format: text

text:
# Tight-binding study of interface states in semiconductor heterojunctions

## I Introduction

The advent of highly developed methods of nanotechnology has opened rich possibilities to study quantum effects in semiconductor heterostructures, such as heterojunctions, quantum wells, and superlattices (for a recent survey, see Ref. ). Continued interest is placed on the occurrence and properties of localized electronic states in heterostructures, i.e., states that are bound in the growth direction of the structure. This interest arises mainly from the effect that this kind of state is expected to have on transport properties of nanodevices . Basically, two different types of localized states can be distinguished. In quantum wells and superlattices, such states occur owing to the presence of minima in the band edge potential that confine the electronic motion in the growth direction (“size quantization”). On the other hand, the existence of localized states at the interface of a single heterojunction, when no confining potential is present, hinges on the coupling between the electronic motion perpendicular to the interface plane and the free motion parallel to this plane . Owing to this coupling, energy can be exchanged between perpendicular and parallel degrees of freedom.

While localized states in confining potentials have been widely studied , only few theoretical investigations have dealt with localized states at single heterojunction interfaces . These were carried out within the frame of the two-band model  in the envelope function approximation, using an effective Dirac-type Hamiltonian where the interaction between the motion perpendicular and parallel to the interface is mediated by an effective spin-orbit coupling. It was found that in abrupt junctions with band inversion localized interface states occur with a linear “in-plane” dispersion . In a more general treatment , interface states with a nonlinear in-plane dispersion were identified in junctions without band inversion, provided the ratio of energy gap and effective mass changes across the interface and the bulk dispersion curves of the two semiconductors intersect. Recently, the two-band model has been reformulated in terms of a one-band (Schrödinger-like) description . The qualitative features for abrupt junctions were found to persist essentially for graded junctions .

The two-band model in conjunction with the envelope function approximation allows a simple and transparent description of localized interface states. However, a more fundamental approach would have to take explicitly into account the atomistic structure of the semiconductors making up the heterojunction. Here, the tight-binding approximation, which has been widely used for the description of bulk matter  and surface states , offers an appropriate starting point. In the present paper, we apply the tight-binding method to study interface states in heterojunctions, with the aim to provide a microscopic foundation for the results obtained from the two-band treatment. We formulate a tight-binding model for heterojunctions that is based on a simplified description of III-V bulk semiconductors. A two-dimensional Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor interactions is set up from which the Dirac-like bulk spectrum of the two-band model is recovered in the continuum limit and which allows an analytic derivation of the conditions for the existence of interface states in heterojunctions.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the tight-binding model for heterojunctions is formulated and a relation for the in-plane energy dispersion of localized interface states is derived. The correspondence between the parameters of the two-band model and of the tight-binding model is revealed. In Sec. III, the properties of the energy spectrum of interface states are analyzed and compared to those of the two-band model; the case of the GaSb-AlSb heterojunctions is discussed as a specific example. The matching conditions for the envelope functions of the two-band model are elucidated in the tight-binding model. Section IV contains a summary and our conclusions.

## II Tight-binding model for heterojunctions

### A Qualitative picture

We consider heterojunctions composed of two different materials of the III-V class, thereby covering most of the cases of practical interest . A reasonable description of the band structure of homogeneous III-V semiconductors can be achieved within the tight-binding approach , assuming a minimal basis set of one s-orbital and three p-orbitals on each atom and including only nearest-neighbor interactions. As we are looking here for localized states lying in the fundamental energy gap of the heterojunction (i.e., for states lying between the maximum of the valence band edge profile and the minimum of the conduction band edge profile of the junction), we are interested only in an accurate description of the bands of the homogeneous semiconductors closest to their respective gap. Then, following Ref.  where a tight-binding calculation of the band structure of the InAs-GaSb superlattice was performed, we can reduce the size of the basis set by discarding the p-orbitals on the metallic atoms and the s-orbitals on the nonmetallic atoms.

For the actual treatment of the heterojunction, we consider a simplified, two-dimensional model system that allows a transparent description in which the properties of interface states can be derived essentially in analytic form. The crucial feature of this model system is the explicit inclusion of the coupling between the electronic motion perpendicular and parallel to the interface plane. Basically, a two-dimensional description appears adequate for the present problem as in the continuum limit one deals, due to axial symmetry about the direction perpendicular to the interface, with a truly two-dimensional problem.

As depicted schematically in Fig. 1, we consider an (infinitely extended) square lattice with lattice constant $`a`$, where the $`z`$-axis is chosen perpendicular to the interface plane (with the interface at $`z=0)`$ and the $`x`$-axis parallel to it. With s- and p-orbitals assigned alternatingly to the atomic sites, the unit cells of the model system are each formed by two s-atoms and two p-atoms. Integers $`n`$ and $`m`$ corresponding to the $`x`$-direction and the $`z`$-direction, respectively, are used to label the position of the unit cells on the lattice. The homogeneous semiconducting materials 1 and 2 forming the heterojunction are characterized by atomic energies $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}^{(j)}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{p}^{(j)}`$ $`(j=1,2)`$, and by the magnitude $`V_j`$ of the hopping matrix elements between nearest-neighbor atoms, which is assumed to be independent of the hopping direction. As the p-orbitals are odd, the matrix elements connecting a specific atomic orbital to its nearest neighbors in either of the two directions differ in sign. The interface separating the semiconductors is located between the vertical rows of units cells with labels $`m=1`$ and $`m=0`$. A value $`V^{}`$ is assumed for the magnitude of the matrix elements connecting s- and p-orbitals across the interface; in the course of the formulation of the model, $`V^{}`$ will be expressed in terms of the bulk matrix elements $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$.

In the model system illustrated by Fig. 1, the relative signs of the hopping matrix elements in adjacent linear chains of atoms have been chosen such that the matrix elements connecting the atoms within a unit cell add up to a nonzero value. By reversing in Fig. 1 the signs of all matrix elements within every second chain either in the $`x`$\- or the $`z`$-direction, one would obtain a topologically different system in which the sum of the matrix elements within a unit cell is zero. The distinctive feature of the model system of Fig. 1 is that in the continuum limit it exhibits a Dirac-like bulk dispersion (cf. below). It is noted that there is a close analogy between the present lattice model and certain two-dimensional models describing “flux phases” in strongly correlated electron systems, like high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors .

### B Homogeneous semiconductors

Turning now to the detailed formulation of our model, we write the two-dimensional tight-binding Hamiltonian for a homogeneous semiconductor characterized by atomic energies $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{p}`$ and by the magnitude $`V`$ of the nearest-neighbor hopping matrix elements as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\{ϵ_\mathrm{s}(a_{nm}^{}a_{nm}+\overline{a}_{nm}^{}\overline{a}_{nm})+ϵ_\mathrm{p}(b_{nm}^{}b_{nm}+\overline{b}_{nm}^{}\overline{b}_{nm})`$ (1)
$`+V[(b_{n,m1}^{}+\overline{b}_{n1,m}^{}b_{nm}^{}\overline{b}_{nm}^{})a_{nm}+(b_{n+1,m}^{}\overline{b}_{n,m+1}^{}+\overline{b}_{nm}^{}b_{nm}^{})\overline{a}_{nm}`$ (2)
$`+(a_{n,m+1}^{}+\overline{a}_{n1,m}^{}a_{nm}^{}\overline{a}_{nm}^{})b_{nm}+(a_{n+1,m}^{}\overline{a}_{n,m1}^{}+\overline{a}_{nm}^{}a_{nm}^{})\overline{b}_{nm}]\}`$ (3)
(cf. Fig. 1). Here, the operators $`a_{nm}^{},\overline{a}_{nm}^{}`$ ($`a_{nm},\overline{a}_{nm}`$) and $`b_{nm}^{},\overline{b}_{nm}^{}`$ ($`b_{nm},\overline{b}_{nm}`$) create (annihilate) electrons in $`s`$\- and $`p`$-orbitals, respectively, in the unit cell labelled $`n,m`$. The energies $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{p}`$ do not depend on $`n`$ and $`m`$. Representing the one-electron wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a linear combination of $`s`$\- and $`p`$-orbitals,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{n,m}{}(u_{nm}a_{nm}^{}+\overline{u}_{nm}\overline{a}_{nm}^{}+v_{nm}b_{nm}^{}+\overline{v}_{nm}\overline{b}_{nm}^{})|0,$$
(4)
we write the Schrödinger equation $`(HE)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ in terms of a coupled set of equations for the coefficients $`u_{nm}`$, $`\overline{u}_{nm}`$, $`v_{nm}`$, and $`\overline{v}_{nm}`$ as

