachyon (and modifies the closed string spectrum which becomes chiral), allowing at the same time an open $`U(32)`$ spectrum free of tachyons as well . <sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5We would like to thank A. Sagnotti for having reminded us this fact. See also  for brane constructions in this context.

It would also be interesting to make explicit the angular momentum of the probe in our calculations. As the probe moves on geodesics, this is a conserved quantity. Effects of the angular momentum in cosmological analysis of Type 0 backgrounds were studied in . For a study of possible singularity resolutions via angular momentum in the context of Type II theory, see .

AcknowledgmentsA special thank to A. Zaffaroni for suggesting part of the investigations here reported and for constant help and suggestions. Thanks to A. Bigazzi, L. Girardello, A. Pasquinucci and A. Refolli for useful discussions and suggestions. F. B. is partially supported by INFN and MURST, and by the European Commission TMR program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, wherein he is associated to the University of Padova.


text:
# Gauge Symmetry Enhancement and Radiatively Induced Mass in the Large N Nonlinear Sigma Model

## Abstract

We consider a hybrid of nonlinear sigma models in which two complex projective spaces are coupled with each other under a duality. We study the large N effective action in 1+1 dimensions. We find that some of the dynamically generated gauge bosons acquire radiatively induced masses which, however, vanish along the self-dual points where the two couplings characterizing each complex projective space coincide. These points correspond to the target space of the Grassmann manifold along which the gauge symmetry is enhanced, and the theory favors the non-Abelian ultraviolet fixed point.

The nonlinear sigma models (NLSM’s) in which the dynamical fields take values in some target manifolds have been a subject of extensive research in theoretical physics due to their wide range of physical applications and their relevance with geometrical aspects of quantum theory . Especially, the large-$`N`$ analysis  of this model has proved to exhibit many remarkable physical properties, such as dynamical generation of gauge bosons, nonperturbative renormalizability, dimensional transmutation, and phase transitions in the lower dimensional space-time .

One of the well studied NLSM is the complex projective $`CP(N)`$ model  where the target space is given by the complex projective space $`CP(N)SU(N)/SU(N1)\times U(1)`$. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the large-$`N`$ limit of the NLSM for some other target space and to re-examine the issue of the dynamical generation of non-Abelian gauge bosons in 1+1 dimensions. Especially, we first study the specific target space given by the Grassmann coset space $`Gr(N,2)SU(N)/SU(N2)\times U(2)`$ . It turns out that this NLSM can be written as a hybrid of two $`CP(N)`$ models coupled to each other with the same coupling constant for each complex projective space and the interaction terms respect the dual exchange symmetry between the two sectors \[see Eq. (2)\]. We observe that there exists a manifest dual symmetry between the two sectors, and the Grassmann manifold corresponds to a self-dual case with equal coupling constants. If we start from different coupling constants for each complex space for the generality, this leads to the target space belonging to the so-called flag manifold  $`=SU(N)/SU(N2)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$. The dynamically generated gauge bosons would have $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ gauge symmetry. These observations lead to our main motivation for this work, that is, a study of self-duality in the coupling constant space and subsequent enhancement of gauge symmetry. In order to investigate this issue, we analyze the large-$`N`$ mass gap equations, and renormalization group (RG) properties in the coupling constant spaces. We also explicitly compute the large-$`N`$ effective action. We find that some of the dynamically generated gauge bosons acquire radiatively induced finite mass terms and gauge noninvariant interaction away from the self-dual points, leading to a local $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ symmetry. However, they vanish at the self-dual points enhancing the gauge symmetry to a non-Abelian $`U(2)`$ symmetry. The ultraviolet (UV) fixed point corresponds to a special self-dual point and the theory prefers the non-Abelian phase in the UV limit. Even though the dynamical generation of non-Abelian gauge bosons for the Grassmann target space has been discussed before , the way in which the enhancement of gauge symmetry at the fixed point occurs through the RG evolution has not been addressed so far.

Let us consider a Lagrangian which is given by

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_1^2}}|(_\mu +iA_\mu )\psi _1|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_2^2}}|(_\mu +iB_\mu )\psi _2|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{g_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{g_1}}\right)C_\mu ^{}C^\mu `$ (2)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_1g_2}}}C_\mu ^{}\psi _1^{}^\mu \psi _2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_1g_2}}}C_\mu \psi _2^{}^\mu \psi _1,`$
where $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are two orthonormal complex $`N`$ vectors such that $`\psi _i^{}\psi _j=\delta _{ij}(i,j=1,2)`$. The above Lagrangian describes two $`CP(N)`$ models each described by $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ with coupling constants $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$, respectively, coupled through derivative coupling. There is a manifest dual symmetry between sectors 1 and 2, $`A_\mu `$ and $`B_\mu `$, and $`C_\mu `$ and $`C_\mu ^{}`$. When $`g_1=g_2`$, the above model corresponds to the nonlinear sigma model with the target space of Grassmann manifold $`Gr(N,2)=SU(N)/SU(N2)\times U(2)`$. Let us write the above Lagrangian in the more conventional form in terms of the $`N\times 2`$ matrix $`Z`$:

