text:
# 1 Motivation

## 1 Motivation

It is well known that gravitational waves propagating in some background space-time affect the dynamics of the background. This back-reaction can be described in terms of an effective energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$. In the short wave limit, when the typical wavelength of the waves is small compared with the curvature of the background space-time, $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ has the form of a radiative fluid with an equation of state $`p=\rho /3`$ (where $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ denote pressure and energy density, respectively).

In most models of the early Universe, scalar-type metric perturbations are more important than gravity waves. Here, we report on two studies of the back reaction problem for scalar gravitational perturbations. The first approach  is based on defining an effective energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ which describes the back-reaction, and applying the results to an inflationary background cosmology. The second approach  focuses on evaluating the back-reaction of fluctuations on an observable measuring the local Hubble expansion rate. Both studies are in the context of Einstein gravity coupled to scalar field matter.

Our studies are closely related to work by Woodard and Tsamis  who considered the back-reaction of long wavelength gravitational waves in pure gravity with a bare cosmological constant, and to work of Abramo and Woodard  who initiated the study of back-reaction of infrared modes on local observables.

In the following, we first review the derivation of the effective energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ which describes the back-reaction of linear cosmological fluctuations on the background cosmology (Section 2), and summarize the evaluation of this tensor in an inflationary cosmological background (Section 3). We find that contribution of long wavelength (i.e. super-Hubble-scale) scalar metric fluctuations to $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ acts as a negative cosmological constant whose absolute value increases in time since the phase space of infrared modes is increasing. This gives rise to the speculations of Section 4 that back-reaction of infrared modes may lead to a dynamical cancellation mechanism for the bare cosmological constant. In Section 5 we address some major deficiencies in this first approach to computing back-reaction. Many of these objections were first raised by Unruh . In Section 6 we then summarize the present status of an improved approach to studying gravitational back-reaction based on the calculation of corrections to an observable measuring the local expansion rate. We find that the leading infrared back-reaction effects vanish in single matter field models. However, based on results concerning the parametric amplification of super-Hubble cosmological fluctuations during inflationary reheating  we argue that in multi-field models the back-reaction of infrared modes will be important.

## 2 Framework

The method of analyzing gravitational back-reaction  based on the computation of an effective energy-momentum tensor for fluctuations is related to early work on the back-reaction of gravitational waves by Brill, Hartle and Isaacson , among others. The idea is to expand the Einstein equations to second order in the perturbations, to assume that the first order terms satisfy the equations of motion for linearized cosmological perturbations  (hence these terms cancel), to take the spatial average of the remaining terms, and to regard the resulting equations as equations for a new homogeneous metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(0,br)}`$ which includes the effect of the perturbations to quadratic order:

$$G_{\mu \nu }(g_{\alpha \beta }^{(0,br)})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi G\left[T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+\tau _{\mu \nu }\right]$$
(1)
where the effective energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ of gravitational back-reaction contains the terms resulting from spatial averaging of the second order metric and matter perturbations:

$$\tau _{\mu \nu }=<T_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\frac{1}{8\pi G}G_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}>,$$
(2)
where pointed brackets stand for spatial averaging, and the superscripts indicate the order in perturbation theory.

As analyzed in detail in , the back-reaction equation (1) is covariant under linear space-time coordinate transformations even though $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ is not invariant 111See , however, for important questions concerning the covariance of the analysis under higher order coordinate transformations.. In the following, we will work in longitudinal gauge (see e.g.  for a review of the theory of cosmological perturbations).

For simplicity, we shall take matter to be described in terms of a single scalar field. In this case, there is only one independent metric perturbation variable which we denote by $`\varphi (x,t)`$, and in longitudinal gauge the perturbed metric can be written in the form

$$ds^2=(1+2\varphi )dt^2a(t)^2(12\varphi )\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(3)
where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmological scale factor. The energy-momentum tensor for a scalar field is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\left[\frac{1}{2}\phi ^{,\alpha }\phi _{,\alpha }V(\phi )\right].$$
(4)
By expanding the Einstein tensor and the above energy-momentum tensor to second order in the metric and matter fluctuations $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta \phi `$, respectively, it can be shown that the non-vanishing components of the effective back-reaction energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ become

$`\tau _{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}\left[+12H\varphi \dot{\varphi }3(\dot{\varphi })^2+9a^2(\varphi )^2\right]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta \dot{\phi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^2(\delta \phi )^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _0)\delta \phi ^2+2V^{}(\phi _0)\varphi \delta \phi ,`$
and

$`\tau _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`a^2\delta _{ij}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}[(24H^2+16\dot{H})\varphi ^2+24H\dot{\varphi }\varphi `$ (6)
$`+`$ $`(\dot{\varphi })^2+4\varphi \ddot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}a^2(\varphi )^2]+4\dot{\phi _0}^2\varphi ^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta \dot{\phi })^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a^2(\delta \phi )^24\dot{\phi _0}\delta \dot{\phi }\varphi `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _0)\delta \phi ^2+2V^{}(\phi _0)\varphi \delta \phi \},`$
where $`H`$ is the Hubble expansion rate.

## 3 Application to Inflationary Cosmology

The metric and matter fluctuation variables $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta \phi `$ are linked via the Einstein constraint equations, and hence all terms in the above formulas for the components of $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ can be expressed in terms of two point functions of $`\varphi `$ and its derivatives. The two point functions, in turn, are obtained by integrating over all of the Fourier modes of $`\varphi `$, e.g.

$$\varphi ^2_{k_i}^{k_u}𝑑kk^2|\varphi _k|^2,$$
(7)
where $`\varphi _k`$ denotes the amplitude of the k’th Fourier mode. The above expression is divergent both in the infrared and in the ultraviolet. The ultraviolet divergence is the usual divergence of a free quantum field theory and can be “cured” by introducing an ultraviolet cutoff $`k_u`$. In the infrared, we will discard all modes $`k<k_i`$ with wavelength larger than the Hubble radius at the beginning of inflation, since these modes are determined by the pre-inflationary physics. We take these modes to contribute to the background.

At any time $`t`$ we can separate the integral in (7) into the contribution of infrared and ultraviolet modes, the separation being defined by setting the physical wavelength equal to the Hubble radius. Thus, in an inflationary Universe the infrared phase space is continually increasing since comoving modes are stretched beyond the Hubble radius, while the ultraviolet phase space is either constant (if the ultraviolet cutoff corresponds to a fixed physical wavelength), or decreasing (if the ultraviolet cutoff corresponds to fixed comoving wavelength). In either case, unless the spectrum of the initial fluctuations is extremely blue, two point functions such as (7) will at later stages of an inflationary Universe be completely dominated by the infrared sector. In the following, we will therefore restrict our attention to this sector, i.e. to wavelengths larger than the Hubble radius.

In order to evaluate the two point functions which enter into the expressions for $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$, we need to know the time evolution of the linear fluctuations $`\varphi _k`$, which is given by the linear theory of cosmological perturbations . On scales larger than the Hubble radius, and for a time-independent equation of state, $`\varphi _k`$ is constant in time. The Einstein constraint equations relating the metric and matter fluctuations give

$$\dot{\varphi }+H\varphi =4\pi G\dot{\phi }_0\delta \phi .$$
(8)
If the background scalar field $`\phi _0`$ is rolling slowly, then $`\dot{\phi }_0\frac{V^{}}{3H}`$, where a prime denotes the derivative with respect to the scalar matter field. Thus,

$$\delta \phi =\frac{2V}{V^{}}\varphi .$$
(9)
Hence, in the expressions (5) and (6) for $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$, all terms with space and time derivatives can be neglected, and we obtain

$$\rho _{br}\tau _0^0\left(2\frac{V^{\prime \prime }V^2}{V^{}^2}4V\right)<\varphi ^2>$$
(10)
and

$$p_{br}\frac{1}{3}\tau _i^i\rho _{br},$$
(11)
The main result which emerges from this analysis is that the equation of state of the dominant infrared contribution to the energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ which describes back-reaction takes the form of a negative cosmological constant

$$p_{br}=\rho _{br}\mathrm{with}\rho _{br}<0.$$
(12)
The second crucial result is that the magnitude of $`\rho _{br}`$ increases as a function of time. This is due in part to the fact that, in an inflationary Universe, as time increases more and more wavelengths become longer than the Hubble radius and begin to contribute to $`\rho _{br}`$.

How large is the magnitude of back-reaction? The basic point is that since the amplitude of each fluctuation mode is small, we need a very large phase space of infrared modes in order to induce any interesting effects. In models with a very short period of primordial inflation, the back-reaction of long-wavelength cosmological fluctuations hence will not be important. However, in many single field models of inflation, in particular in those of chaotic inflation type , inflation lasts so long that the infrared back-reaction effects can build up to become important for the cosmological background dynamics.

To give an example, consider chaotic inflation with a potential

$$V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2.$$
(13)
In this case, the values of $`\varphi _k`$ for long wavelength modes are well known (see e.g. ), and the integral in (7) can be easily performed, thus yielding explicit expressions for the dominant terms in the effective energy-momentum tensor. Comparing the resulting back-reaction energy density $`\rho _{br}`$ with the background density $`\rho _0`$, we find

$$\frac{\rho _{br}(t)}{\rho _0}\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{m^2\phi _0^2(t_i)}{M_P^4}\left[\frac{\phi _0(t_i)}{\phi _0(t)}\right]^4.$$
(14)
Without back-reaction, inflation would end  when $`\phi _0(t)M_P`$. Inserting this value into (14), we see that if

$$\phi _0(t_i)>\phi _{br}m^{1/3}M_P^{4/3},$$
(15)
then back-reaction will become important before the end of inflation and may shorten the period of inflation. It is interesting to compare this value with the scale $`\phi _0(t_i)\phi _{sr}=m^{1/2}M_P^{3/2}`$ above which the stochastic terms in the scalar field equation of motion arising in the context of the stochastic approach to chaotic inflation  are dominant. Notice that since $`\phi _{sr}\phi _{br}`$ (recall that $`mM_P`$), back-reaction effects can be very important in the entire range of field values relevant to stochastic inflation.

