text:
# On the universality class of the conifold

## 1 D-branes and the conifold algebra

The conifold geometry can be described by the variety which is the solution to the equation

$$a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2=0$$
(1)
in four variables, and represents a conical singularity which is also a Calabi-Yau manifold.

As the geometry of the singularity is a cone, one also expects that setting a collection of D-branes at the singularity will produce a conformal field theory . The cone is over the homogeneous space $`(SU(2)\times SU(2))/U(1)`$. The $`U(1)`$ is embedded diagonally. The group manifold has an $`SU(2)^4`$ isometry group which is broken to $`SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ upon taking the quotient. In the supergravity theory the $`U(1)`$ direction will be interpreted as the R-charge of the conformal symmetry group.

A D-brane probe on the geometry should have the conifold as a moduli space of vacua. In general, one can think of having $`n`$ D-brane probes of the geometry, and it is expected that the classical moduli space of such probes should give us the $`n`$th symmetric product of the conifold geometry.

A change of variables lets us write the conifold as

$$uv=wz$$
(2)
so that the conifold geometry can also be constructed as the holomorphic quotient $`^4/^{}`$ with charges $`[1,1,1,1]`$ on variables $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2`$. The invariants under such an action are the four $`a_ib_j`$, which are identified with $`u,v,w,z`$.

We can also rewrite the conifold geometry as

$$uv=(w^{}\lambda \gamma )(w^{}+\lambda \gamma )$$
(3)
with a parameter $`\lambda `$. We can set later $`\lambda =1`$ so that we have a family of conifold singularities, which at $`\lambda =0`$ gives us the orbifold space $`(^2/_2)\times `$. Thus, one can obtain the conifold geometry as a deformation of the complex structure of the orbifold $`(^2/_2)\times `$.

For D-branes, this means that one should be able to obtain the field theory of D-branes on a conifold geometry from a superpotential deformation of the supersymmetric field theory associated to the above orbifold, and then take the infrared limit near the conifold singularity in moduli space.

The approach of Klebanov and Witten  to the conifold field theory is given by a holomorphic quotient $`(^4)/^{}`$. The theory has four superfields $`x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2`$ with charges $`(1,1,1,1)`$ under a $`U(1)`$ gauge field, and with no superpotential. There is obviously an $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetry which acts on the $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ as $`(2,1)`$ and $`(1,2)`$ respectively.

The moduli space is given by the vevs of the gauge invariant superfields

$$N_{ij}=x_iy_j$$
(4)
and one finds the classical constraint in terms of the $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`det(N_{ij})=0`$, which gives rise to the conifold geometry.

To make further contact with D-branes, one has to interpret how the field theory is affected when one adds $`N`$ branes. Clearly one has to extend the gauge group to $`U(N)`$ somehow and one wants to be able to break $`U(N)U(1)^N`$ by classical vevs of $`x_i,y_i`$. If the $`x_i`$ are in the $`N`$ and the $`y_i`$ are in the $`\overline{N}`$ of $`U(N)`$, this means that we need $`N`$ of the $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ in order to get $`N`$ distinct points on the conifold. This would lead to an additional $`U(N)`$ symmetry of the theory which is not visible in the supergravity, so this symmetry must be gauged. The $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ is expected from D-brane gauge groups if there are two types of fractional branes. One linear combination of the diagonal $`U(1)^{}s`$ is decoupled (no field is charged under it), while under the other $`U(1)`$ the fields $`x,y`$ have opposite charges.

The end result is a field theory which can be represented by the quiver diagram drawn in figure 1

One also needs to add a superpotential so that the moduli space of vacua of the theory is of dimension $`N`$ rather than of order $`N^2`$ (the number of free fields that make the theory). If one requires the additional symmetry under the exchange of the two gauge groups then one can argue that the fields $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ have the same dimension which has to be set equal to $`dim(x_i)=3/4`$. The $`R`$ charges of the fields are fixed by the requirement of conformal invariance. The necessary superpotential deformation is quartic and unique given the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ global symmetry and being of single trace type

$$W=\lambda \mathrm{tr}(N_{ij}N_{lk}ϵ_{il}ϵ_{jk})$$
(5)
with $`N_{ik}=x_iy_k`$. This theory can be shown to be conformal by using the Leigh-Strassler techniques , as the $`\beta `$ functions for the gauge couplings and the superpotential are related.

To make contact with the algebraic techniques of , we can also write this superpotential in terms of fields $`X`$, $`Y`$ which are given by the $`2N\times 2N`$ matrices

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& x_1\\ y_1& 0\end{array}\right),Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& x_2\\ y_2& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
so that

$$W=\lambda \mathrm{tr}(\sigma [X,Y]^2)$$
(7)
The reason for introducing the discrete variable $`\sigma `$ is as a placeholder for the $`U(1)`$ gauge group in the $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ theory. In the case of one brane, it is exactly gauging by $`\mathrm{exp}(\theta \sigma )`$ which gives rise to the correct $`U(1)`$ action on $`X,Y`$, and it is easy to check that the above superpotential gives zero. In terms of the $`2N\times 2N`$ matrices the $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ gauge group is selected by requiring that it commute with $`\sigma `$.

We also note that

$$X\sigma =\sigma X,Y\sigma =\sigma Y,\sigma ^2=1$$
(8)
There are also constraints derived from the superpotential which read

$$(\sigma [X,Y],X)=(\sigma [X,Y],Y)=0$$
(9)
We will call the polynomial algebra generated by $`X,Y,\sigma `$– subject to the relations 8 and 9 – the algebra of the conifold.

Let us make one last note as to how we can obtain this field theory from the deformation of complex structure of the $`^2/_2\times `$ algebra. From equation 3 we see that we get a family of resolved ADE singularities, with a deformation that depends on the third coordinate $`\gamma `$. These deformations of complex structure are given by twisted fields in the worldsheet conformal field theory, and this translates into $`F`$ terms for the adjoints in the quiver of the $`^2/_2`$ $`𝒩=2`$ quantum field theory , all we need now is to make them dependent on the third coordinate. The $`𝒩=2`$ $`A_1`$ theory is described by the quiver diagram in figure 2.

The associated noncommutative algebra is given by the crossed product algebra of $`^3`$ and the group algebra $`_2`$ . Let $`\sigma `$ be the $`_2`$ group variable, thus $`\sigma ^2=1`$

$`\sigma X`$ $`=`$ $`X\sigma `$ (10)
$`\sigma Y`$ $`=`$ $`Y\sigma `$ (11)
$`\sigma Z`$ $`=`$ $`Z\sigma `$ (12)
The superpotential is given by $`\mathrm{tr}([X,Y],Z)`$, the same as the $`𝒩=4`$ field theory, which leads to $`X,Y,Z`$ commuting with each other. All we have done is added the extra discrete variable $`\sigma `$, which projects us onto the $`_2`$ invariant states.

Now we need to perturb the theory by a twisted chiral field. These are of the form 222This is a rewriting of the results of  in these matrix variables.

$$\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{tr}(\sigma Z^n).$$
(13)
They only modify the fact that $`X,Y`$ commute, so we get to

$$[X,Y]=\sigma Z^{n1}$$
(14)
From here, the center of the algebra is always given by $`Z,u=X^2,v=Y^2,\gamma =XY+YX`$, and the relation between these commutative variables changes because when we evaluate $`\gamma ^2`$ we need to commute $`X,Y`$ to order them. In this way,

$$\gamma ^2=4u^2+Z^{2(n1)}.$$
(15)
We need $`n=2`$ to obtain the conifold. In this case $`Z`$ has a mass term, so it can be integrated out, and the only surviving generators are $`X,Y`$ with an induced superpotential given by

$$\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ([X,Y])^2)$$
(16)
which again reproduces equation 7. As the field $`Z`$ is integrated out, it dissapears from the quiver diagram and we are left with figure 1 instead.

### 1.1 On the fate of the $`U(1)`$’s

So far we have described the field theory obtained in the infrared as the fixed point of the RG flow from a $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ field theory in the UV which is matched to a string background.