$$Z=[\psi _1,\psi _2],Z^{}=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _1^{}}{\psi _2^{}}\right].$$
(3)
We first introduce new sets of coupling constants defined by $`g\sqrt{g_1g_2}`$ and $`rg_2/g_1`$. Then, we consider

$$=\frac{1}{g^2}\mathrm{tr}\left[(D_\mu Z)^{}(D^\mu Z)\lambda (Z^{}ZR)\right],$$
(4)
where we collected the orthonormal constraints into a $`2\times 2`$ Hermitian matrix $`\lambda `$ which transforms as an adjoint representation under the local $`U(2)`$ transformation, and the $`R`$ matrix given by

$$\lambda =\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _3}{\lambda _2}\right],R=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{0}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{r^1}\right],$$
(5)
with a real positive $`r`$ . The covariant derivative is defined as $`D_\mu Z_\mu ZZ\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ with a $`2\times 2`$ anti-Hermitian matrix gauge potential $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu i\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^aT^a`$ associated with the local $`U(2)`$ symmetry. Each component of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ is assigned as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =i\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{A_\mu }{\frac{1}{2}C_\mu ^{}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{1}{2}C_\mu }{B_\mu }\right].$$
(6)
The on-shell equivalence between Lagrangians Eqs. (2) and (4) will be discussed shortly. The Lagrangian Eq. (4) is invariant under the local $`U(2)`$ transformation for $`r=1`$, whereas the $`R`$ with $`r1`$ explicitly breaks the $`U(2)`$ gauge symmetry down to $`U(1)_A\times U(1)_B`$, where $`U(1)_A`$ and $`U(1)_B`$ are generated by $`T^0\pm T^3`$, respectively. Thus the symmetry of our model is $`[SU(N)]_{\mathrm{global}}\times [U(2)]_{\mathrm{local}}`$ for $`r=1`$, while $`[SU(N)]_{\mathrm{global}}\times [U(1)_A\times U(1)_B]_{\mathrm{local}}`$ for $`r1`$. Invoking the hidden local symmetry , we infer that the theory with $`r1`$ corresponds to NLSM on the flag manifold $`=SU(N)/SU(N2)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$.

In order to carry out the path integration in the large-$`N`$ limit, we arrange the Lagrangian (4) in terms of the $`2N\times 2N`$ matrix form

$$=\frac{1}{g^2}[\psi _1^{},\psi _2^{}](M^TI)\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _1}{\psi _2}\right]+\frac{r}{g^2}\lambda _1+\frac{1}{rg^2}\lambda _2,$$
(7)
where $`I`$ is an $`N\times N`$ unit matrix and $`M`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix operator given by

$`M`$ $``$ $`G^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{A}),`$ (8)
$`G^1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\lambda =\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}\lambda _1}{\lambda _3^{}}}{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _3}{\mathrm{}\lambda _2}}\right],`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \widehat{}^\mu +\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu ,`$ (10)
where the differential operator $`\widehat{}^\mu ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\mu }`$ must be regarded as not operating on the gauge potential $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$. One can show that imposing the on-shell constraints $`\psi _1^{}\psi _1=r`$, $`\psi _2^{}\psi _2=r^1`$, $`\psi _1^{}\psi _2=\psi _2^{}\psi _1=0`$, and in terms of rescaling given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _1}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _1}{g_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _2}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _2}{g_2}},{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu }{g}}C_\mu ,{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu ^{}}{g}}C_\mu ^{},`$ (11)
the Lagrangian Eq. (7) reduces Eq. (2). We note that in Eq. (7), we never used the on-shell constraints so that the quadratic term of $`C_\mu ^{}C^\mu `$ has been absorbed into the matrix $`M`$.

Let us focus on the two dimensions from here on. Detailed analysis in other dimensions will be reported elsewhere . The large-$`N`$ effective action is given by path integrating $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$, or equivalently $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _1^{}`$, $`\psi _2`$, and $`\psi _2^{}`$. We obtain

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=_x+iN\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Det}M.$$
(12)
According to the Coleman-Mermin-Wagner theorem, which states that there is no spontaneous breaking of any continuous global symmetry in dimensions two or less, we can set the vacuum expectation values of $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ equal to zero from the beginning in the effective potential such that

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{N\mathrm{\Omega }}S_{\mathrm{eff}}[\psi _{1,2}=0,\lambda _{1,2,3}=m_{1,2,3}^2,\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =0],$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the space-time volume. Then we obtain the large-$`N`$ effective potential as