## 4 Speculations Concerning a Dynamical Relaxation Mechanism for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

Since the back-reaction of cosmological fluctuations in an inflationary cosmology acts (see (12)) like a negative cosmological constant, and since the magnitude of the back-reaction effect increases in time, one may speculate  that back-reaction will lead to a dynamical relaxation of the cosmological constant (see Tsamis & Woodard  for similar speculations based on the back-reaction of long wavelength gravitational waves).

The background metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(0,br)}`$ including back-reaction evolves as if the cosmological constant at time $`t`$ were

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+8\pi G\rho _{br}(t)$$
(16)
and not the bare cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. Hence we propose to identify (16) with a time dependent effective cosmological constant. Since $`|\rho _{br}(t)|`$ increases as $`t`$ grows, the effective cosmological constant will decay. Note that even if the initial magnitude of the perturbations is small, eventually (if inflation lasts a sufficiently long time) the back-reaction effect will become large enough to cancel any bare cosmological constant.

Furthermore, we speculate that this dynamical relaxation mechanism for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be self-regulating. As long as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi G\rho _m(t)`$, where $`\rho _m(t)`$ stands for the energy density in ordinary matter and radiation, the evolution of $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(0,br)}`$ is dominated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$. Hence, the Universe will be undergoing accelerated expansion, more scales will be leaving the Hubble radius and the magnitude of the back-reaction term will increase. However, once $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$ falls below $`\rho _m(t)`$, the background will start to decelerate, scales will enter the Hubble radius, and the number of modes contributing to the back-reaction will decrease, thus reducing the strength of back-reaction. Hence, it is likely that there will be a scaling solution to the effective equation of motion for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$ of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi G\rho _m(t).$$
(17)
Such a scaling solution would correspond to a contribution to the relative closure density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$.

## 5 Criticism and Open Issues

There are important concerns about the above formalism, and even more so about the resulting speculations (some of these were first discussed in print in ). On a formal level, since our back-reaction effect is of second order in cosmological perturbation theory, it is necessary to demonstrate covariance of the proposed back-reaction equation (1) beyond linear order, and this has not been done. Next, it might be argued that by causality super-Hubble fluctuations cannot affect local observables. Thirdly, from an observational perspective one is not interested in the effect of fluctuations on the background metric (since what the background is cannot be determined precisely using local observations). Instead, one should compute the back-reaction of cosmological fluctuations on observables describing the local Hubble expansion rate. One might then argue that even if long-wavelength fluctuations have an effect on the background metric, they do not influence local observables. Finally, it is clear that the speculations in the previous section involve the extrapolation of perturbative physics deep into the non-perturbative regime.

These important issues have now begun to be addressed. Good physical arguments can be given  supporting the idea that long-wavelength fluctuations can effect local physics. Consider, for example, a black hole of mass $`M`$ absorbing a particle of mass $`m`$. Even after this particle has disappeared beyond the horizon, its gravitational effects (in terms of the increased mass of the black hole) remain measurable to an external observer. A similar argument can be given in inflationary cosmology: consider an initial localized mass fluctuation with a characteristic physical length scale $`\lambda `$ in an exponentially expanding background. Even after the length scale of the fluctuation redshifts to be larger than the Hubble radius, the gravitational potential associated with this fluctuation remains measurable. On a more technical level, it has recently been shown that super-Hubble scale (but sub-horizon-scale) metric fluctuations can be parametrically amplified during inflationary reheating . This clearly demonstrates a coupling between local physics and super-Hubble-scale fluctuations.

These arguments, however, make it even more important to focus on back-reaction effects of cosmological fluctuations on local physical observables rather than on the mathematical background metric. This topic will be discussed in the following section. The results of that analysis will then determine the answer to the first of the concerns listed at the beginning of this section.

It is obvious that even in models in which the perturbative back-reaction results of Sections 2 - 3 have locally measurable implications, the analysis has to be extended beyond perturbation theory to justify the speculations of Section 4. For some initial ideas in this direction, see .

## 6 Back-Reaction on Local Observables

In this section we will be summarizing recent work  in which the leading infrared back-reaction effects on a local observable measuring the Hubble expansion rate were calculated. Note that initial work on gravitational back-reaction effects of infrared modes on local observables was done in , using different methods and a different observable than the one used below.

If we consider a perfect fluid with velocity four vector $`u^\alpha `$ in an inhomogeneous cosmological geometry, the local expansion rate which generalizes the Hubble expansion rate $`H(t)`$ of homogeneous isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology is given by $`\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the four divergence of $`u^\alpha `$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=u_{;\alpha }^\alpha ,$$
(18)
the semicolon indicating the covariant derivative. In , the effects of cosmological fluctuations on this variable were computed to second order in perturbation theory. To leading order in the infrared expansion, the result is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\frac{a^{}}{a^2}\left(1\varphi +\frac{3}{2}\varphi ^2\right)3\frac{\varphi ^{}}{a},$$
(19)
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to conformal time. If we now calculate the spatial average of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the term linear in $`\varphi `$ vanishes, and - as expected - we are left with a quadratic back-reaction contribution.

Superficially, it appears from (19) that there is a non-vanishing back-reaction effect at quadratic order which is not suppressed for super-Hubble modes. However, we must be careful and evaluate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ not at a constant value of the background coordinates, but rather at a fixed value of some physical observable. For example, if we work out the value of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the case of a matter-dominated Universe, and express the result as a function of the proper time $`\tau `$ given by

$$d\tau ^2=a(\eta )^2(1+2\varphi )d\eta ^2$$
(20)
instead of as a function of conformal time $`\eta `$, then we find that the leading infrared terms proportional to $`\varphi ^2`$ exactly cancel, and that thus there is no un-suppressed infrared back-reaction on the local measure of the Hubble expansion rate.

A more relevant example with respect to the discussion in earlier sections is a model in which matter is given by a single scalar field. In this case, the leading infrared back-reaction terms in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are again given by (19) which looks different from the background value $`3H`$. However, once again it is important to express $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in terms of a physical background variable. If we choose the value of the matter field $`\phi `$ as this variable, we find after easy manipulations that, including only the leading infrared back-reaction terms,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\phi )=\sqrt{3}\sqrt{V(\phi )}.$$
(21)
Hence, once again the leading infrared back-reaction contributions vanish, as already found in the work of  which considered the leading infrared back-reaction effects on a local observable different than the one we have used, and applied very different methods 222For a different approach which also leads to the conclusion that there can be no back-reaction effects from infrared modes on local observables in models with a single matter component see ..

However, in a model with two matter fields, it is clear that if we e.g. use the second matter field as a physical clock, then the leading infrared back-reaction terms will not cancel in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and that thus in such models infrared back-reaction will be physically observable. The situation will be very much analogous to what happens in the case of parametric resonance of gravitational fluctuations during inflationary reheating. This process is a gauge artifact in single field models of inflation  (see also ), but it is real and unsuppressed in certain two field models . In the case of two field models, work on the analysis of the back-reaction effects of infrared modes on the observable representing the local Hubble expansion rate is in progress.

## 7 Conclusions

We have summarized the present status of the work on the gravitational back-reaction of cosmological fluctuations. In an inflationary background cosmology, the perturbations generated during inflation are shown to contribute as an effective energy-momentum tensor of the form of a negative cosmological constant to the evolution of the background metric. In addition, the absolute value of this induced cosmological constant grows in time since the phase space of infrared modes is increasing. This leads to the intriguing speculation that gravitational back-reaction of fluctuations may provide a dynamical cancellation mechanism for the cosmological constant, leaving behind a remnant effective cosmological constant which at all sufficiently late times corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$.

However, we have also shown that in single field models, the leading infrared terms in the back-reaction equation cancel when calculating the local Hubble expansion rate as a function of physical variables. We have argued why in two-field models we do not expect this cancellation to persist.

Obviously, a lot more work is required in order to be able to extend the present calculations, which show at - leading order in the cosmological perturbation expansion - the onset of dynamical relaxation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to higher orders and to a full nonlinear argument.

Acknowledgements.  The results summarized here are based on work done in collaboration with R. Abramo, G. Geshnizjani and V. Mukhanov. I wish to thank them for sharing their insights. I also wish to thank R. Abramo, A. Guth, A. Linde, W. Unruh, N. Tsamis and in particular R. Woodard for important discussions which heavily influenced the ideas presented in the last two sections of this contribution. I also wish to thank the organizers of this Colloque for inviting me to present this work, and for their wonderful hospitality at the IAP. This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-FG0291ER40688, Task A.


format: text

text:
# The Phase Structure of Mass-Deformed SU(2)×SU(2) Quiver Theory

## 1 Introduction

This paper is concerned with the problem of calculating the phase structure of certain finite $`𝒩=2`$ theories perturbed by mass terms to $`𝒩=1`$. The main paradigm for this is the $`𝒩=4`$ theory perturbed by mass terms to $`𝒩=1`$ (which one can think of passing through $`𝒩=2`$ on the way): the so-called $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory. Let us describe this case in more detail. Gauge theory with $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry is a finite theory for which $`S`$-duality—actually $`\text{SL}(2,)`$—is an exact symmetry. However, once broken to $`𝒩=1`$ by adding mass terms for the three adjoint chiral multiplets, the duality is broken: instead of being an exact symmetry it now relates different vacua of the theory . For instance, the weakly-coupled Higgs vacuum is related to one of the strongly-coupled confining vacua by $`\tau 1/\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the usual complexified coupling of the theory. More precisely, we know on the basis of semi-classical reasoning that, for gauge group $`\text{SU}(N)`$, the vacua are associated to the partitions of $`N`$. Furthermore, those with a mass gap are associated to the subset of equipartitions: $`N=pq`$. In these vacua there is an unbroken $`\text{SU}(p)`$ gauge symmetry and hence using standard reasoning based on the Witten Index there should be an additional degeneracy of $`p`$. Consequently the total number of massive vacua is equal to $`_{p|N}p`$, a sum over the integer divisors of $`N`$. In particular, the Higgs vacua corresponds to $`p=1`$ and the $`N`$ confining vacua to $`p=N`$. These vacua form a finite-dimensional representation of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$.

