text:
# Quantum moduli spaces from matrix models

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric gauge theories have many remarkable properties that have made them theoretically attractive through the years. Perhaps the most notable property of supersymmetric gauge theories is holomorphy . In a nutshell, it is the ability to make exact predictions for the theories at strong coupling from (nonperturbative) weak coupling calculations. The data that is protected by supersymmetry is holomorphic, and usually it is the case that holomorphicity arguments alone are strong enough to solve the theory (meaning that we can extract all of the holomorphic information from an analysis of the symmetries of the theory, see for example ).

It has been noted that the holomorphic information for field theories associated to D-branes can be encoded in a topological open string theory . These topological computations depend only on zero modes of the spacetime theory, so that the calculations are given by analyzing only the massless modes of a D-brane on a Calabi-Yau space. These are a finite number of degrees of freedom, and the calculations reduce to a matrix model whose fields are the chiral multiplets of the gauge theory. We are interested in the topological B-model, which in the most general setting is described in the work . The tree level matrix model action is the classical superpotential of the theory. Already at this level one can predict Seiberg-like dualities  by changing the basis of fundamental branes in the B-model

Recently, in a series of papers Dijkgraaf and Vafa  have argued that the matrix model can be used to compute not just the tree level superpotential, but all of the holomorphic information of the field theory. This has been argued only for situations when the classical supersymmetric gauge theory leads to a discrete set of vacua, as well as limits of this situation (for example extracting the Seiberg-Witten curve of the $`𝒩=2`$ pure $`U(N)`$ gauge theory).

Each classical vacuum configuration can give rise to many quantum vacua. This follows because at the classical vacua the infrared physics is a pure gauge theory $`U(N_i)`$, for which the $`SU(N_i)`$ confine. The novel realization is that higher loops in the matrix model introduce powers of fields $`S_i`$ which in the weak coupling approximation can be understood as gaugino condensates for the $`SU(N_i)`$ fields. This weak coupling calculation can then be extrapolated to strong coupling, so long as we think of the $`S_i`$ as holomorphic coordinates describing the vacuum configurations. There is also a measure term for the $`S_i`$, so that when we vary the effective superpotential we get the exact vacua of the theory.

The solution via the matrix models  treats the variables $`\mu _i=N_i/N`$ as fixed filling fractions for a large $`N`$ saddle point calculation. The reason one can use the large $`N`$ saddle point is that we are only interested in the planar diagrams of the matrix model, and the $`1/N`$ expansion is an expansion in the genus of a Riemann surface. At higher genus string amplitudes will contribute to protected curvature and graviphoton couplings to the gauge theory, but not to the effective superpotential .

The recipe proceeds in the following steps: first we write the planar large $`N`$ expansion in terms of the appropriate ’t Hooft couplings $`g_i=gN_i`$, $`\lambda =gN`$ so that $`g_i=\mu _i\lambda `$. After this is done we formally replace the variables $`g_i`$ by $`S_i`$, the associated gaugino condensate for the $`SU(N_i)`$ gauge field.

This has been verified in various cases getting results  from known matrix model solutions  that can be matched to exact field theory calculations based on completely different techniques .

This paper will generalize the above idea to the case where the vacuum structure is not a set of isolated vacua, but instead it gives rise to a moduli space of vacua. We are particularly interested in situations where there are quantum corrections to the moduli space, and where the model is simple enough to be tractable at the matrix model level and the field theory as well.

Since the matrix model techniques are given by topological string amplitudes, it is natural to consider, as a starting point, D-brane probes in various geometries, and to engineer situations where we expect quantum corrections to the moduli space. The main tool of our geometrical understanding will be the brane engineering of geometric transitions. See  for the description of the general setup.

Thus, we will be build theories by considering non compact Calabi-Yau spaces with isolated singularities, and placing a collection of fractional branes at the singularities 111These are branes wrapped on blown-down cycles with a $`B`$ field through them. We will require that these fractional branes give rise to a consistent four dimensional gauge theory (the anomalies are canceled). In general, placing fractional branes at singularities leads to geometric transitions which deform the singularity structure. This deformed geometry is the geometry that should be seen by a probe brane in the bulk, see also .

Because this new deformed geometry is not the original Calabi-Yau geometry (which corresponds to the classical moduli space of the probe brane), one can associate the geometric transition to nonperturbative effects of the gauge theory. These deformations can be computed exactly in the gauge theory in various cases .

We will show that these results can be reproduced using large $`N`$ matrix models associated to the superpotential of the gauge theory. In the matrix model approach, one also needs to treat the probe branes on a different footing than the branes at the singularities. The reason the probe branes have to be analyzed separately is that they have massless modes (the moduli) that one is not allowed to integrate out. Understanding how these zero modes get affected by performing the matrix integral will give us the expected deformed moduli space.

The reader interested in learning more about matrix models should read the excellent reviews .

The body of the paper is organized in three main sections, each covering a different example of computations. First we study the examples considered by Dijkgraaf and Vafa  with a brane in the bulk, a particular case of which is the brane setup of Klebanov and Strassler , which is reviewed briefly. Then we study the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory and we show that the moduli space of vacua does not get quantum corrected. Thirdly we study a field theory which results from deforming the theory of branes at the $`^3/_2\times _2`$ singularity with discrete torsion. We close the paper with a conclusion and discussion.

## 2 Branes at the conifold singularity and the canonical example

Let us consider a theory where we place $`M`$ fractional branes at the conifold singularity, and add a single probe brane to the system. The geometry of the conifold is described by a non-degenerate quadratic equation in four variables being set equal to zero, for example

$$w^2uv=z^2$$
(1)
and the conformal field theory associated to the conifold was first discussed in

The field theory associated to this set of branes in the geometry has been studied in the work of Klebanov and Strassler . The effect of placing the fractional branes at the singularity makes the probe moduli space become the deformed conifold, due to the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential . This effect has been generalized to many probes in . We will make a brief review of the calculation done by Klebanov and Strassler, and we will then proceed to calculate the same effect with the associated matrix model.

We will consider a $`SU(M+S)\times SU(S)`$ gauge theory with four matter fields $`A_{1,2}`$ and $`B_{1,2}`$ transforming in the $`(M+S,\overline{S})`$ and $`(\overline{M+S},S)`$.

We will further specialize to $`S=1`$ for simplicity, which indicates that we have only one bulk probe in the brane configuration. The theory has a classical superpotential given by

$$W=\lambda (tr(ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}A_iB_kA_jB_l))$$

The superpotential above can be written as

$$W=\lambda (ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}N_{ik}N_{jl})$$

where $`N_{ij}=A_iB_j`$ with the $`SU(M+S)`$ indices contracted. These are gauge invariant meson superfields with respect to the confining gauge theory, and are the moduli of the theory.

It is easy to show that solving for the classical moduli space of vacua we have

$$ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}N_{ik}N_{jl}=0$$
(2)
which is the conifold geometry.

Now, the $`SU(M+S)`$ theory for $`M`$ large and fixed $`S=1`$ is confining, and by dimensional transmutation it has a dynamical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ replacing the coupling constant.

Strong coupling effects generate an effective superpotential

$$W=\lambda (tr(ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}A_iB_kA_jB_l))+(M1)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3M+1}}{ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}N_{ik}N_{jl}}\right)^{1/M1}$$
(3)
And after minimizing the superpotential one finds that

$$ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}N_{ik}N_{jl}=(2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3M+1}/\lambda ^{M1})^{\frac{1}{M}}$$
(4)
which is the geometry of the deformed conifold, namely, we are getting the following equation

$$uv+w^2=z^2+ϵ$$

Notice that the phase of $`ϵ`$ is determined by a choice of vacuum for the $`U(M)`$ pure $`N=1`$ gauge theory associated to the infrared of the fractional branes at the conifold singularity. The size of $`ϵ`$ is determined by the dynamical scale of the theory.

This is a particular example in a general class of field theories first studied by Cachazo et al , and which has been labeled the canonical example in  222The $`U(N)\times U(0)`$ theory gives rise to a standard one-matrix model. The classical geometry associated to the field theory is given by the following equation in four variables

$$w^2uv=P(z)^2$$
(5)
where $`P(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n`$. The above geometry has singularities of the conifold type at the roots of $`P(z)`$, and one can place fractional branes at each of these singularities. Each of these sets of fractional branes via strong coupling effects deforms the above geometry so that in the end one finds that one should arrive at the following type of geometry

$$uv+w^2=P(z)^2+f(z)$$
(6)
where $`f(z)`$ is given by a polynomial in $`z`$ of degree $`n1`$. In the particular case of the conifold we have that $`P`$ is of degree one, and the deformation $`f(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree zero (a constant).

These theories are also of the form $`U(M)\times U(N)`$, and besides the fields $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$ these theories have an additional pair of adjoint fields $`z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$. The classical superpotential for the theory is given by

$$W=\mathrm{tr}(z(A_1B_1A_2B_2)(B_1A_1B_2A_2)\stackrel{~}{z})+tr[V(z)V(\stackrel{~}{z})]$$
(7)
and these are a deformation of an $`𝒩=2`$ SYM theory by the potential term $`\mathrm{tr}(V(z)V(\stackrel{~}{z}))`$. This is a twisted superpotential deformation of the $`^3/_2\times _2`$ orbifold. One can show easily that this is the geometry of the moduli space of vacua by using non-commutative geometry techniques . Because these theories can be considered as softly broken $`𝒩=2`$ theories, one can analyze them via the Seiberg-Witten solution of the undeformed theory . The curve where $`u=v=0`$, $`w^2=P(z)^2+f(z)`$ is the Seiberg-Witten curve of the associated $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory when one goes to a generic point in moduli space for $`U(N)`$, where the gauge group is broken to $`U(N)U(1)^N`$, and for which $`P`$ is of degree $`N`$.