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{m_1^2}{Ng^2}r\frac{m_2^2}{Ng^2}r^1i\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Det}G^1,$$
(14)
from which the gap equations are schematically given as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{m_3^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{2m_3^2}{(k^2+m_+^2)(k^2+m_{}^2)}}=0,`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{m_1^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ng^2}}r+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{k^2+m_2^2}{(k^2+m_+^2)(k^2+m_{}^2)}}=0,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{m_2^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ng^2}}r^1+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{k^2+m_1^2}{(k^2+m_+^2)(k^2+m_{}^2)}}=0.`$ (17)
Here the loop momenta are Euclidean and $`m_\pm ^2`$ are given in terms of $`m_{1,2,3}^2`$ by

$$m_+^2+m_{}^2=m_1^2+m_2^2,m_+^2m_{}^2=m_1^2m_2^2m_3^4.$$
(18)
Since Eq. (15) simply states $`m_3=0`$, we can choose for example $`m_+^2=m_1^2`$, $`m_{}^2=m_2^2`$ after setting $`m_3=0`$ in Eq. (18). Then the gap equations are given by two decoupled sets of equations expressed by

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ng_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_1^2}},`$ (19)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ng_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_2^2}},`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cutoff of the theory. The above equations yield two mass scales given by

$`m_i^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{Ng_i^2}}\right](i=1,2).`$ (21)
Imposing the cutoff independence of the mass scales, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }dm_i/d\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ leads to the Callan-Symanzik $`\beta `$ functions

$`\beta _i(g_i)={\displaystyle \frac{dg_i}{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}={\displaystyle \frac{Ng_i^3}{4\pi }},`$ (22)
which show the asymptotic free behaviors of both couplings and a UV fixed point at the origin of the coupling constant space $`(g_1,g_2)`$. Note that when $`m_1=m_2`$, we have $`g_1=g_2`$ and the corresponding nonlinear sigma model is defined on the Grassmann manifold.

Let us discuss the dynamical generation of gauge bosons in our model. It has been discussed before that if we start from the same coupling constants $`r=1`$ in the Lagrangian Eq. (7), the effective action generates non-Abelian gauge bosons with a local $`U(2)`$ symmetry , rendering all four gauge bosons $`A,B,C`$, and $`C^{}`$ massless. Our main objective here is to compute the radiatively induced mass terms for the gauge bosons in the generic case where $`g_1g_2`$, hence $`m_1m_2`$. The large-$`N`$ effective action Eq. (12) is schematically expanded such that

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=_x+iN\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Det}G^1iN\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Tr}\left[G\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{A})\right]^n.$$
(23)
The boson propagator $`G`$ becomes a diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrix due to the gap equation solution $`m_3=0`$. We neglect the fluctuation fields coming from $`\lambda _{1,2,3}`$ around $`m_{1,2,3}^2`$. The diagrams which arise from $`n=1,2,3,4`$ can contribute to the Yang-Mills action. The mass term comes from $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$. For $`n=2`$, we have three diagrams with two, three, and four point functions. The two point vacuum polarization function provides the gauge bosons with the kinetic terms and the mass term for $`C`$, $`C^{}`$ fields in the case $`m_1m_2`$. The contributions from both $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ are explicitly given by the integral

$`iN{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[G\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \widehat{}^\mu G\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu \widehat{}^\nu \right]iN\mathrm{Tr}\left[G\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu \right]`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle _x}\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^\mu (x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ij}(i_x)\stackrel{~}{A}_{ji}^\nu (x),`$ (25)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ij}(p)=\frac{d^2k}{i(2\pi )^2}\frac{(2k+p)_\mu (2k+p)_\nu }{(k^2m_i^2)[(k+p)^2m_j^2]}+\frac{d^2k}{i(2\pi )^2}\frac{2g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2m_i^2}.$$
(26)
This vacuum polarization can be explicitly computed to yield

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ij}(p)=\left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{ij}(p)+\left(\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_L^{ij}(p),$$
(27)
where the transverse function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T`$ and the longitudinal one $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L`$ are obtained as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{ij}(p)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_j}{m_i}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{K^{ij}}{m_i^2}}\right],`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_L^{ij}(p)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_j^2m_i^2\right)^2}{4\pi p^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_j^2m_i^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_j}{m_i}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K^{ij}}}\right],`$ (29)
with $`K^{ij}xm_j^2+(1x)m_i^2x(1x)p^2`$. Moreover we see that