$`(ϵ_\mathrm{s}E)u_{nm}+V(v_{n,m1}+\overline{v}_{n1,m}v_{nm}\overline{v}_{nm})=0,`$ (5)
$`(ϵ_\mathrm{s}E)\overline{u}_{nm}+V(v_{n+1,m}\overline{v}_{n,m+1}+\overline{v}_{nm}v_{nm})=0,`$ (6)
$`(ϵ_\mathrm{p}E)v_{nm}+V(u_{n,m+1}+\overline{u}_{n1,m}u_{nm}\overline{u}_{nm})=0,`$ (7)
$`(ϵ_\mathrm{p}E)\overline{v}_{nm}+V(u_{n+1,m}\overline{u}_{n,m1}+\overline{u}_{nm}u_{nm})=0.`$ (8)
Exploiting the periodicity of the model system, we can find a general solution of Eqs. (8) in the form of Bloch sums with coefficients

$$u_{nm}=u_{00}\mathrm{exp}[i(n\varphi _x+m\varphi _z)],$$
(9)
and similarly for $`\overline{u}_{nm}`$, $`v_{nm}`$, and $`\overline{v}_{nm}`$. The phases $`\varphi _x`$ and $`\varphi _z`$ are related to the wave numbers $`k_x`$ and $`k_z`$ through $`\varphi _x=k_xa`$ and $`\varphi _z=k_za`$. Insertion of Eqs. (9) into Eqs. (8) leads to the system of equations

$`\begin{array}{cccc}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)u_{00}V(Zv_{00}\hfill & +X\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & )=0,\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }E)\overline{u}_{00}+V(Z^{}\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & X^{}v_{00}\hfill & )=0,\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }E)v_{00}V(Z^{}u_{00}\hfill & +X\overline{u}_{00}\hfill & )=0,\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }E)\overline{v}_{00}+V(Z\overline{u}_{00}\hfill & X^{}u_{00}\hfill & )=0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (14)
with $`Z=1e^{i\varphi _z}`$ and $`X=1e^{i\varphi _x}`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(ϵ_\mathrm{s}ϵ_\mathrm{p})/2`$ is half the energy gap, and the energy zero has been taken at midgap, i.e., $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}=ϵ_\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (cf. left half of Fig. 2).

From Eqs. (14), the energy dispersion of the homogeneous system is obtained as

$$E^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4V^2[\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2)+\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _z/2)].$$
(15)
A set of four linearly independent (unnormalized) eigenvectors of Eqs. (14) is given by

$$u_{00}=1,\overline{u}_{00}=0,v_{00}=\frac{VZ^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }+E_\pm },\overline{v}_{00}=\frac{VX^{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }+E_\pm }$$
(16)
and

$$u_{00}=0,\overline{u}_{00}=1,v_{00}=\frac{VX}{\mathrm{\Delta }+E_\pm },\overline{v}_{00}=\frac{VZ}{\mathrm{\Delta }+E_\pm },$$
(17)
where $`E_+`$ $`(E_{})`$ is the positive (negative) root of Eq. (15).

Equation (15) describes the dispersion of two adjacent bands in the two-dimensional tight-binding model for homogeneous semiconductors: the positive and negative root correspond to the conduction band and the valence band, respectively. In the continuum (long-wavelength) limit $`k_xa,k_za0`$, we have

$$E^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2+V^2a^2(k_x^2+k_z^2).$$
(18)
The Dirac-like bulk spectrum of the two-band model is now recovered if the hopping velocity $`w=Va/\mathrm{}`$ is identified with the interband velocity matrix element $`v`$ . Similarly, the set of eigenvectors (16) and (17) reduces in the continuum limit to the usual set of spinor solutions of the free Dirac equation (cf., e.g., Ref. ). The tight-binding model for homogeneous systems (in which relativistic effects, in particular spin degrees of freedom, are not explicitly included) thus turns out to be equivalent, in the continuum limit, to the relativistic free-electron theory.

It is worth mentioning that if the signs of the hopping matrix elements were chosen such that their sum within a unit cell is zero (cf. above), one would obtain, instead of Eq. (15), a dispersion of the form

$$E^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4V^2[\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _x/2)\pm \mathrm{sin}(\varphi _z/2)]^2.$$
(19)
In the present context, this dispersion is ruled out owing to its inappropriate behavior in the continuum limit. Whether lattice models with dispersions of the form (19) are useful for other applications appears to be an open question.

### C One-dimensional heterojunction

Having established our two-dimensional tight-binding description of homogeneous semiconductors, we now consider heterojunctions and derive the conditions for the existence of localized interface states. Some general features of this problem can be elucidated already by looking at the one-dimensional system represented by a linear chain of atoms oriented perpendicular to the interface.

For definiteness, we single out the chain formed by the bottom atoms in all unit cells with $`n=0`$ in Fig. 1. The unit cells of this chain each contain two atoms and are labelled by the index $`m`$ (we omit the index $`n=0`$). The Bloch coefficients for the homogeneous one-dimensional system have the form

$$u_m=u_0\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi _z),v_m=v_0\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi _z).$$
(20)
Localized wave functions falling off exponentially on either side of the heterojunction are characterized by purely imaginary phases in the Bloch coefficients corresponding to the homogeneous semiconductors 1 and 2. Writing

$$\varphi _z^{(1)}=i\theta _1,\varphi _z^{(2)}=i\theta _2(\theta _1,\theta _2>0),$$
(21)
we obtain from Eqs. (20) the relations

$`\begin{array}{ccc}u_m=u_1\mathrm{exp}[(m+1)\theta _1]\hfill & ,v_m=v_1\mathrm{exp}[(m+1)\theta _1]\hfill & \mathrm{for}m<0;\hfill \\ u_m=u_0\mathrm{exp}(m\theta _2)\hfill & ,v_m=v_0\mathrm{exp}(m\theta _2)\hfill & \mathrm{for}m0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
In order to connect the decaying wave functions across the interface, we write down the set of coupled equations for the coefficients $`u_1,v_1,u_0,v_0`$ corresponding to the atomic orbitals in the unit cells labelled $`m=1`$ and $`m=0`$ that sandwich the interface. Using the relations (24) to express the coefficients $`v_2`$ and $`u_1`$ in terms of the coefficients $`v_1`$ and $`u_0`$, respectively, we have from the first and third of Eqs. (8)

$`\begin{array}{cccc}(\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)u_1\hfill & V_1Z_1v_1\hfill & & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)v_1\hfill & V_1u_1\hfill & +V^{}u_0\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)u_0\hfill & V_2v_0\hfill & +V^{}v_1\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)v_0\hfill & V_2Z_2u_0\hfill & & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
where

$$Z_j=1e^{\theta _j};j=1,2.$$
(30)
The quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j=(ϵ_\mathrm{s}^{(j)}ϵ_\mathrm{p}^{(j)})/2`$ are half the energy gaps, and $`W=(ϵ_\mathrm{s}^{(2)}+ϵ_\mathrm{p}^{(2)})/2`$ is the work function offset (the energy zero is taken at midgap in semiconductor 1; cf. Fig. 2).