When $`M=N=1`$ we have a single probe brane, and the variables, $`u,v,w,z`$ can be identified with

$$u=(A_1B_2),v=(A_2B_1),w=\frac{(A_1B_1+A_2B_2)}{2},z=\stackrel{~}{z}$$
(8)
and $`2V^{}(z)=P(z)`$.

There are also vacua where two fractional branes are located at different singularities, and these lead to additional isolated vacua. The condition $`\stackrel{~}{z}=z`$ is the one that ensures that the $`A_i,B_i`$ have massless modes.

When we have a $`U(N)\times U(M)`$ theory, we need to think in terms of the eigenvalues of $`z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ as gauge invariant quantities. In the case where $`V(z)=mz^2`$, the fields $`z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ can be integrated out, and one recovers the conifold field theory as described above.

We will be interested again in the $`U(N+1)\times U(1)`$ field theory: one probe in the presence of $`N`$ fractional branes. This will simplify the analysis that would be required to take care of the $`U(N+1)\times U(M+1)`$ theory where the fractional branes between the two types of branes are split in different singularities, plus a single probe.

The field theories associated to these examples have been studied by matrix model techniques in the work of Dijkgraaf and Vafa in the particular case where there are no moduli, for the $`U(M)\times U(0)`$ theory. Here we will show that the deformed moduli space of vacua from a matrix model computation will lead exactly to the geometry given by 6.

Now, we need to write the associated matrix model to the above situation. For the case of the $`U(N)\times U(0)`$ theory, the solution of the vacuum of the theory is described by solving the matrix model

$$[dz]\mathrm{exp}(N^{}\mu ^1tr(V(z)))$$

about a saddle point of the large $`N^{}`$ limit of $`N^{}\times N^{}`$ matrices with some quantum distribution of eigenvalues. Each classical saddle point of $`V`$ gives a location where one can place classical eigenvalues. On the eigenvalue plane, the quantum eigenvalues will produce cuts on this plane, and the theory is solved by a Riemann surface which is a double cover of the eigenvalue plane, the spectral curve.

$`N^{}`$, although it begins its life as $`N`$, in the end should not be identified with $`N`$. Instead each variable $`N_i`$ (the number of eigenvalues in a cut) in the expansion should be replaced by an associated gaugino condensate $`S_i`$. The $`S_i`$ is obtained later from the periods of a differential of the spectral curve of the solution of the matrix model, which is given by

$$y^2=(V^{})^2(z)+f(z)$$

This effectively gives us a map from the $`f`$ to the $`S_i`$.

Now, we will show that this same technology can be used to derive the quantum deformed moduli space of the $`U(N+1)\times U(1)`$ theory.

The idea is to look at a $`U(N^{}+1)\times U(1)`$ matrix model, where again $`N^{}`$ begins it’s life as $`N`$, but we treat the $`U(N^{})`$ diagrams in the planar limit, while we keep the probe separate from the $`U(N^{})`$ theory, and take $`N^{}\mathrm{}`$.

We should consider writing a multi-matrix model with all the fields that enter in the superpotential

$$([dz][d\stackrel{~}{z}][dA][dB])^{}\mathrm{exp}(W)$$

but where the integral is over all massive modes of the theory, and we keep the massless information. This is indicated with a prime on the integration measure, which indicates that we should remove the set of variables which are massless.

It is easy to show that the classical moduli space of the probe is given by $`w^2uv=P(\stackrel{~}{z})^2`$, with $`u,v,w,\stackrel{~}{z}`$ defined as above, making sure that the $`U(N+1)`$ indices are contracted completely, see for example . One can also check that for these solutions one of the eigenvalues of $`z`$ is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$, while all the other eigenvalues sit classically at critical points of $`V(z)`$.

To include the effects of confinement, one should solve the matrix model in the large $`N^{}`$ limit. By standard methods one can turn it into an integral over the eigenvalues of $`z`$ times the Vandermonde determinant. This is the gauge fixing procedure for $`z`$. We will be careful to distinguish one of the eigenvalues $`z_0`$ which is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$. This ensures that some of the components of $`A,B`$ are massless, and that we are allowed to have a moduli space.

From a more invariant point of view, one notices that the equations of motion for the $`B`$ imply that $`zA=A\stackrel{~}{z}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ a number and $`A`$ a column vector. If $`A`$ is not zero, then this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ is equal to one of the eigenvalues of the matrix $`z`$. This is exactly what we need to explore the moduli space of vacua.

At this point the integral to do is

$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{i0}{}}[d\lambda _i][dA_{12}^i][(dB_{12})_i]\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}\{N\mu ^1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\lambda _i\stackrel{~}{z})(A^iB_i)+`$ (9)
$`+N\mu ^1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V(\lambda _i)N\mu ^1V(\stackrel{~}{z})+N\mu ^1(z_0\stackrel{~}{z})((A_1)^0(B_1)_0(A_2)^0(B_2)_0)\}`$ (10)
For us, the moduli will be given by $`z=z_0`$ and the zero components of $`A,B`$. The notation above has the symbol $`AB`$ which indicates the combination $`A_1B_1A_2B_2`$, and we have made the color indices explicit with respect to the $`U(N+1)`$ gauge group because we want to keep track of the eigenvalue we singled out.

Now we can integrate out $`A_i,B_i`$. This being a Gaussian integral over four coordinates of mass $`\lambda _iz`$ gives us the result $`\delta =_{i0}(\lambda _iz)^2`$ up to a multiplicative constant 333This constant is irrelevant for our discussion, but plays a role when we consider the vev of the superpotential of the theory at a given vacuum.

The logarithm of the Vandermonde determinant and $`\delta `$ is then

$$\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\delta )=\underset{ij}{}2\mathrm{log}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)2\underset{i0}{}\mathrm{log}(\lambda _i\stackrel{~}{z})$$

Now we want to solve for the saddle point of this setup in the large $`N^{}`$ limit. Notice that the eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`z_0`$ do not have an interaction between them, because we have not integrated out the massless modes of $`A,B`$. The saddle point equation for the zero components of $`A`$, $`B`$ generic make $`\stackrel{~}{z}=z_0`$ in this situation.

One sees that the saddle point equations for the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ are the same as when we have the theory $`U(N^{})\times U(0)`$, because the contribution from $`z_0`$ cancels the contribution from $`z`$ when they are equal. The saddle point equation for the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ is

$$N^{}\mu ^1V^{}(\lambda _i)2\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}=0$$
(11)
Now let $`w(\lambda )=\frac{1}{N^{}}_{i0}\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _i}`$ be the resolvent of the matrix model.

From here it follows that in the large $`N^{}`$ limit one has

$$w(\lambda )^2+w(\lambda )\mu ^1V^{}(\lambda )=f(\lambda )$$
(12)
where $`f(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$.

The saddle point equations for $`\stackrel{~}{z}=z_0`$ are identically equal to

$$\mu ^1V^{}(z_0)+2w(z_0)+\mu ^1(A_1)^0(B_1)_0(A_2)^0(B_2)_0=0$$

From here we get the quantum corrected relation in the variables from equation (8)

$$w^2uv=\frac{1}{4}(V^{}(z_0)+2\mu w(z_0))^2$$

and it follows from equation (12) that

$$w^2uv=\frac{1}{4}((V^{})^2(z)f(z))$$
(13)
which up to a normalization factor on the polynomial $`f`$ is the same result as the deformed geometry of Cachazo et al .

One can repeat the calculation with many probes. The results are then grouped in block diagonal sets of matrices. The results for each such probe brane are the same as above. Thus one obtains that the moduli space is a symmetric product of the deformed geometry. This is also expected from the calculations performed in . This happens because the probe branes do not affect the eigenvalue distribution of the fractional branes. After all, there is an equality between the eigenvalues of $`z`$ and some eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ which cancels terms in the saddle point for the fractional brane eigenvalues, and the probes do not seem to interact with each other. Also the interactions between the eigenvalues corresponding to different probes cancel each other for the same reason. We will see that this is exactly what happens in the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM; the lesson is that the branes in the bulk will behave locally like the maximally supersymmetric brane, except when they are at a singularity.

## 3 $`𝒩=4`$ SYM

Let us discuss a case where there are no quantum correction, namely, $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory. Again, we should do the integral

$$[dX][dY][dZ]^{}\mathrm{exp}(N\mu ^1tr(X[Y,Z]))$$
(14)
We can go to the eigenvalue basis for $`X`$, and we obtain the integral

$$d\lambda _i[dY][dZ]^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}(N\mu ^1\underset{i}{}\lambda _i[Y,Z]_{ii}$$
(15)
Now, we integrate the massive modes of $`Y,Z`$. These are the off-diagonal components of $`Y,Z`$, and the mass matrix for $`Y_{ij},Z_{ji}`$ is $`N\mu ^1(\lambda _{ii}\lambda _{jj})`$. In total there are four scalars with this mass term, so they give rise to the following

$$[d\lambda _idY_{ii}dZ_{ii}]^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\underset{i<j}{}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)^2=[d\lambda _idY_{ii}dZ_{ii}]^{}$$
(16)
The result follows from the identity $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i<j}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)`$.

When we consider the right hand side of the equation, all of the elements appearing in the integral are moduli, so we should not integrate over them at all. From here, it is clear that the quantum moduli space is given exactly by the classical moduli space, namely, three matrices that commute. This is a well known result, and the matrix model result is consistent with this fact.

We should mention that it is important to notice that the eigenvalue measure was canceled exactly by the integration of the massive fields, so it performs a non-trivial test of the matrix model technology.

## 4 A third example

So far we have studied examples which are essentially $`N=2`$ or $`N=4`$ supersymmetric, and could be argued to be derived from the Seiberg-Witten curve with a small superpotential.