In particular, one describes the UV boundary conditions of the flow by the gauge couplings of the $`U(N)^2`$ theory. There is one $`U(1)`$ which, as far as the low energy field theory degrees of freedom are concerned, is decoupled from the open string sector because no field is charged under it. This field participates in the gauge variation of the closed string $`B`$ field and can be gauged away. If the closed string fields decouple from the low energy degrees of freedom then this global $`U(1)`$ is not part of the low energy dynamics on the brane at all.

There is a second $`U(1)`$ term in the Lagrangian which is the relative $`U(1)`$ (the difference of the two diagonal $`U(1)`$ charges in the $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ theory). This term allows us to give a D-term to the Lagrangian, and there is matter coupled to this $`U(1)`$. At the string scale (or some other higher energy scale where we are matching the field theory), this gauge coupling is determined by the two $`SU(N)`$ couplings, but as we flow towards the infrared the running gauge coupling goes to zero from screening by the massless charged fields. At the infrared fixed point theory the $`U(1)`$ is decoupled. When we describe the infrared field theory by an AdS background, this flow towards the infrared has already been taken into account, so in the conformal field theory the $`U(1)`$ is not properly there any more. If we are on a resolved conifold, the D-term of this $`U(1)`$ is part of the low energy data, and one has to keep a scaling limit where the coupling of the $`U(1)`$ goes to zero, but where the effects of the D-term give a finite scale. However, these massless fields are not in the spectrum of the conformal field theory associated to the AdS background.

### 1.2 Representations of the conifold algebra

Now we want to understand the classical moduli spaces of vacua of the conifold theory. We follow the techniques presented in .

From the algebraic relations we find that

$$u=X^2,v=Y^2,w=(XY+YX),z=[XYYX]\sigma $$
(17)
all belong to the center of the algebra, and thus they describe a commutative geometry. One can easily show that

$$4uv=w^2z^2$$
(18)
which, up to some trivial rescalings, gives us the commutative conifold geometry. On each irreducible representation of the algebra we have that all of $`u,v,w,z`$ are proportional to the identity, and thus specify a single point in the conifold. It is a simple exercise to show that, away from the singularity, there is one unique irreducible representation of the algebra in terms of $`2\times 2`$ matrices for each of the conifold points, and they are constructed by giving arbitrary values to the variables $`x_i,y_i`$ in equations 6, subject to the gauge equivalence generated by $`\mathrm{exp}\theta \sigma `$ (which changes the values of the parameters). Each of these representations is such that $`\mathrm{tr}(\sigma )=0`$, which means that it is built out of two fractional branes, one of each type.

At the conifold singularity, we find additional irreducible representations of the algebra which are one-dimensional and which are given by taking $`x_i=y_i=0`$, as all the equations are satisfied automatically except $`\sigma ^2=1`$. The two possible solutions correspond to $`\sigma =\pm 1`$, which we will call $`R_{}`$ and $`R_+`$. If we have $`NR_{}`$ and $`MR_+`$ branes, then the gauge group is $`U(N)\times U(M)`$.

It is easy to see that the bulk representation decomposes as $`R_{bulk}R_{}R_+`$. These are the fractional branes. They are characterized by the distinct values of $`\mathrm{tr}(\sigma )=\pm 1`$, so we can use $`\mathrm{tr}(\sigma )`$ as the parameter that counts how many fractional branes we have.

The end result is that branes only fractionate at the singularity. There are two types of fractional branes and a bulk brane fractionates into one of each of the two types of fractional branes. The gauge group of a configuration of $`N`$ bulk branes with $`NM`$ fractional branes is the gauge group associated to $`N`$ and $`M`$ fractional branes of different kind, namely $`U(N)\times U(M)`$.

At least in principle, the moduli space of the theory is given by a direct sum of irreducible representations of the algebra, and as such it is identified with the a set of $`N`$ points in the conifold.

### 1.3 The resolved conifold

Although we have written the holomorphic quotient naïvely as $`^4/^{}`$ one would really want to be more careful and write the quotient as a symplectic quotient to take into account the metric aspects of the singularity.

If we do this, one needs to consider also the D-term equations of motion of the supersymmetric field theory.

In the conifold field theory language, the D-term constraints are given by

$`[\overline{X},X]+[\overline{Y},Y]=D\sigma `$ (19)
or equivalently

$$|x_i|^2|y_i|^2=D$$
(20)
where we have introduced complex conjugate coordinates for $`X,Y`$ (which are their adjoints in the matrix algebra and give the algebra the structure of a $`^{}`$ algebra). Since we have that $`X\overline{X}`$ is a gauge invariant function in $`^4`$, it descends to an element of the center in the quotient algebra, and similarly for $`Y\overline{Y}`$. On the moduli space of vacua the equations 19 are block diagonal for the individual branes. Thus we only need to analyze one bulk brane at a time. All of the individual D-terms will be identical to one another as the supersymmetric field theory can only accommodate non-zero D-terms for the non-decoupled $`U(1)`$ in the $`SU(N)\times U(1)\times SU(N)\times U(1)`$ field theory.

We already have representations of $`X,Y`$ in terms of $`2\times 2`$ matrices as described in equations 6, and we take $`\overline{X},\overline{Y}`$ to be the adjoints in this representation. The conifold is described by the level set $`D=0`$. In this case, the representations at the origin are those for which $`x_iy_j=0`$ so if we assume one of the $`x_i0`$ then both of the $`y_j`$ are zero and from 19 we find that $`|x|^2=0`$ as well. In this case the holomorphic branes truly fractionate at the origin.

For distinct level sets, e.g. $`D>0`$, we have that $`|x|^2>0`$, so the origin of the conifold in moduli space has a nonzero value for (at least one of) the coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$. The ratio

$$\kappa _{ij}=x_i/x_j=N_{ij}/N_{jj}$$
(21)
is a holomorphic invariant for this configuration so long as the denominator is nonzero. This requires us to split the coordinates in moduli space in two patches where $`x_{1,2}0`$ and $`y=0`$.

As such, when we include these two patches we have a $`^1`$ space, as $`\kappa _{12}\kappa _{21}=1`$ when both are defined. It is also clear that the interpretation of the origin in moduli space is that one has blown-up the singularity to a finite size $`^1`$ as follows from the description in terms of quotients of commutative variables in equation 21.

Choosing $`D<0`$ exchanges the role of $`x,y`$ and corresponds to flopping the rigid $`^1`$.

From the holomorphic quotient point of view, these two blow-ups can be interpreted as holomorphic quotients

$$(^4/E)/^{}$$
(22)
where we remove one of two exceptional sets: either the complex variety $`y_i=0`$ or the complex variety $`x_i=0`$ so that irreducible representations with these values of the complex parameters are not allowed. Presented in this manner, there is no need to specify values for the D-terms and one is only using algebraic geometric descriptions of the blow-ups.

## 2 The conifold with discrete torsion

One can also obtain a conifold singularity from a deformation of the complex structure of the $`T^6/_2\times _2`$ orbifold with discrete torsion .

A noncompact version of this space is a $`^3/_2\times _2`$ with discrete torsion. The $`_2\times _2`$ orbifold is given by the variety described by the equations

$$\gamma ^2=uvw$$
(23)
in four variables. A deformation that takes us to a conifold singularity is given by

$$\gamma ^2=uvw\lambda ^2(u+v+w)+2\lambda ^3$$
(24)
The conifold singularity is located at $`u=v=w=\lambda `$. This deformation can be realized by a quantum field theory, so we can engineer the above geometry. The field theory that realizes the above deformation is associated to a collection of D3-branes at the orbifold with discrete torsion $`^3/_2\times _2`$.

In the case with discrete torsion, the quantum field theory for the orbifold $`_2\times _2`$ singularity consists of a quiver diagram with one gauge group and three superfields $`X,Y,Z`$ in the adjoint representation . This is because the $`_2\times _2`$ group has only one irreducible projective representation.The superpotential is given by

$$a\mathrm{tr}(XYZ+ZYX)$$
(25)
where $`a`$ is a coupling constant that we set equal to one by rescaling the fields. The field content is summarized by the quiver diagram appearing in figure 3.

