text:
# Limits of complete equilibration of fragments produced in central Au on Au collisions at intermediate energies

## 1 Introduction

The mechanism of fragment production at intermediate energy nucleus-nucleus collisions is a long standing problem which is important for many investigations, such as the study of the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition, the behaviour of nuclear matter under extreme conditions, and, in general, the nuclear equation of state. In this paper we concentrate on central collisions which deposite a large amount of energy into nuclei, and produce a fast explosion of nuclei into many fragments. Presently, there is evidence that at low projectile energies of $``$10–100 A$``$MeV the fragment production via multifragmentation of thermal-like sources is the dominating process Bon95 ; agos ; Lav ; Bouriq . With increasing energy dynamical effects, such as collective flow, becomes prominent. This implies that the fragmentation mechanism changes from a statistical to a dynamical one. However, the description of intermediate mass fragment (IMF) production as a result of the break-up of an equilibrated source with collective flow is very successful, as shown in many publications Lav ; will ; neu2 . We believe that such good descriptions were possible since the hypothesis of chemical equilibrium between different kinds of fragments is adequate for these reactions.

In this paper we analyse data from 100 to 1000 A$``$MeV. Some of these data were already analysed with different dynamical and statistical approaches. The present analysis involves new degrees of freedom. In particular, it emphasizes the importance of isospin characteristics of produced fragments for the determination of the reaction mechanism.

As suggested by many theoretical and experimental studies Lav ; will ; bon2 ; Des ; heid ; Schar ; hxi  the fragments may be produced in a fast initial (’preequilibrium’) process as well as at the full equilibration stage. Since the number of nucleons participating in the thermal-like source can decrease rapidly with the beam energy, dynamical processes of fragment formation should contribute essentially at higher energies. The mechanism of coalescence of nucleons into fragments is applied here for a complementary description of light fragment production to the statistical approach. In the following we discuss a relation between coalescence and statistical approaches and we point out that the coalescence mechanism may simulate the chemical equilibrium conditions. In this respect, we pay special attention to the chemical temperature and study its correlation with the light charged particles (LCP) velocities. However, our main aim is to determine properties of a completely equilibrated source, which is mainly responsible for IMF production. We emphasize, that the conclusions about equilibrium and nonequilibrium contributions concerns the production of fragments from nucleons only. We do not consider the problem of the nucleon thermalization and refer to experimentally selected central events which belong to an ensemble of nucleons in some degree of equilibration. The knowledge of the relation between equilibrium and non-equilibrium mechanisms of fragment production in dynamical processes is important for many applications both in nuclear physics and astrophysics. For example, similar processes are expected during the fast synthesis of elements in the early universe and in supernova explosions wallerstein .

## 2 Chemical temperatures evaluated from fragment data obtained in central Au+Au collisions

Data obtained by the FOPI collaboration at 100, 150, 250 and 400 A$``$MeV reis1 ; pogg  and data from the EOS collaboration eos ; lisa ; scott  at 1 A$``$GeV are analysed. Central events were selected by the criterion ERAT as described in ref. reis1  whereas the event centrality of the 1 A$``$GeV data was determined by multiplicity cuts (see ref. lisa ).

It is commonly accepted that the kinetic energies of fragments can be represented as a sum of thermal and collective components. The collective motion (radial flow) is an important ingredient of Au on Au collisions at intermediate energies and influences strongly the fragment energies. Kinetic energy distributions for central events have been analysed in the framework of the ’blast model’ which is described in detail in ref. reis1 . Here, we recall briefly only the main aspects. The collective energy stored into radial flow was determined by velocity profiles and an ansatz for the velocity distribution siem  of the fragments. The corresponding kinetic energy distributions were reproduced if the collective energy $`\epsilon _{coll}`$ amounts to 62$`\pm `$8 % of the center-of-mass energy EC.M. available in the collision. Then, the energy conservation requires that

$$\epsilon _{coll}+\epsilon _{th}=E_{C.M.}+Q$$
(1)
where $`Q`$ is the Q-value of the reaction and $`\epsilon _{th}`$ is the thermal energy. In the limit of classical statistics the temperature is determined by the multiplicities N of the emitted particles using the non-relativistic expression

$$\epsilon _{th}=\frac{3}{2}(N1)T^{}.$$
(2)
The temperatures found by this approach are $`T^{}`$=
17.2$`\pm `$3.4, 26.2$`\pm `$5.1 and 36.7$`\pm `$7.5 MeV for the beam energies 150, 250 and 400 A$``$MeV, respectively. Below we label them as ’kinetic’ temperatures $`T_{kin}`$. It was emphasized that the temperatures $`T^{}`$ are ’effective’ in the sense that they are not the temperature at freeze-out time, since the observed multiplicity may be raised due to late particle decays. In ref.reis1 , these temperatures were used as input for the statistical multifragmentation models QSM hahn , WIX fai  and SMM bot1  by assuming that the whole entire mass of the colliding Au nuclei undergoes thermalization. This assumption fails to reproduce the fragment multiplicities. The abundances of heavy clusters are underestimated up to 4 orders of magnitude (e.g. for Z=8 fragments at 400 A$``$MeV.) In ref.reis1  it was discussed that variations of the radial flow energy, the freeze-out densities and level density parameters within reasonable physical limits cannot account for such large deviations. Hence, the question arises about the applicability of established statistical models to cluster production in the midrapidity source and the meaning of the nuclear temperatures mentioned above. The present paper is intended to help to disentangle this ’puzzle’. First we ask whether these temperatures can be confirmed by other data available for the same collision system Au+Au measured with the same apparatus. Such possibility offer the yields of hydrogen and helium isotopes pogg  which can be treated by the isotope thermometry.

In ref. albe  it was shown that in an equilibrated system the double-yield ratio ($`R_1`$/$`R_2`$) of isotopes is directly related to the temperature of the corresponding grand canonical ensemble:

$$T_{iso}=\frac{b}{\mathrm{ln}\left(a(R_1/R_2)\right)}.$$
(3)
For the consideration of hydrogen ($`d,t`$) and helium isotopes ($`{}_{}{}^{3}He,^4He`$) one needs to fix the parameters $`b`$=14.32 MeV and $`a`$=1.59 moeh  which include the binding energies,masses and spin degeneracy. This isotope thermometer has proved to be successful in many applications. In particular, for the first time it was possible to establish experimentally the nuclear caloric curve pochodzalla95 .

Here, we refer to the isotopic yield ratios and kinetic energy distributions of $`d`$, $`t`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ measured with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$/$`E`$ telescopes within the C.M. polar angle range of $`60^0\mathrm{\Theta }_{C.M.}90^0`$ pogg . Most of the projectile fragments are expected to be suppressed within this angular coverage. The corresponding data sets at 100, 150 and 250 A$``$MeV were obtained from central event samples selected by the criterion ERAT5 reis1 . The integration of the C.M.- kinetic energy spectra delivered the intensity of deuterons, tritons, 3He and 4He from which the ratios R1 and R2 and the corresponding isotope temperature Tiso were determined. The obtained values $`T_{iso}=6.34\pm 0.50,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7.8}\pm 0.8`$ and $`11.51\pm 1.58MeV`$ for 100, 150 and 250 A$``$MeV, respectively, are about three times smaller than the corresponding kinetic temperatures. More details of the distribution of Tiso in the freeze-out volume are required. Here, we determined from the LCP spectra presented in ref. pogg  the isotope temperature in dependence on the velocity.

The C.M. kinetic energies Ekin were transformed into the particle C.M. velocities using the relativistic relation

$$\frac{v}{c}=\frac{\sqrt{E_{kin}(E_{kin}+2mc^2)}}{E_{kin}+mc^2}$$
(4)
where m is the corresponding LCP mass, $`c`$ is the light velocity. The spectra given in ref. pogg  have an equidistant energy binning for all particles. But, the velocity divisions become varying for different particle masses after the abscissa transformation. In order to cover the same range of velocities we analysed the kinetic energy distributions to E$`{}_{kin}{}^{}(d)<`$ 110 MeV, E$`{}_{kin}{}^{}(t,^3He)<`$ 150 MeV and E$`{}_{kin}{}^{}(^4He)<`$ 200 MeV for incident energies 100 and 150 A$``$MeV. The corresponding limits are 170, 250 and 300 MeV at 250 A$``$MeV. Equal reference velocities vi for the four LCP’s were found by an appropriate interpolation of the velocity distributions derived within these limits. The maximum velocity up to which yields of all LCP’s were available was around 0.3$``$$`c`$ at 250 A$``$MeV and 0.6$``$$`c`$ at 1 A$``$GeV, respectively. Then, the isotope temperature $`T_{iso}`$ was recalculated for subsequent velocities vi by means of equation (3) with the ratios

$`R_1=Y(d,v_i)/Y(t,v_i)`$
$`R_2=Y(^3He,v_i)/Y(^4He,v_i).`$ (5)
The mean temperatures evaluated within the limited velocity ranges are $`T_{iso}=`$ 5.30, 6.10 and 9.14$`\pm 0.60`$ MeV, respectively, for 100, 150 and 250 A$``$MeV. They are smaller than the values derived from the yields integrated over the complete energy spectrum, since the contributions of fragments with the highest energies are missing. However, this treatment is self-consistent for this subset of events, where the collective flow dominates over Coulomb and thermal energies and determines mostly the fragment velocities.

As shown in Fig. 1 the temperatures $`T_{iso}`$ become larger with increasing particle velocity, however, they are below the kinetic temperatures $`T^{}`$ of ref. reis1 . This finding suggests that the obtained data cannot be described by one temperature characterizing the complete equilibrium. An explanation of this phenomenon could be that fast (preequilibrium) nucleons are emitted earlier at very high temperatures and carry away excess energy, while slow nucleons form an equilibrium-like source bon2 . The observed light fragments are produced during the cooling process and the distribution of the chemical temperature versus the fragment velocity reflects evolution toward equilibrium. Figure 1 shows that in all cases the temperature $`T_{iso}`$ has some saturation at low velocities. This could be an evidence for reaching thermalization of nuclear matter at these velocities. Obviously, this thermal source can be characterized by very moderate chemical temperatures.

It is a general observation (e.g., see hxi ) that in intermediate energy collisions the kinetic energy spectra of fragments cannot be reproduced by using an unique temperature. In the following we propose a model to describe these feature.

## 3 Description of the model

An appropriate way to describe processes involving many particles is the statistical approach. The system characterized in the initial stage by nonequilibrium distribution functions evolves towards equilibration as a result of many interactions between the particles. In this process the system runs through different states. The first one can be considered as equilibration of the one-particle degrees of freedom. The following evolution toward total thermalization can be considered as involving of higher order particle correlations. For finite expanding systems the degree of equilibration depends on the reaction type. It is expected that the equilibration is less effective for nucleons at the surface than for nucleons deep inside the freeze-out volume. As a result, the mechanisms of the fragment production may be different also.