Now, we will describe a matrix model which is obtained from a different type of geometry, and is more naturally thought of as an $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory. The theory is pure $`U(N)`$ gauge field theory with three adjoints $`X,Y,Z`$, and the following superpotential

$$W=g(tr(XYZ+XZY)2tr(M_1^2X+M_2^2Y+M_3^2Z))$$
(17)
We can always rescale the fields so that $`M_1^2=M_2^2=M_3^2=1`$. However, it is helpful to consider the dependence on the holomorphic couplings $`M_i^2`$ when we describe the quantum moduli space from the field theory point of view. In the UV, if one arrives at a fixed point of the renormalization group, then $`g`$ can be identified with the gauge coupling of the theory, after we normalize $`X,Y,Z`$ properly in their kinetic term.

This theory has been analyzed previously in various places, and it corresponds to a deformation of the $`^3/_2\times _2`$ orbifold with discrete torsion . A bulk probe brane has worldvolume gauge theory $`U(2)`$, and one can show that the following matrices are proportional to the identity on the moduli space $`u=X^2`$, $`v=Y^2`$, $`t=Z^2`$, $`\gamma =\{[X,Y],Z\}/4`$ 444These are elements of the center of the associated quiver algebra . We can choose an open set of the moduli space to be parametrized as

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \sigma _3`$ (18)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^1\sigma _3+\beta \sigma _1`$ (19)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^1\sigma _3+\beta ^1(1\alpha ^2)\sigma _1+\delta \sigma _3`$ (20)
from here $`X^2=x^2`$, $`Y^2=x^2+\beta ^2`$, $`Z^2=x^2+\beta ^2x^4+\delta ^2`$, $`\gamma =\alpha \beta \delta `$.

These are easily seen to satisfy the following constraint

$$uvtuvt+2=\gamma ^2$$

and there is a conifold type singularity at $`u=v=t=1`$, and $`\gamma =0`$. At this location there are two types of fractional brane solutions, with $`X=Y=Z=\pm 1`$. The field theory in the vicinity of the singularity is in the same universality class as the conifold of Klebanov and Witten . In particular, we can add a large number of fractional branes of the same type, and it is expected that the geometry will be deformed by a geometric transition. Reintroducing the couplings $`M_i^2`$, one finds that

$$uvtM_1^4uM_2^4vM_3^4t+2M_1^2M_2^2M_3^2=\gamma ^2$$

If we place fractional branes at the tip of the singularity, one expects to have a geometric transition for the conifold , and the singularity should be deformed to

$$uvtM_1^4uM_2^4vM_3^4t+(2+ϵ)M_1^2M_2^2M_3^2=\gamma ^2$$
(21)
where $`ϵ`$ is a function of $`g`$ and $`\tau `$ (the gauge coupling of the associated gauge theory). The form of this dependence is guaranteed by the symmetries of the theory. When $`M_i^2=0`$ the theory has a $`U(1)^3`$ symmetry which rotates $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$ independently (we can choose $`g`$ to transform to cancel the above rotation), and then the $`M_i^2`$ transform under these charges. The equation of the moduli space then has definite quantum numbers under these charges. It is easy to see that one can not generate terms that are quadratic on the variables $`u,v,t`$ and have holomorphic behavior when we take $`M_i^20`$. Determining this function $`ϵ`$ is a very interesting problem in quantum field theory, as in principle it is an arbitrary function of a particular combination of $`g`$ and $`\tau `$ determined by anomalies. We will not pursue this direction here however.

We will calculate the geometry of a probe in the presence of these fractional branes by the matrix model technique, and we will compute the deformed moduli space. We will show that it agrees with the above shape for the deformation. This is, we will consider a $`U(N+2)`$ theory.

We need to consider the following matrix integral in the large $`N`$ limit

$$[dX][dY][dZ]^{}\mathrm{exp}(N\mu ^1W)$$
(22)
Again, we diagonalize $`X`$, but we need to keep two eigenvalues singled out for the probe brane, let them be $`\lambda ^{0,1}`$. Let the other eigenvalues be $`x_i`$ For these special $`\lambda `$ eigenvalues we will not integrate the associated block of $`2\times 2`$ matrices of $`X,Y,Z`$, but we will look instead at the quantum corrected moduli space. Hence, we will have

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda ^0𝑑\lambda ^1\underset{i}{}dx_i[dY][dZ]^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{exp}(N\mu ^1[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i\{Y,Z\}_{ii}2x_i2Y_{ii}2Z_{ii}`$ (24)
$`+\lambda ^0(Y_{0i}Z_{i0}+Y_{i0}Z_{0i}+\lambda ^1(Y_{1i}Z_{i1}+Y_{i1}Z_{1i})+W_{red}]`$ (25)
Where $`W_{red}`$ is the superpotential associated to the $`2\times 2`$ block of matrices that are associated to the eigenvalues $`\lambda ^{0,1}`$. Again we have made the gauge theory indices explicit in the above formula. Here, the Vandermonde determinant is over the $`(N+2)\times (N+2)`$ matrix $`X`$. We have separated the action in terms of the probe terms, and those of the large $`N`$ condensate. We will now integrate the $`Y,Z`$ terms that are not appearing in $`W_{red}`$, to get an effective action for $`2\times 2`$ block matrices associated to $`\lambda ^{0,1}`$. We will also ignore the contribution to the measure of the diagonal components $`Y_{ii},Z_{ii}`$ because it is subleading in the large $`N`$ limit. However, because there is a linear term in the action, we will take care of the appropriate shift.

Indeed

$$x_i(2Z_{ii}Y_{ii})2Z_{ii}2Y_{ii})=2x_i(Z_{ii}x_i^1)(Y_{ii}x_i^1)2x_i^1$$

This is, the effective classical potential for the eigenvalue $`x_i`$ is

$$V(x_i)=2(x_i+x_i^1)$$
(26)
Now, we can integrate out the off diagonal components $`Y_{ij}`$ and $`Z_{ij}`$, and we are left with the measure for these terms, which is equal to a constant times

$$\underset{i<j}{}(x_i+x_j)^2\underset{i}{}(x_i+\lambda _0)^2(x_i+\lambda _1)^2$$

Now, let us evaluate the saddle point equations for the $`x_i`$.

We find that

$$\frac{N^{}}{\mu }(2\frac{2}{x_i^2})+2\underset{ji}{}\left(\frac{1}{x_ix_j}\frac{1}{x_i+x_j}\right)+\underset{a=0,1}{}\frac{2}{x_i\lambda _a}\frac{2}{x_i+\lambda _a}$$
(27)
One can show that $`Y_{0,1}`$ can be considered a moduli only if it is massless, and this happens when $`\lambda _0=\lambda _1`$. If we substitute this into the equation above, then we see that the effect of the probe on the condensate cancels when we sum over the eigenvalues, similar to the first example we studied in this paper.

We therefore only need to consider the saddle point for the fractional branes on their own

$$\frac{N^{}}{\mu }(2\frac{2}{x_i^2})+2\underset{ji}{}\left(\frac{1}{x_ix_j}\frac{1}{x_i+x_j}\right)$$
(28)
Now let

$$w(\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{N^{}}\underset{i}{}\frac{x_i}{\lambda ^2x_i^2}$$
(29)
Take equation (28), multiply it by $`x_i(\lambda ^2x_i^2)^1`$ and sum over $`i`$. We arrive at the following equation

$$w(\lambda ^2)^2\frac{1}{N^{}}w^{}(\lambda ^2)+\mu ^1w(\lambda ^2)(1\frac{1}{\lambda ^2})+\frac{A}{\lambda ^2}=0$$
(30)
with $`A`$ a number. Again, in the large $`N^{}`$ limit, we drop the term in $`w^{}`$, and we obtain an algebraic equation for $`w(\lambda ^2)`$.

Now, we can go back to the saddle point for the block matrix associated to the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{0,1}`$. For this reduced set, we obtain the following saddle point equations, which will describe the quantum corrected moduli space

$`\{X,Z\}`$ $`=`$ $`2`$ (31)
$`\{X,Y\}`$ $`=`$ $`2`$ (32)
$`\{Y,Z\}`$ $`=`$ $`2+4\mu ^1w(X^2)`$ (33)
These are solved by the following

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \sigma _3`$ (34)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^1\sigma _3+\beta \sigma _1`$ (35)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^1\sigma _3+\beta ^{}\sigma _1+\delta \sigma _2`$ (36)
With the constraint

$$\beta \beta ^{}=1\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}+2\mu w(\lambda ^2)$$

Now we can again evaluate the “gauge invariant coordinates” for this solution, and we obtain

$$u=\lambda ^2,v=\lambda ^2+\beta ^2,t=\lambda ^2+(\beta ^{})^2+\delta ^2,\gamma =\lambda \beta \delta $$

It is an easy algebraic manipulation to determine that

$$\gamma ^2=uvtuvtt((\beta \beta ^{})^21\frac{1}{\lambda ^4})$$
(37)
We now obtain from equation (30) that

$$(\beta \beta ^{})^2=(1\frac{2}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{1}{\lambda ^4})+\frac{4A\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}$$

So that the quantum deformed moduli space is given by the equation

$$\gamma ^2=uvtuvt+24A\mu ^2$$
(38)
which is a rather simple modification of the above geometry. One can verify that this is just as expected, the quantum corrected moduli space in equation (21).

## 5 Conclusion and outlook

In this paper we have seen various examples of matrix models that we can solve and then obtain the quantum deformed moduli space of certain supersymmetric gauge theories. The results match exact field theoretical results, at least at the level of the shape of the deformation. It is clear that at least in some cases the matrix models are an effective way to compute quantum effects in supersymmetric gauge theories.

We noticed that in the examples studied, bulk branes played a particularly simple role in that they did not affect the fractional brane condensates, but they felt the deformations in the geometry caused by the fractional branes. It would be very interesting if this is found to happen in every situation.

The models studied in this paper are naturally associated with some geometric construction. One can argue that these systems are simpler because the classical geometry gives us the constraints and natural variables to analyze the classical moduli space, and the quantum effects (both in the field theory and the matrix model) modify these classical constraints leading to the same deformed moduli space. Perhaps the fact mentioned above that bulk branes are sufficiently simple is the key to solving these problems.