One way to investigate the vacuum structure of the mass-deformed theory is to realize the mass deformation in a two-stage process: first breaking to $`𝒩=2`$ with a massive adjoint hypermultiplet. The Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory is described in the by-now standard way by a Seiberg-Witten curve . Further breaking to $`𝒩=1`$ can be understood as a perturbation which lifts most of the Coulomb branch to leave the vacua of the $`𝒩=1`$ theory. In principle, the Seiberg-Witten curve can be used to find the vacua and all the condensates of lowest component chiral superfields in each vacuum. In particular, the massive vacua are associated to points on the Coulomb branch for which the associated Seiberg-Witten curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ undergoes maximal degeneration. Since the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an $`N`$-sheeted cover of the underlying torus with complex structure $`\tau `$  the maximal degeneration involves unbranched (unramified) $`N`$-fold covers of the torus. It is known in the $`𝒩=4`$ case that the Seiberg-Witten curve is the spectral curve of the elliptic Calogero-Moser integrable system .

An alternative and more direct approach for which the integrable system plays a central rôle involves compactifying the four-dimensional theory to three dimensions on a circle of finite radius . In three dimensions, the $`𝒩=2`$ theory has a Coulomb branch of twice the dimension of the four-dimensional theory due to the Wilson lines and dual photons of the unbroken abelian gauge group. What is particularly nice about this, is that the integrable dynamical system mentioned above now stands centre stage since the larger Coulomb branch is nothing but its (complexified) phase space. In contrast, the Coulomb branch of the four-dimensional theory only corresponds to the action variables alone. In other words, the Wilson lines and dual photons supply the missing angle variables. Further soft breaking to $`𝒩=1`$ is realized by adding a superpotential which is simply one of the action variables of the integrable system. The superpotential calculated in this way is actually exact, i.e. includes all the quantum corrections. One way to see this is to interpret the whole set-up in terms of the mirror map in three dimensions: in this case the integrable system arises as the Higgs branch of the mirror-dual theory in the form of a Hitchin system which, as such, is not subject to quantum corrections . The superpotential is also independent of the compactification radius and so vacua and condensates extracted from it are also valid in the decoupling limit.

In this picture, the vacua of the theory are identified with the critical points of the exact superpotential and, since the latter is a Hamiltonian of the integrable system, this means they are associated to equilibrium positions for the evolution, or flow, generated by that Hamiltonian:

$$\text{Vacuum}\text{equilibrium position of a given flow}$$

Massive vacua are special in that they are equilibrium positions for any choice of Hamiltonian in the space of action variables:

$$\text{Massive Vacuum}\text{equilibrium position for all the flows}$$

Formally this follows from the following line of reasoning. The angle variables take values in the Jacobian of the spectral curve of the integrable system (in this case the Seiberg-Witten curve) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and upon maximal degeneration of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ all the angle variables are frozen to a point and nothing moves. More concretely, this fact was also proved directly in the case of the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory in the Appendix of . All the massive vacua have been found in this case by extremizing the superpotential. For the massless vacua the situation is not so well understood: although a complete picture is available for $`\text{SU}(3)`$, for $`N>3`$ there are only partial results .

In  the whole picture described above was generalized to certain finite $`𝒩=2`$ theories, the so-called “quiver models”, which arise from certain brane configurations in string theory. These theories have product $`\text{SU}(N)^k`$ gauge symmetry. For these theories there is also an underlying integrable system arising as a Hitchin system which was identified as the spin-generalized elliptic Calogero-Moser system developed in Refs. . Once again the Coulomb branch of the compactified theory is identified with the phase space of the (complexified) integrable system and the exact superpotential describing the breaking to $`𝒩=1`$ is one of the Hamiltonians.

A complete picture of all the massive vacua was found in  generalizing the situation in the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory. However, as in the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory, the situation with the massless vacua is not understood. This provides the motivation for the present work. In it we shall investigate the simplest quiver model with gauge group $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$. In this case, we will be able to find the complete vacuum structure explicitly including both the previously known massive but now also the massless vacua.

## 2 The phase structure via semi-classical reasoning

In this section we shall infer the phase structure of the theory by investigating the tree-level superpotential.

The $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric quiver theory is an example of the more general $`\text{SU}(N)^k`$ theories which we now define. The field content consists of (i) for each $`\text{SU}(N)`$ factor an $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet and adjoint-valued chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and (ii) chiral multiplets $`Q_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, in the $`(𝐍,\overline{𝐍})`$ and $`(\overline{𝐍},𝐍)`$ of $`\text{SU}(N)_i\times \text{SU}(N)_{i+1}`$, respectively. The tree-level superpotential, including the mass-deformation to $`𝒩=1`$, has the form

$$W=\frac{1}{g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_iQ_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_iQ_i\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+1}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i+m_iQ_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_i+\mu _i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2\right\},$$
(1)
where we assume that the labels are defined modulo $`N`$. Here, $`m_i`$ are the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry preserving masses of the hypermultiplets and $`\mu _i`$ are the $`𝒩=2𝒩=1`$ breaking masses of the adjoint chiral multiplets.

We can investigate the vacuum structure of the $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$ theory by solving the $`F`$-flatness conditions modulo complex gauge transformations in the usual way. The analysis was done for the massive vacua in the more general setting of the $`\text{SU}(N)^k`$ theory in  and we can simply quote the results in this case. The solutions for the massless vacua are new.

First of all, there are confining vacua for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=Q_i=\stackrel{~}{Q}_i=0`$ and the gauge symmetry is completely unbroken. We expect that the theory at low energy is pure $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills with gauge group $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$. Since each $`\text{SU}(2)`$ factor is independent and each on its own yields two independent vacua, in all we expect four confining vacua.

There are two Higgs vacua in which the gauge group is completely broken. For the first

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_1& =\frac{1}{2}(m_1+m_2)\mathrm{diag}(1,1),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{2}(m_1m_2)\mathrm{diag}(1,1),\hfill \\ \hfill Q_1& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_1(\mu _1+\mu _2)+m_2(\mu _1\mu _2)\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill Q_2& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1(\mu _1\mu _2)+m_2(\mu _1+\mu _2)& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
The other Higgs vacuum is obtained by swapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ along with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_1& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_1(\mu _1\mu _2)+m_2(\mu _1+\mu _2)\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill Q_2& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& m_1(\mu _1+\mu _2)+m_2(\mu _1+\mu _2)\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
In total, therefore, there are 6 vacua with a mass gap: 4 confining and 2 Higgs.

There are two massless, or Coulomb, vacua each with an unbroken $`\text{U}(1)`$ factor. For the first

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_1& =\frac{\mu _2m_2}{\mu _1+\mu _2}\mathrm{diag}(1,1),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{\mu _1m_2}{\mu _1+\mu _2}\mathrm{diag}(1,1),\hfill \\ \hfill Q_1& =\stackrel{~}{Q}_1=0,Q_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_2=\frac{4m_2\mu _1\mu _2}{\mu _1+\mu _2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
whilst for the second

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_1& =\frac{\mu _2m_1}{\mu _1+\mu _2}\mathrm{diag}(1,1),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{\mu _1m_1}{\mu _1+\mu _2}\mathrm{diag}(1,1),\hfill \\ \hfill Q_1& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_1=\frac{4m_1\mu _1\mu _2}{\mu _1+\mu _2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),Q_2=\stackrel{~}{Q}_2=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The analysis above holds for generic values of the masses. However, for particular values of the masses flat directions emerge and different vacua can be related. Of course at this stage we emphasize that we are not taking account any of the quantum effects. To start with, if $`m_1`$ or $`m_2`$ vanish then the two Higgs vacua are related by a flat direction. For instance with $`m_2=0`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_1& =\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{2}m_1\mathrm{diag}(1,1),Q_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{Q}_1& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_1(\mu _1+\mu _2)\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),Q_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& 0\\ 0& xm_1(\mu _1\mu _2)\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Here, $`x`$ parameterizes the flat direction. In an analogous way, one of the massless vacua is related to the confining vacuum by a flat direction.

## 3 The Exact Superpotential

Having established in the last section a qualitative picture based on the tree-level superpotential of the theory in four dimensions, we can now investigate the phase structure exactly following Ref. . As we alluded to in the introduction, the superpotential is precisely one of the Hamiltonians in the space of action variables of a complexified integrable system. For our theory the latter is a certain symplectic reduction of the spin generalization of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system. We now construct it for the general $`\text{SU}(N)^k`$ theory. In this case it describes the motion of $`N`$ particles in one dimension with positions $`X_a`$ and momenta $`p_a`$. Each particle carries a “spin” in the form of a $`k\times k`$ matrix with elements $`𝒥_{ij}^a`$. The basic Hamiltonian of the system is111We have written the following in terms of spins $`𝒥_{ij}^a`$ which is slightly different but equivalent to the way the system was written in  in terms of the spins $`𝒮_{ab}^i`$. The relation between the two representations can be determined from Eq. (10).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_0& =\underset{a}{}p_a^2+\underset{ab}{}\underset{ij}{}𝒥_{ji}^a𝒥_{ij}^b\frac{\sigma (X_{ab}+z_{ji})}{\sigma (X_{ab})\sigma (z_{ji})}\left(\zeta (X_{ab}+z_{ji})\zeta (X_{ab})\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}\left[\underset{a}{}𝒥_{ij}^a𝒥_{ji}^aNm_im_j\right]\left(\mathrm{}(z_{ij})\zeta (z_{ij})^2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Here, $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ is the Weierstrass function and $`\sigma (z)`$ and $`\zeta (z)`$ are its cousins defined on the torus with half-periods $`\omega _1=i\pi `$ and $`\omega _2=i\pi \tau `$ (so of complex structure $`\tau `$) . In the above, the separation between the particles is given by $`X_{ab}X_aX_b`$ while $`z_{ij}z_iz_j`$ are “inhomogeneities”, $`k1`$ external parameters (since only the differences matter). In our application, the $`k`$ independent complex coupling constants $`\tau _i`$ of each of the $`\text{SU}(N)`$ factors of the gauge group are associated to the $`k`$ independent parameters $`\{\tau ,z_i\}`$ in the following way. Firstly we order the $`z_i`$ so that $`0\mathrm{Re}z_i\mathrm{Re}z_{i+1}2\pi \mathrm{Im}\tau `$. Then

$$\tau _i=i\frac{z_{i+1}z_i}{2\pi }i=1,\mathrm{},k1,\tau _k=i\frac{z_1z_k}{2\pi }+\tau .$$
(8)
To define the dynamical system the dynamical variables have the non-vanishing Poisson brackets

$$\{X_a,p_b\}=\delta _{ab},\{𝒥_{ij}^a,𝒥_{kl}^b\}=\delta _{ab}\left(\delta _{jk}𝒥_{il}^a\delta _{il}𝒥_{kj}^a\right).$$
(9)
In fact, in the application to gauge theory, the spins are not arbitrary $`k\times k`$ matrices, rather they have rank one and so we can define them in terms of new variables $`Q_{ai}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}`$:

$$𝒥_{ij}^a=\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}Q_{aj}.$$
(10)
If we take all the inhomogeneities $`z_i`$ equal, then (7) simplifies to

$$H_0=\underset{a}{}p_a^2\underset{ab}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝒥^a𝒥^b\right)\mathrm{}(X_{ab}),$$
(11)
the dynamical system analysed in Ref. . The system is completely integrable, even when the $`z_i`$ are arbitrary, so there exists a basis of action-angle variables for which the Hamiltonian (7) is but one of a set of action variables.