This field theory was analyzed from the AdS/CFT correspondence in  and shown to lead to the correct moduli space of D-branes plus the fractional branes at the codimension two singularities.

The superpotential deformation that gives rise to the conifold singularity is obtained by adding F-terms for the superfields

$$2\zeta \mathrm{tr}(X+Y+Z)$$
(26)
and it is chosen so that one has a $`S_3`$ symmetry from permuting the three variables $`X,Y,Z`$.

We want to show now that this superpotential leads to the variety 24. The modified algebra is as follows

$`XY+YX`$ $`=`$ $`2\zeta `$ (27)
$`XZ+ZX`$ $`=`$ $`2\zeta `$ (28)
$`YZ+ZY`$ $`=`$ $`2\zeta `$ (29)
It is easy to verify that $`u=X^2`$, $`v=Y^2`$, $`w=Z^2`$ are in the center of the algebra for any value of $`\zeta `$. At $`\zeta =0`$ also $`\gamma =XYZ`$ is in the center, but this gets modified to

$$\gamma =XYZ\zeta X\zeta Z+\zeta Y=ZYX+\zeta X+\zeta Z\zeta Y$$
(30)
One can now expand $`\gamma ^2`$ by using the commutation relations and one finds

$$\gamma ^2=XYZXYZ+\{XYZ,\zeta X\zeta Z+\zeta Y\}+\zeta ^2(X^2+Y^2+Z^2)2\zeta ^3$$
(31)
From equation 30, we replace $`XYZ=ZYX+2\zeta X+2\zeta Z\zeta Y`$ so the relation becomes

$$\gamma ^2=uvw+(2\zeta X+2\zeta Z2\zeta Y)XYZ+\{XYZ,\zeta X\zeta Z+\zeta Y\}+\zeta ^2(X^2+Y^2+Z^2)2\zeta ^3$$
(32)
which can be written in terms of a commutator

$$\gamma ^2=uvw+[(\zeta X+\zeta Z\zeta Y),XYZ]+\zeta ^2(X^2+Y^2+Z^2)2\zeta ^3$$
(33)
but since $`\gamma `$ is central, we obtain from 30 that the commutator in the above expression vanishes and we are left with

$$\gamma ^2=uvw+\zeta ^2(u+v+w)2\zeta ^3$$
(34)
which is identical to equation 24.

For simplicity, we will now set $`\zeta =1`$.

The above algebra has one two dimensional representation for each point away from the singularity. Let us assume that $`X^2=a^20`$. Then, since $`X^2`$ is in the center while $`X`$ is not, we find that

$$X=a\sigma _3$$
(35)
From here it follows that

$$Y=a^1\sigma _3+b\sigma _2+c\sigma _3$$
(36)
With $`Y^2=a^2+b^2+c^2`$. We can generically make the choice $`b0`$ if $`Y^21/X^2`$. Finally, we can take

$$Z=a^1\sigma _3+(1a^2)b^1\sigma _2$$
(37)
We can now first take the limit $`a1`$ and then take $`b,c0`$, which shows that all $`X,Y,Z`$ become identical to each other. Thus, they commute and the representation becomes reducible into two one dimensional irreducible representations which are given by $`X=Y=Z=\pm 1`$. Notice that the representation becomes reducible exactly at the conifold singularity when we evaluate explicitly $`\gamma ,u,v,w`$.

It is an easy matter to establish that for these fractional brane configurations the D-term equations are satisfied and hence the D-branes fractionate at the geometric singularity. The representation splits into two distinct irreducibles and this is our first evidence that the two singularities are describing the same universality class of four dimensional field theories, as both have the same splitting of fractional branes at the singularity.

### 2.1 Field theory for the conifold with discrete torsion

Now we want to prove that the infrared dynamics of D-branes near the conifold singularity (this is a point in the moduli space of vacua of the theory) gives exactly the same low energy effective field theory as the conifold without discrete torsion.

To do this, we need to go to the region of moduli space where the branes fractionate and expand the theory about that background. Since we have a $`_3`$ symmetry that exchanges $`XYZ`$, it is convenient to do a linear change variables so that the new variables have definite charges under this $`_3`$ symmetry. These will be called $`A,B,C`$, and we write

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`A+B+C`$ (38)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`A+\eta B+\eta ^2C`$ (39)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`A+\eta ^2B+\eta C`$ (40)
Where $`\eta `$ is a cube root of unity. Under the $`_3`$ symmetry, $`A`$ is neutral while $`B,C`$ have opposite charges. The superpotential in these variables is given by

$$W=\mathrm{tr}[2(A^3+B^3+C^3)3(ABC+CBA)6A]$$
(41)
And the two conifold singularity irreducible representations corresponds to $`B=C=0`$ and $`A=\pm 1`$. We now want to take $`N`$ D-branes close to the conifold, which gives us a $`U(2N)`$ theory that we expand in fluctuations about the conifold point in the moduli space of vacua. Since $`A=\pm 1`$, the gauge group is broken to $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ and one can draw a naïve quiver from decomposing the field content under the unbroken gauge group quantum numbers. This is depicted in figure 4.

The expansion in fluctuations is given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\delta A_{11}& 0\\ 0& 1+\delta A_{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta B_{11}& \delta B_{12}\\ \delta B_{21}& \delta B_{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (43)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta C_{11}& \delta C_{12}\\ \delta C_{21}& \delta C_{22}\end{array}\right)`$ (44)
where we have used the allowed gauge invariance to set $`\delta A_{12}=\delta A_{21}=0`$. The equations to first order read

$$\{,\delta B\}=\{,\delta C\}=\{,A\}=0$$
(45)
so we find that $`B_{ii},C_{ii},A_{ii}`$ have to be zero, this is, they are massive fields that have to be integrated out. The massless fields are given by the elements of the $`B_{ij}`$ and $`C_{ij}`$ matrices with $`ij`$. As such, we remove them from the naïve quiver diagram, as well as the arrows corresponding to $`\delta A_{12},\delta A_{21}`$ which are the goldstone modes that are eaten by the Higgs mechanism.

The associated quiver diagram of the singularity is then given by two $`U(N)`$ gauge groups plus two fields in the $`(\overline{N},N)`$ and two fields in the $`(N,\overline{N})`$, and this begins to look like the standard conifold , as described by figure 1. To find the effective superpotential, we have to integrate out the massive fields $`A_{ii},B_{ii},C_{ii}`$. To do this, it is necessary to expand the equations to second order in fluctuations. From here, we find that

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta B_{11}^{(2)}& 0\\ 0& \delta B_{22}^{(2)}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta C_{12}\delta C_{21}& 0\\ 0& \delta C_{21}\delta C_{12}\end{array}\right)`$ (46)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta C_{11}^{(2)}& 0\\ 0& \delta C_{22}^{(2)}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta B_{12}\delta B_{21}& 0\\ 0& \delta B_{21}\delta B_{12}\end{array}\right)`$ (47)
$`4\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta A_{11}^{(2)}& 0\\ 0& \delta A_{22}^{(2)}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta B_{12}\delta C_{21}+\delta C_{12}\delta B_{21}& 0\\ 0& \delta B_{21}\delta C_{12}+\delta C_{21}\delta B_{12}\end{array}\right)`$ (48)
We now have to substitute these terms in the superpotential to obtain the effective superpotential for the massless fields. We get a superpotential of the form

$$W=\mathrm{tr}(a\delta B_{(1)}^2\delta C_{(1)}^2+b\delta B_{(1)}\delta C_{(1)}\delta B_{(1)}\delta C_{(1)})+\text{higher order}$$
(49)
Although at first sight it looks like the superpotential is different from 7, we have to remember that this is only well defined up to field redefinitions. Indeed, for the number of branes set equal to one, ($`N=1`$) we find no superpotential at all, which is exactly the case for the conifold without discrete torsion as well.