In general, there is no known answer as to how one can get a quiver theory from a given geometry. Even the inverse problem of finding a Calabi-Yau geometry which corresponds to a given quiver theory with superpotential can be quite involved .

Conservatively, one might assume that it is exactly in these situations in which one has a Calabi-Yau threefold that is tractable that one might be able to solve the associated matrix model. The classical geometry provides the right loop variables to understand the matrix model. If this is true then one should be able to solve geometrically the associated matrix models to theories that have appeared in , and deformations of models of  which in spirit are not too different from the third example studied in this paper. However, the matrix models in question might be a lot harder to analyze . Also, one might be able to solve examples associated to fractional branes at isolated toric singularities  and theories with $`Sp`$ and $`SO`$ gauge groups .

On a more optimistic scenario, one could do better than the above and address ’all’ of the possible quiver theories. For example, dualities often require the knowledge of deformed moduli spaces to show that they describe the same universality class . There is a classical version of Seiberg duality for quiver diagrams as equivalences of derived categories . This suggests an equivalence of the full topological string theories associated to the dual theories. One might hope to be able to produce a proof that takes care of all of the quantum aspects of the duality as well by using these techniques.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank many discussions and correspondence with F. Cachazo, R. Dijkgraaf, M. Douglas, A. Hashimoto and N. Seiberg. Research supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40542.


format: text

text:
# D-branes on group manifolds and fusion rings

## 1. Introduction

D-branes on group manifolds have been the subject of intensive research over the past few years (see, e.g., ), as they provide a good laboratory for testing our intuitive understanding of D-branes on curved spaces and a case where both geometric and algebraic methods can be applied.

Algebraically, D-branes on a group manifold $`G`$ are obtained as solutions to the gluing conditions of the chiral currents of the WZW-model

$$J(z)=\omega \overline{J}(\overline{z}),\text{for all}z=\overline{z},$$
(1.1)
where $`\omega `$ is an automorphism of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$. In this paper we will restrict ourselves to the sector $`\omega =1`$, i.e. the so-called symmetry preserving (or untwisted) D-branes.

Geometrically, symmetry preserving D-branes wrap conjugacy classes $`𝒞(h)=\{ghg^1:gG\}`$. Even though the conjugacy classes $`𝒞(h)`$ are contractible within $`G`$, the D-branes correspond to a stable configuration due to the process of flux stabilization . Upon quantization, it is known that the symmetry preserving branes are in 1–1 correspondence with the integrable highest weight modules of the affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ (at level $`k`$) (see, e.g. ) through the so-called Ishibashi-Cardy boundary states. In the geometrical picture, the D-brane associated to a boundary state labelled by an integrable weight $`\mu P_+^{(k)}`$ wraps a conjugacy class $`𝒞(h_\mu )`$ where

$$h_\mu =e^{\zeta _\mu },\zeta _\mu =(2\pi i)\frac{\mu +\rho }{k+\text{h}^{}}.$$
(1.2)
\[More precisely, the conjugacy classes around which the D-branes are wrapped get slightly smeared out (see ).\]

In this paper we consider the charge group $`C(G,k)`$ for symmetry preserving D-branes on general compact, connected, simply-connected, simple Lie groups $`G`$.

By considering the process of brane condensation, it was argued in  that the charge associated to a D-brane labelled by $`\lambda P_+^{(k)}`$ is given by the dimension $`d_\lambda `$ of the finite dimensional irreducible representation $`L(\lambda )`$ of the horizontal Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, modulo some integer $`x`$, i.e. the charge group is of the form $`/x`$, where $`x`$ is determined such that the $`d_\lambda `$ satisfy the fusion rule algebra modulo $`x`$. We find the result that the charge group $`C(G,k)`$, for sufficiently large $`k`$, is given by $`/x`$, where

$$x=\frac{k+\text{h}^{}}{\mathrm{gcd}\{k+\text{h}^{},y\}},$$
(1.3)
and $`y`$ is given in Table 3.1. This generalizes the results for $`G=SU(N)`$ found by, in particular,  (see also  for $`N=2,3`$), in which case $`y=\mathrm{lcm}(1,2,\mathrm{},N1)`$ and $`\text{h}^{}=N`$. Geometrically, it has been conjectured that the charge group, in the large volume limit, should be given by the twisted K-theory of $`G`$ . For $`SU(N)`$ it has been shown that the algebraic and geometric definition of the charge group are consistent. A comparison for other groups awaits the computation of the relevant twisted K-theory.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review fusion rings, in particular for the WZW conformal field theory. In Section 3 we present our results. Section 4 contains some details of the proofs for the $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$ cases. In Section 5 we discuss some exceptions to the discussion in Section 3, and in Section 6 we discuss symmetry properties of the resulting D-brane charges. We conclude with a discussion in Section 7. In the three Appendices we summarize our conventions, provide a list of generators for the fusion ideals and discuss an alternative derivation of our results using fusion potentials.

## 2. Fusion rings

Consider the chiral algebra $`𝒜`$ of a (rational) two dimensional conformal field theory together with a (finite) set of irreducible representations, labelled by $`iI`$ (where $`I`$ is some index set), closed under modular transformations of their characters. To these data one can associate a commutative, associative, unital ring $``$, the so-called ‘fusion ring’ of $`𝒜`$. Explicitly, in terms of a (preferred) basis $`\{\varphi _i\}_{iI}`$ of $``$ we have

$$\varphi _i\times \varphi _j=\underset{kI}{}N_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}\varphi _{k}^{},$$
(2.1)
where the coefficients $`N_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}_0`$ are called the fusion coefficients. The matrices $`N_i`$, with components $`(N_i)_j{}_{}{}^{k}=N_{ij}^k`$, are mutually commuting and are simultaneously diagonalized by the modular matrix $`S`$. This leads to the Verlinde formula

$$N_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}=\underset{lI}{}\frac{S_{il}S_{jl}S_{kl}^{}}{S_{1l}},$$
(2.2)
where $`S_{ij}^{}`$ denotes complex conjugation, and we have denoted the unit of $``$ by $`1`$. In terms of $`S`$, the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i^{(l)}`$ of $`N_i`$ are given by

$$\lambda _i^{(l)}=\frac{S_{li}^{}}{S_{l1}}.$$
(2.3)
On abstract grounds (cf. ) it follows that $``$ is isomorphic to a free polynomial ring factored by an ideal $``$, i.e.

$$[x_1,\mathrm{},x_N]/.$$
(2.4)
In fact, when the generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ correspond to (a subset of) the primary fields $`\varphi _{i_1},\mathrm{},\varphi _{i_N}`$, the ideal $``$ can be explicitly characterized as those polynomials $`P[x_1,\mathrm{},x_N]`$ which vanish on the set

$$\{(\frac{S_{li_1}^{}}{S_{l1}},\frac{S_{li_2}^{}}{S_{l1}},\mathrm{},\frac{S_{li_N}^{}}{S_{l1}})^N:lI\}.$$

We refer to $``$ as the ‘fusion ideal’ of $``$. The ideals arising from the fusion rules of a RCFT are actually of a special kind, they correspond to so-called Jacobian varieties (see Appendix C).

In the case of the conformal field theory corresponding to the WZW model for a compact, simple, connected, simply-connected, Lie group $`G`$, the relevant representations are the integrable highest weight modules of the associated (untwisted) affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ at level $`k`$. They are parametrized by weights $`\widehat{\lambda }=(\lambda ,k)P_+^{(k)}`$ (see Appendix A for a list of our Lie algebra conventions and notations).

The modular S-matrix can be expressed as

$$\frac{S_{\mu \lambda }^{}}{S_{\mu 1}}=\chi _\lambda (\zeta _\mu ),\zeta _\mu =(2\pi i)\frac{\mu +\rho }{k+\text{h}^{}},$$
(2.5)
where $`\chi _\lambda `$ is the character of the finite dimensional irreducible representation $`L(\lambda )`$ with dominant integral weight $`\lambda `$, defined as

$$\chi _\lambda (\sigma )=\frac{_{wW}ϵ(w)e^{(w(\lambda +\rho )|\sigma )}}{_{wW}ϵ(w)e^{(w(\rho )|\sigma )}},$$
(2.6)
for $`\sigma 𝔥^{}`$. \[We identify $`𝔥^{}`$ with $`𝔥`$, by means of the nondegenerate bilinear form $`(|)`$, throughout.\]

It follows that

$$\chi _\lambda (\zeta _\alpha )\chi _\mu (\zeta _\alpha )=\underset{\nu P_+^{(k)}}{}N_{\lambda \mu }{}_{}{}^{\nu }\chi _{\nu }^{}(\zeta _\alpha ),$$
(2.7)
for all $`\alpha P_+^{(k)}`$. That is, we can think of the fusion rules of an affine Lie algebra CFT as truncated tensor products. \[In fact, this leads to a useful algorithm for determining explicit fusion rules, the so-called Kac-Walton algorithm, which is a generalization of the Racah-Speiser algorithm for determining tensor product coefficients (see, e.g.,  and references therein).\]

Thus we have the following characterization of the fusion ring for a WZW model at level $`k`$

$$_k=[\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n]/_k,$$
(2.8)
where $`\chi _i`$ denotes the character of the fundamental representation with highest weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, and where the fusion ideal can be explicitly described as those elements in the Grothendieck ring of characters which vanish on the all the points $`\zeta _\mu `$, $`\mu P_+^{(k)}`$.