In the following we are going to interpret the experimental data within the framework of the expanded version of the statistical multifragmentation model Bon95 ; bot1  which treats also LCP’s emitted prior to the equilibration. The model phenomenologically includes collective motion (radial flow ($`F`$)) and, optionally, composite particle production by a new coalescence ($`C`$) algorithm. 111henceforth the sign SMMFC denotes this code version The subsequent application of these mechanisms is aimed at simulating the most important physical processes in many-particle systems.

The model parameters have to be derived from fits to the experimental data as described in section 4. It is important to use as many as possible observables for the analysis, and to ensure that the deduced parameters and their dependence on the beam energy are qualitatively consistent with general predictions of dynamical calculations bon2 .

Total energy and momentum balance is used for the implemented processes (except $`\gamma `$-emission). First we consider the quantities being constrained. A projectile with mass number $`A_1`$ and charge $`Z_1`$ collides at beam energy $`E_{beam}`$ with a target ($`A_2`$, $`Z_2`$) resulting in the center-of-mass energy $`E_{C.M.}`$ available for the total system with
$`A_0`$=$`A_1`$+$`A_2`$ and $`Z_0`$=$`Z_1`$+$`Z_2`$. Since the equilibrated stage is rather well understood, we start the analysis of experimental data related to IMF’s which are assumed to be produced only in the equilibrated (i.e. thermal) source. This source is parametrized by (i) the mass number $`A_s=A_{rel}A_0`$ (where $`A_{rel}`$ is the relative source size) and corresponding charge $`Z_s=A_s(Z_0/A_0)`$, (ii) the thermal excitation energy $`E^{}`$ and (iii) the collective energy per nucleon $`E_{flow}`$. In the analysis of the 1 A$``$GeV data the energy released due to pion production was taken into account. $`P_\pi `$ is the part of $`E_{C.M.}`$ taken away by pions. The remaining matter ($`A_{pre}=A_0A_s`$, $`Z_{pre}=Z_0Z_s`$) is assumed to be carried away by fast nucleons and LCP preequilibrium emission. In this case the change of the binding energy is given by the corresponding values for projectile, target, thermal and preequilibrium sources: $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=B_1+B_2B_sB_{pre}`$. From the conservation of the total energy follows the energy available for preequilibrium emission : $`E_{pre}=E_{C.M.}P_\pi E_{C.M.}E^{}E_{flow}+\mathrm{\Delta }B`$.

### 3.1 LCP emission at the fast stage.

Since the cooling during the expansion process is very fast, nucleons have no time to feel the part of the phase space corresponding to the composite particle production. A distribution of nucleons in the phase space at some ’freeze-out’ time is considered as start configuration. Generally, any distribution of nucleons in momentum and coordinate space after an initial dynamical process is conceivable. But, in some experiments, e.g. central nucleus–nucleus collisions reis1 , it is possible to select samples which are nearly isotropic in space and look like thermal events. Therefore, in such cases, we can simply assume that the nucleons populate the available many-body phase space uniformly, i.e. there is equilibration in one-particle degrees of freedom without manifestation of collective phenomena. That gives rise to a thermal distribution for individual nucleons in the thermodynamical limit. In the calculations we consider the system characterized by $`A_{pre}`$, $`Z_{pre}`$ and $`E_{pre}`$ and disintegrate the system into nucleons by taking away about 7 A$``$MeV (binding energy). The remaining energy turns into the kinetic energies of nucleons which populate the whole available many-body momentum space uniformly. The procedure developed in kopylov  is used to generate the nucleon momenta.

A composite particle can be formed from two or more nucleons if they are close to each other in the phase space. This simple prescription is known as coalescence model. Here we use the coalescence in momentum space which was recently described and applied in ref. neu1 . The basic assumption is that a dynamical process, which leads to a momentum redistribution, is very fast (nearly instantaneous), so that the coordinates of nucleons are just defined by their momenta. This is also justified taking into account quantum properties of the system since the wave functions of nucleons can be described in momentum space only. This type of coalescence model has proven successfully by reproducing experimental data (see e.g. BU63 ; gutbrod ; CS86 ).

In the standard formulation of the model it is assumed that the fragment density in momentum space is proportional to the momentum density of nucleons times the probability of finding nucleons within a small sphere of the coalescence radius $`p_0`$. For example, in a nonrelativistic approximation, from this hypothesis an analytical expression can be derived for momentum spectra of coalescent clusters:

$$\frac{d^3N_A}{d\overline{p}_n^3}\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}p_0^3\right)^{A1}\left(\frac{d^3N_1}{d^3\overline{p}_n}\right)^A$$
(6)
where $`\overline{p}_n`$ are the momenta per nucleon. $`N_A`$ and $`N_1`$ are the mean multiplicities of fragments with the mass numbers $`A`$ and $`1`$, respectively. This equation disregards correlations between different clusters since the conservation of the nucleon number is not taken into account. Therefore, the above formulae is valid only for $`N_1`$ $`N_2`$ $`N_3`$

We developed another formulation of the coalescence model. Nucleons can produce a cluster with mass number $`A`$ if their momenta relative to the center-of-mass moment of the cluster is less than $`p_0`$. Accordingly we take $`|\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{p}_{C.M.}|<p_0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},A`$, where $`\stackrel{}{p}_{C.M.}=\frac{1}{A}_{i=1}^A\stackrel{}{p}_i`$. In the following examples the value $`p_094`$ MeV/c has been adopted corresponding to relative velocities $`v_{rel}`$=0.1$`c`$ in agreement with previous analyses neu1 .

In this context we would like to draw attention to a problem which is sometimes disregarded in these simulations. Some nucleons may have such momenta that they can belong to different coalescent clusters according to the coalescence criterion. In these cases the final decision depends on the sequence of nucleons within the algorithm. To avoid this uncertainty we developed an iterative coalescence procedure. $``$ steps are calculated in the coalescence routine with the radius $`p_{0j}`$ which is increased at each step $`j`$: $`p_{0j}=(j/)p_0`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},`$). Clusters produced at earlier steps participate as a whole in the following steps. In this case the final clusters not only meet the coalescence criterion but also the nucleons have the minimum distance in the momentum space. This procedure is unique in the limit $`\mathrm{}`$ and we found that in practical calculations it is sufficient to use $``$= 5.

The importance of this coalescence mechanism is demonstrated by Fig. 2 which shows a comparison of measured isotopic yield ratios $`d/t`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$/$`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ in the beam energy range from 35 A$``$MeV to 1 A$``$GeV pogg ; eos ; Xi1 ; dos1 . Especially at higher incident energies the SMM calculations without consideration of coalescence underestimate strongly the existing data. The so-called ’$`{}_{}{}^{3}He^4He`$ puzzle’ can also be solved by taking into account the coalescence neu1 .

In the calculations we assume that only coalescent particles with $`A4`$ are produced. In principle, one can extend the model by considering IMF also, though the probabilities of coalescent IMF is small CS86 ; neu1 . In this case the expected portion of the thermal source will be even smaller than with restriction to $`A4`$. However, this paper is aimed at finding an upper limit for the contribution of thermal IMF’s. As justification of our assumption we present a good agreement with experimental data in section 5. There are also other experimental features supporting this assumption. In particular, the maximum of IMF production was found at small fragment velocities. These velocities correspond to the nearly constant temperatures $`T_{iso}`$ (see Fig. 1) associated with a thermal-like source.

### 3.2 Thermal source

At the freeze-out time of several tens of fm/c there is still a lot of relative dense nuclear matter in the center of the system in which instabilities (usually associated with the liquid-gas type transition) may occur. At this stage it is assumed that thermal equilibrium is reached, which is responsible for IMF production. The success of the SMM and other statistical models Bon95 ; fai ; gross  to describe such reactions (see e.g. refs.Bon95 ; agos ; Lav ; Bouriq ; will ; neu2 ) supports this assumption.

A microcanonical ensemble of all break-up partitions which consist of nucleons and excited fragments of different masses Bon95  is considered. If $`E^{}`$ and the volume of the thermal source are fixed, the statistical weight $`W`$ of a given break-up partition $`j`$ (i.e. the number of microscopic states leading to this partition) is determined by its entropy $`S_j`$:

$$W_j^{mic}exp(S_j(E^{},A_s,Z_s)).$$
(7)
The fragments with mass number $`A>4`$ are treated as heated nuclear liquid drops but the light fragments with $`A4`$ are considered as massive particles (’nuclear gas’) having only translational degrees of freedom. The ensemble of partitions is generated by Monte–Carlo methods according to their statistical weights $`W_j`$ constrained by the conservation laws. The microcanonical temperature $`T_{th}`$ is found from the energy balance by taking into account the Coulomb interaction, binding energies and excitations of fragments. After break-up of the system the fragments propagate independently in their mutual Coulomb fields and undergo secondary decays. The deexcitation of large fragments ($`A>16`$) is described by the evaporation-fission model, and for smaller fragments by the Fermi break-up model bot1 ; fermi .

### 3.3 Relation between coalescence mechanism and thermal fragment production.

An important relationship can be formally established
between the coalescence and thermal models as far as fragment production is considered. This will be illustrated by a simple statistical case. A system with the total number of nucleons $`A_0`$ disintegrates into fragments with mass number $`A`$, which are characterized only by their binding energy $`B_A`$. The fragments are considered as Boltzmann particles moving without interaction in the volume $`V`$. Then the statistical partition sum can be calculated as

$$\eta =\underset{partitions}{}\left(\underset{A}{}\frac{V}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}d^3\overline{p}e^{\frac{\overline{p}^2}{2m_nAT}}P_A\right),$$
(8)
where $`T`$ is the kinetic temperature characterizing the fragment translational motion, $`m_n0.94`$ GeV is the nucleon mass and $`\overline{p}`$ is the fragment momentum. The product includes all fragments in a partition. The momentum and the center of mass conservations are disregarded. The magnitude $`P_A`$ is proportional to the probability of the formation of fragment $`A`$, which can be written as $`P_A=exp(B_A/T)`$ in the case of full equilibration characterized by the canonical temperature $`T`$. However, the process of fragment formation may be complicated, and this process may not be related only to the thermal kinetic motion. Generally, one can write $`P_A=exp(B_A/T_A)`$, where $`T_A`$ is a parameter (’temperature’) related to a given fragment. One can introduce a Lagrange multiplier $`\mu `$ (like a ’chemical potential’), which can be found from the condition $`_AN_AA=A_0`$ (see ref. Bon95 ). Then the partition sum can be calculated as

$$\eta =\underset{N_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{N_{A_0}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{A}{}\left[\frac{N_A^{N_A}}{N_A!}\right].$$
(9)
Here $`N_A`$ is the multiplicity of fragment $`A`$ in a partition, and

$$N_A=\frac{V}{\lambda _T^3}A^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{B_A}{T_A}+\mu A\right],$$
(10)
with the thermal wavelength $`\lambda _T=\left(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/m_nT\right)^{1/2}`$. The last equation can be rewritten as