Consider now the following commutator

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`[\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \delta B_{12}\\ \delta B_{21}& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda \delta C_{12}\\ \lambda ^{}\delta C_{21}& 0\end{array}\right)]=[B,C^{}]`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^{}\delta B_{12}\delta C_{21}+\lambda \delta C_{12}\delta B_{21}& 0\\ 0& (\lambda ^{}\delta C_{21}\delta B_{12}+\lambda \delta B_{21}\delta C_{12})\end{array}\right)`$ (51)
where we have defined a modified $`C^{}`$ with $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ unitary. It follows that

$$\theta \mathrm{tr}\zeta ^2=\theta \mathrm{tr}\left[(2\lambda \lambda ^{}(\delta B_{(1)}^2\delta C_{(1)}^2)+(\lambda ^2+\lambda _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(\delta B_{(1)}\delta C_{(1)})^2)\right]$$
(52)
So we can adjust the coefficients $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{},\theta `$ to match $`a,b`$. With this slight change of variables we see that we are getting the right form of the superpotential as in equation 7 with an identification of the variables.

The higher order terms in the superpotential are present but become irrelevant in the low energy field theory once we flow to the infrared fixed point at the conifold singularity. The dictionary between the new variables and the previous ones333We denote the variables for 7 with a tilde is $`<A>\sigma `$, $`B\stackrel{~}{X}`$, $`C^{}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$

Also notice that the $`_3`$ symmetry under which $`B,C`$ transformed becomes part of the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ expected symmetry of the field theory in the infrared, so there are no additional discrete symmetries in the theory with discrete torsion.

The higher order terms which are irrelevant in the infrared and which we discarded when going to the infrared fixed point break the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ explicitly. Thus, the symmetry of the theory in the infrared is an enhanced global symmetry which exists only in the infrared fixed point field theory.

## 3 Marginal deformations

We have obtained through very different means the gauge theory corresponding to the conifold, and as such we should be able to match the marginal deformations from the two theories in the infrared fixed point. In particular, the gauge theory at the origin has two marginal deformations corresponding to the two gauge couplings in the quiver diagram, while the superpotential coupling remains fixed from the conditions for conformal invariance.

In the theory obtained from the $`^2/_2\times `$ deformation, we clearly have two distinct gauge couplings in the UV field theory which are also marginal. These are the two gauge couplings in the $`A_1`$ quiver theory. Thus, apart from some flow of couplings to the infrared region, we can identify the marginal deformations in the IR with marginal deformations in the UV finite field theory.

The operator is in this case

$$d^2\theta \mathrm{tr}(\sigma W^2)$$
(53)
with $`\sigma W=W\sigma `$ from the orbifold projection into the physical fields.

For the second case obtained from the orbifold with discrete torsion, there is only one gauge coupling in the UV finite field theory because we have only one gauge group.

However, the marginal operator in the infrared field theory should correspond to some operator in the UV. Since the operator should affect the gauge couplings as they split at the representation, it is proportional to $`\sigma `$. Remember now that we had identified $`\sigma <A>`$, and that the gauge coupling is a holomorphic function of the chiral fields, so the smallest dimension operator in the UV field theory which can accomplish this splitting is

$$𝒪=d^2\theta \mathrm{tr}(AW^2)$$
(54)
which is of dimension five. Thus, in the UV field theory, this would be considered an irrelevant coupling (in terms of the flow to the infrared) and would be discarded. However, in the flow towards the infrared field theory, this operator acquires an anomalous dimension that makes it relevant at the IR fixed point, making it another example of a dangerously irrelevant operator .

However, in the AdS/CFT correspondence one would not add such an operator to the theory in the UV because it would drastically change the boundary conditions.

Thus, in this case, the theory flows to the conifold field theory at some specific value of the couplings. Classically the two coupling are equal and since the equations of motion have a symmetry under $`AA`$ this means that we are in the scenario where the gauge theory has an extra $`_2`$ symmetry at the conifold, so this should be true quantum mechanically as well.

For the D-terms of the theory the same type of argument works. We need to add terms to the effective action proportional to $`\sigma `$. But these, not being holomorphic, require us to think of terms in the Kähler potential.

However there are no terms in the Kähler potential that can generate these types of $`D`$ terms. From the superfield formulation, terms linear in the D-terms of the vector field will be found in

$$d^4\theta \mathrm{tr}(f(\varphi ,e^{}V\overline{\varphi }e^V))$$
(55)
and to first order this involves the commutators $`[\overline{\varphi },V]`$. But these are exactly the gauge fields which are integrated out by the Higgs mechanism. These deformations, not being described by a superspace integral, necessarily break supersymmetry.

The obstruction to being able to blow up the conifold tip has to do with the fact that if such a blow-up were possible, then the 2-sphere representing such a cycle would be a holomorphic submanifold which turns out to be torsion in homology. Such a manifold can not be Kähler because in a Käler manifold any complex submanifold is minimizing in it’s volume class (it is calibrated by the Kähler form). Thus, the field theory and the topology agree. This also compares favourably with the results of , where a blowup of the conifold singularity produced a global geometry which was not of the Calabi-Yau type.

To see that such a sphere is torsion we go back to the orbifold with discrete torsion. There we have three complex lines of $`A_1`$ singularities meeting at the origin. On each of these lines one can assume that there is a blown-down $`^1`$ fibration. However, we have a monodromy of the fractional branes , so we would think of this fibration as one where we change the orientation of the $`^1`$ as we move on a circle about the origin. Such a $`^1`$ can not be holomorphic because otherwise it would have a canonical orientation given by the complex structure.

This suggests that in the orbifolds with discrete torsion $`T^6/_2\times _2`$, which are deformed to a Calabi-Yau space with conifold singularities, the obstruction to the possibility of blowing up the conifold is a global feature of the topology and not a particular detail of the singularity itself. This seems to be in accordance with the results found in  and supports the idea that the local behavior near the singularity is universal.

To push this point of view further, let us consider the resolved conifold. It is known that the blow-up mode of the conifold is non-normalizable in the conifold geometry 444I thank J. Maldacena for showing me this result. Thus, given a metric deformation that changes the volume of this cycle, one can show that the metric perturbation is non-normalizable. From this point of view, in order to determine if we are allowed to blow-up the conifold singularity we need to specify boundary conditions at infinity for this mode. As such, this mode is sensitive to the details of how the conifold is embedded in the Calabi-Yau space and can be expected to be dependent on the topological features at infinity.

## 4 Duality cascades, multi-trace operators and deformed moduli spaces.

In the conifold geometry we expect to be able to describe the duality cascades  in any UV description of the theory , and to generate as well a non-perturbative effective superpotential for brane probes.

The dualities are triggered from the effective gauge coupling becoming infinite for one of the fractional branes at a given scale $`\mu `$. One would like a geometric interpretation of this same singularity in an associated system from where we can draw conclusion as to the nature of this duality.

The D-brane system under T-dualities is dual to a matrix model of $`D0`$ branes, where the gauge groups $`U(N)\times U(M)`$ count mutually BPS fractional branes. Since the model is associated with a deformation of an $`A_1`$ singularity, we will do the duality analysis in the matrix model for the ALE space instead, which is a considerable simplification.

Our point of view is to concentrate only on the role that the gauge coupling becoming infinite plays. Indeed, in the matrix model the two gauge couplings $`1/g_1^2`$ and $`1/g_2^2`$ are real parameters that are related to Wilson lines in M-theory, see for example . The mass of a full D0-brane is proportional to $`1/g_1^2+1/g_2^2`$, which is a bound state of two fractional branes that are mutually BPS to the D0 brane if there are no F-terms or D-terms in the Lagrangian, while the masses of the fractional branes are proportional to $`1/g_i^2`$.

The fractional branes have to be chosen so that each of them has positive D0 brane charge, however, when we move in the gauge coupling moduli space we pass through a point in M-theory where the Wilson line around the eleventh direction vanishes and one of the fractional D-branes becomes massless. This is exactly the point at infinite gauge coupling, but we are allowed to continue past this point as the moduli space of Wilson lines does not stop here.

The D-brane charge lattice has two charges, the D0-brane charge and the fractional D-brane charge. This is represented in the figure 5.

The way to choose the constituent fractional D-brane charges for the matrix model is to take those D-branes with the smallest possible positive D0 brane charge. When the Wilson line goes through zero and becomes negative we need to change variables to keep our prescription intact, and this corresponds to a change of basis in the D-brane lattice.