Elements in $`_k`$ can easily be constructed by making use of the identity (see, e.g., )

$$\chi _{w\lambda }(\zeta _\mu )=ϵ(w)\chi _\lambda (\zeta _\mu ),$$
(2.9)
for all $`wW_{\text{aff}}`$, where $`w\lambda =w(\lambda +\rho )\rho `$ denotes the shifted action of the affine Weyl group (see Appendix A for more details). This implies that $`\chi _{w\lambda }ϵ(w)\chi _\lambda _k`$ for all $`\lambda P_+`$ and $`wW_{\text{aff}}`$. In particular, we conclude that $`\chi _\lambda _k`$ if there exists a positive root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ such that $`(\lambda +\rho |\alpha )0mod(k+\text{h}^{})`$, as this implies $`r_\alpha \lambda =\lambda `$, where $`r_\alpha `$ denotes the reflection in the root $`\alpha `$, and hence $`\chi _\lambda (\zeta _\mu )=0`$, for all $`\mu P_+^{(k)}`$. For example, we have $`\chi _\lambda _k`$ for all weights $`\lambda `$ on the hyperplane $`(\lambda |\theta )=k+1`$. Let us call such a weight a ‘boundary weight’ (at level $`k`$). Thus all the characters corresponding to a level-$`k`$ boundary weight are in the fusion ideal $`_k`$. In fact, we believe that the fusion ideal $`_k`$ is generated by the set of characters corresponding to the boundary weights (this is true for $`A_n`$ ). 111With the exception of $`E_8`$ level $`2`$, see Appendix B.

While this would characterize the fusion ideal in terms of a finite set of generators, the number of boundary weights grows rapidly with $`k`$ and the corresponding set of generators is still far from optimal. In Appendix B we provide what we believe is a substantially smaller set of boundary weights, whose characters generate $`_k`$. For $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$ this has been proven. The sets provided are not always optimal, but it appears that what is an optimal set in those cases behaves chaotically with respect to $`k`$.

## 3. D-brane charge group

The charge group for symmetry preserving D-branes on group manifolds was investigated in . In particular, by considering the process of D-brane creation and annihilation, it was argued in  that the charge of a D-brane associated to an integrable weight $`\lambda P_+^{(k)}`$ is given by the dimension $`d_\lambda `$ of the finite dimensional irreducible representation $`L(\lambda )`$ of the horizontal Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, modulo some integer $`x`$. That is, the charge group is of the form $`/x`$, where $`x`$ is determined (as the maximal integer) such that the $`d_\lambda `$ satisfy the fusion rule algebra modulo $`x`$ 222In fact, this is a necessary condition. It is not clear whether this condition is sufficient in all cases. Cf. Section 6.

$$d_\lambda d_\mu =\underset{\nu P_+^{(k)}}{}N_{\lambda \mu }{}_{}{}^{\nu }d_{\nu }^{}modx.$$
(3.1)
Of course, the dimensions $`d_\lambda `$ give rise to a homomorphism

$$\text{dim}:[\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n],\chi _\lambda d_\lambda ,$$
(3.2)
so the problem can be rephrased as the determination of the maximal value of $`x`$, such that the dimension homomorphism (3.2) descends to

$$\text{dim}^{}:_k=[\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n]/_k/x.$$
(3.3)
Clearly, a necessary and sufficient condition for dim to descend to a map on $`_k`$ is that $`\text{dim}(_k)x`$. Note, however, that this analysis presumes a particular presentation of $`_k`$ as the quotient of the whole character ring $`[\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n]`$. When not all the fundamental representations are integrable at the level $`k`$ considered, i.e. when $`k<\mathrm{max}\{a_i^{}\}`$, the fusion ring $`_k`$ can be presented as a quotient of a subset of the character ring, and the condition considered above is too strong for a homomorphism $`_k/x`$ to exist. We will discuss this further in Section 5, but for now we analyze the condition $`\text{dim}(_k)x`$.

It is sufficient to check $`\text{dim}(_k)x`$ on a set of generators of $`_k`$. In particular, assuming the set of boundary weights generate the fusion ideal, as discussed in Section 2 we have,

$$x=\mathrm{gcd}\left\{d_\lambda :\left(\lambda |\theta \right)=k+1\right\}.$$
(3.4)
The main result of our paper is that the maximal value of $`x`$ for which $`\text{dim}(_k)x`$ is given by the following formula

$$x=\frac{k+\text{h}^{}}{\mathrm{gcd}\{k+\text{h}^{},y\}},$$
(3.5)
where $`y`$ is an integer, independent of $`k`$, given in Table 3.1.

This generalizes a result in  (see also ) for $`𝔤=A_n`$. Note that in all cases we can write $`y=\mathrm{lcm}\left\{y_\alpha \right\}`$, for some integers $`y_\alpha `$. For the simply laced Lie algebras, these integers are found to be consecutive, from $`1`$ up to $`\text{h}^{}1`$, but for non-simply laced Lie algebras, additional integers are required. Note, moreover, that for all Lie algebras, with the exception of $`C_n`$, $`y`$ is given by the lowest common multiple of all integers from $`1`$ up to $`\text{h}1`$ (cf. the discussion in Section 6).

We will prove Eqn. (3.5) in Section 4 for the algebras $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$. In the other cases we have strong numerical evidence, based on explicit computations for levels up to $`k=5000`$, using both the explicit fusion rules (calculated with the help of ) and sets of elements in the ideal constructed with the procedure outlined in Section 2. In Appendix B we provide what we believe is a set of generators for the ideal $`_k`$.

For an intuitive way to see how the formula for $`x`$ may arise, let us consider the Weyl dimension formula

$$d_\lambda =\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}\frac{\left(\lambda +\rho |\alpha \right)}{\left(\rho |\alpha \right)}.$$
(3.6)
When $`\lambda `$ is a boundary weight, we find that $`(\lambda +\rho |\theta )`$ contributes a factor $`k+\text{h}^{}`$ to the numerator, so it is not surprising that it appears in the formula for the greatest common divisor of these dimensions.

Let us now concentrate on the factors $`\left(\rho |\alpha \right)`$ of the denominator. For simply laced Lie algebras these factors run from $`1`$ up to $`\left(\rho |\theta \right)=\text{h}^{}1`$ (with some repetitions). These are the $`y_\alpha `$ whose least common multiple gives the parameter $`y`$ in (3.5). For non-simply laced algebras, the factors $`\left(\rho |\alpha \right)`$ need not be integers. It is easily verified that setting

$$y_\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\rho |\alpha \right)\hfill & \text{if }\left(\rho |\alpha \right),\hfill \\ \left(\rho |\alpha ^{}\right)\hfill & \text{if }\left(\rho |\alpha \right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.7)
and taking $`y=\mathrm{lcm}\left\{y_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+\right\}`$, reproduces the results for $`y`$ given in Table 3.1.

## 4. Analytical Results

In this section we provide explicit proofs of (3.5) for the algebras $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$. While the result for $`A_n`$ has already been established in , using simple currents and outer automorphisms, respectively, we will present an alternative proof which generalizes, at least in principle, to the other simple Lie algebras.

### 4.1. $`𝑨_𝒏`$

We claim (see (3.5)) that for symmetry preserving D-branes defined on the group $`A_n`$, ($`n1`$), at levels $`k1`$, the charge group has the form $`/x`$, where

$$x=\frac{k+n+1}{\mathrm{gcd}\{k+n+1,\mathrm{lcm}\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\}}.$$
(4.1)
The first proof we present is based on the results in . There it is shown by an induction argument, using the simple currents of $`A_n`$, that the fusion ideal is generated by the characters of the boundary modules with weights $`\{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. We thus have

$$x=\mathrm{gcd}\left\{d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}:i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}.$$
(4.2)
To prove that this equals (4.1) we proceed as follows: The dimensions $`d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}`$ are given explicitly by

$$d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}=\frac{i}{k+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{k}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+i1}{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{n+1i}\right).$$
(4.3)
The second expression immediately shows that

$$\mathrm{gcd}\left\{d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}:i=1,\mathrm{},n\right\}\mathrm{gcd}\left\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{i}\right):i=1,\mathrm{},n\right\}.$$
(4.4)
To show the reverse inequality, we prove the following relation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1j}{}}(1)^{i1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1i}{j}\right)d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{j}\right).$$
(4.5)
Substituting the first expression in (4.3) for $`d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}`$ into (4.5), we find that this relation reduces to

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+M}{k}\right)\underset{i=0}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^{i1}\frac{i}{k+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{i}\right)=1,$$

where we have put $`M=n+1j`$. Using $`\frac{i}{k+i}=1\frac{k}{k+i}`$ and $`_{i=0}^M(1)^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{i}\right)=0`$, we reduce this further, obtaining

$$k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+M}{k}\right)\underset{i=0}{\overset{M}{}}(1)^i\frac{1}{k+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{i}\right)=1.$$

This equation is clearly true for $`M=0`$ and all $`k_+`$, so we can finish the proof of the relation by induction on $`M`$ (for all $`k`$). In the induction step we use

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M+1}{i}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{i}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{i1}\right),$$
(4.6)
and change the summation variable in the sum arising from the second term from $`i`$ to $`i+1`$. This then establishes Eqn. (4.5) and, hence, the equality sign in Eqn. (4.4). Finally, it is proven in Appendix C of  that

$$\mathrm{gcd}\left\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{i}\right):i=1,\mathrm{},n\right\}=\frac{k+n+1}{\mathrm{gcd}\{k+n+1,\mathrm{lcm}\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\}},$$
(4.7)
completing the proof of Eqn. (4.1).