$$N_A=N_1^A\left(\frac{\lambda _T^3}{V}\right)^{A1}A^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{B_A}{T_A}).$$
(11)
At this point we can establish a correspondence between the thermal and the coalescence models (see also mek ). In the coalescence model, the fragment multiplicity can be determined after integration of equation (6). If the nucleons are assumed to have a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution of the same kinetic temperature one can easily get

$$N_A\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}p_0^3\right)^{A1}\frac{N_1^A}{(2\pi m_nT)^{3/2(A1)}A^{3/2}}.$$
(12)
By comparing equations (12) and (11) we obtain a formal relation between the model parameters:

$$\frac{4\pi p_0^3V}{3h^3}\left(A^3exp(\frac{B_A}{T_A})\right)^{1/(A1)}.$$
(13)
A possible physical interpretation of this relation is the following. If we assume that the freeze-out density and the coalescence parameter are determined by a short range interaction between nucleons and properties of formed fragments, then there is an effective ’temperature’ $`T_A`$ which characterizes the produced coalescent fragments. In the case of saturation of the binding energy, i.e. $`B_AA`$, the effective temperatures do not differ much for fragments with different $`A`$. That resembles the chemical temperature, when the relative probabilities of different fragments are determined by this temperature. One can see that the isotope temperature defined by equation (3) corresponds exactly to this temperature. Moreover, one can also use relation (13) in another way, namely, one can determine the coalescence parameters $`p_0`$ for different fragments from the experimentally obtained chemical temperatures cibor . Therefore, if statistical models are applied to interpret processes with strong dynamical features, we should take into account that the fragment velocities may be determined by the kinetic temperature (or by the initial dynamics) but not by the chemical temperature.

### 3.4 Radial flow

After a central collision the collective expansion is assumed to change only the velocity of the fragments taken into account by a flow velocity profile $`\stackrel{}{v}_f(r)=(\stackrel{}{r}/R)v_0`$ proportional to the position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ from the center of the disassembling equilibrated source Bon95 . Within this scenario the flow velocity is superimposed onto the stochastic motion of the generated fragments and only the stochastic thermal part is responsible for fragment production. The radial flow is supposed to change the fragment velocities but not the fragment yields. This ansatz comes from the hydrodynamical picture, however, in the case of nuclear multifragmentation there are theoretical arguments for using this approach at $`E_{flow}3`$ A$``$MeV Bon95 ; bon4 . In this paper we extend it also to higher flow energies in order to find limits of this approach by analyzing the experimental data. The adequacy of the above ansatz is formally supported by statistical-like properties of fragments produced in a dynamical process such as coalescence. The lattice model calculations lattice  show also that the flow may not influence statistical fragment formation.

This hypothesis of decoupling thermal and collective motions is sufficient for a reasonable reproduction of experimental data Lav ; Bouriq ; will ; neu2 . By introducing the phenomenological radial flow profile we fit the IMF velocities, however, we do not explain the velocities. Nevertheless, since we conserve the total energy and momentum in the system, this receipt allows to simulate individual multifragmentation events and to compare them directly with experimental data.

The described modified statistical model does not pretend to be a complete substitute for dynamical calculations but it should be considered as a effective tool for a primary analysis of experimental data. Then, the observables being properly reproduced, the physical meaning of the fitted parameters can be interpreted. The knowledge of these parameters (in particular, the temperatures) is supposed to be important for applications of thermal descriptions for many nuclear processes. The code SMMFC allows us to perform calculations with high statistics for large systems, as Au on Au, with reasonable computing time. The code produces event distributions directly related to the observables, e.g. the multiplicity of an event as well as the charge, the mass, the kinetic energy and the polar and azimuthal angles. In this way, the generation of single events allow us to process the calculated quantities in a way like the experimental data samples. Our implemented filter permits to study the influence of the detector geometry and resolution, the Z-dependent registration thresholds and chosen cut conditions.

## 4 Adjustment of the model parameters

The following four parameters of the model (see section 3)

$`E^{}`$, $`A_{rel}`$, $`E_{flow}`$ and $`P_\pi `$

determine the fragment production. The influence of the break-up density $`\varrho `$ is discussed below. A scanning over the complete parameter space, used in bon2 ; Des , is too time-consuming in our case so that we disentangle this coupled parameter set by finding specific sensitivities of the parameters to certain observables. We refer in the following only to the key observables which are necessary to fix the model parameters.

### 4.1 Thermal excitation energy

Multiplicity distributions of charged particles from central Au+Au collisions (ref. reis1 ) are plotted in Fig. 3. In addition, our results obtained from a subset of data selected by the centrality criterion $`ERAT0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{C.M.}25^0`$ are also shown in this figure. Since the experimental distributions have a nearly exponential shape dN/dZ$`exp(\alpha Z)`$ over the whole range of measured charges, they can be fit by an exponential form. We included into the fits only the part of the charge distributions with $`Z3`$ to exclude the influence of LCP on the parameter $`\alpha `$. In ref. reis1  also the Z=4 points were excluded from the fits performed within $`3Z10`$. Our fit parameters $`\alpha (3Z6)`$ obtained from the mentioned subset are somewhat larger than the corresponding one’s of ref. reis1 . Since the errors $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ from each fit are small compared to possible disturbance of the charge distribution by evaporative processes and sequential decays, we used the difference between the fit values given in ref. reis1  and $`\alpha (3Z6)`$ as a measure of possible deviations.

The parameters $`\alpha `$ derived from the data are nearly proportional to the available center-of-mass energy. Otherwords, the calculated charge distributions show that the steepness parameter $`\alpha (3Z6)`$ increases also linearly with the excitation energy of the thermal source. In order to find a quantitative relation, numerous charge distributions were simulated at various excitation energies. From a linear fit within the limits 3$``$Z$``$6 we found the relation $`\alpha `$ = $`0.571+0.1508E^{}`$ within the considered ranges of the source parameters. This result is nearly independent on the source size Arel, freeze-out density $`\varrho `$ and the radial flow Eflow. Steepness parameters $`\alpha `$ obtained from calculated charge yields for the full phase space deviate only by a few percents from those which were processed by the filter routine implemented in SMMFC.

The procedure of determining the parameters at 250 A$``$MeV is illustrated in Fig. 4. The values $`\alpha `$=0.91 and $`\alpha `$=1.15 reis1  found from fits to the data determine the interval of the corresponding excitation energy E (upper panel of Fig. 4).

### 4.2 Size of the thermal source

The interval of excitation energies being fixed, we are going to estimate the relative source size $`A_{rel}`$ by means of the IMF multiplicity which depends in terms of SMMFC on both $`A_{rel}`$ and $`E^{}`$. The lower panel of Fig. 4. demonstrates how $`A_{rel}`$ is estimated from the overlap of the experimental IMF multiplicity reis1  with the calculated one’s. $`A_{rel}=0.50\pm 0.05`$ at 250 A$``$MeV is consistent with both the multiplicity data and the estimated limits of $`E^{}`$. The expected sizes of the equilibrated source at 150 A$``$MeV and 400 A$``$MeV have been obtained analogously and the results are given in table 1. These parameters are consistent with those extracted in ref. Lav  at somewhat lower incident energies. The obtained trend of the decreasing size of the thermal source with the beam energy is supported by dynamical calculations. For example, the analysis of the FOPI data with the hybrid model BUU+SMM of ref. heid  has shown that in central Au+Au collisions the fraction of thermalized matter drops from $`A_{rel}`$=0.48 at 150 A$``$MeV to $`A_{rel}`$=0.3 at 250 A$``$MeV, respectively.

### 4.3 Radial flow

As start parameter we used results from previous analyses reis1 ; pogg ; lisa ; petro  which were slightly varied to get an optimum reproduction of the fragment’s mean kinetic energies. The values $`E_{flow}`$ and the allowed spread given in table 1 provide a satisfactory agreement between data and calculation. These values are in agreement with other analyses of the data reis3 .

### 4.4 Energy release by pions

The quantity $`P_\pi `$ was estimated (i) from pion multiplicities predicted by Vlassov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model calculations in dependence of the beam energy at impact parameters of b=3 fm stoe , (ii) from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance production probability in central Au+Au collisions aver , (iii) from the pion-to-proton ratios at 1.05 A$``$GeV pelt  and (iiii) the data in ref. munz . From all those references one can conclude that pion production at 1.05 A$``$GeV carries away $``$10 % of the available C.M. energy. For the lower considered energies the pion contribution is neglegible.

### 4.5 Break-up density

In the model SMM/SMMFC the free volume influencing the translational entropy of partitions is not determined by the total volume (or density) of the system, though this assumption is adopted in some other statistical analyses kuhn . The free volume reflects dynamics of fragment formation and it depends on the fragment multiplicity Bon95 . This ansatz is important for a good reproduction of experimental data Schar . In the model the density influences directly only the Coulomb interaction in the system. The resulting excitation energies of the equilibrated source are large compared to the Coulomb energies so that only minor changes in the fragment yields are expected if the freeze-out density is changed. This was confirmed by corresponding calculations within $`1/6\varrho `$/$`\varrho _01/3`$, where $`\varrho _0`$ is the normal nuclear density. Our final calculations were performed with a freeze-out density of $`\varrho `$=1/6 $`\varrho _0`$.

## 5 Comparison of experimental data with model calculations and discussion

### 5.1 Fragment charge distributions and multiplicities

Since our input parameters for SMMFC have been derived only from the IMF observables it is important to proof to what extent the model reproduces also the LCP multiplicities. Figure 3 and table 2 show that the model is able to reproduce the charge distributions from LCP’s to IMF’s in shape as well as in absolute scale provided that preequilibrium nucleons and the coalescenced particles are taken into account. On the contrary, calculations performed without coalescence show a clear underestimation of the Z=2 multiplicity as seen by comparison of tables 3 and 4 based on the data taken from Ref. reis1 .

### 5.2 Isotope Temperatures Tiso

In order to describe the experimental findings shown in Fig. 1 we performed model calculations by using the parameters evaluated in section 4 (see table 1). The calculation at 100 A$``$MeV was performed with extrapolated parameters given in table 1, which are consistent with parameters extracted in ref. Lav . The generated kinetic energy distributions of $`d`$, $`t`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ were filtered by the cuts set in the experiment pogg . Then the calculated LCP spectra were transformed into velocity distributions like the experimental data. The temperatures TH-He obtained from that reproduce almost quantitatively the data (see Fig. 1.)

In the calculations the increase of Tiso with velocity is mainly caused by a combined effect of the thermal and coalescence mechanisms, since they favour production of LCP’s with different energies neu1 . The temperature in this range of kinetic energies is also sensitive to the radial flow: the simulations undershoot the data if too less radial flow is assumed and overshoot them for too much flow. The parameters within the limits given in table 1 allow a reasonable reproduction of the data.