Eliminating in the equations involving the matrix element $`V^{}`$ the coefficients $`u_1`$ and $`v_0`$ by means of the first and fourth equation and using the bulk energy dispersions \[cf. Eq. (15) specialized to the one-dimensional case\] for the imaginary phases given by Eqs. (21), we obtain from Eqs. (29) a system of two equations for $`u_0`$ and $`v_1`$. For its solution, we must require

$$V_1^2V_2^2(e^{\theta _1}1)(e^{\theta _2}1)+V^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)(\mathrm{\Delta }_2W+E)=0.$$
(31)
It is seen from Eq. (31) that for any choice of the values of the parameters $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$, and $`V^{}`$, there are no solutions within the energy range $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1,(\mathrm{\Delta }_2W)\}<E<\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2+W\}`$, i.e., within the fundamental energy gap of the heterojunction. We thus find that there are no localized (bound) interface states in the one-dimensional case, a result that was to be expected since here no energy can be stored in the motion parallel to the interface.

### D Two-dimensional heterojunction

We now turn to the two-dimensional tight-binding treatment of heterojunctions. Here, localized states are described by two-dimensional Bloch waves with real phase $`\varphi _x=k_xa`$ corresponding to free motion in the direction parallel to the interface and purely imaginary phases $`\varphi _z^{(j)}`$ given by Eqs. (21) which correspond to exponential fall-off in the $`z`$-direction on either side of the interface. From Eqs. (9), we then have

$$u_{nm}=u_{0,1}\mathrm{exp}[in\varphi _x+(m+1)\theta _1]$$
(32)
for $`m<0`$,

$$u_{nm}=u_{00}\mathrm{exp}[in\varphi _xm\theta _2]$$
(33)
for $`m0`$, and similarly for $`\overline{u}_{nm},`$ $`v_{nm},`$ and $`\overline{v}_{nm}`$.

As in the one-dimensional case, we now write down the set of coupled equations for the coefficients corresponding to the atomic sites in the unit cells labelled $`n,m=0,1`$ and $`n,m=0,0`$ (boxes with dashed lines in Fig. 1). Using relations (32) and (33) to eliminate all coefficients with labels other than $`n,m=0,1`$ or $`n,m=0,0`$, we have from Eqs. (8)

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}(\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)u_{0,1}\hfill & V_1(Z_1v_{0,1}\hfill & +X\overline{v}_{0,1}\hfill & )\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)\overline{v}_{0,1}\hfill & +V_1(Z_1\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & X^{}u_{0,1}\hfill & )\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & +V_1(\overline{v}_{0,1}\hfill & X^{}v_{0,1}\hfill & )V^{}\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)v_{0,1}\hfill & V_1(u_{0,1}\hfill & +X\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & )+V^{}u_{00}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)u_{00}\hfill & V_2(v_{00}\hfill & +X\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & )+V^{}v_{0,1}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & +V_2(\overline{u}_{00}\hfill & X^{}u_{00}\hfill & )V^{}\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)\overline{u}_{00}\hfill & +V_2(Z_2\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & X^{}v_{00}\hfill & )\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)v_{00}\hfill & V_2(Z_2u_{00}\hfill & +X\overline{u}_{00}\hfill & )\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (42)
The coefficients $`u_{0,1},\overline{v}_{0,1},\overline{u}_{00}`$, and $`v_{00}`$ in the four equations involving the coupling $`V^{}`$ can be eliminated with the help of the remaining equations, leading to a closed system of equations for the coefficients $`\overline{u}_{0,1},v_{0,1},u_{00}`$, and $`\overline{v}_{00}`$ corresponding to the four atomic sites immediately adjacent to the interface (box with full lines in Fig. 1):

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}(\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & V_1X^{}v_{0,1}\hfill & V^{}Z_1\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_1E)v_{0,1}\hfill & V_1X\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & +V^{}Z_1u_{00}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)u_{00}\hfill & V_2X\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & +V^{}Z_2v_{0,1}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & & \\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_2+WE)\overline{v}_{00}\hfill & V_2X^{}u_{00}\hfill & V^{}Z_2\overline{u}_{0,1}\hfill & =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (47)
Setting the determinant of this system equal to zero and making use of the bulk dispersions of the semiconductors 1 and 2,

$`E^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+4V_1^2[\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2)\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta _1/2)],`$ (48)
$`(EW)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+4V_2^2[\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2)\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta _2/2)]`$ (49)
\[cf. Eqs. (15) and (21)\], we obtain the relation

$$V_1^2V_2^2(e^{\theta _1}1)(e^{\theta _2}1)+V^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}(1e^{\theta _1})(1e^{\theta _2})+2V^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4V_1V_2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2)E(EW)\}=0.$$
(50)
Here, the quantities $`\theta _j`$ can be expressed in terms of the energy $`E`$ and the phase $`\varphi _x=k_xa`$ through Eqs. (49). Relation (50) thus determines in an implicit way the in-plane dispersion $`E(k_x)`$ for localized interface states in a semiconductor heterojunction. It represents a principal result of the present paper.

Up to this point, the matrix element $`V^{}`$ describing hopping across the interface has been considered an independent parameter. In order to fix the value of $`V^{}`$ within the present model in a consistent way, we relate it to the bulk matrix elements $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ by considering the behavior of the wave function coefficients $`u_{nm}`$, $`v_{nm}`$, $`\overline{u}_{nm}`$, and $`\overline{v}_{nm}`$ when the interface is crossed.

For $`u_{nm}`$, e.g., this behavior is readily inferred by combining the first and second of Eqs. (42), the second of Eqs. (47), and the first of the bulk dispersions (49). With similar reasoning for the other coefficients, we find

$$\frac{u_{00}}{u_{0,1}}=\frac{\overline{v}_{00}}{\overline{v}_{0,1}}=\frac{V_1}{V^{}}e^{\theta _1}$$
(51)
and

$$\frac{v_{00}}{v_{0,1}}=\frac{\overline{u}_{00}}{\overline{u}_{0,1}}=\frac{V^{}}{V_2}e^{\theta _2}.$$
(52)
Interpreting the set of coefficients referring to a specific unit cell as the components of a single, four-component wave function, we require all coefficients to change across the interface by one and the same factor, i.e., we equate the right-hand sides of Eqs. (51) and (52). This determines $`V_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ as

$$V_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=V_1V_2e^{\theta _1+\theta _2},$$
(53)
and all coefficients change by the factor $`(V_1/V_2)^{1/2}e^{(\theta _1\theta _2)/2}`$. In the continuum limit $`\theta _1,\theta _20`$, the matrix element $`V^{}`$ thus appears as the geometric mean of $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$. It is seen below that this choice for $`V^{}`$ is indeed necessary in order to recover the two-band model.

## III Analysis and comparison with two-band model

### A Energy spectrum

#### 1 General properties

Equation (50) in conjunction with Eqs. (49) reduces to a quadratic equation for $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2)`$ as a function of the energy $`E`$ from whose solution one obtains the in-plane dispersion $`E(k_x)`$. Mere inspection of Eq. (50) already provides us with conditions for the existence of solutions for $`\theta _1,\theta _2>0`$, i.e., conditions for the existence of localized interface states.

It is immediately seen that the spectrum $`E(k_x)`$ is bounded by the condition

$$E(k_x)>\overline{E}(k_x),$$
(54)
where $`\overline{E}(k_x)`$ is defined by

$$\overline{E}(\overline{E}W)=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4V_1V_2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2)$$
(55)
\[we consider here only the positive (conduction band) branches of the dispersions for systems without band inversion, i.e., systems with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2>0`$\]. The function $`\overline{E}(k_x)`$ can be viewed as a kind of mean in-plane bulk dispersion with energy gap and hopping matrix element given by the geometric mean of the gaps and matrix elements, respectively, of the bulk semiconductors 1 and 2, whose in-plane dispersions $`E_{1,2}(k_x)`$ follow from Eqs. (49) by setting $`\theta _1=\theta _2=0`$:

$`E_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+4V_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2),`$ (56)
$`(E_2W)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+4V_2^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _x/2).`$ (57)
Moreover, from Eqs. (49) with $`\theta _1,\theta _2>0`$, we have

$$E(k_x)<E_1(k_x),E(k_x)<E_2(k_x).$$
(58)
For localized states to occur, it is hence necessary that $`E(k_x)`$ lies below the bulk dispersions of both semiconductors. On the other hand, condition (54) requires $`E(k_x)`$ to lie above the mean dispersion $`\overline{E}(k_x)`$. Conditions (54) and (58) can be simultaneously fulfilled only if the bulk dispersions $`E_1(k_x)`$ and $`E_2(k_x)`$ intersect. The latter condition is equivalent to that of the two-band model .