It is clear from the discussion in Section 2 that the charge group parameter $`x`$ may be obtained from any set of generators of the fusion ideal. It is obviously highly desirable to find generators for which the above evaluation gives nice expressions. The proof given above uses the generators corresponding to the weights $`\{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ whose dimensions are a little cumbersome to manipulate – hence the proof is not straightforward. An alternative set of generators for the fusion ideal was constructed in  (see also ), and given by

$$\{\left(k+i\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1:i=1,\mathrm{},n\},$$
(4.8)
This set is particularly nice because

$$d_{(k+i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+i+n}{n}\right).$$
(4.9)
We now have

$`x`$ $`=\mathrm{gcd}\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{n}}\right),\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+2}{n}}\right),\mathrm{},\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n}{n}}\right)\}`$ (4.10)
$`=\mathrm{gcd}\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{1}}\right),\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+2}{2}}\right),\mathrm{},\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n}{n}}\right)\}`$
$`=\mathrm{gcd}\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{1}}\right),\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{2}}\right),\mathrm{},\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{n}}\right)\},`$
by repeatedly using relation (4.6). With Eqn. (4.7), this completes the proof of (4.1). Another reason for why the set of generators (4.8) is nice is that this set is intimately related to the fusion potential for $`A_n`$  (see Appendix C).

### 4.2. $`𝑪_𝒏`$

For $`C_n`$ ($`n2`$), at levels $`k1`$, the result (3.5) is explicitly given by

$$x=\frac{k+n+1}{\mathrm{gcd}\{k+n+1,\mathrm{lcm}\{1,2,\mathrm{},n,1,3,5,\mathrm{},2n1\}\}}.$$
(4.11)
Consider, as in the second $`A_n`$ proof, the set of weights $`\{\left(k+i\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. While, contrary to the $`A_n`$ case, these weights in general do not correspond to elements of the fusion ideal, we can use them to construct elements in the ideal by using the (shifted action of the) affine Weyl reflection $`r_0`$, as explained in Section 2. We find that

$$r_0\left(k+i\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\left(k+2i\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1.$$
(4.12)
Hence, the following set of combinations of characters are in the fusion ideal $`_k`$ 333At low levels, some of these weights will lie outside the fundamental Weyl chamber, and have to be reflected back to the fundamental Weyl chamber. This does however not impact on the general validity of the analysis below since the dimensions $`d_\lambda `$ are invariant under the (shifted) action of $`W`$.

$$\{\chi _{(k+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1},\chi _{(k+2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}+\chi _{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1},\chi _{(k+2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}+\chi _{(k1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1},\mathrm{},\chi _{(k+n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}+\chi _{(k+2n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\}.$$
(4.13)
In fact, as shown in , these combinations actually constitute a set of generators of $`_k`$.

Using

$$d_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n1}{2n1}\right),$$
(4.14)
we find

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\mathrm{gcd}\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n}{2n1}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n+1}{2n1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n1}{2n1}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n+2}{2n1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n2}{2n1}\right),\mathrm{},\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+3n1}{2n1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{2n1}\right)\}.\end{array}$$
(4.15)
Upon judicious use of the identity (4.6) this can be rewritten as

$$x=\mathrm{gcd}\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{1}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+2}{3}\right),\mathrm{},\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n1}{2n3}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n}{2n1}\right)\}.$$
(4.16)
Using a generalisation of Eqn. (4.7), which may be proven the same way, we arrive at Eqn. (4.11).

Alternatively, one may use a different set of generators of $`_k`$, corresponding to the boundary weights $`\{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. This leads to the same result, and we leave the details to the reader.

## 5. Exceptions

In Section 3 we have argued that a necessary and sufficient condition for the dimension homomorphism (3.2) on the character ring $`[\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n]`$ to descend to $`_k`$ is that $`\text{dim}(_k)x`$. Let us illustrate that this condition is sometimes too strong for a homomorphism $`_k/x`$ to exist, i.e. does not give the charge group as defined by Eqn. (3.1), by looking, for example, at the Lie algebra $`G_2`$ at level $`k=1`$.

There are two integrable representations, corresponding to the weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ (the unit of the fusion ring) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. The nontrivial fusion rule reads

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}\times \varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}=\varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}.$$
(5.1)
Substituting the appropriate dimensions we find that this equation is satisfied modulo $`x=41`$. However, (3.4) would suggest $`x=1`$, as the representations with boundary weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ have dimensions $`14`$ and $`27`$, respectively.

To explain what is going on, consider the tensor product decomposition

$$\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}=\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}+\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}+\chi _{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}.$$
(5.2)
The truncation in going from the tensor product rule to Eqn. (5.1) therefore consists of setting $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}+\chi _{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}`$ to zero rather than setting $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ and $`\chi _{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}`$ to zero separately, as we would have required in Section 3.

The resolution of this apparent dilemma lies of course in the fact that the fundamental representation with weight $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is not integrable at level $`k=1`$, so rather than writing the fusion ring as

$$_k=[\chi _1,\chi _2]/_k,$$
(5.3)
with $`_k=\chi _1,\chi _2^2\chi _1\chi _21`$ we can write

$$_k=[\chi _2]/_k^{},$$
(5.4)
with $`_k^{}=\chi _2^2\chi _21`$, and clearly $`\text{dim}(_k^{})41`$. Thus this is the correct presentation to use for determining the charge group in this case.

Summarizing, when not all the fundamental representations are integrable at the level $`k`$ one is considering, i.e. $`k<\mathrm{max}\left\{a_i^{}\right\}`$, the presentation of the fusion ring as a quotient of the complete character ring is redundant, as it introduces artificial generators (the non-integrable fundamental representations) which must then be factored out again. In those cases it is a simple matter to compute $`x`$ directly from (3.1), using the explicit fusion coefficients (which were calculated with the help of ). We have tabulated these values in Table 5.1 whenever they disagree with the result of (3.5). Note that in many cases in which $`k<\mathrm{max}\left\{a_i^{}\right\}`$, formula (3.5) continues to hold. \[Note also that for $`E_8`$ at level $`1`$ the charge group is just $``$ as there is only the trivial fusion rule.\]

Finally, note that in almost all exceptional cases $`x`$ is not a divisor of $`k+\text{h}^{}`$. For reasons to be discussed in Section 7 these exceptional results therefore are not consistent with the prediction that would follow from a computation of the twisted K-theory.

## 6. Symmetry considerations

In this section we discuss some of the symmetry properties of the charges $`D_\lambda =d_\lambda modx`$, with $`x`$ given by (3.5). To simplify the discussion let us extend the dimension formula for $`d_\lambda `$ in (3.6) to all (not necessarily dominant) weights $`\lambda `$. It is obvious that $`d_\lambda `$ (and hence $`D_\lambda `$) is invariant under both the Weyl group $`W`$ and the group of outer automorphisms $`\text{Aut}^0(𝔤)`$ of $`𝔤`$. For elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{Aut}^0(\widehat{𝔤})`$, i.e. symmetries of the affine Dynkin diagram, we find however that

$$D_{\mathrm{\Omega }\lambda }=e^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|\rho )}D_\lambda ,$$
(6.1)
where $`i`$ is determined by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i=\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0`$. We recall that

$$e^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|\rho )}=ϵ(w_\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(6.2)
where $`w_\mathrm{\Omega }W`$ is the Weyl group element determined by (see  for details)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\lambda }=k(\mathrm{\Omega }1)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0+w_\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\lambda }.$$
(6.3)
This symmetry reflects a similar symmetry in the fusion rule coefficients

$`N_{\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda )\mu }^{\mathrm{\Omega }(\nu )}`$ $`=N_{\lambda \mu }{}_{}{}^{\nu },`$
$`N_{\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda )\mu }^\nu `$ $`=N_{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }(\mu )}{}_{}{}^{\nu }.`$ (6.4)
It is well-known that $`\text{Aut}^0(\widehat{𝔤})/\text{Aut}^0(𝔤)`$ is isomorphic to the center $`Z(𝔤)`$ of $`𝔤`$. The homomorphism for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{Aut}^0(\widehat{𝔤})`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$, is explicitly given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }z_i=e^{2\pi i\mathrm{\Lambda }_iH}Z(𝔤).$$
(6.5)
Geometrically, acting with an element of the center corresponds to rotating the conjugacy class around which the D-brane is wrapped and hence should leave invariant the charge, up to a possible sign . In fact, in  (see also  for $`SU(3)`$, where this was referred to as the ‘multiplet structure’) it was shown that requiring the invariance (6.1), in the case of $`SU(N)`$, leads to the same charge group. This is however not the case for the other Lie groups.

Finally, the charges $`D_\lambda `$ have a symmetry under the affine Weyl group $`W_{\text{aff}}=T(Q^{})W`$, that reflects the symmetry in, e.g., the modular S-matrices and specialized characters (see (2.9))

$$D_{\widehat{w}\lambda }=ϵ(\widehat{w})D_\lambda ,\widehat{w}W_{\text{aff}}.$$
(6.6)
The affine Weyl group $`W_{\text{aff}}`$ and the outer automorphism group $`\text{Aut}^0(\widehat{𝔤})`$ combine into a group which projects onto the finite weight space as $`T(Q^{})W`$, where $`Q^{}`$ is the lattice dual to $`Q`$. It turns out that, apart from a few low level exceptions, enforcing charge invariance (6.6) under $`T(Q^{})W`$ determines the charge group in all cases. Including the expected invariance under affine outer automorphisms is therefore not in conflict with the charge group results.

Rather surprisingly, when studying the action of the extended affine Weyl group $`W_{\text{aff}}^{}=T(P)W`$ on $`D_\lambda `$, where $`P`$ is the weight lattice of $`𝔤`$ (in the simply laced case $`P=Q^{}`$), one finds that (6.6) holds for $`\widehat{w}W_{\text{aff}}^{}`$ as well, in all cases except $`C_n`$, $`n`$ not a power of $`2`$, at certain levels.

In Figure 6.1, we show as an example, the charges for $`C_2`$ at level $`4`$ (for which (6.6) does hold for $`\widehat{w}W_{\text{aff}}^{}`$). The symmetry about the dashed line corresponds to the outer automorphism of $`C_n^{(1)}`$. It is easily seen to be an element of $`W`$ of negative sign composed with a translation by $`\left(k+\text{h}^{}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=7\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ (note $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2Q^{}`$). The dotted lines correspond to more general symmetries. The lower line is an element of $`W`$ of negative sign composed with a translation by $`7\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ (but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1Q^{}`$). The upper dotted line corresponds to the composition of an element of $`W`$ of negative sign composed with a translation by $`7\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\right)`$.