The isotope temperatures Tiso obtained from energy-
integrated yields, as well as from the yields in the limited range of fragment velocities (see section 2) are presented in Fig. 5. This figure shows also results of the ALADIN collaboration obtained for central Au+Au collisions in the energy range from 50 A$``$MeV to 200 A$``$MeV serf , as well as data at 35 A$``$MeV huan , which match also the found trend. Figure 5 shows also the microcanonical temperature $`T_{th}`$ of the thermal source calculated with the code SMMFC. As discussed in bon5  this temperature is slightly different from TH-He, however it shows clearly the same behaviour with increasing beam or excitation energy. Therefore, the isotope temperature at low beam energies can be used to deduce the temperature of the thermal source bon5 .

### 5.3 Kinetic energy spectra

In this section we compare measured kinetic energy distributions of fragments produced at 250 A$``$MeV and 1 A$``$GeV with corresponding calculations. Calculations with only the thermal source fail to reproduce the tails of the spectral shapes of Z=1 and Z=2 particles at 250 A$``$MeV (see Fig. 6). A consideration of the preequilibrium contribution improves the calculated shape. The displayed two data sets of Z=1 distributions demonstrate that the spectral shape is rather sensitive to the criterion how central events are selected. The calculated SMMFC distribution is close to the event sample obtained by the stringent combined criterion of ERAT and directivity (see ref.reis1 ).

The disagreement of the tails in the proton spectra might be due to deviations of the initial distributions of protons from a one–particle equilibration. Neither the spectral shape nor the multiplicity of light clusters can be reproduced without consideration of coalescence.

Generally, the presence of the radial flow affects the energy spectra and imitates a high temperature. As supposed, the radial velocities of the fragments depend on their positions in the freeze-out volume. This leads to an additional difference between velocities of fragments which is not connected with their thermal random motion. Therefore, the deduced source temperature may be essentially lower than the temperature extracted from fits of kinetic energy distributions to the data. For example, the calculations shown in Fig. 6 were performed with radial flow of Eflow = 32 A$``$MeV. The spectra shapes of lithium clusters generated by a thermal distribution superimposed with this flow are close to the measured data. The Siemens-Rasmussen formula siem , which does not take into account the effect of the fragment positions, reproduces the shape of this distribution also, if the kinetic temperature is $`T_{kin}`$ 29 MeV. However, this temperature is considerably larger than the thermal one.

In Fig. 7 we compare the mean kinetic energies calculated also for the heavier clusters with the corresponding data petro . The satisfactory agreement between data and calculation is consistent with the result of ref. reis1  where it was found that 34.0 $`\pm `$ 3.9 A$``$MeV of the available C.M. energy is stored into the radial flow.

Next we applied SMMFC to analyse data obtained in central Au+Au collisions around 1 A$``$GeV eos ; lisa . At this incident energy mostly LCP’s are produced and the influence of the thermal source on the fragment production is very limited. The model input parameters E and Arel (given in table 1) were estimated from the values at low $`E_{beam}`$ by straightforward extrapolation. The energy stored in radial flow was taken from ref. lisa . A slight variation of the parameters ($`\pm `$12%) was allowed to find optional agreement with the data. Proceeding on this input, the model calculations 222no filter was applied to the calculated events since it was emphasized (ref.eos ) that ’the TPC…allows measurements of spectra up to angles of $`90^o`$ in the center of mass with $`no`$ low-$`p_T`$ cut for central events’. give a quite reasonable description of the proton distribution (Fig. 8), demonstrating the high degree of one-particle equilibration reached in this central event sample.

However, protons from the complete thermalized source contribute only with a very small fraction (see the dotted line in Fig. 8). In tables 5 and 6 we compare experimental and calculated multiplicities and average kinetic energies of LCP’s. A sufficient agreement between data and calculations could be achieved. The data given in table 5 were used to calculate the temperature TH-He = 18.2$`\pm `$5.9 MeV. The corresponding isotope temperature calculated with SMMFC amounts to T$`{}_{iso}{}^{}`$ 18.0 MeV. However, these temperatures are considerably lower than the kinetic temperatures determined by the slope of the energy spectra.

In order to illustrate this point we compare our results with the fit of the data performed in eos ; lisa  based on the blast scenario of Siemens and Rasmussen siem . In Fig. 8 we show also the corresponding blast model fit to the proton spectrum equivalent to the high kinetic temperature of Tkin=81 MeV lisa . Nearly the same temperature reproduces also the $`d,t,^3He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ distributions lisa . The obvious difference between kinetic and isotope temperatures suggests that each of both temperature evaluations is related to different processes.

In Fig. 9. we compare the differential LCP spectra taken from ref. lisa  with SMMFC calculations using identical input parameters. A reasonable simultaneous reproduction of the spectral shapes of the above species can be achieved, if coalescence is taken into account. Results without coalescence (dashed histograms) deliver shapes quite different from the data. The shapes of LCP energy distributions calculated by SMMFC including coalescence are similar to the corresponding one’s obtained by the blast-model fits. From that one can conclude that the kinetic temperature, evaluated from such fits, characterizes the initial distribution of nucleons but it is different from the isotope temperature characterizing the chemical composition of the produced fragments.

Using the procedure described in section 2 we obtained the isotope temperature $`T_{HHe}`$ as function of the radial velocities. However, contrary to the increasing trend shown in Fig. 1, at 1 A$``$GeV beam energy the temperature $`T_{HHe}`$ does not increase with increasing velocity. Probably, this is a consequence of the coalescence mechanism which is mainly responsible for the LCP production (see also discussion in section 5.4).

### 5.4 Correlation of the radial flow with the chemical temperature

By comparing Fig. 5 with table 1 one can see that both the isotope temperature, characterizing the produced fragments, and the radial flow, reflecting the dynamics of the process, increase with the beam energy. We suggest that the correlation between these parameters may provide complementary information on mechanisms of fragment production.

As pointed out, there are two contributions to the isotope temperature given by the SMMFC. The first one is related to the fragment production in the thermal source, which dominates at low flow energies. Experimentally, this temperature could be identified approximately at small flow velocities, as seen in Fig. 1. In the following we depict $`T_{HHe}`$ extracted at fragment velocities $`v`$5 cm/ns as the ’thermal’ isotope temperature. Contrary to this temperature we call isotope temperatures obtained from energy-integrated yields ’total’ ones. Figure 10 presents a phenomenological relation between the isotope temperature and the radial flow energy of the thermal sources. The ’thermal’ isotope temperatures, shown in Fig. 10 as open circles, increase with increasing radial flow. With regard to other experimental data we note that the isotope temperature corresponding to central Au on Au collisions at 35 A$``$MeV huan  should be considered also as the ’thermal’ one, since the dominating thermal source includes the small radial flow energy of $``$ 1 A$``$MeVagos .

The second contribution to the isotope temperature comes from the coalescence mechanism and it provides higher values of the temperature. In order to compare both contributions, we show in Fig. 10 the total isotope temperatures obtained from the same data. In addition, we included into this figure also ’total’ isotope temperatures $`T_{HHe}`$ obtained in central Au+Au collisions at 50, 100, 150 and 200 A$``$MeV taken from ref. serf . The corresponding radial flow energies were estimated by interpolation of the values given in table 1 and they are close to other results Lav ; heid ; reis3 .

The found difference between the ’total’ and ’thermal’ isotope temperatures indicates the existence of the two contributions. At small flow energies the difference increases with increasing flow, because the contribution of the coalescence becomes larger. This difference is supposed to decrease at large flow energies, since the the contribution of the completely thermalized source disappears. At 1 A$``$GeV beam energy, IMF are scarcely produced. Therefore, there are large uncertainties in both the radial flow and the isotope temperature contributions obtained for the thermal source. However, within the error bars no difference between the ’total’ and the ’thermal’ chemical temperatures was found. That is consistent with the disappearance of the thermalized source. The comparison of the ’thermal’ and the ’total’ temperatures shown in Fig. 10 suggests that the transition between the described mechanisms accomplishes rather smoothly since the temperatures are not very different.

Figure 10 shows also data obtained from another type of reactions, namely break-ups of Au nuclei after peripheral collisions Schar ; hxi . These data correspond to small flow energies and they match the general trend indicating that the fragment formation seems to correlate with the appearance of the radial flow independently of its origin.

From the obtained results we suggest the following evolution of the fragment production process with increasing radial flow. As long as the flow is small, the fragments are mainly produced in a completely equilibrated source. However, the energy available for the thermal population of the phase space does not include the flow energy. Increasing radial flow influences the fragment formation in a twofold way: (i) it increases the velocities of nucleons forming a fragment, and (ii) it restricts the phase space population by cutting many-particle correlations between nucleons. This leads to the production of small fragments, which could be effectively described as increasing temperature of the thermal source. At larger radial flow, only one-particle correlations remain, which correspond to the coalescence mechanism. Nevertheless, properties of composite particles produced by coalescence resemble features of statistical processes. In particular, one may introduce a common temperature for any of the fragments which characterizes their formation probabilities and which is an ingredient of the chemical equilibrium. Therefore, one can formally proceed to treat the fragment formation statistically, but taking into account the specific relations between the new ’statistical’ parameters caused by the dynamics of the process (see, e.g., relation (13)). Some relations of the standard thermodynamics, such as the equivalence of the chemical and the kinetic temperatures, are not valid in this case. However, one can deduce relations between statistical and dynamical parameters, like that shown in Fig. 10.

## 6 Conclusions

We have developed an extended version of the Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMMFC) aimed at the analysis of experimental data related to LCP and IMF production in central heavy-ion collisions. In the present studies the model was applied to analyse Au+Au data obtained by the FOPI and EOS collaborations in the energy range from 100 to 400 and at 1000 A$``$MeV, respectively.

The statistical analysis includes the following physical processes of the reactions. An essential part of nucleons of the whole system is released during the fast (dynamical) stage and the remaining matter constitutes an equilibrium source. The share of the complete thermalized source $`A_{rel}`$ decreases with increasing beam energy. This result is in agreement with analyses of experimental data carried out in refs. Lav ; will ; heid . It was found that the thermal sources have temperatures which are considerably lower than expected from the kinetic energies of the produced fragments. Both the nucleon and the LCP emissions in the fast stage are suppossed to be the reason of the reduced equilibrated energy at the freeze-out. Moreover, an appreciable part of the available energy of the equilibrated source is converted into collective motion, e.g. radial flow. Though the analysis remains phenomenologically in part, the found regularities seem to be reliable since they are supported also by analyses of other data. Therefore, the results may be used for interpolation and qualitative estimations of parameters of thermal sources.

According to our findings, a considerable growth of the flow energy is accompanied by a very moderate increasing of the thermal temperature in these central collisions. In our opinion, the most reliable determination of the temperature in this case should be achieved by the isotope thermometer which can be directly related to the thermal source. As we have shown, it is possible to apply this thermometer for testing the dependence of the temperature on the fragment velocities, which can be used to identify different mechanisms of fragment production.