From Eqs. (57), it is seen that in the special case where $`W=0`$ the bulk dispersions intersect if and only if the condition

$$0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_+\mathrm{\Delta }}{4V_+V_{}}1$$
(59)
holds, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }_1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, $`V_\pm =V_1\pm V_2`$. This implies, in particular, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}/V_{}<0`$. If the bulk dispersions intersect, the mean dispersion lies between the bulk dispersions for small values of $`k_x`$ (cf. Fig. 3 below), but below both bulk dispersions in the vicinity of the point of intersection (thus the attribute “mean” given to the function $`\overline{E}`$ is not to be interpreted too narrowly). At $`k_x=\pi /a`$, where the bulk curves and the mean curve all attain a maximum, the mean curve lies between the bulk curves if the conditions

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j\mathrm{\Delta }}{4V_jV_{}}1$$
(60)
hold simultaneously for $`j=1`$ and $`j=2`$. In this case, the energy spectrum of localized interface states, $`E(k_x)`$, is restricted to a finite $`k_x`$-range centered around the point of intersection of the bulk dispersions, with end points $`k_x^{(j)}`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ determined by the points of intersection of $`\overline{E}(k_x)`$ with $`E_1(k_x)`$ and $`E_2(k_x)`$. For $`W=0`$, we have

$$k_x^{(j)}=\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{arcsin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_j\mathrm{\Delta }_{}/[4V_jV_{}])^{1/2}.$$
(61)
Note that the end points of the spectrum do not depend on the matrix element $`V^{}`$, i.e., on properties characterizing the interface, although the dispersion determined by Eq. (50) depends on $`V^{}`$.

With $`V^{}`$ expressed through Eq. (53), Eq. (50) can be easily solved in the continuum limit, keeping terms of lowest order in $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ and $`\varphi _x`$. The resulting energy spectrum is

$$E(k_x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2k_x^2w_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2}\{W(\mathrm{}^2k_x^2w_1w_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{})\pm k_xd(\mathrm{}^2k_x^2w_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2W^2)^{1/2}\},$$
(62)
where $`w_j=V_ja/\mathrm{}`$ are the hopping velocities, $`w_{}=w_1w_2`$, and $`d=w_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2w_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. This spectrum agrees with that of the two-band model (Eq. (5) of Ref. ) if the identification

$$w_jv_j$$
(63)
is made, with $`v_j`$ the interband velocity matrix elements of the two-band model.

The tight-binding model thus generalizes the two-band model and provides a microscopic foundation for the latter. In particular, the shallow interface states identified in Ref.  for the case of non-inverted semiconductors with intersecting bulk dispersion curves thereby find a firm theoretical basis.

#### 2 Example: GaSb-AlSb

In order to apply our tight-binding model to specific heterojunctions, we have to fix the values of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, $`W`$, $`V_1`$, and $`V_2`$. For junctions formed of common III-V materials, the values of the first three of these parameters can be taken from experiment (cf., e.g., Ref. ). For the hopping matrix elements $`V_j`$, different sets of values are available  either from theoretical estimates or from fits to specific material properties. It is not obvious which one of these sets represents an adequate choice in the context of the present, simplified model. We therefore resort here to expressing $`V_j`$ in terms of the velocity matrix elements $`v_j`$ of the two-band model as $`V_j=\mathrm{}v_j/a`$ (cf. Sec. III.A.1). The velocity matrix elements, in turn, are given  by $`v_j=(\mathrm{\Delta }_j/m_j^{})^{1/2}`$, where $`m_j^{}`$ is the conduction-band effective mass at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point.

As a specific example, we consider the conduction band states in the GaSb-AlSb heterojunction (cf. Fig. 3). With the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, and $`W`$ taken from Ref.  and the (theoretical) values for $`m_1^{}`$ and $`m_2^{}`$ taken from Ref. , we find that the in-plane bulk dispersion curves $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ corresponding to GaSb and AlSb, respectively, intersect at $`\varphi _x=1.526`$. The mean in-plane bulk dispersion curve $`\overline{E}`$ intersects the curves $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ at $`\varphi _x^{(1)}=1.200`$ and $`\varphi _x^{(2)}=1.874`$, respectively. Localized interface states exist within the $`\varphi _x`$-range between these limits, with the in-plane energy spectrum shown in the inset of Fig. 3. The binding energy of these states (as determined by the difference in energy to the bulk dispersion curves) is of the order of 10 meV in the vicinity of the point of intersection of the bulk curves. Since the Dirac-like dispersion curves of the two-band model intersect at a point close to the intersection of the tight-binding curves (cf. Fig. 3), the results of the two-band model do not differ much from those of the tight-binding model.

From considering the example of Fig. 3, it becomes apparent that the properties of the calculated energy spectrum of interface states depend sensitively on the values of the model parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$, $`W`$, $`V_j`$. Fairly small changes in one of these values may lead to a large shift in the position of the point of intersection of the bulk dispersion curves, or may even remove the intersection. With regard to the experimental verification of interface states, it would, therefore, be premature to attach quantitative significance to the present results. In order to achieve a fully reliable description of interface states, refined tight-binding calculations including the determination of a consistent set of parameters (as outlined, for example, in Refs. ) are called for.

### B Wave functions

In the tight-binding approach, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ represented by the expansion (4) and determined as a solution of Eqs. (47) describes the electronic motion in the heterojunction as a whole. The change of the wave function across the interface is uniquely fixed by the change in the coefficients expressed by the relations (51) and (52) with $`V^{}`$ given by Eq. (53).

In the two-band model for abrupt heterojunctions, on the other hand, separate solutions are obtained for the wave functions in the two bulk regions of the junction, which are subsequently matched at the interface. The role of the matching conditions has been analyzed in Ref.  (cf. also Ref. ), where conditions for the physical envelope function were established which relate the discontinuity of the wave function to that of the interband velocity matrix element across the interface.

In the following, we demonstrate the consistency of the two-band and tight-binding descriptions with regard to the behavior of the wave functions across the interface. We consider the continuum limit of the system of equations (14) describing the homogeneous semiconductor; omitting the labels attached to the coefficients $`u_{00},\overline{u}_{00},v_{00},\overline{v}_{00}`$, we introduce linear combinations

$$\psi _\lambda =u+i\lambda \overline{u};\chi _\lambda =v+i\lambda \overline{v},$$
(64)
where $`\lambda =\pm 1`$. In the continuum limit, keeping terms up to first order in $`\varphi _z`$ and $`\varphi _x`$ and considering $`\psi _\lambda `$ and $`\chi _\lambda `$ to be continuous functions of $`z`$ and $`x`$, i.e., $`\psi _\lambda (z,x),\chi _\lambda (z,x)\mathrm{exp}[i(k_zz+k_xx)]`$, we replace the wave numbers $`k_z`$ and $`k_x`$ with $`i_z`$ and $`i_x`$, respectively, so that Eqs. (14) can be expressed in the form

$`\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Delta }E_\lambda )\psi _\lambda (z,x)Va(_zi\lambda _x)\chi _\lambda (z,x)=0,\hfill \\ Va(_z+i\lambda _x)\psi _\lambda (z,x)(\mathrm{\Delta }+E_\lambda )\chi _\lambda (z,x)=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (67)
These equations are equivalent to the Dirac-like bulk equations of the two-band model (Eqs. (2) of Ref. ) if the hopping velocity $`w=Va/\mathrm{}`$ is replaced with the interband velocity matrix element $`v`$ \[cf. Eq. (18)\] and if the parameter $`\lambda `$ is identified with the eigenvalue of the helicity operator.