For the application to gauge theory, we have to impose additional conditions on the spins. The reduction can be defined as a symplectic quotient by the abelian symmetries

$$Q_{ai}e^{\varphi _a}Q_{ai}e^{\psi _i},\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}e^{\psi _i}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}e^{\varphi _a}.$$
(12)
In all there are $`N+k1`$ independent symmetries. Taking the symplectic quotient involves imposing the momentum map constraints:

$$\underset{a}{}Q_{ai}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}=Nm_i,\underset{i}{}Q_{ai}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}=0,$$
(13)
along with an ordinary quotient by the symmetries (12). Notice that hypermultiplet masses $`m_i`$ enter via (13). In (7) we note that the centre-of-mass motion is completely trivial and so we set $`_ap_a=_aX_a=0`$. Once this has been done the phase space (after the symplectic quotient of the spins) has the dimension $`2k(N1)`$: precisely the complex dimension of the Coulomb branch of the compactified $`\text{SU}(N)^k`$ theory. So the complexified phase is identified with the Coulomb branch of the compactified theory. This space is actually a hyper-Kähler manifold with a chosen complex structure. This is clear in the formulation of the integrable system as a Hitchin system  which has the form of an infinite-dimensional hyper-Kähler quotient . In this context, the symplectic form of the dynamical system is identified with the closed $`(2,0)`$ form with respect to the chosen complex structure.

The remaining action variables can be extracted from the Lax operator described in . Of particular importance for us is the basic Hamiltonian (7) along with the following others

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_i& =2\underset{a}{}p_a𝒥_{ii}^a2\underset{ab}{}\underset{j(i)}{}𝒥_{ji}^a𝒥_{ij}^b\frac{\sigma (X_{ab}+z_{ji})}{\sigma (X_{ab})\sigma (z_{ji})}+2\underset{j(i)}{}\left[\underset{a}{}𝒥_{ij}^a𝒥_{ji}^aNm_im_j\right]\zeta (z_{ij}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
of which only $`k1`$ are independent since $`_{i=1}^kH_i=0`$.

The action variables, or Hamiltonians, parameterize the Coulomb branch of the four-dimensional theory prior to compactification. In particular, the $`k`$ independent Hamiltonians $`H_0`$ along with $`H_i`$ are identified with the subspace of quadratic condensates $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2`$. In , we identified the unique combination of Hamiltonians corresponding to the diagonal combination:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2=kH^{},$$
(15)
where

$$H^{}=H_0\frac{1}{k}\underset{il}{}\zeta (z_{il})H_i.$$
(16)
The fact that there is a non-trivial function multiplying the $`H_i`$ is required in order that $`H^{}`$ has the appropriate modular properties. The superpotential in the three-dimensional compactification corresponding to an arbitrary $`𝒩=1`$ mass deformation of the theory is then identified with a particular linear combination of the Hamiltonians:

$$W=\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mu _i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2=\frac{1}{g^2}\left(\lambda _0(\mu )H^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _i(\mu )H_i\right).$$
(17)
for quantities $`\{\lambda _0,\lambda _i\}`$ depending linearly on the $`\mu _i`$.

In the case of an $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$ quiver, we can be more explicit. Firstly regarding the symplectic reduction on the spins. Solving the moment map conditions (13) and fixing the symmetries (12) can be achieved, for instance, by parameterizing them with two variables $`\{x,y\}`$ such that

$$Q_{ai}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& m_2y\\ e^x\frac{m_1y}{ym_2}& m_2+y\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ia}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}y+m_1& e^x(ym_2)\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
The Poisson bracket that one derives from (9) is then simply $`\{x,y\}=1`$.

Once this has been done, the dynamical system has a four-dimensional phase space parameterized by $`XX_1X_2`$, $`p=\frac{1}{2}(p_1p_2)`$, $`x`$ and $`y`$ with non-trivial Poisson brackets

$$\{X,p\}=1,\{x,y\}=1.$$
(19)
The two Hamiltonians (7) and (14) are

$`H_0`$ $`=2p^2+2(2y^2m_1^2m_2^2)\mathrm{}(X)2e^x(y^2m_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (Xz)}{\sigma (X)\sigma (z)}}\left(\zeta (Xz)\zeta (X)\right)`$
$`+2e^x(y^2m_1^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (X+z)}{\sigma (X)\sigma (z)}}\left(\zeta (X+z)\zeta (X)\right)+2y^2(\mathrm{}(z)\zeta (z)^2),`$ (20a)
$`H_1`$ $`=4py4y^2\zeta (z)+2e^x(y^2m_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (Xz)}{\sigma (X)\sigma (z)}}+2e^x(y^2m_1^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (X+z)}{\sigma (X)\sigma (z)}},`$ (20b)
where $`zz_{12}`$. It is straightforward to check that $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ Poisson-commute.

In the case of $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$ we can uniquely identify the relation between the gauge invariants operators $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2`$, $`i=1,2`$ and the Hamiltonians. Firstly, as in (16) there is a unique combination which has the required properties to be identified with the average combination:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\right)H^{}=H_0\zeta (z)H_1.$$
(21)
whilst the quantity $`H_1`$ is identified with the difference

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2\right)H_1.$$
(22)
It follows that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2=H^{}\frac{1}{2}H_1,\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2=H^{}+\frac{1}{2}H_1.$$
(23)
We can now identify the general $`𝒩=1^{}`$ deformation of the superpotential with the following linear combination of the action variables:

$$W=\frac{1}{g^2}\left(\mu _1\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\mu _2\mathrm{Tr}_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\right)=\frac{1}{g^2}(\mu _1+\mu _2)\stackrel{~}{H},$$
(24)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{H}& =H^{}+\frac{1}{2}\beta H_1=2p^2+4\alpha py+2e^x(y^2m_2^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(X)+2e^x(y^2m_1^2)\varphi (X)\hfill \\ & +2(2y^2m_1^2m_2^2)\mathrm{}(X)+2y^2(\mathrm{}(z)\zeta (z)^22\alpha \zeta (z)),\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where we have defined the constant

$$\alpha =\zeta (z)+\frac{1}{2}\beta ,\beta =\frac{\mu _2\mu _1}{\mu _1+\mu _2}$$
(26)
along with the functions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi (X)& =\frac{\sigma (X+z)}{\sigma (X)\sigma (z)}\left(\zeta (X+z)\zeta (X)+\alpha \right),\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(X)& =\frac{\sigma (Xz)}{\sigma (X)\sigma (z)}\left(\zeta (Xz)\zeta (X)\alpha \right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
## 4 The Exact Phase Structure

Supersymmetric vacua are obtained by extremizing the superpotential (24). One obtains the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{p}}`$ $`=4p+4\alpha y=0,`$ (28a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{y}}`$ $`=4y\left\{2\mathrm{}(X)+\mathrm{}(z)+e^x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(X)+e^x\varphi (X)\right\}=0,`$ (28b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{x}}`$ $`=2e^x(y^2m_2^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(X)2e^x(y^2m_1^2)\varphi (X)=0,`$ (28c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{X}}`$ $`=2(2y^2m_1^2m_2^2)\mathrm{}^{}(X)+2e^x(y^2m_2^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}(X)+2e^x(y^2m_1^2)\varphi ^{}(X)=0.`$ (28d)
We now begin by solving (28a) for $`p`$:

$$p=\alpha y.$$
(29)
One branch of solutions is then obtained by solving (28b) with $`y=0`$. It then follows that there are two solutions of (28c), which we label by $`n_1=1,2`$, for which

$$e^x=(1)^{n_1}\frac{m_1}{m_2}\sqrt{\frac{\varphi (X)}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(X)}}.$$
(30)
Using standard elliptic function identities, along with (29) and (30), the final equation (28d) can be recast in the form

$$\mathrm{}^{}(X)\left(m_1^2+(1)^{n_1}m_1m_2\gamma \left(\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)^{1/2}+m_2^2\right)=0,$$
(31)
where we have defined the quantity

$$\gamma =2\mathrm{}(X)+\mathrm{}(z)\frac{\beta ^2}{4}.$$
(32)
For later use, one can show, again using standard elliptic function identities, that

$$\varphi (X)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(X)=\mathrm{}^2(X)+\frac{1}{4}\beta ^2\mathrm{}(z)+\mathrm{}^2(z)+\mathrm{}(X)\mathrm{}(z)\frac{1}{4}\beta ^2\mathrm{}(X)+\frac{1}{2}\beta \mathrm{}^{}(z)\frac{1}{4}g_2,$$
(33)
from which one deduces

$$\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=g_23\mathrm{}^2(z)2\beta \mathrm{}^{}(z)\frac{3}{2}\beta ^2\mathrm{}(z)+\frac{1}{16}\beta ^4.$$
(34)
As a consequence the left-hand side is independent of $`X`$.