Light clusters can also occur as result of a dynamical process which involves secondary interaction of the fast nucleons. We have shown that the coalescence mechanism is responsible for the production of light fragments and its contribution dominates at larger beam energies. Coalescence is caused by the short range attractive interaction between the nucleons, and, under some conditions, it is consistent with the chemical equilibrium. Nevertheless, the isotope temperatures obtained from yields of coalescent fragments remain very moderate in comparison with their kinetic energies (i.e. with their kinetic temperatures). The analysis of experimental LCP energy distributions leads also to this conclusion. Therefore, one can speculate that the chemical equilibrium is attained in such exploding systems. However, it is different from the one-particle kinetical equilibration. We have demonstrated that the isotope temperature is correlated to the radial flow in central collisions. This presumed relation between isotope temperature and radial flow may be used to estimate chemical temperatures in different explosive processes.

Acknowledgements W.N. thanks for a long collaboration within the FOPI project, A.S.B. thanks the GSI Darmstadt for hospitality and financial support. The authors thank especially Dr. W. Reisdorf for numerous stimulating discussions and Dr. H.W. Barz for valuable comments. We are also indeted to Drs. H. Prade and F. Dönau for a careful reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Holography of the N=1 Higher-Spin Theory on AdS4

## 1 Introduction and the Klebanov-Polyakov proposal

It has been long understood that consistent higher-spin gauge theories admit AdS spacetimes as vacua . Nevertheless, only recently the question of the holography of higher-spin theories has been raised . The interest in this holography currently is growing as it is gradually realized that it touches upon important issues such as the small tension limit of string theory and the holography of weakly coupled quantum field theories. (some other recent work includes .)

A concrete proposal for the holographic dual of a simple higher-spin theory was made in . Consider the minimal bosonic higher-spin algebra in $`d=4`$

$$hs(4)SO(3,2).$$
(1)
The unitary irreducible representations (UIR) of $`Spin(3,2)`$ are characterized by the quantum numbers of the subgroup $`SO(2,1)\times SO(1,1)`$; they are labeled $`D(\mathrm{\Delta },s)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the dimension and $`s`$ the total spin. The massless UIR’s saturate the unitarity bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+1`$. (In addition, there are the exceptional UIR’s $`D(2,0)`$, $`D(1/2,0)`$ and $`D(1,1/2)`$. The latter two are singletons.) The “currents” that can be obtained as symmetric composites of the basic scalar singleton UIR $`D(1/2,0)`$ have even spin $`s=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$. This is the spectrum of the minimal bosonic higher-spin theory

$$\left[D(1/2,0)D(1/2,0)\right]_S=D(1,0)\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D(2s+1,2s).$$
(2)
On $`AdS_4`$, the realization of this minimal higher-spin bosonic theory may be consistently constructed, although only partial information is explicitly available for the action of the theory. For each state in the spectrum, one considers a corresponding $`AdS_4`$ field. In particular, the $`D(1,0)`$ UIR is associated to a conformally coupled scalar on $`AdS_4`$

$$I_4=\frac{1}{2\kappa _4^2}\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}(h)^2\frac{1}{2}m^2h^2+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(3)
with $`m^2=2`$. Similar, yet largely unknown, terms should be written for the higher-spin UIR’s.

The spectrum of the higher-spins is by construction in one-to-one correspondence with the spectrum of the conserved higher-spin currents in a free bosonic theory in $`d=3`$. To study the holographic dual of (3) one can always normalize the 2-pt functions in the boundary to be of order 1, and then observe that the $`n`$-pt correlation functions for $`n3`$ are proportional to $`(2\kappa _4^2)^{n/2}`$, i.e., are suppressed by powers of the Planck length in AdS4. This may be taken to imply that the elementary fields in the holographic dual of the minimal bosonic higher-spin theory carry a certain group representation. It was observed in  that the elementary fields should carry a vector representation, rather than adjoint, in order that the composite singlet currents reproduce the $`hs(4)`$ spectrum (1) and the concrete proposal is that the boundary theory is the $`O(N)`$ bosonic vector model in $`d=3`$. This essentially means that one identifies the Planck length in AdS4 with $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ as $`2\kappa _4^21/N`$, a normalization that we will adopt below.

Now, the mass of the conformally coupled scalar in (3) is such that both the regular and the irregular boundary modes could be used to construct a boundary effective action that gives positive definite 2-pt functions . Then, one observes that the conformally coupled scalar in AdS4 gives the “spin-zero” current of the free O(N) theory only if one uses the non-standard dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, which corresponds to the irregular mode. Using the standard dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ appears to give the large-$`N`$ interacting fixed point of the model . The existence of these two fixed points is related to the fact that the choice of either $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ can be imposed by appropriate boundary conditions corresponding to “double-trace” deformations111With a slight abuse in terminology, “double-trace” operators here mean operators that are quadrilinear in the elementary $`O(N)`$ vector fields. of the boundary theory: the choice $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ can be imposed by a relevant “double-trace” deformation of the boundary UV fixed point and the choice $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ can be imposed by an irrelevant deformation of the IR boundary fixed point. It is interesting to note that the existence of the two different fixed points in the boundary is also tied to the existence of a large-$`N`$ limit.

## 2 A fermionic realization of the IR boundary theory and the role of parity

There appears to be another possible construction of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ theory above. Suppose we start with the fermionic singleton $`D(1,1/2)`$. We have

$$\left[D(1,1/2)D(1,1/2)\right]_A=D(2,0)\underset{s=1}{}D(2s+1,2s).$$
(4)
This product contains the $`D(2,0)`$ UIR plus the same tower as in (2). In this case it seems that the natural boundary theory to associate with this spectrum is a free $`O(N)`$ Majorana fermionic theory. Indeed, at leading order in $`1/N`$ the dimension of the basic $`O(N)`$-singlet $`\overline{\psi }^a\psi ^a`$ current is one, as is the IR dimension of the current in the interacting boson model. This observation appears to suggest that at leading order in $`1/N`$ the interacting fixed point of the bosonic $`O(N)`$ model involves free fermions. Moreover, the recent calculation in  of the 3-pt functions of the “spin-zero” current in the critical $`O(N)`$ vector model at both its UV and IR fixed points for large-$`N`$ might be viewed as additional support for such a claim. It was there found, (following earlier work in ), that the 3-pt function of the “spin-zero” current in the IR fixed point (i.e., the operator with dimension 2) vanishes. This is consistent with the fact that the 3-pt function of the current $`\overline{\psi }^a\psi ^a`$ is zero in the free fermionic theory. Furthermore, one may consider the “double-trace” deformation $`(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2`$ of the free fermionic boundary theory. From an RG point of view this is an irrelevant deformation and therefore it is consistent with the fact that the free fermionic theory corresponds to an IR fixed point . We can then ask what is the UV fixed point at the other end of this irrelevant deformation? The answer is that such a UV fixed point involves, at leading-$`N`$, exactly the spectrum (2) and therefore seems to correspond to the free $`O(N)`$ vector model.

The above picture is appealing but overlooks the subtle role of parity.222We are indebted to P. Sundell for extensive discussions that led to the clarification of the role of parity. First, let us note that the Legendre transform in AdS/CFT is simply implementing the “intertwining” operation — i.e., interchanging representations of dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with those of dimension $`d\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . This is related to a conformal inversion of the form $`x^\mu x^\mu /x^2`$ which explains the UV–IR relationship. However, there is an additional discrete parity transformation (i.e., reflection in one of the spatial coordinates), necessary to bring the inversion into $`SO(3,2)`$ . Starting with a bulk scalar as in (3) the two boundary theories corresponding to the choices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ are related by a Legendre transform  and hence the two different boundary UIRs $`D(1,0)`$ and $`D(2,0)`$ are both scalars i.e. they have positive parity. The crucial point is now that a free-field representation of (2) with elementary scalars is only possible when $`D(1,0)`$ has positive parity, while a free-field fermionic representation of (4) is possible when $`D(2,0)`$ has negative parity. Therefore, the fixed points corresponding to the Legendre transforms of the free bosonic and free fermionic theories do not appear to correspond to free field theories, even for large-$`N`$. It is intriguing, however, that the 3-pt function of the parity-even UIR $`D(2,0)`$ at the IR point of the $`O(N)`$ vector model vanishes.

## 3 $`𝒩=1`$ Higher-Spin Theory in AdS4 and the $`𝒩=1`$ $`O(N)`$ Vector Model in $`d=3`$

Our aim here is to discuss the holography of the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric higher-spin theory and show that the proposal of  and its intriguing properties arise as special cases. Supersymmetric versions of higher spin theories have been recently constructed . The $`𝒩=1`$ theory $`hs(1,4)`$ is built from the two singleton UIR’s $`D(1/2,0)`$ and $`D(1,1/2)`$ and its spectrum is given by

$`\left[D(1/2,0)D(1/2,0)\right]_S`$ $`=`$ $`D(1,0){\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{}}D(2s+1,2s),`$ (5)
$`\left[D(1,1/2)D(1,1/2)\right]_A`$ $`=`$ $`D(2,0){\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{}}D(2s+1,2s),`$ (6)
$`D(1,1/2)D(1/2,0)`$ $`=`$ $`D(3/2,1/2){\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{}}D(5/2+s,3/2+s).`$ (7)
Given the successes of the bosonic theory, it is not hard to suggest that

> The minimal $`𝒩=1`$ higher-spin theory on $`AdS_4`$ is dual to the singlet part of the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ vector model in $`d=3`$.

The spectrum of the $`𝒩=1`$ minimal higher-spin theory is arranged into massless $`Osp(1|4)`$ supermultiplets . There is one massless333Massless refers to the fermion; the bosons are conformally coupled with $`m^2=2`$. “Wess-Zumino” multiplet that contains both scalar UIR’s $`D(1,0)`$ and $`D(2,0)`$. In the $`AdS_4`$ realization of the theory these correspond to two conformally coupled scalars $`h_1^{(+)}`$ and $`h_2^{()}`$. The supermultiplet is completed by a bulk fermion field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the $`D(3/2,1/2)`$ UIR. One can easily write the quadratic part of the action for that multiplet as  (see also  for a related discussion)

$$I_4=N\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}(h_1^{(+)})^2+(h_1^{(+)})^2\frac{1}{2}(h_2^{()})^2+(h_2^{()})^2+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}/D\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(8)
The dots on the right hand side of (8) corresponds to the kinetic terms of higher-spin fields as well as interactions. These are computable, at least in principle. The scalars $`h_1^{(+)}`$ and $`h_2^{()}`$ are real while the fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is Majorana. Our notation is explained fully in the Appendix.

Notice now that, as also explained in the Appendix, the UIR’s $`D(1,0)`$ and $`D(2,0)`$ in (8) have opposite parity. This is not explicit in the bulk action (8), but is implied by supersymmetry (and consequently by boundary conditions at $`r0`$ necessary to preserve supersymmetry). By parity (which could also be referred to as a discrete chiral symmetry), we mean a discrete element which we take to be $`(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)`$. Without loss of generality, we choose hereafter to assign positive parity to $`h_1^{(+)}`$ and negative parity to $`h_2^{()}`$ as indicated by the superscripts. Moreover, the two two-component Majorana spinors inside $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ transform under parity with opposite signs.