The appropriate new lattice genertors are given by

$$e_2^{}=2e_1+e_2,e_1^{}=e_1$$
(56)
The lattice point $`Ne_1+Me_2`$ in terms of the new variables is given by $`(2MN)e_1^{}+Me_2^{}`$, and thus the new gauge group for the matrix model should be given by $`U(2MN)\times U(M)`$, with the same quiver diagram.

We recognize this immediately as the Seiberg duality  transformation that appears in the duality cascade. As far as the enhanced $`SU(2)`$ gauge model of M-theory, the change of basis $`e_1e_1^{}=e_1`$ on the root lattice of $`SU(2)`$ is a Weyl reflection, a fact noticed in . These changes by Weyl reflections are our choice as to which roots of the charge lattice are declared to be simple. In the matrix prescription mentioned above, this choice is given by which roots have the minimal positive $`D0`$ brane charge.

This toy model helps us understand why we have Seiberg Dualities in the field theory. However, notice that as far as M-theory is concerned we have to cross a singular point where we have extra massless fields, whereas in the conifold flow there is no such phenomena happening and the supergravity solution is nonsingular.

The difference between the conifold and the $`A_1`$ singularity can be understood because the masses of these fractional branes also receive a contribution from the deformation of the $`A_1`$ singularity. We are now in four dimensions and not seven dimensions, so the $`A_1`$ enhanced symmetry point is broken by values of fields that depend on positions that are transverse to the four dimensions. However, the treatment of these moduli is not democratic. Some of them are determined by the complex structure of the Calabi-Yau manifold, while the gauge coupling comes from Kähler moduli. As far as the D-branes are concerned, the contributions to the central charge of a D-brane are determined by the Khäler moduli. Because of the extra deformation the would-be fractional D-branes are not BPS at this position; they are massive, but their local contribution to the central charge vanishes. This is depicted in figure 6, where we miss the singular point by taking a contour that takes into account that other fields than the gauge coupling are present.

We still want to keep a description where the local central charge of a fractional object contributes in the same direction as the global D3 brane charge. To ensure this, we have to change our notion of constituent fractional D-branes as we flow towards the infrared. As the contour in figure 6 shows, we have missed the singularity, but we still crossed the wall in Kähler moduli space, so we have an analytic continuation beyond the would-be singularity. This is also reminiscent of how brane crossing in D-brane setups give rise to Seiberg dualities . The change in description in crossing the wall is the field theory duality. This cascade has been also generalized to $`SO/SP`$ dualities by including orientifolds .

### 4.1 Additional evidence for the deformed conifold

In the paper of Klebanov and Strassler  it was proposed that at the end point of the duality cascades the singularity of the supergravity solution is resolved by a deformed conifold.

For this interpretation to make sense, one expects that this is the effective geometry that any number of D3-branes see. They proved that one probe D3-brane leads to a deformed conifold, and we want to move this result forward for a collection of $`n`$ D3 brane probes.

One expects that this moduli space is essentially the symmetric product of $`n`$ copies of the conifold geometry $``$, namely one would want to find that the moduli space of vacua gives rise to $`Sym^n()`$. We will prove this result in what follows.

Consider the theory for $`n`$ D3 brane probes in the background of $`M`$ fractional branes. Then we have a theory with gauge group $`U(n)\times U(M+n)`$, and the $`U(n+M)`$ becomes strongly coupled with a dynamical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Remember the definition of the variables $`N_{ij}`$ in equation 4. The superpotential plus the nonperturbative correction from the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential  in these variables is given by

$$W=\mathrm{tr}N_{ij}N_{kl}ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}+c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^a/Det[N_{ij}]\right)^b$$
(57)
with $`a,b,c`$ constants depending on $`n,M`$ and with

$$det[N_{ij}]=det\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_{11}& N_{12}\\ N_{12}& N_{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(58)
a $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix transforming as $`(2\times 2)`$ matrices of $`SU(n)`$ adjoints. The variation of the above equation leads to

$$\delta W=\mathrm{tr}[2N_{kl}ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}\delta N_{ij}]+bc\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^a/Det[N_{ij}]\right)^b\mathrm{tr}[(N^1)^{ij}\delta N_{ij}]$$
(59)
This is

$$\delta W=2N_{kl}ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}bc\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^a/Det[N_{ij}]\right)^b(N^1)^{ij}$$
(60)
with $`N^1`$ the inverse of the $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix $`N_{ij}`$. Now notice that the term with the determinant has no $`SU(n)`$ or flavor indices, so it can be treated as a constant and we can rewrite the equation we need to solve as

$$N_{kl}ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}\mathrm{\Omega }(N^1)^{ij}$$
(61)
for some constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Multiplying by $`N`$ on the right, we obtain

$$2N_{kl}ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}N_{jl}=\mathrm{\Omega }\delta _l^i$$
(62)
and a similar expression for matrix multiplication by $`N`$ on the left. The content of the above equation is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_{22}& N_{21}\\ N_{12}& N_{11}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_{11}& N_{12}\\ N_{21}& N_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Omega }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_{11}& N_{12}\\ N_{21}& N_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_{22}& N_{21}\\ N_{12}& N_{11}\end{array}\right)$$
(63)
The above equations imply that $`N_{12}`$ and $`N_{21}`$ commute with $`N_{11}`$ and $`N_{22}`$. If $`N_{11}`$ is generic, we expect that it can be diagonalized with distinct eigenvalues by a complexified gauge transformation. Since $`N_{12}`$ and $`N_{21}`$ commute with $`N_{11}`$, it follows that they are diagonalized by the same basis. Then $`[N_{12},N_{21}]=[N_{11},N_{22}]=0`$ so that all of the $`N_{ij}`$ matrices commute with one another, and the collection of matrices $`N_{ij}`$ in the adjoint of $`SU(n)`$ are simultaneously diagonalizable.

The constraint satisfied by the eigenvalues is exactly the equation corresponding to the deformed conifold, so the moduli space of vacua is given by $`N`$ copies of the deformed conifold geometry up to $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations which permute the eigenvalues. This is, the moduli space of vacua is the symmetric product of the conifold space geometry.

All we need to do now is match the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, to the deformation parameter and we find exact agreement with the proposal of  to add an arbitrary number of probes to the geometry.

This is a strong test of the deformed conifold proposal, as the above result could have been expected to hold only in the semiclassical regime where the vevs of all of the $`N`$ are very large and to receive large quantum deformations when the scale associated to the vevs $`<N>`$ are small.

There are still singularities in the moduli space where two of these probe D3-branes meet. The low energy effective field theory degrees of freedom are such that one expects and enhanced $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory. The field counting suggests that these have an effective $`N=4`$ supersymmetry so that these singularities are not resolved.

### 4.2 More on discrete torsion

The statements made in the previous subsection depend only on effective field theory. However, one would want an ultraviolet description of the same statements in the theory with discrete torsion. Now we will try to do some consistency checks in this case to make sure that the geometrical description is accurate.

First, it is expected that we will deform the geometry without affecting the structure of the manifold at infinity. The constraints in equation 24 are modified to quantum constraints

$$\gamma ^2=uvw\lambda ^2(u+v+w)+2\lambda ^3+ϵ$$
(64)
with $`ϵ`$ being determined by the gaugino condensate. This becomes regular everywhere and it is the most economical possibility for the deformed quantum potential.

What is interesting in this case is that the constants $`a,b,c`$ appearing in equation 57 depend on $`n,M`$, the number of total branes and the number of fractional branes. In our case the number of fractional branes is counted by the superfield vev $`\mathrm{tr}(A)`$, and this is determined dynamically by the vacuum choice, as opposed to being imposed by hand as a superselection sector.