Requiring (6.6) to hold for all $`\widehat{w}W_{\text{aff}}^{}`$ for $`C_n`$ would lead to the requirement that $`x`$ is given by (3.5) with $`y=\mathrm{lcm}\{1,2,\mathrm{},2n1\}=\mathrm{lcm}\{1,2,\mathrm{},\text{h}1\}`$, and thus would lead to a universal expression for all compact, simple, connected, simply-connected Lie groups (cf. the discussion in Section 3). This is suggestive of the idea that maybe, in the case of $`C_n`$, the fusion rule constraints (3.1) on the charge group do not take into account all physical constraints that the D-brane charge group needs to satisfy. For this reason it would be very interesting to compute the twisted K-theory for $`C_n`$ and make a comparison.

## 7. Conclusions and discussion

It has been argued - that the charges of D-branes on a manifold $`X`$ in the background of a nontrivial NS-NS $`B`$-field, i.e. an element $`[H]H^3(X,)`$ (where $`H=dB`$ locally), are classified by twisted K-theory groups , at least in the large volume limit. In particular, for $`D`$-branes on a compact, simple, simply connected group manifold $`G`$, by $`K^{}(G,(k+\text{h}^{})[H_0])`$, where $`[H_0]`$ is the generator of $`H^3(G,)`$ and $`k`$ is the level of the (supersymmetric) WZW model . It has been verified that this proposal is consistent with the results based on boundary conformal field theory, i.e. the techniques used in this paper, for the the cases $`G=SU(2)`$ , $`G=SU(3)`$  and $`G=SU(N)`$ .

In other cases, the comparison of the results of this paper with the corresponding twisted K-theory awaits a computation of the latter. In particular this would settle the issue of whether the consistency equations of , used in this paper, suffice to determine the charge group, in particular in the case of $`C_n`$ (as discussed in Section 6).

Beyond that, it would be very interesting to have a direct understanding of why the two approaches should lead to the same result. For instance, while it is obvious in twisted K-theory that $`x`$ is a divisor of $`k+\text{h}^{}`$ (through the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence ), there does not appear to be a simple explanation for this in our approach.

By a result of Freed, Hopkins and Telemann (cf. ) the fusion algebra $`_k`$ for the level-$`k`$ WZW model can be identified with the twisted equivariant K-theory $`K_G(G,(k+\text{h}^{})[H_0])`$. It would be very interesting to establish a direct link between the equivariant and non-equivariant twisted K-theory of $`G`$ on the one hand, and the relation between the fusion algebra $`_k`$ and homomorphisms $`_k/x`$ on the other.

A particularly concrete presentation of twisted K-theory is as the Grothendieck K-theory of (isomorphism classes of) bundle gerbe modules . Bundle gerbes show up naturally in the discussion of the WZW model , and the bundle gerbe for $`G=SU(N)`$ has recently been constructed in . It would be interesting to explicitly construct the bundle gerbe modules corresponding to a particular D-brane charge.

Finally, it would be interesting to extend the results of this paper to the non-symmetry preserving branes (i.e. twisted branes) , branes on coset spaces , and beyond . We hope to report on this in the future.

## Appendix A Lie algebra notations

We summarize the Lie algebra notations used in this paper for convenience. Let $`𝔤`$ denote a simple finite-dimensional Lie algebra of rank $`n`$, and $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ its untwisted affine extension, i.e. $`\widehat{𝔤}=(𝔤[t,t^1])k`$. The Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ is denoted by $`𝔥`$ and its dual by $`𝔥^{}`$. The set of positive roots in $`𝔥^{}`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, the set of simple roots by $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n\}`$. The fundamental weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ of $`𝔤`$ are defined by

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|\alpha _j^{})=\delta _{ij},$$
(A.1)
where $`\alpha ^{}=2\alpha /(\alpha |\alpha )`$ is the co-root corresponding to $`\alpha `$. Here we have normalized the nondegenerate positive bilinear form $`(|)`$ on $`𝔥^{}`$ such that $`(\theta |\theta )=2`$, where $`\theta `$ is the highest root of $`𝔤`$.

The Weyl vector is denoted by $`\rho `$ and is defined by

$$(\rho |\alpha _i^{})=1,$$
(A.2)
for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, i.e., $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+}\alpha =_{i=1}^n\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. The marks $`\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ and co-marks $`\{a_i^{}\}_{i=1}^n`$ are given by

$$\theta =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i\alpha _i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i^{}\alpha _i^{}.$$
(A.3)
We denote the Coxeter and dual Coxeter numbers by h and $`\text{h}^{}`$, respectively (see Table 3.1), the root and co-root lattices by $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$, and the lattices of integral weights and dominant integral weights by $`P`$ and $`P_+`$, and integrable weights at level $`k`$ by $`P_+^{(k)}=\{\lambda P_+:(\lambda |\theta )k\}`$.

For the affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ we use the same notations except that we put a hat on the symbols. To simplify notations, however, we will sometimes simply use the notation $`\lambda `$ for an integrable weight $`\widehat{\lambda }=(\lambda ,k)`$, when the level $`k`$ is understood.

We denote the Weyl groups of $`𝔤`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ by $`W`$ and $`\widehat{W}`$, respectively, and the shifted Weyl group action by a dot, i.e.

$$w\lambda =w(\lambda +\rho )\rho ,$$
(A.4)
and similarly for $`\widehat{w}\widehat{W}`$. The determinant of a Weyl group element $`w`$ is denoted by $`ϵ(w)`$. The projection of $`\widehat{W}`$ onto $`𝔥^{}`$ is given by

$$W_{\text{aff}}=T(Q^{})W,$$
(A.5)
where $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denotes the translation group of the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the semi-direct product structure is given by the relation $`wt_\alpha w^1=t_{w\alpha }`$, i.e. $`(t_\gamma ,w)(t_\gamma ^{},w^{})=(t_\gamma t_{w\gamma ^{}},ww^{})`$. In particular, $`t_\theta ^{}=r_0r_\theta `$. Explicitly, the shifted action of $`t_\gamma W_{\text{aff}},\gamma Q^{}`$, is given by

$$t_\gamma \lambda =\lambda +(k+\text{h}^{})\gamma .$$
(A.6)
## Appendix B Generating Subsets

In this appendix we provide a subset of the boundary weights, i.e. weights satisfying $`\left(\lambda |\theta \right)=k+1`$, which we believe form a generating set for the fusions ideals $`_k`$. For $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$ this has been proven, in the other cases we tested numerically for $`k<5000`$ that these sets give rise to the result (3.5).

When $`k`$ is sufficiently small, some of the weights given below will not lie in the fundamental chamber – these weights should be discarded to get a generating set, except in the following cases where it is additionally required to include another weight. This occurs with $`E_7`$ at levels $`2`$ and $`3`$, adding $`(0,0,0,1,0,0,0)`$ and $`(0,0,0,0,0,0,2)`$ respectively, and $`E_8`$ at levels $`4`$ and $`12`$, adding respectively $`(0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0)`$ and $`(0,2,1,0,0,0,0,1)`$. However, it may be verified that for $`E_8`$ at level $`2`$, there is no set of weights in the fundamental chamber whose dimensions have the greatest common divisor given in (3.5). In this case it is necessary to include weights outside the fundamental chamber (extending the dimension formula in the obvious way).

Fundamental weights are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. For the exceptional algebras, we have listed the weights appearing in the generating sets in terms of their Dynkin labels, for clarity, using the conventions of .

$$\{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

$$\{\left(k+1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\left(k1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\}\{\left(k1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,\left(k2\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\mathrm{\Lambda }_n:i=2,\mathrm{},n1\}.$$