We see then that the choice of boundary conditions determines essentially the nature of the boundary theories dual to (8). One of the two possible duals is the free $`𝒩=1`$ $`O(N)`$ vector model in $`d=3`$ whose action in superspace is given by (58). In this case, the bulk higher-spin currents in $`AdS_4`$ correspond to $`O(N)`$-singlet bilinears of the elementary boundary superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ that may be represented as $`\mathrm{\Phi }^aD_{(i_1}\mathrm{}D_{i_{4n})}\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$, where the on-shell real superfield is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a(x,\theta )=\phi ^a(x)\overline{\theta }\psi ^a(x),a=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(9)
In particular, the terms in the bulk action depicted in (8) should reproduce holographically the generating functional for correlation functions of the “spin-zero” current $`J`$, which is, on-shell

$$J(x,\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(x,\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi ^a\phi ^a\right)(x)\overline{\theta }\left(\psi ^a\phi ^a\right)(x)\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\theta \left(\overline{\psi }^a\psi ^a\right)(x).$$
(10)
In the next section, we consider further the role of boundary conditions in the holography of the $`𝒩=1`$ $`O(N)`$ theories.

## 4 Boundary Conditions and Deformations: General Remarks

The $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ vector model in the boundary has been studied extensively in the literature using mainly a $`\sigma `$-model approach . It possesses two critical points at large-$`N`$, one free and one interacting, which have various supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric deformations that could be considered. We consider several such deformations in Section 5, although the “double-trace” deformations of the supersymmetric fixed points are of particular interest. From the bulk point of view, these correspond to suitable choices of the boundary conditions for scalars and spinors. We review this in the present context below.

### 4.1 Scalars

We consider the conformally coupled scalars in (8) whose asymptotic behavior near the AdS4 boundary at $`r0`$ is

$$h_k^{(\pm )}=r\alpha _k^{(\pm )}(x)+r^2\beta _k^{(\pm )}(x)+\mathrm{},k=1,2.$$
(11)
Requiring that the bulk solutions vanish as $`r\mathrm{}`$ one obtains

$`\alpha _1^{(+)}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3y\frac{1}{(xy)^2}\beta _1^{(+)}(y)},`$ (12)
$`\beta _2^{()}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^3y\frac{1}{(xy)^4}\alpha _2^{()}(y)}.`$ (13)
Therefore, each bulk solution (11) depends on one arbitrary function and when substituted back into the bulk action yields a well defined boundary functional. Usually one is forced to consider a functional of the $`\alpha `$’s and this is referred to as choosing the regular boundary conditions. However, as pointed out in  there are cases where a functional of the $`\beta `$’s is perfectly acceptable, and this is referred to as choosing the irregular boundary conditions. Then, the functionals of the $`\alpha `$’s and the $`\beta `$’s are related by a Legendre transform as is implied by (12) and (13), which preserves the parity assignments. Furthermore, choosing as boundary sources one of the $`\alpha `$’s or the $`\beta `$’s, the other becomes the expectation value of the boundary operator. Explicitly, to get the free boundary fixed point we want here to choose $`\beta _1^{(+)}(x)`$ as a source for the boundary operator $`J_1^{(+)}(x)`$, and then $`\alpha _1^{()}(x)`$ represents the one-point function $`J_1^{()}(x)`$. Conversely, for $`J_2^{()}(x)`$ it is $`\alpha _2^{()}(x)`$ that sources the field, and $`\beta _2^{()}(x)`$ gives the corresponding one-point function. Thus the supersymmetric boundary condition on the bulk scalar fields of the action (8) should be

$$\alpha _1^{(+)}(x)=\beta _2^{()}(x)=0.$$
(14)
Now, if we want to perturb the Lagrangian of the boundary theory, we take a suitable boundary condition for $`h_k^{(\pm )}`$. The precise form of the boundary condition will determine the actual perturbation. One simple deformation is the “single trace” $`d^3xf_1^{(+)}(x)J_1^{(+)}(x)`$, whereby we simply set the value of $`\beta _1^{(+)}=f_1^{(+)}`$. Similarly, if we want the single trace deformation $`d^3xf_2^{()}(x)J_2^{()}(x)`$, the appropriate boundary condition is $`\alpha _2^{()}=f_2^{()}`$. For more general deformations the prescription given by Witten may be summarized as follows. If we wish to generate the perturbation

$$d^3xW(x;J_1^{(+)},dJ_1^{(+)},\mathrm{},J_2^{()},dJ_2^{()},\mathrm{}),$$
(15)
we impose the boundary conditions

$`\beta _1^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W(x;\alpha _1^{(+)},d\alpha _1^{(+)},\mathrm{},\beta _2^{()},d\beta _2^{()},\mathrm{})}{\delta \alpha _1^{(+)}}},`$ (16)
$`\alpha _2^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W(x;\alpha _1^{(+)},d\alpha _1^{(+)},\mathrm{},\beta _2^{()},d\beta _2^{()},\mathrm{})}{\delta \beta _2^{()}}}.`$ (17)
For completeness, let us give an example of how this result comes about. Consider for simplicity a single bosonic field $`h`$ conjugate to the boundary operator $`𝒪`$ with dimension $`1/2<\mathrm{\Delta }<3/2`$. The field $`h`$ has the behavior

$$hr^{3\mathrm{\Delta }}\alpha _0(x)+r^\mathrm{\Delta }\beta _0(x)+\mathrm{},$$
(18)
while $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\beta _0`$ are related as

$$\beta _0(x)𝒪_{\alpha ,0}d^3y\frac{1}{(xy)^{2(3\mathrm{\Delta })}}\alpha _0(y).$$
(19)
Add a boundary interaction $`\frac{f}{2N}d^3y𝒪(y)^2`$ and consider the calculation of

$$𝒪(x)_{\alpha ,f}=𝒪(x)e^{i\frac{f}{2N}{\scriptscriptstyle d^3y𝒪(y)^2}}_{\alpha ,0}.$$
(20)
We can proceed by expanding the exponential. The crucial point here is the assumption of a large-$`N`$ expansion such that only the leading term in the OPE $`𝒪(x)𝒪(y)\frac{N}{(xy)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}I+\mathrm{}`$ contributes in the large-$`N`$ limit. Then we derive

$`𝒪(x)_{\alpha ,f}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(x)_{\alpha ,0}+f{\displaystyle d^3y\frac{1}{(xy)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}𝒪(y)_{\alpha ,0}}`$ (21)
$`+f^2{\displaystyle d^3y\frac{1}{(xy)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}d^3z\frac{1}{(yz)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}𝒪(z)_{\alpha ,0}}+\mathrm{}.`$
Now, we can multiply (21) by the inverse kernel of (19) to obtain

$$d^3x\frac{1}{(yx)^{2(3\mathrm{\Delta })}}𝒪(x)_{\alpha ,f}=\alpha _f(y),$$
(22)
and we then have

$$\alpha _f(y)=\alpha _0(y)+f\beta _0(y)+f^2d^3x\frac{1}{(yx)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}\beta _0(x)+\mathrm{},$$
(23)
and thus

$$\alpha _f=\alpha _0+f\beta _f.$$
(24)
Setting then the sources to zero in the unperturbed theory $`\alpha _0=0`$, we arrive at the advertised boundary condition (16). It is clear that this derivation will generalize to an arbitrary functional $`W`$.

The derivation above elucidates also the meaning of choosing the irregular boundary conditions, i.e., considering a functional of $`\beta _0`$ in the case of (18). Formally, this corresponds to considering the Legendre transform of the standard functional of $`\alpha _0`$ that is the generating functional of operators $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ with dimension $`3\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Consider now a boundary interaction $`\frac{g}{2N}d^3y\widehat{𝒪}(y)^2`$. Following the same reasoning as above we find

$$\beta _g=\beta _0+g\alpha _g.$$
(25)
We now see that $`f\mathrm{}`$ in the regular choice (24) leads to the unperturbed boundary condition $`g=0`$ in (25) and hence to the irregular choice. The reverse also holds true and $`g\mathrm{}`$ in the irregular choice leads to the unperturbed $`f=0`$ regular choice (24).

### 4.2 Spinors

Next we consider a massless bulk spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The Dirac equation has the form

$$\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^3(r_r3/2)+r\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu \right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(26)
This can be transformed into a second order equation whose general on-shell solution is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,r)=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ipx}r^2K_{1/2}(pr)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_+(p)\\ a_{}(p)\end{array}\right),$$
(27)
where $`a_\pm `$ are two-component spinors. Substituting back into the first order equations, we find asymptotically444The precise form is $`\frac{(yD+1/2)K_{1/2}(y)}{K_{1/2}(y)}a_{}=iy\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu n_\mu a_\pm `$.

$$a_{}=i\underset{¯}{/n}a_+,n_\mu =\frac{p_\mu }{p}.$$
(28)
The asymptotic behavior of (27) near the boundary is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,r)r^{3/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_+(x)\\ u_{}(x)\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where

$`u_{}(x)=+{\displaystyle d^3y\underset{¯}{G}(xy)u_+(y)},`$ (30)
$`\underset{¯}{G}(z)=\underset{¯}{G}(z)^1=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ipz}\frac{\underset{¯}{/p}}{p}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{/x}{x^4}}.`$ (31)
Notice now that under the parity transformation of (59), $`u_+`$ and $`u_{}`$ transform with different signs, while the kernel $`(\text{31})`$ remains invariant. The latter is actually proportional to the 2-pt function of the boundary fermions, and is sometimes referred to as an intertwiner .

Since the boundary action is of the form

$$d^3x\left(\overline{u}_+u_+\overline{u}_{}u_{}\right),$$
(32)
it appears that which of $`u_\pm `$ one calls $`𝒪_{3/2}`$ and which one calls the source is a matter of choice. However, the supersymmetry structure indicates the proper interpretation. Recall that in the bulk, the supercharge splits as in (65)

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}q\\ s\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
where $`q`$ is the supercharge and $`s`$ is the superconformal generator. After making a choice of parity assignments for the bulk scalars, e.g., assign negative parity to $`h_2^{()}`$, the supersymmetry in the bulk requires that $`qh_2^{()}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. (in the notation of the Appendix, $`h_2^{()}j_2`$). Now, we remember that to get the free $`O(N)`$ theory in the boundary, we use the regular boundary conditions for $`h_2^{()}`$. Therefore in this case we should identify $`u_+`$ with the vev and $`u_{}`$ with the source. The opposite will hold true when we want to find the strongly-coupled $`O(N)`$ boundary theory.