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{ij}(p)=c^{ij}+p^2f_T^{ij}(p),\mathrm{\Pi }_L^{ij}(p)=c^{ij}+p^2f_L^{ij}(p),`$ (30)
where the same constant $`c^{ij}`$ arises in the leading terms of both $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L`$, and is given by

$$c^{ij}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[1\frac{m_j^2+m_i^2}{m_j^2m_i^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_j}{m_i}\right].$$
(31)
We note that, despite its appearance, $`c^{ij}`$ vanishes for $`m_i=m_j`$. Then the vacuum polarization can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ij}(p)=c^{ij}g_{\mu \nu }+(p^2g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )f_T^{ij}(p)+p_\mu p_\nu f_L^{ij}(p),$$
(32)
where both $`c^{ij}`$ and $`f_L^{ij}`$ vanish when $`i=j`$ so as to provide the $`A`$ ($`B`$) boson with the $`U(1)_A`$ ($`U(1)_B`$) gauge invariant kinetic term. On the other hand, they remain nonzero when $`ij`$ and provide the $`C`$ boson with the mass given by

$$M_C=\sqrt{\frac{c^{12}}{f_T^{12}(0)}}=\left|m_1^2m_2^2\right|\sqrt{\frac{(m_1^2+m_2^2)\mathrm{ln}(m_1/m_2)+m_2^2m_1^2}{(m_1^4m_2^4)/22m_1^2m_2^2\mathrm{ln}(m_1/m_2)}}.$$
(33)
This is one of the main results of our paper. We note that the above mass does not vanish when $`m_1m_2`$, which in turn implies $`g_1g_2`$ from the mass gap equations (19) and (20). It is also symmetric under the exchange of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. When $`r=1`$ ($`m_1=m_2`$), both $`c^{12}`$ and $`f_L^{12}`$ become zero. The three point function with one seagull does not contribute to the Yang-Mills action. The four-point vertex with two seagulls also contributes to the kinetic term of Yang-Mills action with other contributions from $`n=3,4`$.

Combining the relevant diagrams up to $`n=4`$, we obtain the Yang-Mills effective action for $`m_1=m_2=m`$ given by

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{48\pi m^2}}\mathrm{tr}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{~}{A}),`$ (34)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{~}{A})_{[\mu }\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu ]}+[\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ]`$ is the gauge field strength of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$. When $`m_1m_2`$, the effective action contains interactions that are not $`U(2)`$ gauge invariant. These terms and the nature of their interactions will be reported elsewhere . In passing, we observe that the large-$`N`$ effective action is renormalizable because the only UV divergence is the one that arises in the gap equation and the other possible UV divergences in the vacuum polarization function are forbidden by the gauge symmetry. The renormalization conditions Eqs. (19) and (20) are enough to realize the UV finite large-$`N`$ theory. The higher order corrections in $`1/N`$ expansion can be systematically renormalized by using the counter terms, which are provided by the large-$`N`$ effective action.

We have performed the large-$`N`$ path integral of a coupled $`CP(N)`$ model with dual symmetry and have analyzed the vacuum structure and renormalization in 1+1 dimensions. The large-$`N`$ gap equation analysis yields two decoupled gap equations whose solution ensures the renormalizability. We also have computed the effective action, and have found that some of the dynamically generated gauge bosons acquire radiatively induced finite mass terms away from the self-dual points, and the gauge symmetry is reduced to its subgroup . We note that the theory favors the conformal fixed point and the non-Abelian phase in the ultraviolet limit. Also the classical dual symmetry is not broken by the nonperturbative radiative corrections.

We would like to emphasize that the mass generation of $`C`$ gauge bosons is a genuine quantum effect away from the self-dual points. The finite mass term is determined unambiguously and is independent of the gauge invariant regularization scheme employed. In our scheme, the $`C`$ boson mass arises from a purely finite term of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T`$ of Eq. (30). This unambiguity is in contrast with some other radiative corrections in quantum field theory which are finite but undetermined .

We could extend our model to describe other types of symmetry reduction patterns and to include supersymmetry. For example, if we envisage the Grassmann space $`Gr(N,n_1+n_2)=SU(N)/SU(Nn_1n_2)\times U(n_1+n_2)`$ and the flag manifold $`^{}=SU(N)/SU(Nn_1n_2)\times U(n_1)\times U(n_2)`$, the NLSM describes the reduction of $`U(n_1+n_2)`$ gauge symmetry into $`U(n_1)\times U(n_2)`$. This type of reduction and radiative mass generations may provide an alternative approach to the Higgs mechanism in the theories beyond the standard model or in the effective field theory of QCD in the context of the hidden local symmetry .

Finally, we mention possible relevance of our work with string theory. We recall that the gauge symmetry enhancement  and target space duality  in string theory have attracted an extensive study recently. Target space in the large-$`N`$ limit could be unrealistic as space-time. Nevertheless, our results could provide us with some insight to study these subjects for strings moving on curved backgrounds.

T.I. was supported by the grant of Post-Doc. Program, Kyungpook National University (2000). P.O. was supported by the KOSEF through Project No. 2000-1-11200-001-3 and in part by the BK21 Physics Research Program.