$$\{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,\left(k1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,\left(k1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,\left(k3\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}+3\mathrm{\Lambda }_n\}\hfill \\ \hfill \{\left(k1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,\left(k3\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_n:i=2,\mathrm{},n2\}\\ \hfill \{\left(k3\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\mathrm{\Lambda }_j:2i<jn2\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ odd,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(0,0,0,0,0,\frac{k+1}{2}),(0,0,0,0,2,\frac{k1}{2}),(1,0,0,0,1,\frac{k1}{2}),(0,1,0,1,0,\frac{k3}{2}),\hfill \\ \hfill (0,0,0,0,6,\frac{k5}{2}),(0,0,0,3,0,\frac{k5}{2}),(3,0,0,0,3,\frac{k5}{2}),(1,0,1,0,4,\frac{k7}{2})\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ even,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(0,0,0,0,1,\frac{k}{2}),(0,0,0,0,3,\frac{k2}{2}),(0,0,0,1,1,\frac{k2}{2}),\hfill \\ \hfill (0,0,1,0,0,\frac{k2}{2}),(0,2,0,0,1,\frac{k4}{2}),(1,0,1,0,1,\frac{k4}{2}),\\ \hfill (0,1,0,0,5,\frac{k6}{2}),(0,1,0,2,1,\frac{k6}{2}),(2,0,0,1,3,\frac{k6}{2})\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ odd,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(\frac{k+1}{2},0,0,0,0,0,0),(\frac{k1}{2},0,0,0,1,0,0),\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{k3}{2},0,1,0,0,0,0),(\frac{k5}{2},0,0,2,0,0,0),(\frac{k7}{2},0,0,0,0,8,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k7}{2},0,0,0,4,0,0),(\frac{k7}{2},0,1,0,2,0,0),(\frac{k9}{2},0,0,2,0,4,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k9}{2},0,1,0,0,6,0),(\frac{k9}{2},0,1,0,2,2,0)\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ even,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(\frac{k}{2},0,0,0,0,1,0),(\frac{k2}{2},1,0,0,0,0,0),\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{k2}{2},0,0,0,0,1,1),(\frac{k4}{2},1,0,0,0,2,0),(\frac{k4}{2},1,0,0,1,0,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k4}{2},0,0,1,0,0,1),(\frac{k6}{2},1,0,1,0,1,0),(\frac{k6}{2},0,0,1,1,0,1),\\ \hfill (\frac{k8}{2},1,0,0,3,0,0),(\frac{k8}{2},0,0,0,0,7,1),(\frac{k8}{2},0,0,0,3,1,1),\\ \hfill (\frac{k10}{2},1,0,1,0,5,0),(\frac{k10}{2},1,0,1,1,3,0)\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ odd,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(\frac{k+1}{2},0,0,0,0,0,0,0),(\frac{k1}{2},0,0,0,0,0,1,0),(\frac{k3}{2},0,1,0,0,0,0,0),\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{k5}{2},0,0,0,1,0,0,0),(\frac{k5}{2},0,1,0,0,0,1,0),(\frac{k5}{2},0,0,0,0,2,0,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k7}{2},0,0,0,0,2,0,0),(\frac{k7}{2},0,1,0,0,0,2,0),(\frac{k9}{2},0,0,0,0,1,0,2),\\ \hfill (\frac{k9}{2},0,1,0,1,0,0,0),(\frac{k9}{2},1,0,0,0,1,0,1),(\frac{k11}{2},0,0,0,0,0,6,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k11}{2},0,0,0,2,0,0,0),(\frac{k13}{2},0,0,0,1,0,4,0),(\frac{k15}{2},0,0,0,0,4,0,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k15}{2},0,0,2,0,0,3,0),(\frac{k17}{2},0,0,0,0,0,0,6),(\frac{k17}{2},0,0,0,3,0,0,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k17}{2},0,1,0,1,2,0,0),(\frac{k19}{2},0,1,2,0,0,0,2),(\frac{k19}{2},0,2,0,2,0,0,0)\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ even,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(\frac{k2}{2},0,0,0,0,0,0,1),(\frac{k2}{2},1,0,0,0,0,0,0),(\frac{k4}{2},0,0,1,0,0,0,0),\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{k6}{2},0,0,0,0,1,0,1),(\frac{k6}{2},1,0,0,0,0,2,0),(\frac{k8}{2},0,0,0,0,0,0,3),\\ \hfill (\frac{k8}{2},0,0,0,1,0,0,1),(\frac{k8}{2},0,0,1,0,0,2,0),(\frac{k8}{2},3,0,0,0,0,0,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k10}{2},0,1,0,0,1,0,1),(\frac{k10}{2},0,0,0,1,0,1,1),(\frac{k10}{2},1,0,1,0,0,0,1),\\ \hfill (\frac{k12}{2},0,0,0,0,0,5,1),(\frac{k12}{2},0,0,1,1,0,1,0),(\frac{k14}{2},0,0,1,0,1,3,0),\\ \hfill (\frac{k16}{2},0,0,1,0,3,0,0),(\frac{k16}{2},0,1,1,0,1,2,0),(\frac{k18}{2},0,0,2,0,0,0,3),\\ \hfill (\frac{k18}{2},0,1,0,0,0,0,5),(\frac{k18}{2},0,1,0,2,0,0,1),(\frac{k18}{2},0,2,0,0,2,0,1)\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ odd,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(\frac{k+1}{2},0,0,0),(\frac{k1}{2},0,0,2),(\frac{k1}{2},0,1,0),(\frac{k3}{2},1,0,1),\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{k3}{2},0,2,0),(\frac{k5}{2},0,1,4),(\frac{k5}{2},1,0,3)\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ even,

$$\begin{array}{c}\{(\frac{k}{2},0,0,1),(\frac{k2}{2},0,1,1),(\frac{k2}{2},1,0,0),(\frac{k4}{2},0,0,5),\hfill \\ \hfill (\frac{k4}{2},1,0,2),(\frac{k4}{2},0,2,1),(\frac{k4}{2},1,1,0),(\frac{k6}{2},1,0,4)\}.\end{array}$$

For $`k`$ odd,

$$\{(\frac{k+1}{2},0),(\frac{k1}{2},2),(\frac{k3}{2},4)\}.$$

For $`k`$ even,

$$\{(\frac{k}{2},1),(\frac{k2}{2},3),(\frac{k4}{2},5)\}.$$

## Appendix C Proof using fusion potentials

It is well-known that in the case of fusion rings, the affine algebraic variety defined by the fusion ideal is a so-called Jacobian variety, i.e., if $`=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_N]/`$ we can find a so-called fusion potential $`V(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ such that $`=P_1,\mathrm{},P_N`$, where $`P_iV/x_i`$ . Since the fusion potential provides a set of generators of the fusion ideal, it can be used to give an alternative proof of (3.5). While an expression for the fusion potential is known, in principle, for all compact, simple, connected, simply-connected Lie groups $`G`$ , we have not been able to make effective use of it for cases other than $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$. In this appendix we present an alternative proof for those two cases.

The fusion potential for $`A_n`$ takes the form

$$V(\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n)=\frac{1}{k+n+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}q_i^{k+n+1},$$
(C.1)
where the (formal) variables $`q_i`$ are related to the standard (overcomplete) basis $`\{ϵ_i\}_{i=1}^{n+1}`$ for the weight space of $`A_n`$ by $`q_i=\mathrm{exp}(ϵ_i)`$, with the constraint $`q_1\mathrm{}q_{n+1}=1`$. In terms of these variables the characters $`\chi _m`$ of the fundamental representations $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m)`$, ($`m=1,\mathrm{},n`$), are given in terms of the elementary symmetric polynomials, i.e.

$$\chi _m=\underset{1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_mn+1}{}q_{i_1}\mathrm{}q_{i_m}.$$
(C.2)
Defining

$$V_m=\frac{1}{m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}q_i^m,$$
(C.3)
we can form the generating function

$$V\left(t\right)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\right)^{m1}V_mt^m=\mathrm{log}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}\chi _it^i\right),$$
(C.4)
where we have set $`\chi _0=1=\chi _n`$ for convenience. The fusion potential is now (up to a sign) the coefficient of $`t^{k+n+1}`$ in $`V(t)`$, and the generators of the fusion ideal are the derivatives of this coefficient with respect to the $`\chi _i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$). Differentiating $`V\left(t\right)`$ with respect to $`\chi _j`$, and evaluating at $`q_i=1`$ (i.e. at the point where $`\chi _i=d_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}\right)`$), gives

$$\frac{V\left(t\right)}{\chi _j}|_{\chi _i=d_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}}=\frac{t^j}{(1+t)^{n+1}}.$$
(C.5)
Taylor expanding this around $`0`$ and extracting the coefficient of $`t^{k+n+1}`$ gives the values of the generators of the fusion ideal under the dimension map, and hence determines $`x`$. The result is

$$x=\mathrm{gcd}\left\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n+1j}{n}\right):j=1,\mathrm{},n\right\}=\mathrm{gcd}\left\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+j}{n}\right):j=1,\mathrm{},n\right\},$$
(C.6)
in accordance with Eqn. (4.10).

The proof above for $`A_n`$ easily generalizes to $`C_n`$. The fusion potential is given by

$$V(\chi _1,\chi _2,\mathrm{},\chi _n)=\frac{1}{k+n+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(q_i^{k+n+1}+q_i^{\left(k+n+1\right)}\right),$$
(C.7)
where, in terms of an orthonormal basis $`\{ϵ_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ for the weight space of $`C_n`$, the variables $`q_i`$ are given by $`q_i=\mathrm{exp}(ϵ_i)`$, and the characters $`\chi _j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$) are related to the variables $`q_i`$ by

$$\chi _j=E_jE_{j2}\text{(}E_j=0\text{ when }j<0\text{),}$$
(C.8)
and $`E_j`$ is defined by

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_jt^j=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(1+q_it\right)\left(1+q_i^1t\right).$$
(C.9)
In particular we have $`E_j=E_{2nj}`$, and $`E_j=0`$ for $`j>2n`$. Another consequence of this is that $`\chi _j+\chi _{2n+2j}=0`$, so there are indeed only $`n`$ linearly independent characters (in agreement with the arguments of the fusion potential $`V`$).

In analogy to $`A_n`$, we define $`V_m=\frac{1}{m}_{i=1}^n\left(q_i^m+q_i^m\right)`$, and form the generating function

$$V\left(t\right)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\right)^{m1}V_mt^m=\mathrm{log}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{2n}{}}E_jt^j\right).$$
(C.10)
Differentiating with respect to the $`\chi _i`$ gives

$$\frac{V\left(t\right)}{\chi _i}=\frac{t^i+t^{i+2}+\mathrm{}+t^{2n2i}+t^{2ni}}{_{j=0}^{2n}E_jt^j}.$$
(C.11)
Evaluating this at $`q_i=1`$, i.e. at the point $`\chi _i=d_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{i2}\right)`$ (thus $`E_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{i}\right)`$), we find

$$\frac{V\left(t\right)}{\chi _i}|_{\chi _j=d_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_j}}=\frac{t^i+t^{i+2}+\mathrm{}+t^{2n2i}+t^{2ni}}{\left(1+t\right)^{2n}}.$$
(C.12)
Taylor expanding about $`0`$, and extracting the coefficient of $`t^{k+n+1}`$, gives the charge group parameter as

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x& =\mathrm{gcd}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{ni}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+3ni2j}{2n1}}\right):i=1,\mathrm{},n\right\}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{gcd}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n+1i+2j}{2n1}}\right):i=1,\mathrm{},n\right\}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{gcd}\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n}{2n1}}\right),\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n+1}{2n1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n1}{2n1}}\right),\hfill \\ & \left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n+2}{2n1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+2n2}{2n1}}\right),\mathrm{},\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+3n1}{2n1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+n+1}{2n1}}\right)\},\hfill \end{array}`$
as in Eqn. (4.15).