Consider then the classically marginal “double-trace” operator

$$e^{i\frac{E}{2N}{\scriptscriptstyle d^3x\overline{𝒪}_{3/2}𝒪_{3/2}}}.$$
(34)
To determine the boundary condition to which it corresponds we follow the arguments in the previous subsection and write

$$u_{}^{(E)}(x)=u_{}^{(0)}(x)+iEd^3yiG(xy)u_{}^{(0)}(y)+\mathrm{}.$$
(35)
Assuming then an OPE of the form

$$𝒪_{3/2}^i(x)𝒪_{3/2}^j(y)NiG^{ij}(xy)I+\mathrm{},$$
(36)
and a large-$`N`$ expansion we arrive at the condition

$$u_{}^{(E)}=u_{}^{(0)}+Eu_+^{(E)}.$$
(37)
Note now that (37) is a boundary condition that does not preserve parity, but $`E\mathrm{}`$ clearly corresponds to switching $`q`$ and $`s`$, and thus we would expect a rearrangement of the supermultiplet, if the theory is supersymmetric at $`E\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Boundary Conditions and Deformations: $`𝒩=1`$ Higher-Spin Theory

Now we are ready to present our concrete proposal by considering various boundary conditions for the bulk fields that appear in the action (8). First we will consider the large-$`N`$ duals of the bulk theory which means that we discuss only the tree level bulk action. In section 5.3, we will discuss the effects of bulk loops on the higher-spin gauge symmetry.

### 5.1 Large-$`N`$ duals

#### 5.1.1 The free $`𝒩=1`$ Supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ vector model

To obtain the free $`𝒩=1`$ Supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ vector model in the boundary we consider the irregular boundary condition for $`h_1^{(+)}`$ and the regular one for $`h_2^{()}`$. Making also an appropriate choice for the boundary condition of the bulk fermion, as explained in Section 4.2, we preserve supersymmetry. Moreover, as we will argue in Section 5.3 these boundary conditions will not break the higher-spin gauge symmetry even after bulk loops are taken into account.

#### 5.1.2 The strongly coupled $`𝒩=1`$ Supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ vector model

In this case, we use the regular boundary condition for $`h_1^{(+)}`$ and the irregular one for $`h_2^{()}`$. Then, with the opposite choice from above for the boundary conditions of the bulk fermions we still preserve supersymmetry. However, now the boundary “spin-zero” current multiplet cannot be represented by free fields due to the specific parity assignments. This $`𝒩=1`$ theory corresponds to the large-$`N`$ limit of the IR fixed point of the $`O(N)`$ vector model. The reason is that, as we will argue in Section 5.3, the specific boundary conditions chosen here will break the higher-spin gauge symmetry for subleading-$`N`$ when bulk loops are taken into account. In this way the currents in the boundary theory will acquire anomalous dimensions of order $`1/N`$.

### 5.2 Deformations

Next, we consider deformations of the boundary Lagrangian.

#### 5.2.1 Mass deformations

The simplest deformation of the free $`𝒩=1`$ theory that one could consider is a boundary condition corresponding to adding a mass term for elementary fields in the boundary theory. For example, a boundary fermion mass term will clearly lead to an infrared theory containing only currents built out of the elementary bosons $`\phi ^a`$, once $`1/N`$ corrections are taken into account. From the bulk point of view, this physics should be reproduced classically, by a suitable “domain wall”. In particular, one must be able to see that all higher spin bulk fields that were coupled to boundary operators involving fermions (i.e., $`h_2^{()}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and their higher-spin partners) are made massive by the choice of boundary condition. In this way, one is left with the spectrum of the $`hs(4)`$ bosonic higher spin theory. Similarly, a boundary boson mass term should leave only the fermionic currents in the boundary theory, or in the bulk, only $`h_2^{()}`$ and its higher-spin partners.

#### 5.2.2 A marginal double-trace perturbation

Given the established connection between the Legendre transformation and double trace operators, it is clearly of interest to study these in the present context. There are two distinct choices that we will identify.

First, a (classically) marginal deformation of the free boundary theory is

$$d^3x\left\{g_3J_1^{(+)}J_2^{()}+g_4\overline{J}_{3/2}^{(\pm )}J_{3/2}^{(\pm )}\right\}.$$
(38)
This is supersymmetric along the line $`g_3=2g_4`$ in which case it corresponds to the deformation $`d^3xd^2\theta J^2`$. It is easily seen that this deformation violates parity . It is interesting to ask where the deformation (38) leads the free $`O(N)`$ vector model to, for large values of the couplings $`g_3`$, $`g_4`$ and large $`N`$. One way to answer this is to recall that (38) can actually be imposed via an appropriate boundary condition on the bulk fields. In the notation of the previous section this is

$$\alpha _2^{()}=g_3\alpha _1^{(+)},\beta _1^{(+)}=g_3\beta _2^{()},u_{}=g_4u_+.$$
(39)
We now see that in the supersymmetric case the limit of large coupling constant and large $`N`$ just leads to the strongly coupled theory of Subsection 5.1.2. Thus, even though the deformation (38) breaks parity, at large $`N`$ we end up with an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory.

It is also possible that the deformation (38) is actually exactly marginal. This sort of possibility was mentioned in Ref.  in the bosonic theory, where it was noted that AdS4 apparently remains a solution for any value of the coupling $`d^3x𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}`$. In the present case, the situation is even better: eq. (38) is a deformation of a free CFT and thus marginality can be investigated perturbatively. We are not aware of literature related directly to this question, but it should not be too difficult an issue to settle.

#### 5.2.3 A supersymmetry breaking deformation

Another interesting “double-trace” deformation of the free theory is

$$\frac{1}{2}d^3x\{g_1(J_1^{(+)})^2+g_2(J_2^{()})^2+g_3\overline{J}_{3/2}^{(\pm )}J_{3/2}^{(\pm )}.\}$$
(40)
This is a closer analogue to the double trace deformation considered for the bosonic theory. It corresponds to the boundary conditions

$$\alpha _2^{()}=g_2\beta _2^{()},\beta _1^{(+)}=g_1\alpha _1^{(+)},u_{}=g_3u_+,$$
(41)
which of course break supersymmetry. $`g_1`$ corresponds to a relevant deformation of the free $`O(N)`$ fixed point while the $`g_2`$ deformation looks irrelevant from an RG point of view. Again, we can ask where the deformation (40) leads the free boundary theory to, for large values of the couplings and large $`N`$. This can be answered using information from the bulk. Namely, we see from the boundary conditions (41) that for large values of the coupling constants one is apparently led to the strongly coupled theory of Subsection 5.1.2 again! This time, the boundary conditions for the scalars are parity preserving while the one for the fermion is parity non-preserving. The remarkable result is that despite the fact the the deformation (40) breaks supersymmetry, at large $`N`$ we recover an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory, at its strongly coupled fixed point. This is perhaps not as surprising as it seems, as the RG interpretation of the deformation (40) is rather unusual. Indeed, due to the structure of the Wess-Zumino multiplet, one may view the free boundary theory as being “half at the UV fixed point” (the part involving the bosons) while the other half is at its “IR fixed point” (the part involving the fermions).

### 5.3 Subleading-$`N`$ and the breaking of higher-spin gauge symmetry

In the previous subsection we argued that the tree level $`𝒩=1`$ higher-spin theory on AdS4 leads to two boundary 3d CFTs whose composite operators have exactly the same spectrum of dimensions. The only property that distinguishes the two boundary theories, at large $`N`$, is the parity assignment of the operators in the supermultiplets. One choice of parity assignments leads to the free $`O(N)`$ vector model while the other choice leads to a strongly coupled version of the $`O(N)`$ vector model. The generating functionals of the two theories are related by a Legendre transform.

The distinction between the two theories should become more evident when considering bulk loop corrections or, equivalenty corrections subleading in $`1/N`$ in the boundary theory. In other words, we expect that starting with the boundary action (8) and considering the boundary conditions that lead to the free boundary theory, bulk loops do not break the higher-spin gauge symmetry. That is, the bulk higher-spin fields remain massless while the corresponding boundary currents remain conserved. On the other hand, considering the boundary conditions that lead to the strongly coupled boundary theory we expect that the bulk loops will render the higher-spin fields massive (Higgsing) and the corresponding boundary currents non-conserved .

The mechanism by which the phenomenon described above takes place is a generalization of the mechanism discussed in  for the case of the minimal bosonic higher-spin theory on AdS4. The basic physics arises from the fact that a representation that is massive from the bulk point of view satisfies

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta },s)D(s+1,s)D(s+2,s1)$$
(42)
as $`\mathrm{\Delta }s+1`$. This can be taken to imply that in order for a spin $`s`$ field to become massive, there must be a suitable Goldstone mode transforming as $`D(s+2,s1)`$, it must be of the correct parity, and there must be a suitable coupling present in the bulk effective action.

Here we elucidate this argument further by discussing it from the boundary point of view. Conformal invariance requires that a boundary spin $`s`$ current $`J^{\mu _1,..,\mu _s}`$ with dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=s+1`$ is also conserved. Non-conservation of this current appears in the form of an anomalous dimension, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ss+1+\gamma `$. Let us assume that $`\gamma O(1/N)`$. Then, the non-conservation of a boundary current means that there is an operator equation of the form

$$_{\mu _1}J^{\mu _1,..,\mu _s}(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}T^{\mu _2,..,\mu _s}(x).$$
(43)
The current $`T^{\mu _2,..,\mu _s}(x)`$ has dimension $`s+2`$ to leading order in $`1/N`$. For non-coincident points, (43) leads to

$$_{\mu _1}J^{\mu _1,..,\mu _s}(x_1)_{\nu _1}J^{\nu _1,..,\nu _s}(x_2)\frac{1}{N}T^{\mu _2,..,\mu _s}(x_1)T^{\nu _2,..,\nu _s}(x_2).$$
(44)
Then, conformal invariance determines the form of both sides in (44) and a tree-level calculation of the rhs of (44) yields the $`1/N`$ result for $`\gamma `$. What is crucial for us is that equations such as (43) can exist in the theory only if a current $`T^{\mu _2,..,\mu _s}(x)`$ with the appropriate dimension $`s+2`$ and parity can be constructed.

Now let us consider the $`𝒩=1`$ higher-spin theory on AdS4. In the bulk effective action, there might be terms of the schematic form555These couplings should be suitably supersymmetrized, but we will not consider the details of this here.