For generic masses the solution to (31) is $`\mathrm{}^{}(X)=0`$, i.e. $`X`$ is a half-period

$$X\{\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _1+\omega _2\},$$
(35)
which we label $`X_c=i\pi ,i\pi \tau ,i\pi (\tau +1)`$, $`c=1,2,3`$.

In order to assess whether these six vacua are massive or massless, we compute the Hessian:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Det}\left[\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{H}}{x_ix_j}\right]& =\frac{1}{m_2^2\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\left((1)^{n_1}m_1m_2\gamma +(m_1^2+m_2^2)(\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi })^{1/2}\right)\hfill \\ & \times (2\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }(X)[(1)^{n_1}m_1m_2\gamma +(m_1^2+m_2^2)(\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi })^{1/2}]\hfill \\ & (1)^{n_1}m_1m_2(\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi })\mathrm{}^{}(X)\left)\right|_{X=X_c}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
It can be shown that the above is generically non-zero so that all six vacua are massive. The values of the condensates in these six massive vacua are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2=2(m_1^2+m_2^2)\mathrm{}(X)\hfill \\ & 4(1)^{n_1}\frac{m_1m_2}{(\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi })^{1/2}}\left(\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}(\beta (1)^i)\left(\beta (\mathrm{}(z)\mathrm{}(X))+\mathrm{}^{}(z)\right)\right)|_{X=X_c}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
These six vacua are precisely the vacua found in  for general $`k`$ and $`N`$. It is tempting to identify them with the six massive vacua, two Higgs and four confining, that we found in Section 2 and this turns out to be correct. In order to pin down the relation, consider the semi-classical expansion of the condensates in each of the vacua as described in . The expansions we need can be deduced from the following expansions of the (quasi-)elliptic functions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}(X)& =\frac{1}{12}+\frac{e^X}{(1e^X)^2}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\frac{e^Xq^n}{(1e^Xq^n)^2}+\frac{e^Xq^n}{(1e^Xq^n)^2}\frac{2q^n}{(1q^n)^2}\right\},\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma (X)& =e^{\zeta (i\pi )X^2/(2i\pi )}(e^{X/2}e^{X/2})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1q^n(e^Xe^X)+q^{2n}}{(1q^n)^2},\hfill \\ \hfill \zeta (X)& =X\frac{\zeta (i\pi )}{i\pi }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}(X/2)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^n(e^X+e^X)}{1q^n(e^X+e^X)+q^{2n}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
The condensates can be written in terms of the complex couplings of each gauge group factor:

$$q_1=e^{2\pi i\tau _1}=e^z,q_2=e^{2\pi i\tau _2}=qe^z,$$
(39)
where $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$. It is easy to see that the condensates have an expansion in terms of the quantities

$$e^Xq^n,e^Xq^{n+1},q^n,e^zq^n,e^zq^{n+1},$$
(40)
with $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Given the values for $`X`$ in (35), it is clear that the vacua with $`X=i\pi `$ have an expansion in integer powers of $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$. Hence, the two vacua with $`X=i\pi `$ are identified with the Higgs vacua in which the condensates have a conventional semi-classical instanton expansion in integer powers of $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$. The vacua with $`X=i\pi \tau `$ or $`i\pi (\tau +1)`$ have an expansion which includes powers of the fractional instanton factor $`q^{1/2}`$. This is characteristic of a confining vacuum. Hence, we identify the four vacua with these values of $`X`$ and $`n_1=1,2`$ with the four confining vacua identified in Section 2.

Now we return to the equations for the vacua (28a)-(28d) and choose a different branch of solutions obtained by solving (28b) with

$$e^x=\frac{\gamma +(1)^{n_2}\sqrt{\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}{2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }},$$
(41)
rather than $`y=0`$. There are two solutions of this type labelled by $`n_2=1,2`$. Then (28c) is solved for $`y`$ giving

$$y=\sqrt{\frac{m_2^2e^x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }m_1^2e^x\varphi }{e^x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }e^x\varphi }}.$$
(42)
Choosing the opposite sign for $`y`$ can be shown to lead to an equivalent solution due to the presence of discrete symmetries which we have hitherto ignored. In particular the values of the condensates will not depend on it.

The final equation (28d) becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill (m_1^2m_2^2)\frac{\sqrt{\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}{X}=0\end{array}$$
(43)
which is identically zero for all values of $`X`$ since the combination (34) is independent of $`X`$.

The two solutions are obviously massless vacua since each corresponds to a line of critical points parameterized by $`X`$. The values of the condensates in these two massless vacua are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2=& (m_1^2+m_2^2)\left(\mathrm{}(z)\frac{1}{2}(1)^i\beta +\frac{1}{4}\beta ^2\right)\hfill \\ & +(1)^{n_2}\frac{m_1^2m_2^2}{\sqrt{\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}\left(\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}\beta (\beta (1)^i)\left(3\mathrm{}(z)+2\mathrm{}^{}(z)\frac{1}{4}\beta ^2\right)\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
The discussion of the vacuum structure above has been established in the case where the masses $`\{m_i\}`$ and $`\{\mu _i\}`$ are generic. For special values the vacua can merge. First of all, if $`X`$ equals a half period and $`y`$ in (42) equals 0, which requires

$$m_2^2e^x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }m_1^2e^x\varphi =0,$$
(45)
where $`x`$ is given by (41), then a massless vacuum meets what was once one of the massive vacua. Solving these equations leads to a condition on the ratio of the hypermultiplet masses $`m_1/m_2`$. In this way either of the massless vacua can meet any of the 6 massive vacua at 12 special values for $`m_1/m_2`$:

$$\frac{m_1}{m_2}=(1)^{n_1}\frac{\gamma +(1)^{n_2}\sqrt{\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}{2\sqrt{\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}$$
(46)
with $`X=X_c`$, $`c=1,2,3`$. Finally the two massless vacua merge together when

$$\gamma ^24\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=g_23\mathrm{}^2(z)2\beta \mathrm{}^{}(z)3\beta ^2\mathrm{}(z)/2+\beta ^4/16=0.$$
(47)
## 5 Discussion

We have calculated the exact phase structure and the condensates of the two adjoint-valued scalar fields in the mass deformed $`\text{SU}(2)\times \text{SU}(2)`$ finite quiver theory. The strategy involved compactifying the theory on a circle of finite radius so that the low-energy degrees-of-freedom are all scalar. However, the values calculated remain valid in the decompactification limit. In this way, we were able to show how the exact structure of vacua matches the one deduced from an analysis of the tree-level superpotential in the four-dimensional theory. It would be interesting to extend our analysis to the general $`\text{SU}(N)^k`$ quiver theories and also to consider the solution of these mass-deformed theory using the matrix model formalism developed by Dijkgraaf and Vafa  also applied to the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory in .

We would like to thank Nick Dorey and Prem Kumar for many useful conversations on the mass deformed quiver theories.


text:
# Isotrivially fibred isles in the moduli space of surfaces of general type

## 1 Introduction

In \[Ca00\], Catanese introduced the notion of ’surfaces isogenous to a product’, partly because the notion of ’isotrivially fibred surface’ is not stable under deformation. For the former he obtains a complete discription of the moduli space (of surfaces of general type) by means of fixed loci in products of Teichmüller spaces, while for isotrivially fibred surfaces his description is restricted to the sublocus of surfaces having the same topological type as a given isotrivially fibred surfaces minus their singular fibres.
In this paper we complement these results in two ways. First we describe entirely the connected components $`N_2`$ of the moduli space, which contain these isotrivial isles in the simplest case of monodromy group $`G=/2`$. We use the fact (Theorem 3.1), that these surfaces are double coverings of a product of curves, if we impose some restrictions on the irregularity. This enables us to enumerate the connected components of $`N_2`$, and to calculate its dimension and that of its isotrivially fibred subloci (Corollaries 3.3 and 3.4).
Secondly we give an example, that this method does not extend to bigger monodromy groups, by showing that isotrivially fibred surfaces with different monodromy group can occur in one connected component of the moduli space (Proposition 4.1). For this purpose we use the describtion of abelian coverings given in \[FP97\].
The results of this paper are part of the author’s dissertation (\[Mo02\]), which describes moduli spaces for different types of fibred surfaces, by exploiting high irregularity.

#### Acknowledgements

The author thanks his thesis advisor Frank Herrlich for his permanently open door to his office.

### Notation

* We use the complex numbers $``$ as our base field throughout.
* By a surface of general type $`X`$ we think of its canonical model, i.e. a normal surface with $`K_X`$ ample and at most rational double points.
* $`𝔖()`$ is the functor, which associates to a scheme $`T`$ the isomorphism classes of families of surfaces of general type over T. ’Family’ always implies proper and flat. We denote by $`N`$ its coarse moduli space.
* A fibration of $`X`$ is a morphism $`XB`$ to a smooth curve $`B`$ of genus $`b`$ with connected fibres. Let $`g`$ denote the genus of the fibres. We call $`(g,b)`$ the type of the fibration. We will suppose that $`g2`$ (fibre condition (FC)) and $`b2`$ (base condition (BC)), so that by \[Be91\] and \[Ca00\] the property of having a type $`(g,b)`$-fibration is deformation invariant. This also implies that minimal models and relatively minimal models coincide. And they admit such a fibration if and only if the minimal model does.
* We denote by $`𝔖_{g,b}()`$ the subfunctor of $`𝔖()`$ parametrizing $`(g,b)`$-fibred surfaces. We only employ this notation when $`(BC)`$ and $`(FC)`$ are fulfilled.
* We use different notations to distinguish between a line bundle $`L`$ on a surface $`X𝔖(\mathrm{Spec})`$ and a family of line bundles $``$ on a family of surfaces $`XT`$. Given a locally free sheaf $`L`$ on $`X`$, we denote the associated geometric vector bundle by $`𝕍(L)X`$.