The superpotential might look like

$$W_{tree}+a(\mathrm{tr}(A))\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(\mathrm{tr}(A))/det(N)\right)^c(\mathrm{tr}(A))$$
(65)
which looks like a non-analytic function of the chiral fields and this might be considered pathological. However, the classical vev of $`\mathrm{tr}(A)`$ is quantized so these worries might be unfounded. The point is that, if we are trying to do a variation of the above equation, we need to worry about the vacuum structure even if there are no fractional branes because all the vacua of the theory with and without fractional branes are connected to one another. The only part which is difficult to trace is the variation with respect to $`A`$, but notice that in equation 65 we can vary $`A`$ assuming $`det(N)`$ is constant. After all this is just one function on the moduli space of $`n`$ branes, and not a whole matrix variable, so we can treat is a constant matrix proportional to the identity. The same is true for values of $`\mathrm{tr}(A)`$ obtained after the variation of the superpotential. In the end, this variation might at worse renormalize the value of $`\zeta `$ 26, but one does not even expect this to happen unless $`\mathrm{tr}(A)0`$

The non-perturbative superpontential should vanish for $`\mathrm{tr}(A)=0`$ which is the condition for no fractional branes. This can be accomplished if there is a $`\mathrm{tr}(A)^2`$ prefactor in the nonperturbative terms of the superpotential. Since the theory is well defined in the UV with a given gauge coupling and value of $`\zeta `$, the nonperturbative scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be written in terms of these UV quantities, and notice that $`\zeta ^{1/2}=\mathrm{tr}(A)`$ for any of the two fractional brane solutions as well.

As such, these corrections will all be proportional to $`\mathrm{tr}(A)`$ which vanishes for any configuration without fractional branes, and we recover our undeformed conifold singularity when we expect it to be there.

Also, if $`\mathrm{tr}(A)0`$, then we get nonperturbative corrections to the geometry, and the low energy effective field theory near the conifold predicts that we obtain a deformed conifold.

Notice that the nonperturbative form of the superpotential is of multi-trace type generically (the determinant can also be written in terms of multiple traces). Naïvely this seems to produce exotic non-localities between D-branes , but in this case it seems that rather mysteriously we have obtained a very well defined local interpretation of the resulting geometry in terms of a deformed conifold.

## 5 Holography and universality

We want to argue that the phenomenon encountered previously for the conifold is generic: given a singularity in a Calabi-Yau manifold that is associated to a nonsingular worldsheet $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ sigma model in type II theories, without any $`RR`$ gauge fields and without $`NS`$ five-branes at the singularity, the classes of field theories associated to D-brane probes on the cone geometry are universal (up to Seiberg dualities). This is clear for singularities on a Calabi-Yau two-fold. They are all given by quotient singularities, and the resolutions of singularities by blow-ups are unique giving rise to an ADE Dynkin diagram for the exceptional divisors. This universal behavior has been found in toric singularities  and in the Weyl reflections for $`ADE`$ fibrations in . The argument we present is speculative and should be considered more as a hint of universality rather than a proof. As such one should approach this section as establishing some evidence for a conjecture.

In order to describe this conjecture in more detail, we first need to give the data for a singularity. If a singularity $``$ is isolated (there are no codimension two singularities that pass through the codimension three singularity), then the base of the cone over the singularity, which we will label as $`X`$ is a smooth Sasakian manifold, see . Let us also assume that $`X`$ has no torsion homology.

If we put a set of D3-branes near the singularity then we will get a near horizon geometry of the form $`AdS_5\times X`$. The moduli space of vacua of D3-branes should be given by the symmetric product $`Sym^n()`$, and from the ideas of  one can actually measure this moduli space in terms of boundary conditions for the supergravity in $`AdS_5\times X`$. From the geometry of $`X`$ one can also determine the chiral ring of the associated large $`N`$ field theory completely, as well as the global symmetries of the field theory.

This data is universal regardless of what field theory realizes the singularity. Usually, given two field theories which have the same moduli space of vacua, the same global symmetries and the same chiral ring they can be dual to one another in the infrared .

If the singularity is non-isolated we need to be more careful. This is because the supergravity approximation breaks down, as the singularities meet $`X`$ on a circle. These codimension two singularities are going to be of ADE type on $`X`$. Thus, it is clear locally how the resolutions look like from analyzing the twisted sector strings. However, as these are on a circle, there is a possibility of having monodromies for the blow-up modes. These monodromies are given by the choices of discrete torsion on orbifolds , and there are consistency conditions that correlate the different monodromies on distinct circles. Presumably these consistency conditions are the ones that guarantee that the closed string field theory without the D-branes is non-singular.

The monodromies are part of the data that can be measured away from the singularity, the moduli space of D-branes and the chiral ring are sensitive to these monodromies, so these are holomorphic observables as well. If we give the additional data of these monodromies, then we have specified the topological type of the singularity. Again, any two field theories with the same moduli space of vacua, chiral ring and global symmetries associated to the same singularity should be dual to one another.

The idea for our universality argument is that in the AdS/CFT correspondence the codimension three singularity disappears from the near horizon geometry and is encoded holographically on the base of the cone $`X`$ at the boundary.

There are subtleties to this idea if $`X`$ has torsion elements in $`H^3(X,Z)`$. In principle one can excite a topologically non-trivial $`H`$ field which is flat that would correspond to a choice of discrete torsion. This is holographic data, but at first sight it is hard to find holomorphic observables which correspond to these choices. Wrapping branes on these cycles gives us the spectrum of baryon-like operators (see ) in the conformal field theory and due to anomalies it is sensitive to this data. This additinal data is then necessary to establish the universality class of field theories at the singularity. In the conifold case, there is no torsion in homology, so there are no discrete torsion choices of this type to be made.

One would want a more constructive argument. Given a singularity, one would want to find a recipe for constructing a non-commutative resolution in the sense of , and then one has a well defined field theory associated to the singularity. On this field theory one can do various changes of D-brane basis which should correspond to Seiberg dualities, and these can be triggered by motion in the moduli space of couplings of the field theories, as in the duality cascades. One can expect that, in some sense, these dualities are triggered by crossing lines of marginal stability, and that they correspond to D-brane monodromies given by Fourier-Mukai transforms .

## 6 Conclusion

A careful analysis of the field theory associated to the conifold with discrete torsion has been presented. We saw that this field theory in the infrared is identical to the conifold field theory constructed by Klebanov and Witten . As such, conifold singularities seem to have no additional discrete torsion degrees of freedom at the singularity. Obstructions to resolving the singularity are instead given by global topological considerations and depend on how the singularity is embedded in a particular Calabi-Yau space.

We have also presented some evidence that there are no additional discrete degrees of freedom at any Calabi-Yau singularity located at a point $`p`$ that can not be guessed by data on the boundary of a finite size cone around $`p`$. This is a conjecture that states that the geometric classification of singularities depends on variables in the low energy string theory (like monodromies of fractional branes if certain cycles are of zero size) and the algebraic geometric type of the singularity.

The following properties are conjectured and are applicable so long as the Calabi-Yau manifold is considered to be very large (non compact). This is required because we want to guarantee that D3-branes are stable objects , only then we can trust that our field theory on the world volume of the D-branes is supersymmetric and that the heavy string modes can be integrated out.

1. Field theory duals of D-branes at Calabi-Yau singularities are uniquely determined by the singularity type up to Seiberg dualities . The singularity type can include discrete torsion choices as either monodromies of fractional branes on codimension two singularities, or as torsion elements of $`H^3(X,)`$ if the singularity is a cone over $`X`$. Both of these data are holographic.
2. The singularities give rise to field theories that can have duality cascades if one can add fractional branes. The Seiberg dualities are changes of basis in the fractional brane lattice and correspond to crossing walls in Kähler moduli space.
3. One can also cross these walls by changing the boundary conditions at infinity (bare values of the couplings) and induce Seiberg dualities in theories without fractional branes.
4. Point-like branes in the Calabi-Yau manifold always fractionate at singularities, and never fractionate away from singularities.