Assuming the interface to be located at $`z=0`$ and using Eqs. (51), (52), and (53), we can now relate the values $`\psi _\lambda ^{(1)}\psi _\lambda (z=0)`$ and $`\chi _\lambda ^{(1)}\chi _\lambda (z=0)`$ to the values $`\psi _\lambda ^{(2)}\psi _\lambda (z=+0)`$ and $`\chi _\lambda ^{(2)}\chi _\lambda (z=+0)`$:

$$\frac{\psi _\lambda ^{(1)}}{\psi _\lambda ^{(2)}}=\frac{\chi _\lambda ^{(1)}}{\chi _\lambda ^{(2)}}=\left(\frac{V_2}{V_1}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(68)
These relations are seen to be equivalent to the matching conditions of the two-band model (Eqs. (3) of Ref. ) if we adopt Eq. (63) to relate the hopping matrix elements $`V_j`$ to the interband velocity matrix elements $`v_j`$.

## IV Summary and conclusions

We have presented a tight-binding study of localized interface states in semiconductor heterojunctions. Starting from the usual description of homogeneous III-V semiconductors, we have set up a two-dimensional lattice model, in which the coupling between the electronic motion perpendicular and parallel to the interface plane in a junction is explicitly taken into account. Yet, this model is simple enough in order to allow an essentially analytic derivation of the conditions for the existence of interface states and a transparent discussion of their properties.

In constructing the model Hamiltonian, an ambiguity arises in the choice of the relative sign of the hopping matrix elements in adjacent linear chains of atoms. Depending on this choice, two topologically different sytems are obtained in which the matrix elements within a unit cell add up either to zero or to a nonzero value. In the present context, we choose the alternative with nonzero sum, which leads in the continuum limit to the Dirac-like description of homogeneous semiconductors within the two-band model.

As a principal result, we have derived an implicit expression for the in-plane energy dispersion of heterojunctions. From this expression, conditions for the existence of localized interface states are inferred, which are equivalent to those of the two-band model. In the continuum limit, the energy spectrum of the two-band model is recovered if the hopping velocities of the tight-binding model are identified with the interband velocity matrix elements of the two-band model. By analyzing the behavior of the tight-binding wave functions across the interface, we have elucidated the matching conditions for the physical envelope function in the two-band model.

In conclusion, our tight-binding model for interface states in semiconductor heterojunctions generalizes the two-band model and provides a microscopic foundation for it. Although our model is based on the tight-binding description of III-V semiconductors, its qualitative features do not appear too sensitive to specific details of the model and its results are therefore assumed to be valid for broader classes of materials. Considering the possibility of an experimental verification of the type of interface state identifed in the present work, we have emphasized the need for refined tight-binding calculations which go beyond the frame of our simple model and in which consistent parameter sets are used.

Note added in proof: After acceptance of this manuscript, Ref.  was called to our attention. In that paper, interface states in heterojunctions are treated in a one-dimensional tight-binding approach that uses, with respect to the description of III-V semiconductors, more general assumptions than our two-dimensional model. A relation for the energy of interface states is obtained that generalizes our relation (31) and for specific parameter values admits solutions within the fundamental energy gap of the junction. As the electronic motion parallel to the interface is disregarded in Ref. , that paper does not deal with the in-plane dispersion which is the subject of the present work.

## Acknowledgments

We are indebted to K. B. Efetov, A. Altland, and A. P. Silin for useful discussions. One of us (A. V. K.) gratefully acknowledges support by DFG-Sonderforschungsbereich 237 “Unordnung und große Fluktuationen”.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, the worldsheet CFT of a noncompact singular Calabi-Yau manifold has been largely investigated in the context of the holographic description of the little string theories . The modular invariant partition functions have been constructed , and D-branes on a noncompact singular Calabi-Yau manifold have been studied by using the CFT descriptions.

However, the modular invariant partition function constructed in  includes only “the principal continuous series” of the SL(2, $``$) unitary representations. If we naively treat this partition function, the elliptic genus in the closed string theory and the open string Witten indices vanish, and we cannot obtain the vanishing cohomology of the noncompact Calabi-Yau manifold, nor the intersection form of the vanishing cycles of the manifold. 111In , reasonable nonzero open string Witten indices are obtained by treating the Liouville potential appropriately and using the Ramond ground states of discrete series Then, where are these compact cohomology and vanishing cycles in the CFT description ?

Besides the principal continuous series, we can include the highest and lowest weight discrete series. We claim that we should include this discrete series to obtain the right Calabi-Yau sigma model; the vanishing cohomology and boundary states of the vanishing cycles belong to this sector.

The wave functions of most of the states in the discrete series (we use only these states) are $`𝕃^2`$ normalizable in the SL(2, $``$) group manifold. Therefore, they are localized near the deformed singularity in the noncompact Calabi-Yau manifold, and they are “bound states” in this theory. It is also reasonable that the compact cohomology belongs to this class of states.

It is difficult, however, to construct a modular invariant partition function of the SL(2, $``$) discrete series. We use, in this paper, the one proposed in . It includes the new sectors obtained by “spectral flow” transformation — a series of automorphisms of the affine SL(2, $``$).

We construct modular invariant partition functions of rather general “noncompact Gepner models”, which consist of a number of SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki models with integral levels and $`𝒩=2`$ minimal models. We also calculate the elliptic genera in these models in order to study the topological properties and compare with the geometric ones. We also construct the boundary states and calculate the open string Witten indices between them in order to compare with the geometrical cycles and the intersection form. We obtain nonzero closed and open string Witten indices independent of the moduli parameter of the torus or annulus.

As an example, we consider the AN-1 ALE model; this model consists of an level $`N`$ SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model and an level $`(N2)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ minimal model. As a result, we obtain the closed string Witten index as $`(N1)`$. This corresponds to the $`(N1)`$ dimensional $`(2,2)`$ compact cohomology of the AN-1 ALE space. We also obtain the open string Witten indices. They agree with the intersection form of vanishing cycles in the AN-1 ALE space. This intersection form also coincides with the one proposed in .

## 2 SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model

In this section, we construct the characters of the SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model by summing up the new sectors . This character is used to construct “noncompact Gepner models” in the next section.

In this paper, we use the convention in appendix A of .

### 2.1 Currents of SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model

Let us first introduce the supersymmetric level $`k`$ SL(2, $``$) WZW model; this consists of a set of level $`\widehat{k}=k+2`$ bosonic SL(2, $``$) currents $`\widehat{J}^{\pm ,3}`$ and three free fermions $`\psi ^{\pm ,3}`$. These currents satisfy the following OPE relations

$$\psi ^3(z)\psi ^3(w)\frac{1}{zw},\psi ^+(z)\psi ^{}(w)\frac{2}{zw},$$

$$\widehat{J}^3(z)\widehat{J}^3(w)\frac{\widehat{k}/2}{(zw)^2},\widehat{J}^3(z)\widehat{J}^\pm (w)\frac{\pm \widehat{J}^\pm (w)}{zw},\widehat{J}^+(z)\widehat{J}^{}(w)\frac{\widehat{k}}{(zw)^2}+\frac{2\widehat{J}^3(w)}{zw}.$$

We want to construct the SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model from these currents. The supersymmetric affine U(1) in the denominator is generated by the time-like boson $`J^3=\widehat{J}^3+\frac{1}{2}\psi ^+\psi ^{}`$ and the time-like fermion $`\psi ^3`$. The $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal currents $`T(z),G^\pm (z),J^{(R)}(z)`$ of the Kazama-Suzuki model can be written as

$`T(z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\left(\widehat{J}^+\widehat{J}^{}+\widehat{J}^+\widehat{J}^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{4k}}\left(\psi ^+\psi ^{}+\psi ^{}\psi ^+\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\widehat{J}^3\psi ^+\psi ^{},{\displaystyle \frac{c}{3}}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{k}},`$
$`G^\pm (z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}}\psi ^{}\widehat{J}^\pm ,J^{(R)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ^+\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}J^3={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}\widehat{J}^3{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{2k}}\psi ^+\psi ^{}.`$ (2.1)
Note that the $`\psi ^3`$ decouples in these formulas. Therefore, we have only to consider the decomposition

$`(\text{bosonic }\widehat{\text{SL(2, }\text{)}}_{\widehat{k}})\times (2\text{ fermions }\psi ^\pm )(\text{SL(2, }\text{)/U(1) KS})\times (\widehat{\mathrm{U}(1)}_kJ^3).`$
If we denote the Verma module of $`\widehat{\text{SL(2, }\text{)}}_{\widehat{k}}`$, two fermions, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{U}(1)}_k`$ as $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{\mathrm{}},_s`$, and $`_m`$ respectively, the Verma module of the SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_m^{\mathrm{},s}`$ is defined by the decomposition

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{\mathrm{}}_s={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{}_m^{\mathrm{},s}_m.`$
If we know the structures of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{\mathrm{}},_s`$, and $`_m`$, then we can determine the structure of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_m^{\mathrm{},s}`$. The Verma modules of free fermions and $`\widehat{\mathrm{U}(1)}_k`$ are not difficult. We analyze them in subsection 2.3. In the next subsection, we concentrate on the $`\widehat{\text{SL(2, }\text{)}}_{\widehat{k}}`$, especially, the character of the discrete series.