## 2 Monodromy and Albanese-image

Given a fibration $`h:XB`$, we let $`B^{}`$ the locus where the fibres are smooth. Recall that $`h`$ is said to be isotrivial (or of constant moduli), if the image of the canonical mapping $`B^{}M_b`$ to the moduli space for smooth curves is just one point.
Due to (FC) there is a group $`G`$, the monodromy group, such that after a galois base change $`C_1B`$ with group $`G`$, étale outside the images of degenerate fibres, we have

$$C_1\times C_2C_1\times _BX,$$

where $`C_2`$ is a fibre of $`h`$. $`G`$ acts on both $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ and we denote the quotient under the diagonal action by $`Q=(C_1\times C_2)/G`$.
For symmetry let $`B=B_1`$, $`b=b_1`$, $`B_2=C_2/G`$ and $`g(B_2)=b_2`$. We abbreviate $`Y=B_1\times B_2`$ and call the projections $`p_i:YB_i`$. By \[Ser96\] we know that $`q(X)=b_1+b_2`$ and if $`b_2>0`$ the natural birational map $`\epsilon :XQ`$ is a morphism, i.e. $`X`$ has two fibrations $`h_1:XB_1`$ and $`h_2:XB_2`$.
Details for this can be found in \[Ser96\] and \[Ca00\].

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`XT𝔖_{g,b}`$ be a family of surfaces. Suppose that (at least) one fibre admits an isotrivial fibration with $`qb+2`$. If $`XT`$ admits a section, the image of the (relative) Albanese-map $`\alpha `$ is a family of products of smooth curves $`B_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) over $`T`$ of genera $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$.

Proof: Suppose $`T=\mathrm{Spec}`$ and $`X`$ isotrivial. The Albanese variety has dimension $`b_1+b_2`$ and its universal property applied to $`h_1\times h_2`$ induces an isogeny $`\mathrm{Alb}(X)\mathrm{Jac}(B_1)\times \mathrm{Jac}(B_2)`$ and hence a finite morphism $`\alpha (X)Y`$. The image of $`Y`$ under the inverse isogeny generates the Albanese variety. As we excluded the cases $`b_1=1`$ and $`b_2=1`$, this is only possible when $`\alpha (X)=Y`$.
This argument did not make full use of the isotriviality but only of the existence of both fibration and numerical conditions, i.e. deformation invariant properties. Hence it also applies to the other fibres and in the relative setting by rigidity of a product of curves. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.2.

If $`q=b_1+1`$, the Albanese image need not to be a product of $`B_1`$ and an elliptic curve. This is the reason, why we exclude this case, although similar investigations can be made also for coverings of elliptic fibrations.

## 3 Isotrivial surfaces with monodromy group $`G=/2`$

We restrict ourselves in this section to surfaces in $`𝔖_{g,b}^2`$, which is the subfunctor of $`𝔖_{g,b}`$ with $`qb_1+2`$ parametrizing surfaces, whose (generic) degree of the Albanese map equals $`2`$ and where the corresponding components of the moduli space contain an isotrivially fibred surface, i.e. such that Lemma 2.1 applies. We shall exclude the case that $`G`$ acts freely on $`C_1\times C_2`$ , which is dealth with in \[Ca00\] (those surfaces will be called isogenous to a product).

Under these conditions Lemma 2.1 ensures for each $`X𝔖_{g,b}^2(T)`$ the existence of fibrations $`h_i:XB_i`$: The section required there can be created after an étale base change and these fibrations (though not the Albanese morphism) descend to $`T`$. The next theorem will show, that $`\alpha `$ is not only generically of degree $`2`$ but in fact finite.

Recall that a double covering $`XY`$ of surfaces over $`T`$ is given by data $`(L,D)`$, where $`D`$ is an effective, flat divisor on $`Y`$ and $`L`$ is a line bundle on $`Y`$ with $`L^2=𝒪_Y(D)`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The surfaces in $`𝔖_{g,b}^2()`$ are double coverings of a product of curves $`Y=B_1\times B_2`$ of genus $`b_i`$, $`b_i2`$, ramified over a curve with at most simple singularities.
A general surface in $`𝔖_{g,b}^2()`$ is smooth, i.e. given $`X_0𝔖_{g,b}^2()`$, there is a family $`XT𝔖_{g,b}^2(T)`$ over a $`1`$-dimensional pointed base $`(T,0)`$, whose fibre over $`0`$ is $`X_0`$ and where all the other fibres are smooth.
A surface $`X`$ in $`𝔖_{g,b}^2()`$ is isotrivially fibred, if and only if the branch divisor of $`XY`$ is composed of horizontal and vertical curves.

Proof: Let $`X𝔖_{g,b}^2()`$. Stein factorisation gives $`XX^{}Y`$, where $`X^{}`$ is a double covering of $`Y`$. $`X^{}`$ has only rational double points (and hence coincides with $`X`$), if and only if $`D`$ has only simple singularities (\[BPV84\] Th. II.5.1). Thus we have to show, that the open subfunctor

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔖_{g,b}^2}(T)=\{XT𝔖_{g,b}^2(T)|X\alpha (X)\text{ is finite}\}$$

is also closed. Let $`XT𝔖_{g,b}^2(T)`$ be a family over the pointed scheme $`(T,0)`$, such that the restriction to $`T^{}=T0`$ is in $`\stackrel{~}{𝔖_{g,b}^2}(T^{})`$. After an étale base change we may suppose, that $`X`$ admits a simultaneous resolution of singularities. $`X|_T^{}`$ comes with an involution $`\tau `$ whose quotient is $`\alpha (X)|_T^{}`$. As $`X`$ has an ample canonical divisor, we can apply \[FP97\] Prop. 4.4 to extend $`\tau `$ to an involution on $`X`$. All we need is to show, that for the fibre over $`0`$ we have $`X_0/\tau \alpha (X_0)`$. But this follows noting that $`\alpha `$ factors via $`X/\tau `$ and that $`X/\tau T`$ is flat (see e.g. \[Ma97\]).
The second assertion follows from the first and the theorem of Bertini, once we have shown that $`L`$ is ample. This immediately follows from the exclusion of the case of surfaces isogenous to a product. And the last assertion should be clear by the given description. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.2.

If $`XT𝔖_{g,b}^2(T)`$ admits a section, there are line bundles $`_i`$ on $`B_i`$, such that $`=p_1^{}_1p_2^{}_2`$.

Proof: Due to the section we have

$$\mathrm{Pic}_{B_1\times B_2}/T\mathrm{Pic}_{B_1/T}\times \mathrm{Pic}_{B_2}\times \mathrm{Corr}(B_1,B_2),$$

where $`\mathrm{Corr}(B_1,B_2)`$ is the functor of divisorial correspondences between $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$. If $`T=\mathrm{Spec}`$ and $`X`$ is isotrivially fibred, we know that $`L^2=𝒪_Y(D)=p_1^{}𝒪_{B_1}(D_1)p_2^{}𝒪_{B_2}(D_2)`$. As $`\mathrm{Corr}(B_1,B_2)`$ has no nontrivial nilpotent elements, this splitting is also possible for $`L`$ and as the zero section of $`\mathrm{Corr}(B_1,B_2)`$ is an open and closed immersion, this remains also valid for arbitrary $`XT𝔖_{g,b}^2(T)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

By an étale base change we can always suppose, that a section exists. To analyse dimensions and connected components of the moduli space, we can hence use in the sequel the functor

$$Q(T)=\{(Y/T,_1,_2,s)\}$$

where

$$Y=B_1\times B_2_{b_1}(T)\times _{b_2}(T),_i\mathrm{Pic}_{B_i/T},s\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,p_1^{}_1p_2^{}_2)$$

instead of $`𝔖_{g_1,b_1}^2(T)`$.

If we let $`d_i=\mathrm{deg}L_i`$, our description yields:

###### Corollary 3.3.

Two surfaces in $`𝔖_{g_1,b_1}^2()`$ lie in the same connected components, if and only if their invariants $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$, $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ coincide. We hence denote these components by $`N_2(b_1,b_2,d_1,d_2)`$.

Proof: By the above theorem the conditions are clearly necessary.
Let $`𝒴=_1\times _2M^{[n]}`$ denote the universal family of products of smooth curves together with level-$`n`$-structures (to obtain a fine moduli space). Fix a line bundle $`L=h_1^{}L_1h_2^{}L_2`$ on $`Y`$ and let $`g:P=\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/M^{[n]}}^LM^{[n]}`$ the component of the relative Picard scheme parametrizing line bundles linearly equivalent to $`L`$. Next we take the scheme $`F`$ representing the functor

$$T\{(𝒴,,s)|(𝒴,)h_P(T),s\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒴,)\},$$

where $`h_P`$ denotes the functor of points of $`P`$. The existence of $`F`$ is garanteed by (\[EGA\] III, Th. 7.7.6) and (\[EGA\] I, Prop. 9.4.9). We will restrict $`F`$ to the open locus $`F^{}`$, which parametrizes sections $`s`$ whose zero locus has only simple singularities and we denote by $`f`$ the natural morphism $`FP`$. The fibres of $`f`$ are $`H^0(C_1,L_1)H^0(C_2,L_2)`$, where $`C_i`$ and $`L_i`$ are the curves and bundles corresponding to the image. And of course, if this vector space is non-zero, the intersection with $`F^{}`$ is dense in it.
We claim that $`f(F^{})`$ is connected: This is the locus of quadruples $`(C_i,L_i)`$, $`(i=1,2)`$, such that $`H^0(C_1,L_1)H^0(C_2,L_2)`$ is non-zero. $`g`$ maps $`f(F^{})`$ properly onto $`M^{[n]}`$, which is connected. And the fibre of $`g`$ over $`C_1\times C_2`$ is $`W_{d_1}^0(C_1)\times W_{d_2}^0(C_2)`$, using the notation in \[ACGH85\]. This space is connected by \[ACGH85\] Th. V.1.4 and our claim follows by elementary topology.
Suppose $`F^{}`$ is the disjoint union of closed subsets $`A`$ and $`B`$. Then $`\overline{f(A)}`$ and $`\overline{f(B)}`$ have a common point $`pf(F^{})`$. Suppose $`pf(A)`$ and hence $`f^1(p)A`$. Let $`B_0f(B)`$ a subset, over which the fibres of $`f`$ have constant positive dimension (i.e. $`f|_{B_0}`$ is a bundle of vector spaces) and such that $`p\overline{B_0}`$. Consider the closure $`C=\overline{f^1(B_0)}`$ in $`F`$, which is still a bundle of vector spaces and whose image under $`f`$ contains $`p`$. $`CF^{}`$ is dense in each fibre of $`f|_C`$ and by construction $`BC`$ is dense in $`C`$. This implies that $`f^1(p)B\mathrm{}`$, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

For large $`d_i`$ we can easily compute the dimension of the moduli space and the locus. Let $`h_i^0=dimH^0(B_i,L_i^2)`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

###### Corollary 3.4.

If $`2d_i>2b_i2`$ (i.e $`L^2K_Y`$ is ample), the dimension of $`N_2(b_1,b_2,d_1,d_2)`$ is

$$dimN_2=4b_1+4b_27+h_1^0h_2^0$$

Isotrivial surfaces form irreducible, closed subvarieties in $`N_2(b_1,b_2,d_1,d_2)`$ of dimension $`4b_1+4b_2+h_1^0`$ and of dimension $`4b_1+4b_2+h_2^0`$.