One would also like to find a way of constructing field theories given a singularity. For toric singularities one has the proposal of , however, one would want a more general description for singularities which are non-toric. As far as I know, all examples of Calabi-Yau threefold singularities can be obtained from either partial resolutions or deformations of known orbifold constructions; or by orbifolding known singularities. Perhaps one can address singularities systematically in this manner, as all of the field theories associated to these geometric processes would be constructible.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the ITP at Santa Barbara, the ITP workshop on M-theory, and the Aspen Center for Physics for their hospitality and support, where some of the ideas appearing in this paper were first conceived. Research supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40542. This research was supported in part by NSF under grant no PHY99-07949. Ii is a pleasure to thank P. Aspinwall, M. Douglas, I. Klebanov, R. G. Leigh, J. Maldacena, D. Morrison, R. Plesser, E. Silverstein, and E. Witten for useful conversations. Special thanks to J. Sonnenschein for valuable discussions and for commenting on a preliminary version of the manuscript. I would also like to thank A. Berenstein for pointing various typos in the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Stability of magnetic vortex in soft magnetic nano-sized circular cylinder

## Abstract

Stability of magnetic vortex with respect to displacement of its center in a nano-scale circular cylinder made of soft ferromagnetic material is studied theoretically. The mode of vortex displacement producing no magnetic charges on the cylinder side is proposed and the corresponding absolute single-domain radius of the cylinder is calculated as a function of its thickness and the exchange length of the material. In cylinders with the radii less than the single-domain radius the vortex state is unstable and is absolutely prohibited (except if pinned by material imperfections), so that the distribution of the magnetization vector in such cylinders in no applied magnetic field is uniform (or quasi-uniform). The phase diagram of nano-scale cylinders including the stability line and the metastability region obtained here is presented.

The small magnetic nano-scale cylinders made of soft magnetic materials recently gained attention due to the progress in fabrication and observation techniques and also because of their possible applications in magnetic random access memory (MRAM) devices. Within such a cylinders of circular shape in a certain range of sizes the magnetic vortices are frequently observed (see e.g. FGWC98 ; SOHSO00 ; SHZ00 ; PSN00 ). For applications, which usually try to avoid vortex formation (such as MRAM cells, GSSJTG00 ), it is important to know the sizes of the cylinder where the vortices do not form.

In thin ferromagnetic cylinders with the thickness $`L`$ of the order of a few $`L_E`$ (where $`L_E=\sqrt{C/M_S^2}`$ is the exchange length, $`C`$ is the exchange constant of the material, $`M_S`$ is the saturation magnetization) distribution of the magnetization vector can be assumed uniform along the cylinder axis. Then, there are two characteristic sizes of the cylinder important for the presence of the vortex state versus the uniformly magnetized one in zero applied magnetic field. The first is the single-domain radius $`R_{EQ}`$, which is defined as a radius of the cylinder (at a given thickness) in which the energies of the uniformly magnetized state and the state with the vortex are the same UP93 . In cylinders with radii $`R<R_{EQ}`$ the uniformly magnetized state has a lower energy than the vortex state. However, the metastable vortices still may be present in cylinders with radii below $`R_{EQ}`$. There is another characteristic radius, the absolute single domain radius $`R_S`$ of the cylinder, which is obtained from the requirement that the vortex is unstable (therefore is absolutely prohibited) in cylinders with $`R<R_S`$.

The rigorous calculation of $`R_S`$ requires evaluating the second variation of the energy functional including the long-range dipolar interactions, which is currently beyond possibilities of analytical methods. The other way to estimate the stability radius is to assume the precise way (mode) the vortex loses its stability and then to calculate the stability radius with respect to that process. There is an infinite set of possible candidate modes. Provided calculation of the energies is rigorous, the result for a particular candidate is a lower bound for the stability radius. The “true” $`R_S`$ is the highest of all the lower bounds for all possible modes. This is also easy to understand from a thought experiment of having a cylinder with vortex and slowly shrinking its radius, as soon as the largest absolute single domain radius is reached the vortex loses stability according to that particular mode.

The first estimate of the absolute single-domain radius $`R_S`$ was obtained for the circular cylinder by Usov and coworkers UP94  for the mode corresponding to the uniform translation of the vortex. Such a translation is accompanied by formation of magnetic charges on the cylinder sides.

In small and flat ferromagnetic cylinders of isotropic (ideally soft) material the following hierarchy of energies is presentM01\_solitons2  (by decreasing their importance for minimization): exchange energy, energy of magnetic charges of the cylinder faces (because the cylinder is flat), energy of magnetic charges on cylinder sides, energy of volume magnetic charges. The energy of volume charges is the least important one, because of a general amplification of the effects associated with surface compared to the ones associated with volume, as the size of the particle decreases. Thus, it may be expected (and further calculations in this work support this conjecture) that a mode with non-uniform vortex deformation having no side magnetic charges (but having volume ones) may be more favorable for the vortex stability loss.

To find such a mode is not an easy task because once the vortex is deformed the problem loses the cylindrical symmetry and becomes two-dimensional (leading to a system of partial differential integral equations) instead of one-dimensional (described by a single ordinary differential equation) if the axial symmetry is present. It is possible to write the solution for the displaced magnetic vortex with no side magnetic charges and very small face charges at the vortex center exactly minimizing the exchange energy functional in the following form M01\_solitons2

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\left(ız+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a\overline{a}z^2\right)\right),`$ (1)
$`w(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}f(z)\hfill & |f(z)|1\hfill \\ f(z)/\sqrt{f(z)\overline{f}(\overline{z})}\hfill & |f(z)|>1\hfill \end{array},`$ (4)
where $`z=X+ıY`$, $`ı=\sqrt{1}`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are Cartesian coordinates in the cylinder plane, so that the axis $`Z`$ is parallel to the cylinder axis, the complex parameter $`a`$ describes the vortex displacement (for $`a=0`$ the vortex is centered), the real parameter $`c`$ is related to the vortex radius, bar over a variable denotes the complex conjugation, the components of the magnetization vector $`\stackrel{}{M}(X,Y)`$ are given by $`M_X+ıM_Y=M_S2w/(1+w\overline{w})`$ and $`M_Z=M_S(1w\overline{w})/(1+w\overline{w})`$. An example of configuration (1) is shown in Fig. 1. In the case of no applied field (the case when the field is non-zero was considered elsewhere GM01 ) the phase of the complex number $`a`$ is not important, this parameter will be considered real in the rest of this work. The expression (1) is not arbitrary, it follows from the analysis performed in M01\_solitons2 , that it is the only way to displace the vortex center so that it’s structure keeps minimizing the exchange energy functional exactly and has no surface magnetic charges on the cylinder side. The magnetization distribution (1) has surface magnetic charges on the faces of the cylinder localized near the vortex center, which is a topological singularity M01\_solitons2 . Unlike side charges, the charges on the faces can not be avoided if the cylinder is in a state of non-uniform magnetization (topologically charged state), such as vortex.

The values of the parameters $`a`$ and $`c`$ need to be found from minimization of the magnetostatic energy for the configuration (1). It is clear that in absence of magnetic field, the equilibrium $`a=0`$ due to symmetry, in this case (1) reduces to the structure of an axially symmetric centered vortex exactly coinciding with the one studied by UsovUP93 . The parameter $`c=R_V/R`$, where $`R_V`$ is the equilibrium vortex radius calculated in UP93 .

The stability radius can be found from the condition

$$\frac{^2}{a^2}\left(E_{EX}(a)+E_{MS}(a)\right)|_{a=0}=0,$$
(5)
which means that the energy minimum on the variable $`a`$ turns to maximum. In this expression $`E_{EX}`$ and $`E_{MS}`$ are the total exchange and magnetostatic energy of the cylinder respectively.

The normalized exchange energy of the particle with magnetic configuration (1) is

$$e_{EX}=\frac{E_{EX}}{4\pi M_S^2V}=\frac{L_E^2}{4\pi R^2}(2\mathrm{log}\frac{2c}{1+\sqrt{1a^2}}),$$
(6)
where $`V=L\pi R^2`$ is the particle volume.