### 2.2 $`\widehat{\text{SL(2, }\text{)}}_{\widehat{k}}`$ discrete series

Let us consider the lowest weight discrete representations of $`\widehat{\text{SL(2, }\text{)}}_{\widehat{k}}`$. Each of the Verma modules of $`𝕃^2`$ normalizable lowest weight representations of $`\widehat{\text{SL(2, }\text{)}}_{\widehat{k}}`$ is labeled by a number $`\mathrm{},1<\mathrm{}<\widehat{k}1`$. 222 The notation $`j=\mathrm{}/2`$ is often used in other papers. The Casimir eigenvalue of a representation can be written as $`j(j1)`$ by using this $`j`$.  The character of this Verma module is known to be (for example, see )

$`\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+(\tau ,z):=Tr\left[q^{L_0\frac{\widehat{k}}{8k}}y^{\widehat{J}_0^3}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{q^{\frac{1}{4k}\left(\mathrm{}1\right)^2}y^{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}1)}}{i\theta _1(\tau ,z)}},`$
where $`q=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\tau ),y=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iz)`$. This character is divergent if we set $`z=0`$ because the representations of the zero modes are infinite dimensional.

The modular transformation law of this character is not good. To make this good, let us introduce a series of automorphisms of the algebra, called “spectral flow”.

$`\widehat{J}_n^3{}_{}{}^{v}=\widehat{J}_n^3{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{2}}\delta _{n,0},\widehat{J}_n^\pm {}_{}{}^{v}=\widehat{J}_{n\pm v}^\pm ,v.`$
These new generators $`\widehat{J}_n^{\pm ,3}^v`$ satisfy the same algebra as $`\widehat{J}_n^{\pm ,3}`$.

The character of the new sector obtained by this spectral flow operation can be written as

$`\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+{}_{}{}^{v}(\tau ,z)`$ $`:=Tr\left[q^{L_0{}_{}{}^{v}\frac{\widehat{k}}{8k}}y^{\widehat{J}^3_0^v}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^vq^{\frac{1}{4k}\left(\mathrm{}1kv\right)^2}y^{\frac{1}{2k}\left(\mathrm{}1kv\right)}}{i\theta _1(\tau ,z)}}.`$
Now, we sum up for $`v2`$ in order to make a character with good modular properties

$`{\displaystyle \underset{v2}{}}\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+{}_{}{}^{v}(\tau ,z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}1,k}(\tau ,z)}{i\theta _1(\tau ,z)}}.`$
This character includes a negative level theta function. Therefore, this character diverges in the region $`\mathrm{Im}\tau >0`$. Here, we treat this character as a formal series.

If we sum up for odd integer $`v`$, we obtain the same result as the case of the $`(\widehat{k}\mathrm{})`$ highest weight representation for even $`v`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{v2+1}{}}\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+{}_{}{}^{v}(\tau ,z)={\displaystyle \underset{v2}{}}\chi _{\widehat{k}\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{v}(\tau ,z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{k+\mathrm{}1,k}(\tau ,z)}{i\theta _1(\tau ,z)}}.`$
This is because the $`v=1`$ spectral flow maps $`\mathrm{}`$ lowest weight representation to $`(\widehat{k}\mathrm{})`$ highest weight representation . We have only to consider the lowest weight representations for this reason.

Next, we define the following character $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}`$, and use this character in the rest of this paper

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}(\tau ,z)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{v2}{}}\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+{}_{}{}^{v}(\tau ,z)+{\displaystyle \underset{v2+1}{}}\chi _{\widehat{k}\mathrm{}}^+{}_{}{}^{v}(\tau ,z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}1,k}(\tau ,z)\mathrm{\Theta }_{(\mathrm{}1),k}(\tau ,z)}{i\theta _1(\tau ,z)}}.`$ (2.2)
Note that each coefficient of the power of $`q`$ in this character is convergent even if we set $`z=0`$ , in contrast with $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+`$ or $`_{v2}\chi _{\mathrm{}}^+^v`$ . But the sum is still divergent.

### 2.3 The characters of SL(2, $``$)/U(1)

The characters of the $`\widehat{\mathrm{U}(1)_k}`$ generated by $`J^3=\widehat{J}^3+\frac{1}{2}\psi ^+\psi ^{}`$ is expressed as

$`\underset{_m}{Tr}[q^{L_0\frac{1}{24}}y^{J_0^3}]=\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,k}(\tau ,z)/\eta (\tau ),m_{2k}.`$ (2.3)
This formula includes a theta function of negative level and is divergent because the $`J^3`$ direction is time-like. We treat this character as a formal series as the same way as $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

There remaining is the characters of two fermions ($`\widehat{\mathrm{SO}(2)}_1`$). This character can be written as

$`\underset{_s}{Tr}[q^{L_0\frac{1}{24}}y^{J_0^{(F)}}]=\mathrm{\Theta }_{s,2}(\tau ,z)/\eta (\tau ),s_4,`$ (2.4)
where $`J_0^{(F)}`$ is the zero mode of the fermion number current $`J^{(F)}=\frac{1}{2}\psi ^+\psi ^{}`$ .

Collecting the characters (2.2), (2.3), (2.4) , and looking at the forms of the currents (2.1), we obtain the characters of SL(2, $``$)/U(1) KS model $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}:=Tr_{\stackrel{ˇ}{}_m^{\mathrm{},s}}[q^{L_0\frac{c}{24}}y^{J_0^{(R)}}]`$ through the decomposition

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}(\tau ,{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}z_1+z_2)\mathrm{\Theta }_{s,2}(\tau ,{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{k}}z_1+z_2)={\displaystyle \underset{m_0_k}{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z_1)\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,k}(\tau ,z_2).`$ (2.5)
In this formula, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a divergent series, however, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m,k}(\tau ,z_2)`$ is also divergent. Therefore, the character $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z)`$ is possibly convergent.

Let us write the explicit form of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z)`$. For this purpose, we define the “string function” $`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_m^{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of SL(2, $``$) as

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}(\tau ,z)={\displaystyle \underset{m^{}_{\widehat{k}}}{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_m^{}^{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\mathrm{\Theta }_{m^{},\widehat{k}}(\tau ,z).`$
Using this string function, we express the character of SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model as

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z)={\displaystyle \underset{r_{\widehat{k}}}{}}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_{ms+4r}^{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\mathrm{\Theta }_{2mk(s+4r),2\widehat{k}k}(\tau ,z/k).`$
Note that if all the string functions $`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_{ms+4r}^{\mathrm{}}(\tau )`$ are convergent, then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z)`$’s are convergent. The explicit form of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_m^{}^{\mathrm{}}(\tau )`$ can be obtained by using the results of . If $`\mathrm{}+m^{}`$ is an odd integer, then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_m^{}^{\mathrm{}}=0`$. If $`\mathrm{}+m^{}`$ is an even integer, then

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}_m^{}^{\mathrm{}}=\eta (\tau )^3{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{u=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^u\left[q^{k\left(\frac{\mathrm{}1}{2k}+\frac{u}{2}\right)^2+\widehat{k}\left(\frac{m^{}}{2\widehat{k}}+\frac{u}{2}+r\right)^2}+q^{k\left(\frac{\mathrm{}1}{2k}\frac{u+1}{2}\right)^2+\widehat{k}\left(\frac{m^{}}{2\widehat{k}}+\frac{u+1}{2}+r\right)^2}\right].`$
This function is shown to be actually convergent in . Consequently, we conclude that the character $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z)`$ is convergent.