Proof: $`N_2(b_1,b_2,d_1,d_2)`$ has a canonical morphism to the moduli space of pairs of curves together with a line bundle of degree $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ respectively. This space is irreducible and has dimension $`4b_1+4b_26`$. The ampleness of $`L^2K_Y`$ ensures that the fibres are dense in a vector space of dimension $`h_1^0h_2^01`$ and this gives the first assertion.
We obtain the irreducible components of the locus of isotrivial surfaces by taking only sections of the form $`s=s^1s^2`$, i.e. by fixing $`s^1`$ and letting $`s^2`$ vary or vice versa. The degree hypothesis implies that there are no obstructions to deforming these sections. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.5.

These results illustrates in the ’simplest possible’ case Catanese’s result (\[Ca00\] Th. 5.4), that if we fix the ’topological type’ (see loc. cit. for details) of the isotrivially fibred surface minus the singular fibres, we obtain irreducible components of the isotrivial locus,

## 4 The monodromy group is not invariant under deformations

This section contains the ’negative’ result, that in general one cannot hope to analyse components of the moduli space containing isotrivial surfaces by fixing the monodromy group.

###### Proposition 4.1.

If the isotrivial surfaces $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ belong to one connected component of $`N_{g,b}`$, the orders of the respective monodromy groups $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are equal, but these groups need not to be isomorphic.

Proof: The first statement is clear because of Lemma 2.1 and the fact that the group order is the (generic) degree of the Albanese map.
To prove the second we can take the simplest possible case $`G_1=/4`$ and $`G_2=(/2)^2`$ and use the description of the isotrivial surfaces as abelian coverings of $`Y=B_1\times B_2`$. Fix $`Y`$ with $`b_i2`$ and take line bundles $`L_i`$ on $`B_i`$ together with sections $`s^i\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_i,L_i^4)`$. Let $`L=p_1^{}L_1p_2^{}L_2`$ and $`s=s^1s^2`$. The surface

$$X_{G_1}=V(w_1^4s)V(L^4),$$

where $`w_1`$ is a local coordinate of $`L`$ and $`V`$ denotes the vanishing locus, is an isotrivial $`G_1`$-covering of $`Y`$. As $`X_{G_1}=(C_1\times C_2)/G_1`$, where $`C_i`$ is the $`G_1`$-covering corresponding to $`L_i`$ and $`s^i`$, this surface has at most $`A_3`$ singularities. Due to the conditions on $`b_i`$, no rational curve is contained in $`X_{G_1}`$, which is hence in $`𝔖_{g,b}`$ (where, as usual, $`b=b_1`$ and $`g`$ is the genus of the fibres of $`XB_1`$).
Fix two generators $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of $`G_2`$ and two sections $`s_\alpha =s_\alpha ^1s_\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,L^4)`$, $`s_\beta =s_\beta ^1s_\beta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,L^2)`$. We can arrange that the zeros of $`s_\alpha ^i`$ and $`s_\beta ^i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are disjoint. Hence the surface

$$X_{G_2}=V(w_\alpha ^2s_\alpha ,w_\beta ^2s_\beta )𝕍(L^4L^2),$$

where $`w_\alpha `$ and $`w_\beta `$ are local coordinates of $`L^2`$ and $`L`$, has only $`A_1`$-singularities, i.e. is indeed in $`𝔖_{g,b}`$.

We construct a surface $`X_1`$ which is easily seen to deform to both $`X_{G_1}`$ and $`X_{G_2}`$. Suppose there are $`s_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,L^2)`$ and $`s_4\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,L)`$, such that $`\mathrm{div}(s_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{div}(s_4)`$ are both smooth and have only normal crossings and such that $`\mathrm{div}(s_4+s_2^2/4)`$ is smooth. We claim that, denoting $`w_i`$ local coordinates of $`L^i`$,

$$X_1=V(w_2^2s_2w_2s_4,w_1^2w_2)𝕍(L^4L^2)$$

is in $`𝔖_{g,b}`$: The quotient $`\stackrel{~}{X_1}`$ of $`X_1`$ under $`w_1w_1`$ ramifies over $`\mathrm{div}(s_4+s_2^2/4)`$ and is hence smooth. And $`X_1\stackrel{~}{X_1}`$ ramifies over $`w_2=0`$, which has smooth components and normal crossings by hypotheses.
Obviously $`X_1`$ deforms to $`V(w_1^4s_4)𝕍(L^4)`$ and this is a deformation of $`X_{G_1}`$. And by change of coordinates $`w_\alpha =w_2s_2/2`$, $`w_1=w_\beta `$, we have

$$X_1V(w_\alpha ^2(s_4+s_2^2/4),w_\beta ^2w_\alpha s_2/2)𝕍(L^4L^2),$$

which obviously deforms to $`X_{G_2}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Martin Möller
Universität Karlsruhe
Mathematisches Institut II
Englerstr. 2
D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
e-mail: moeller@math.uni-karlsruhe.de


text:
# Parity Violation in 𝑝⃗𝑝 and 𝑛⃗𝑝 Experiments

## 1 Introduction

> Sometimes is is necessary to repeat what we know. All mapmakers should place the Mississippi at the same location, and avoid originality. – Saul Bellow

In preparing a review talk, one becomes acutely aware of essentially “repeating what we know”. In this review I will, however, do just that, concentrating in particular on what we know about $`pp`$ and $`np`$ parity violation experiments in which we control the spin of the incident nucleon, in other words experiments that use the nucleon spin as a tool, rather than experiments concerned with the nature of the nucleon spin itself. I will give a historical overview of $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}p`$ parity violation experiments, with technical details of the experiments I am most familiar with – the TRIUMF 221 MeV $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ experiment and the Los Alamos $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ experiment now being installed at LANSCE. What I cover is a biased personal selection, and I refer readers interested in more background to two fine reviews of the field by Adelberger and Haxton  and Haeberli and Holstein .

### 1.1 Parity and the Weak Interaction

The parity operation reflects all space coordinates through the origin ($`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}`$), which is equivalent to a mirror reflection (which reverses only one space coordinate)111The answer to your kids’ question, “Why does a mirror reverse left-right but not up-down?” is that it doesn’t; it reverses fore and aft. You do the left-right reversal when you turn the paper around to look at it in the mirror. and a 1800 rotation (which reverses the other two). Since we can assume rotational invariance, the parity operation is often thought of as simply a mirror reflection. If a process is not identical to its mirror image, it is said to be parity violating (PV) or parity nonconserving (PNC). In physics, parity violation is exclusive to processes involving the weak interaction, such as:

1. $`\mu e^{}+\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$
2. $`np+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e`$; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e`$
3. $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$
4. $`pppp`$

The first three examples, in the leptonic, semi-leptonic and hadronic $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=1`$, sectors, clearly involve the weak interaction; the decays shown would disappear without it. The last example, however, in the purely hadronic $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0`$ sector, is so dominated by the strong interaction that, were the weak interaction to disappear, the process would be virtually unchanged. The only way to see the effects of the weak interaction in such processes is to look for parity violation, and the experimental signal is very small. In $`pp`$ scattering, for example, the parity violating part of the scattering cross section is typically of order $`10^7`$ of the parity conserving part.

## 2 $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ Experiments

Figure 1 shows typical $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ parity violation experiments. They scatter a longitudinally polarized beam of protons from a hydrogen target and measure the difference in cross section for right-handed and left-handed proton helicities. The low energy experiments use scattering geometry, in which the detectors measure the scattered protons directly. The intermediate and high energy experiments use transmission geometry in which the change in scattering cross section is deduced from the change in transmission through the target. Transmission geometry uses a simpler detector arrangement, but can’t be used at low energies because the energy loss in the target is too high to permit a sufficiently thick target. The quantity reported by both types of experiments is the parity violating longitudinal analyzing power, $`A_z=\frac{\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}}{\sigma ^++\sigma ^{}}`$, where $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are the scattering cross sections for positive and negative helicity. Because the statistical precision required on $`A_z`$ is typically $`\pm 10^8`$, it would take too long to count the requisite $`10^{16}`$ scattered particles, and all $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ experiments so far have used current mode detection (as opposed to counting individual scattered particles).

#### 2.0.1 Historical Summary

A roughly historical summary of $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ parity violation experiments is given in Table 1. The long time taken to acquire measurements at a reasonable selection of energies and with small experimental uncertainties reflects the technical difficulty of these measurements. Running time is dominated by the time required to understand, and correct for, the various sources of systematic error. The time required to get the desired statistical precision is normally small by comparison.

#### 2.0.2 Interpretation of the Results

Although it is known that the weak force is carried by the W and Z bosons, it is also known that their range is very small ($`0.002fm`$), and most authors assume that at low and intermediate energies the protons never get close enough for direct W and Z exchange. The interaction is normally treated in a meson exchange model with one strong, parity conserving vertex and one weak, parity non-conserving vertex. The weak vertex is parameterized in terms of a set of weak meson-nucleon coupling constants, $`f_\pi ,h_\rho ^{0,1,2},h_\omega ^{0,1}`$, where the subscript denotes the exchanged meson and the superscript gives the isospin change . Mesons heavier than the $`\omega `$-meson are not included because of the hard core of the nucleon-nucleon force. Further, for the $`pp`$ interaction there is no $`\pi `$ exchange because the $`\pi ^0`$ is its own antiparticle and parity violation would also imply CP violation, another factor of 103 suppression. CP invariance also excludes other neutral scalar and pseudoscalar mesons such as the $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`S`$, and $`\delta ^0`$ from consideration (Barton’s theorem ).