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}W^{a_1,..,a_s}W_{a_3,..,a_s}_{a_1}_{a_2}h,$$
(45)
where $`W`$ are higher-spin currents and $`h`$ is either of the two conformally coupled bulk scalars. If such a term exists, then it can give rise to a boundary 3-pt function of the form

$$_{\mu _1}J^{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s}(x_1)J_{\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _s}(x_2)_{\mu _2}J(x_3).$$
(46)
This 3-pt function will be non-zero and would correspond to (44) if in the OPE of $`J_{\mu _3,..,\mu _s}`$ with $`J`$ there exists an operator such that its derivative produces the current $`T^{\mu _2,..,\mu _s}(x)`$. Let us study this in more detail. The OPE in question is of the form

$$J_{\mu _3,\mathrm{},\mu _s}(x_2)J(x_3)𝒯_{\mu _3,..,\mu _s}(x_3)+(x_{23})^\nu 𝒮_{\nu \mu _3,..\mu _s}(x_3)+\mathrm{},$$
(47)
where the dots stand for higher descendants and other operators. Now we have to take into account the dimension of $`J(x)`$. When $`J(x)`$ has dimension 2 the operator $`𝒯`$ in (47) has dimension $`s+1`$ and its derivative has dimension $`s+2`$ and could be a candidate for $`T`$. But only when $`J`$ has matching parity can this OPE produce the correct $`T`$. On the other hand, when $`J`$ has dimension 1, it is the operator $`𝒮`$ in (47) that has dimension $`s+1`$ and therefore its derivative might give rise to $`T`$. In this case however, only when $`J`$ has opposite parity can the correct $`T`$ arise. Moreover, it is easy to see that when $`s=2`$ the OPE (47) is between the same boundary scalar. Therefore, whichever boundary condition one chooses, the correct $`T`$ can never arise. Therefore, the boundary energy momentum tensor remains always conserved as it should.

## 6 Summary and Discussion

We have presented a concrete proposal for the holographic dual of the $`𝒩=1`$ higher-spin gauge theory on AdS4. We have argued that the boundary theory is the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ vector model in three dimensions. Both regular and irregular bulk modes are necessary for this holography and their interplay unveils interesting phenomena. In particular, the unique bulk theory gives rise to two boundary theories that are the free and interacting fixed points of the $`O(N)`$ vector model. At large-$`N`$, the boundary theories are distinguished only by the parity assignments in the supermultiplets. For subleading-$`N`$, only the boundary conditions that give the interacting $`O(N)`$ vector model in the boundary will Higgs the massless higher-spins and give rise to a boundary theory where all higher-spin currents acquire anomalous dimensions.

We studied various boundary conditions that correspond to “double-trace” deformations of the free boundary theory. Particularly intriguing is the fact that supersymmetry breaking boundary deformations lead for large-$`N`$ to a supersymmetric theory. This phenomenon is tied to the fact that the free boundary theory may be viewed as being “half in a UV fixed point and half in an IR fixed point.” We expect that a similar phenomenon occurs in the case of the the $`𝒩=1`$ SCFT in four dimensions obtained holographically from the compactification of IIB SUGRA on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$T1,1 . We have also noted the possible existence of a line of fixed points in this model.

One would like to think that some of the salient features of this special holography are connected with the higher-spin gauge symmetry. In particular the fact that this holography gives rise to a free boundary theory is presumably a feature of higher-spin theories. Nevertheless, it appears that once we have information about the free boundary theory we also have information about an interacting boundary theory. This follows from the fact that the higher-spin multiplet includes simultaneously “shadow” UIRs of the conformal group and therefore describes at the same time UV and IR properties of the boundary theory. It would be interesting to study further our proposal and discuss supermultiplets containing currents with higher spins, in particular the energy momentum tensor. It is also be of interest to study the thermodynamics and the $`O(N)`$ symmetry breaking pattern of the boundary theory from the bulk point of view.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank P. Sundell, M. Vasiliev and S. Ferrara for useful discussions. The work of RGL is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-91ER40677.

## Appendix

## Appendix A Conventions

There is a real basis of generators for the $`(++)`$ Clifford algebra

$$\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu =\{i\sigma _2,\sigma _1,\sigma _3\}.$$
(48)
Because of the reality of the generators of the Clifford algebra, we can take Majorana spinors satisfying

$$\psi =\widehat{c}\overline{\psi }^T.$$
(49)
We can take $`\widehat{c}=\underset{¯}{\gamma }^0ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$, and thus the Majorana condition just reduces to $`\psi ^{}=\psi `$. Because of the choice of basis for the Clifford algebra, we have equations like

$$\overline{\psi }\eta =\psi ^T\gamma ^0\eta =\psi _\alpha ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\eta _\beta =ϵ^{\beta \alpha }\psi _\alpha \eta _\beta =\psi \eta .$$
(50)
Using real Poincaré generators, the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry generators can be taken to satisfy

$$\{q_\alpha ,q_\beta \}=2(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }P_\mu .$$
(51)
A superspace representation for these generators is

$$q_\alpha =(\widehat{c}^1)_{\alpha \beta }\frac{\delta }{\delta \theta _\beta }+(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \theta )_\alpha _\mu .$$
(52)
The general $`𝒩=1`$ superfield is written

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )=\phi (x)\overline{\theta }\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\theta F(x)$$
(53)
and the supersymmetry transformations are

$$\delta \phi =\overline{ϵ}\psi ,\delta \psi =Fϵ+_\mu \phi \underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu ϵ,\delta F=\overline{ϵ}\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu _\mu \psi .$$
(54)
The “spin-zero” current is defined as

$$J=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2=\frac{1}{2}(\phi \phi )\overline{\theta }\left[(\phi \psi )\right]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\theta \left[(\phi F)\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\psi }\psi )\right],$$
(55)
therefore on-shell we have

$$J_1^{(+)}=\frac{1}{2}(\phi \phi ),J_{3/2}^{(\pm )}=(\phi \psi ),J_2^{()}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\psi }\psi ).$$
(56)
Then, taking

$$D_\alpha =(\widehat{c}^1)_{\alpha \beta }\frac{\delta }{\delta \theta _\beta }+(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \theta )_\alpha _\mu ,$$
(57)
we find the free $`𝒩=1`$ Lagrangian as

$$d^2\theta \frac{1}{2}\overline{D\mathrm{\Phi }}D\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left[\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi +\overline{\psi }\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu _\mu \psi +F^2\right].$$
(58)
Parity in three dimensions is defined as

$$\widehat{P}\psi (x^0,x^1,x^2)=\eta \left(\mathrm{\Pi }\psi \right)(x^0,x^1,x^2),\eta ^2=1,$$
(59)
and one can verify that a suitable choice is $`\mathrm{\Pi }\gamma ^2`$. Then one easily finds that the scalar $`J_2^{()}(x)`$ in (56) is odd under parity while $`J_1^{(+)}`$ is even, as the superscripts indicate. In general, $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry requires that the two scalars in the “spin-zero” multiplet have opposite parity. However, only the specific assignments above lead to a free-field theory representation as in (55).

Now we would like to extend this to the $`AdS_4`$ bulk . First, we take the AdS4 metric in Poincaré coordinates

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{r^2}\left(dr^2+\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu \right),\mu ,\nu =0,1,2.$$
(60)
It is simpler to work in $`\text{}^5`$ with metric $`g^{AB}=diag(+++)`$, $`A,B=1,0,1,2,3`$ where $`Spin(3,2)`$ acts linearly. The most convenient basis is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu & 0\\ 0& \underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(61)
The $`Spin(3,2)`$ generators in the spinor representation are $`S^{AB}=\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^A,\mathrm{\Gamma }^B]`$. Denoting by $`M^{AB}`$ the $`SO(3,2)`$ generators, we can introduce a supercharge $`Q_\alpha `$ (here $`\alpha =1,..,4`$)

$$[M^{AB},Q_\alpha ]=(S^{AB})_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }Q_\beta .$$
(62)
In the given basis, $`\widehat{C}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$. We have

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=2(S^{AB}\widehat{C}^1)_{\alpha \beta }M_{AB}.$$
(63)
The utility of the chosen basis is that the generator of $`Spin(2,1)Spin(3,2)`$ splits

$$S^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\underset{¯}{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}\underset{¯}{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right),$$
(64)
and thus it is sensible to define

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}q\\ s\end{array}\right).$$
(65)
We can then work out the superalgebra relations666As usual, define $`D=M_{1,3},K_\mu =M_{3,\mu }+M_{1,\mu },P_\mu =M_{3,\mu }M_{1,\mu },L_{\mu \nu }=M_{\mu \nu }`$. (now $`\alpha =1,2`$)

$`[L_{\mu \nu },q_\alpha ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\underset{¯}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }q)_\alpha `$ $`[L_{\mu \nu },s_\alpha ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\underset{¯}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }s)_\alpha ,`$ (66)
$`[P_\mu ,q_\alpha ]=0`$ $`[P_\mu ,s_\alpha ]=(\underset{¯}{\gamma }_\mu s)_\alpha ,`$ (67)
$`[K_\mu ,q_\alpha ]=+(\underset{¯}{\gamma }_\mu q)_\alpha `$ $`[K_\mu ,s_\alpha ]=0,`$ (68)
$`[D,q_\alpha ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_\alpha `$ $`[D,s_\alpha ]=+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_\alpha ,`$ (69)
and

$`\{q_\alpha ,q_\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }P_\mu ,`$ (70)
$`\{s_\alpha ,s_\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }K_\mu ,`$ (71)
$`\{q_\alpha ,s_\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }D(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^{\mu \nu }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }L_{\mu \nu },`$ (72)
where we have written $`\widehat{C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}\\ \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}& 0\end{array}\right)`$. It is clear from the form of the algebra that $`Q`$ can be taken to be Majorana. This condition is

$$Q=C\overline{Q}^T,$$
(73)
where $`C=\widehat{C}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, and the condition amounts to $`q^{}=q,s^{}=s`$.

The bulk ”Wess-Zumino multiplet” has real scalar components $`j_0,j_2`$ and a Majorana spinor $`j_{1\alpha }`$. In terms of UIRs of $`Osp(1|4)`$ this is of the general form

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta },0)D(\mathrm{\Delta }+1/2,1/2)D(\mathrm{\Delta }+1,0).$$
(74)
Supersymmetry acts on them as

$`q_\alpha j_2`$ $`=`$ $`j_{1}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{},`$ (75)
$`q_\alpha j_{1}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }_\mu j_2+(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{c}}^1)_{\alpha \beta }j_0,`$ (76)
$`q_\alpha j_0`$ $`=`$ $`(\underset{¯}{\gamma }^\mu _\mu j_1)_\alpha .`$ (77)
On-shell, the last equation (77) is zero. This essentially means that $`q_\alpha `$ acts as a dimension lowering operator such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_21/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_11/2`$, where $`Dj_x=\mathrm{\Delta }_xj_x`$. Relevant to us is the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1`$ when $`j_0`$, $`j_2`$ and $`j_1`$ are respectively the two conformally coupled scalars $`h_1^{(+)}`$ and $`h_2^{()}`$ and the bulk spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in (8) Again, $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY requires that one assigns different parities to the two scalar components of the multiplet. This can be easily seen if one realizes from (70) and (76) that the operator that lowers the dimension of $`j_2`$ by unity is proportional to $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }q_\alpha q_\beta `$ which is odd under parity . On the spinor, parity acts as in (59) where now $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. A mass term on AdS4 is parity odd.