Let us consider the modular transformation properties of these characters in order to construct modular invariant partition functions. The modular transformation law can be read from (2.5) as follows.

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau +1,z)=𝐞\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}2)}{4k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{8k}}\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(\tau ,z),`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},s}(1/\tau ,z/\tau )=𝐞\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}}{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{\tau }}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},m,s}{}}(1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}}\mathrm{sin}\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}1)(\mathrm{}^{}1)}{k}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{8k}}}𝐞\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ss^{}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{mm^{}}{2k}}\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{}^{\mathrm{}^{},s^{}}(\tau ,z).`$
Note that from (2.5), we can read off the charge of the states in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_m^{\mathrm{},s}`$ to be $`s/2m/kmod2`$. This relation is used to perform the GSO projection.

Also, it is convenient to define a “index” $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_m^{\mathrm{}}(\tau ,z):=\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},1}(\tau ,z)\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_m^{\mathrm{},1}(\tau ,z)`$ in order to construct the elliptic genera and Witten indices. This $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_m^{\mathrm{}}`$ has the following properties from (2.5).

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_m^{\mathrm{}}(\tau ,0)=\delta _{m,\mathrm{}1}+\delta _{m,(\mathrm{}1)}.`$ (2.6)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_m^{\mathrm{}}(\tau ,0)`$ actually has no $`\tau `$ dependence because of worldsheet supersymmetry; there are only contributions from Ramond ground states.

## 3 Noncompact Gepner models

In this section, we construct the “noncompact Gepner models” constructed by a number of integral level SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki models and $`𝒩=2`$ minimal models (SU(2)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki models). The Gepner-like description of ALE, and Seiberg-Witten curve are included in this class of models.

In this paper, we construct only the discrete part. However, there is also the continuous part for each SL(2, $``$)/U(1).

### 3.1 The closed string theory

Let us first consider the closed string theory and construct the toroidal partition function. The theory we consider here is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SL}(2,)_{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_1}}{\mathrm{U}(1)}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SL}(2,)_{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_2}}{\mathrm{U}(1)}}\times \mathrm{}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SL}(2,)_{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}}}{\mathrm{U}(1)}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SU}(2)_{N_1}}{\mathrm{U}(1)}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SU}(2)_{N_2}}{\mathrm{U}(1)}}\times \mathrm{}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{SU}(2)_{N_r}}{\mathrm{U}(1)}}\right)/_K,`$
where $`K=\mathrm{lcm}(\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}},N_j)|_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{r},j=1,\mathrm{},r}`$. This orbifold projection is the one onto the integer charged states. This theory can be expressed as an $`𝒩=2`$ Landau-Ginzburg orbifold with a superpotential

$`W=Y_1^{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_1}+Y_2^{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_2}+\mathrm{}+Y_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}}+X_1^{N_1}+\mathrm{}+X_r^{N_r},`$
where $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}},X_1,\mathrm{},X_r`$ are chiral superfields. We construct the partition function of this theory by the beta-method  and determine the combination of left mover and right mover.

The central charge of this theory is expressed as

$`c/3`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}{\overset{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}+2}{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_j2}{N_j}}=r+\stackrel{ˇ}{r}+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}{\overset{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_j}}.`$
Since we expect that this theory is equivalent to a sigma model on a Calabi-Yau manifold, we consider the case that $`c/3`$ is an integer. We also concentrate to the case that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{r}+rc/3`$ is an even integer for a technical reason.

A Verma module of this theory is a tensor product of ones of each sub-theory. The character of the Verma module $`f_𝖺(\tau )`$ is a product of ones of each sub-theory

$`f_𝖺(\tau ,z):=\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_1}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_1,\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_1}(\tau ,z)\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}},\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}}(\tau ,z)\chi _{m_1}^{\mathrm{}_1,s_1}(\tau ,z)\mathrm{}\chi _{m_r}^{\mathrm{}_r,s_r}(\tau ,z),`$
where $`\chi _m^{\mathrm{},s}`$ is an $`𝒩=2`$ minimal model character, and the label $`𝖺`$ is defined as

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}=(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}};\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_r),\stackrel{}{m}=(\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}};m_1,\mathrm{},m_r),\stackrel{}{s}=(\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}};s_1,\mathrm{},s_r),`$
$`𝖺=(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{s}),`$
and each $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_j,\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_j,\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_j)`$ is a label of a Verma module of SL(2, $``$)$`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_j}`$/U(1), and each $`(\mathrm{}_j,m_j,s_j)`$ is that of SU(2)$`_{N_j}`$/U(1). We define, for the sake of convenience, the inner products between two $`\stackrel{}{m}`$’s, and between two $`\stackrel{}{s}`$’s as follows.

$`\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{m}^{}:={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}}{2\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_jm_j^{}}{2N_j}},\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}^{}:={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_js_j^{}}{4}}.`$
Also, we introduce a special vector $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=(2,\mathrm{},2;2,\mathrm{},2)`$ which is the same type of $`\stackrel{}{m}`$. Using this vector, we can write the charge integrality condition as $`\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{m}`$.

Next, we need the modular transformation laws of $`f_𝖺`$ to construct the modular invariant partition function and determine the combination of left mover and right mover. These modular properties can be written as

$`f_𝖺(\tau +1,z)=𝐞\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2)}{4\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_j(\mathrm{}_j+2)}{4N_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}+\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{m})+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}\right]f_𝖺(\tau ,z),`$
$`f_𝖺(1/\tau ,z/\tau )=𝐞\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{\tau }}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{𝖺^{}}{}}S_{\mathrm{𝖺𝖺}^{}}f_𝖺^{}(\tau ,z),`$
$`S_{\mathrm{𝖺𝖺}^{}}:=\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}{\overset{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}}}(1)A_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2,\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}2}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}A_{\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}_j^{}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8N}}𝐞\left[\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}^{}+\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{m}^{}\right],`$ (3.1)
where $`A_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$’s are $`SU(2)`$ S matrices.

With these notations, we can write the modular invariant partition function of NS sector as

$`Z(\tau ,\overline{\tau })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}+r}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{s},\overline{\stackrel{}{s}}\\ \stackrel{ˇ}{s}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}},s_j,\overline{\stackrel{ˇ}{s}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}},\overline{s}_j,=0,2\\ \stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{m}\end{array}}{}}f_{(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{s})}(\tau )\overline{f}_{(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{}{m}+b\stackrel{}{\beta },\overline{\stackrel{}{s}})}(\overline{\tau }).`$
We can check that this partition function is actually invariant under the transformation (3.1).

Now, let us construct the elliptic genus in order to investigate the topological feature of this model. The elliptic genus $`I(\tau ,\overline{\tau },z):=Tr_{\mathrm{RR}}[(1)^Fq^{L_0c/24}\overline{q}^{\overline{L}_0c/24}y^{J_0}]`$ becomes a sum of products

$`I(\tau ,\overline{\tau },z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}+r}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{}{m}\\ \stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{m}\end{array}}{}}I_\stackrel{}{m}^{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}(\tau ,z)\overline{I}_{\stackrel{}{m}+b\stackrel{}{\beta }}^{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}(\overline{\tau },0),`$
$`I_\stackrel{}{m}^{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}(\tau ,z)=\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_1}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_1}(\tau ,z)\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}}(\tau ,z)I_{m_1}^\mathrm{}_1(\tau ,z)\mathrm{}I_{m_r}^\mathrm{}_r(\tau ,z),`$ (3.2)
where $`I_m^{\mathrm{}}=\chi _m^{\mathrm{},1}\chi _m^{\mathrm{},1}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{I}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}}^\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined in section 2.3. We can check that this elliptic genus has the right modular properties.