The weak couplings were calculated by Desplanques, Donoghue and Holstein , and subsequently by a number of other authors . The range of calculated values is large, and an experimental determination is needed.

Figure 2 shows $`A_z`$ as a function of energy, broken down into contributions from various partial wave mixings . Since the parity is $`(1)^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the orbital angular momentum, one would not normally expect partial waves differing by one unit in $`\mathrm{}`$ (S-P, P-D, etc.) 222The notation in Fig. 2 is $`{}_{}{}^{(2S+1)}\mathrm{}_{J}^{}`$, where S is the total spin (0 or 1), $`\mathrm{}`$ = S,P,D,F is orbital angular momentum of 0,1,2,3, and J is the total angular momentum. to mix, but due to the weak force, some small mixing occurs. At low energy, $`A_z`$ is dominated by the contribution of S-P mixing. At the energy of the TRIUMF experiment, $`A_z`$ arises almost exclusively from P-D mixing. The shape of the curves is set by the strong interaction, while the multiplying factor is set by the weak interaction. By adjusting the multiplying factors to fit the data, the weak meson-nucleon couplings can be extracted. The lower solid line is the total $`A_z`$ calculated by Driscoll and Miller  using the DDH  weak couplings. The upper solid line is from a calculation by Carlson et al.  using adjusted values of the weak couplings.

$`pp`$ experiments are sensitive to the combinations $`h_\rho ^{pp}=h_\rho ^{(0)}+h_\rho ^{(1)}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}h_\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`h_\omega ^{pp}=h_\omega ^{(0)}+h_\omega ^{(1)}`$. Using the AV18 strong potential  and CD-Bonn values for the strong couplings , Carlson et al.  calculate that

$`A_z(13.6MeV)`$ $`=`$ $`0.059h_\rho ^{pp}+0.075h_\omega ^{pp}`$
$`A_z(45MeV)`$ $`=`$ $`0.10h_\rho ^{pp}+0.14h_\omega ^{pp}`$
$`A_z(225MeV)`$ $`=`$ $`0.038h_\rho ^{pp}+0.010h_\omega ^{pp}`$
These constraints are shown graphically in Fig. 3. Notice that the precision results from Bonn and PSI determine essentially the same combination of couplings.

The TRIUMF $`pp`$ experiment  is a transmission experiment, as depicted in the bottom panel of Fig. 1. A 221 MeV longitudinally polarized proton beam was passed through a 40 cm long liquid hydrogen target, which scattered about 4% of the beam. Hydrogen filled ion chambers located upstream and downstream of the target measured the change in transmission when the spin of the incident protons was flipped from right-handed to left-handed. Although a very good optically pumped polarized ion source  was used that minimized the changes in beam properties other than helicity, other beam properties still change very slightly. These helicity-correlated beam property changes cause a systematic shift in the $`A_z`$ distribution, and corrections must be made. To do this, the TRIUMF group continuously measured the helicity correlated changes in beam properties and made corrections based on the sensitivities determined in separate control measurements. The data before and after correction are shown in Fig. 4. The main effect visible to the eye is from first moments of transverse polarization resulting from the distribution of transverse polarization components across the beam. All the corrections are summarized in Table 2. The measured $`A_z`$ actually came half from true parity violation and half from false effects.

## 3 $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ Experiments

Unlike the $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ experiments just discussed, which are sensitive to $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ exchange, $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ experiments are sensitive almost exclusively to pion exchange, and measure the weak pion-nucleon coupling, $`f_\pi `$.333Some authors quote $`H_\pi =f_\pi \frac{g_\pi }{\sqrt{32}}`$, where $`g_\pi `$ is the strong pion-nucleon coupling. Measurements such as the circular $`\gamma `$-ray polarization from 21Ne , or the longitudinal analyzing power in $`p\alpha `$ scattering , provide constraints on a combination of $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, and $`\omega `$ couplings. The most precise limit on $`f_\pi `$ alone is believed to be from measurements of circularly polarized gamma rays from a parity mixed doublet in $`{}_{}{}^{18}F`$ . These results, however, are only about 10% of theoretical predictions , which give $`f_\pi 4\times 10^7`$, and are also at odds with the large value of $`f_\pi `$ deduced from measurements of the anapole moment in $`{}_{}{}^{133}Cs`$ , although the $`{}_{}{}^{133}Cs`$ experiment is also sensitive to $`h_\rho ^{(0)}`$, and, as pointed out by Wilburn and Bowman,  the disagreement may not be too significant.

$`npd\gamma `$ radiative capture measurements can be made with unpolarized neutrons, as was done in the Leningrad experiment , but the circular polarization, $`P_\gamma `$, of the capture gammas must be measured and the analyzing power of the polarimeters is very low. In an $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ experiment, the incident cold neutrons are polarized vertically and the gamma rays produced by neutron capture in the hydrogen target are expected to be emitted slightly more in the direction opposite to the neutron spin. The up-down asymmetry $`A_\gamma 0.11f_\pi `$ provides a clean measure of $`f_\pi `$ free of nuclear structure uncertainties . Previous measurements at ILL Grenoble gave $`A_\gamma =(6\pm 21)\times 10^8`$  and $`A_\gamma =(1.5\pm 4.8)\times 10^8`$ , but neither result was accurate enough to impose a significant constraint.

An experiment is now being prepared at Los Alamos to measure the gamma ray asymmetry in $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ with an uncertainty of $`\pm 0.5\times 10^8`$ . The expected asymmetry is $`A_\gamma 5\times 10^8`$.

The apparatus is shown schematically in Fig. 5. A pulsed, 800 MeV, 100-150 $`\mu `$A proton beam impinges on a tungsten spallation target. Neutrons from the spallation target are cooled in a liquid hydrogen moderator and transported to the experiment in a neutron guide. The neutron guide prevents the $`1/r^2`$ intensity fall-off that would otherwise occur, and also enhances the fraction of low energy neutrons. The peak neutron flux through the 9.5 cm x 9.5 cm guide is $`6\times 10^7`$ n/ms at 8 meV.

The neutrons are polarized by passing through a polarized $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ spin filter. Neutrons with spin parallel to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ spin pass through the filter, while neutrons with spin anti-parallel to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ spin are captured. The neutron polarization is determined by the front monitors located before and after the spin filter. If half the neutrons are captured, the polarization of the downstream neutron beam is 100%. A test $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ spin filter was demonstrated in a fall 2000 test run and the final version will be tested at the University of Michigan in fall 2002.

The polarized neutrons are captured in a 30 cm long, 20 L liquid para-hydrogen target operating at 17 K. The low temperature is important to keep a small (0.03%) equilibrium ortho-hydrogen fraction, as the spin 1 ortho-hydrogen molecule allows spin-flip scattering and destroys the asymmetry. The cross section for scattering from ortho-hydrogen is approximately 20 times that for scattering from para-hydrogen, so the neutron detector downstream of the target will indicate any change in the ortho-hydrogen fraction. Approximately 60% of the neutrons are captured in the para-hydrogen, producing a deuteron and a 2.2 MeV gamma ray. The gamma rays are measured by an array of 48 15 x 15 cm2 CsI(Tl) detectors surrounding the target.

The neutron spin is flipped 20 times per second by a 30 kHz RF spin filter. The RF itself has a very small ($`<0.1`$ mm) skin depth in, and is well contained by, the conducting shell surrounding the spin filter. In the fall 2000 test runs at LANSCE, the on-axis spin flipper efficiency was ¿95%.

The neutron beam is pulsed at 20 Hz, so the data acquisition operates in 50 ms “frames”. The pulsed beam makes it possible to identify neutrons by their time of flight over the 22 m flight path. The fast neutrons arrive at the target first, and for the first 9 ms the neutron energy is above the 15 meV required to excite a para-to-ortho transition in the para-hydrogen target. For this reason, the first 9 ms of a frame will have no physics asymmetry and can be used to measure background. From 9 ms to 30 ms, the neutron energy falls from 15 meV to 1.5 meV. The amplitude of the RF spin filter is synchronized with this fall to ensure that fast and slow neutrons are all rotated by 1800. After 40 ms, a “frame overlap chopper” blocks the neutrons so that slow neutrons from one frame are not still arriving when fast neutrons from the next pulse arrive. During the 40 ms to 50 ms dead interval, electronic noise can be checked. Different systematic errors have a different dependence on neutron energy and their time-of-flight signatures can be used to identify them. In addition, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ spin filter direction and the overall holding field can be reversed for further cancellation of systematic errors.

The beamline, FP12, is now almost complete at LANSCE. The experimental cave is scheduled for installation in early 2003 and commissioning runs are planned for summer and fall of 2003.

## 4 Summary

$`pp`$ and $`np`$ parity violation experiments provide a means to study the hadronic, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0`$ part of the weak interaction. $`\stackrel{}{n}pd\gamma `$ experiments are sensitive to the long range part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction and constrain the weak pion-nucleon coupling constant, $`f_\pi `$. Despite decades of experimental and theoretical work, the strength of this coupling is still very uncertain. The new, precision experiment now under construction at the LANSCE pulsed neutron source at Los Alamos should finally lay this question to rest. $`\stackrel{}{p}p`$ parity violation experiments are sensitive to the shorter range part of the nucleon-nucleon force and constrain the combinations $`h_\rho ^{pp}=h_\rho ^{(0)}+h_\rho ^{(1)}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}h_\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`h_\omega ^{pp}=h_\omega ^{(0)}+h_\omega ^{(1)}`$. Prior to 2001, low energy experiments had constrained only a linear combination of approximately equal parts $`h_\rho ^{pp}`$ and $`h_\omega ^{pp}`$. With the addition of the TRIUMF 221 MeV result in 2001, $`h_\rho ^{pp}`$ and $`h_\omega ^{pp}`$ are now separately constrained. The data so far are not sufficient to determine all 6 couplings, $`f_\pi ,h_\rho ^{0,1,2},h_\omega ^{0,1}`$, and much careful experimental work remains to be done. Nonetheless, one should remember that, in the words of Charles Babbage, “errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all”.