The Witten index is obtained as $`I(\tau ,\overline{\tau },0)`$. This is actually independent of $`\tau `$ from the relation (2.6).

### 3.2 D-branes

In this subsection, we consider the boundary states, the annulus amplitude and the open string Witten indices in the model defined in the previous subsection. We use almost the same method as , and we only show the results here.

There are two types of gluing conditions of the $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal algebra: the A-type and the B-type. In both cases, the boundary conditions (boundary states) are labeled by $`\alpha =(\stackrel{}{L},\stackrel{}{M},\stackrel{}{S})`$ which is the same label as $`𝖺`$.

In the case of the A-type gluing condition, the open string partition function becomes

$`Z_{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^\mathrm{A}`$ $`:=\underset{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha },\mathrm{A},\mathrm{NS}}{Tr}\left[q^{L_0c/24}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}+r}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝖺^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{NS}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}{\overset{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}}}N_{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}2}\delta _{\stackrel{ˇ}{M}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{M}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}+\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}+2b}^{\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\stackrel{ˇ}{N}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}N_{L_j\stackrel{~}{L}_j}^\mathrm{}_j^{}\delta _{M_j+\stackrel{~}{M}_j+m_j^{}+2b}^{\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}N_j}\right)f_𝖺^{}(\tau ),`$
where, $`N_{L\stackrel{~}{L}}^{\mathrm{}}`$’s are SU(2) fusion coefficients.

The A-type open string Witten index becomes

$`I_{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^\mathrm{A}:=\underset{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha },\mathrm{A},\mathrm{R}}{Tr}\left[q^{L_0c/24}(1)^F\right]=(1)^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{S}S)}{\displaystyle \underset{b=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}{}}N_{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{M}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{M}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}+2b2}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{L_j\stackrel{~}{L}_j}^{M_j\stackrel{~}{M}_j+2b2}\right),`$ (3.3)
where $`S=_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}\stackrel{ˇ}{S}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}+_{j=1}^rS_j,\stackrel{~}{S}=_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{S}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}+_{j=1}^r\stackrel{~}{S}_j`$ .

On the other hand, in the B-type case, open string partition function becomes

$`Z_{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^\mathrm{B}:=\underset{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha },\mathrm{B},\mathrm{NS}}{Tr}\left[q^{L_0c/24}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}+r}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝖺^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{NS}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}{\overset{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}}}N_{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}2}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}N_{L_j\stackrel{~}{L}_j}^\mathrm{}_j^{}\right)\delta _{M+\stackrel{~}{M}+K\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{m}}^{\mathrm{mod}K}f_𝖺^{}(\tau ),`$
where, $`M=K\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{M},\stackrel{~}{M}=K\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{M}}`$ . The open string Witten index is written as

$`I_{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^\mathrm{B}:=\underset{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha },\mathrm{B},\mathrm{R}}{Tr}\left[q^{L_0c/24}(1)^F\right]`$ $`=(1)^{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{S}S)}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}=1}{\overset{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}}}N_{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}2}^{\stackrel{ˇ}{m}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{ȷ}}^{}1}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}N_{L_j\stackrel{~}{L}_j}^{m_j^{}1}\right)\delta _{M+\stackrel{~}{M}+K\stackrel{}{\beta }(\stackrel{}{m}^{}+1/2\stackrel{}{\beta })}^{\mathrm{mod}K}.`$ (3.4)
In both types of gluing conditions, the open string Witten indices are actually independent of $`\tau `$.

### 3.3 An Example — ALE space —

In this subsection, we consider the properties of the AN-1 ALE model in detail; this model is composed of an SL(2, $``$)N/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki model and an $`𝒩=2`$ level $`(N2)`$ minimal model.

The elliptic genus of the AN-1 ALE model is obtained as the special case of (3.2). In particular, the closed string Witten index becomes $`I(\tau ,\overline{\tau },z=0)=N1`$ . This exactly correspond to the $`(N1)`$ dimensional (2,2) compact cohomology elements of the AN-1 ALE space. Other compact cohomology elements of the AN-1 ALE space are known to be 0 dimensional.

Associated open string Witten indices are also obtained as the special case of (3.3) and (3.4). In this special case, the A-type open string Witten indices are the same as the B-type ones and the result is

$`I_{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=(1)^{(S\stackrel{~}{S})/2}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{2N1}{}}}N_{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_12,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}}_12}^{M\stackrel{~}{M}+m}N_{L_1\stackrel{~}{L}_1}^m.`$ (3.5)
This fact the A-type open string Witten indices coincides with the B-type ones is consistent to the fact that the AN-1 ALE space is self mirror.

If we set $`\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{ˇ}{L}}_1=2`$ in (3.5), this gives the same result as  and it is the correct intersection form of the vanishing 2-cycles of the AN-1 ALE space. In particular, this intersection form becomes the AN-1 extended Cartan matrix when we set $`S=\stackrel{~}{S}=L_1=\stackrel{~}{L}_1=0`$.

In the general values of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1`$ and $`L_1`$ , the associated cycles in the ALE space is as follows. Let us denote the 2-cycles in ALE space as $`𝒞_\nu ,\nu ,𝒞_{\nu +N}=𝒞_\nu ,_{\nu =0}^{N1}𝒞_\nu =0`$. Here, we set the intersection form as $`𝒞_\nu ,𝒞_\nu ^{}=2\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}^{\mathrm{mod}N}\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}+1}^{\mathrm{mod}N}\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}1}^{\mathrm{mod}N}`$. We also define $`𝒞_{\nu _1\nu _2}:=𝒞_{\nu _1}+𝒞_{\nu _1+1}+\mathrm{}+𝒞_{\nu _21}`$ for the sake of convenience. For the boundary states with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1(N+2)/2,L_1(N2)/2,\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1+L_22,M=S=0`$, we can write the associated cycle as

$`\gamma _{(\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1,L_1,M=0,S=0)}=𝒞_{a+1,a}+𝒞_{a+2.a1}+\mathrm{}+𝒞_{b,b+1},`$
$`\text{where, }a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1+L_1),b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1L_12|.`$
On the other hand, for the boundary states with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1(N+2)/2,L_1(N2)/2,\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1+L_22+1,M=1,S=0`$, we can write the associated cycle as

$`\gamma _{(\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1,L_1,M=1,S=0)}=𝒞_{a,a}+𝒞_{a+1.a1}+\mathrm{}+𝒞_{b,b}`$
$`\text{where, }a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1+L_11),b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\stackrel{ˇ}{L}_1L_12|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$
Actually, the open string Witten indices (3.5) and the intersection number between these cycles are the same. The image of this cycle is shown in Fig.1. The cycles for general values of $`M`$ are obtained by shifting by the $`Z_N`$ symmetry.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we investigate the discrete series of the noncompact Gepner model. We claim that the compact cohomology and the compact cycles belong to this sector. We check it in the case of the AN-1 ALE model. We treat only the A-type ALE in this paper, but D-type and E-type ALE can be also treated as the same way and the results will be the same as .

Other interesting noncompact models are ADE type Calabi-Yau 3-fold and 4-fold singularities. In these cases, the level of the SL(2, $``$)/U(1) becomes fractional and this model does not belong to the models treated in this paper. We should consider some multiple covering of the SL(2, $``$) group manifold and a fractional $`\mathrm{}`$ in order to treat the discrete series of the fractional level SL(2, $``$)/U(1) Kazama-Suzuki models. We postpone this in a future work.

The relation between the continuous series and discrete series is also interesting. At the level of the modular invariance, these two are independent of each other. However, in the OPE level, they are interacting.

### Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Tsuneo Uematsu and Katsuyuki Sugiyama for useful discussions and encouragement. I am also grateful to Michihiro Naka, Masatoshi Nozaki, Yuji Satoh, Yuji Sugawara, Toshiaki Tanaka, Kentaroh Yoshida for useful discussions and comments. I would also like to thank the organizers (T. Eguchi et al) of the Summer Institute 2000 at Yamanashi, Japan, 7-21 August, 2000, where a part of this work is done.

This work is supported in part by the JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.