Due to the lack of space the change (with $`a`$) of the vortex core magnetostatic energy (face charges) will be neglected in this paper. This approximation is equivalent to neglecting terms of the order $`c^31`$. The density of volume magnetic charges (also neglecting the fact that inside the vortex core $`|f(z)|<1`$ they are reduced, equivalent to throwing out terms of the order $`c^51`$) is

$$\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{aM_S}{R}\mathrm{cos}\varphi +O(a^2),$$
(7)
in the polar coordinate system $`r`$, $`\varphi `$ centered at the particle axis. Their normalized energy is

$$e_{\mathrm{MS}}^{\mathrm{vol}}=\frac{E_{\mathrm{MS}}^{\mathrm{vol}}}{4\pi M_S^2V}=\frac{Ra^2}{2L}F_1^V(\frac{L}{R})+O(a^3)$$
(8)
where straightforwardly

$$F_1^V(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_0^x_0^x_0^1_0^1_0^{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\frac{r_1r_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2\mathrm{d}z_1\mathrm{d}z_2\mathrm{d}r_1\mathrm{d}r_2\mathrm{d}\varphi _1\mathrm{d}\varphi _2}{\sqrt{(z_1z_2)^2+r_1^2+r_2^22r_1r_2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}},$$
(9)
which can be simplified into

$$F_1^V(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}dk\frac{x}{k}\left(1\frac{1e^{kx}}{kx}\right)\left[_0^1\rho J_1(k\rho )d\rho \right]^2.$$
(10)
Equation (5) was then solved numerically for $`R_S/L_E`$ at different $`L/L_E`$, the result is shown in Fig. 2. It is possible to obtain the asymptotic of this dependence at $`LL_E`$ analytically by expanding $`F_1^V(x<<1)=kx^2+O(x^3)`$, where $`k=0.0882686\mathrm{}`$ we get

$$\frac{R_S}{L_E}=\frac{1}{8\pi k(L/L_E)},LL_E.$$
(11)
This asymptotic was used to verify the results of the numerical computation and is also plotted in Fig. 2.

Neglecting the vortex core is not such a bad approximation as it seems, in fact, it only breaks when $`c=R_V/R`$ is close to one, which happens near the intersection of the $`R_S`$ and $`R_V`$ lines in Fig. 2. Including the core into consideration is straightforward but involves more complicated formulas. Such more detailed calculation will be published in a forthcoming paper.

This work was supported in part by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under projects 202/99/P052, 101/99/1662, the INTAS Grant 31-311 and the Korea Institute for Advanced Study. The authors would like to thank Ivan Tomáš for reading the manuscript and many valuable discussions.


text:
# High Resolution Observations of the Elliptical Galaxy NGC 4636 with the Reflection Grating Spectrometer On-Board XMM-Newton

## 1 Introduction

Most elliptical and other early-type galaxies possess a hot and diffuse interstellar medium (ISM) that extends out to several tens of kpc. The ISM temperature ranges from 0.5 keV to 1 keV (e.g., Matsumoto et al. 1997) so that most of its emission is radiated in the soft X-ray band. Detailed analysis of the X-ray spectra of these systems, which are dominated by a wealth of characteristic emission lines, provides a robust tool to understand the metal enrichment processes in stars and interstellar gas, and possibly to constrain the supernova history of the parent galaxies.

However, in all previous investigations, the spectral resolution and/or sensitivity of the instruments used were insufficient to cleanly address these issues. Hundreds of emission lines, particularly a forest of iron-L lines, were completely blended in the observed spectra. Therefore, simple model fits to the X-ray data do not yield unambiguous determinations of the gas density and temperature, the metal abundances, or their spatial distributions.

In this paper, we report the first high spectral resolution X-ray observation of the giant elliptical galaxy NGC 4636, performed with the Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) (den Herder et al. 2001) on board the XMM-Newton Observatory. At $`z=0.003129`$ (Smith et al. 2000), NGC 4636 is located in the skirt region of the Virgo cluster. Global fitting of ASCA SIS spectra (Matsumoto et al. 1997) yielded a mean temperature for the interstellar gas in this galaxy of $`0.76\pm 0.01`$ keV and an average metal abundance of $`0.31_{0.03}^{+0.04}`$ solar. The $`0.54.5`$ keV luminosity was found to be $`5.7\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1 which makes it one of the brightest elliptical galaxies in the X-ray band.

In §2, we describe our observations and basic data reduction procedures. The detailed analysis of the RGS spectrum is presented in §3. We demonstrate that the observed spectral and spatial distributions mandate the presence of a weak temperature gradient in the ISM of NGC 4636, as well as careful consideration of the importance of resonance line scattering in interpreting the measured line intensities. We invoke a novel modeling and fitting procedure that allows us to constrain the relevant plasma parameters with these effects included. Our spectral fits indicate higher metal abundances than have been inferred from prior, lower spectral resolution observations of this source, but are still discrepant with expectations from conventional chemical enrichment models. In addition, we place tight upper limits on the contribution of low temperature gas, in contradiction with the predictions of standard cooling-flow models for the ISM of this galaxy. In §4, we summarize and discuss the implications of these results. Throughout the paper, we assume a distance to NGC 4636 of 15.0 Mpc (Ferrarese et al. 2000). Unless stated otherwise, the wavelengths of the emission lines are expressed in a reference frame at rest in the source. The solar abundance ratios are taken from Anders and Grevesse (1988).

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

NGC 4636 was observed with XMM-Newton in revolutions 0109 (July 13–14, 2000) and 0197 (January 5, 2001). During revolution 0109, a historically strong solar flare event occurred so that the European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) detectors were all switched off, and the RGS spectra were heavily contaminated with particle-induced background. In this initial report, we therefore concentrate on the RGS data obtained during the second observation. The total exposure is approximately 64 ks. We processed the data with the Science Analysis System (SAS) for event reconstruction, CCD energy correction, and angular coordinate mapping. Approximately $`3.5\times 10^4`$ photons are contained in the spectrum after rejecting bad events. Given the spatial extent of the source, the effective spectral resolution of the RGS is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 0.2`$ Å over most of the band.

## 3 Spectral Analysis

### 3.1 Line Identification

The raw RGS spectra, which are uncorrected for the response of the instrument and the redshift of the source, are plotted as a function of wavelength in Figure 1. The first- and second-order spectra obtained by both RGS1 and RGS2 have been added together in constructing this figure. We have not removed particle or detector background. The spectra are dominated by the $`2p3d`$ lines of Fe XVII-XXI ($`1215`$ Å), the $`2p3s`$ lines of Fe XVII-XVIII ($`1617.1`$ Å), and the Ly$`\alpha `$ lines of O VIII (19.0 Å) and Ne X (12.1 Å). The blended Helium-like Mg XI triplet ($`9.2`$ Å) can also be clearly identified. In addition, there are weak Ly$`\alpha `$ lines of N VII (24.8 Å) and Mg XII (8.4 Å), and the O VII triplet at $`21.622.1`$ Å. Because the O VIII lines are much stronger than the O VII lines, and the Fe XVIII-XIX $`2p3d`$ lines are weaker than the Fe XVII $`2p3d`$ lines, there must be very little contribution from gas with $`kT<500`$ eV or $`kT>700`$ eV. The ratios of Mg XII line intensities to those of Mg XI are consistent with this range, and in fact indicate a temperature of approximately 600 eV.

Measured incident fluxes of those lines which can be well isolated are given in Table 1. These have been obtained by integrating over the cross-dispersion direction on the RGS detectors, subtracting the relevant background, and dividing by both the RGS effective area specific to these extractions and by the effective exposure times. Of particular interest are the relative intensities of the brightest Fe XVII lines at $`15.01`$ Å, $`15.26`$ Å, $`16.78`$ Å, and those at $`17.05`$ and $`17.10`$ Å, which are blended. Ratios of these lines are listed in Table 2, along with the analogous quantities deduced from Chandra HETG observations of Capella (which has a very similar temperature to what we infer for NGC 4636; Behar et al. 2001), and the predicted line ratios at this temperature given by the APEC model for a plasma in collisional equilibrium (Smith et al. 2001). As can be seen, the NGC 4636 Fe XVII line ratios are in reasonable agreement with those measured for Capella, but disagree more significantly with the APEC predictions. We find similar effects for Fe XVIII. In both cases, the $`2p3d`$ lines are too weak relative to the $`2p3s`$ lines. The origin of this discrepancy is still unclear, but, since it is also observed in the Capella spectrum, it appears to possibly be an artifact of uncertainties in the atomic excitation rates for these lines (Brown et al. 1998; Laming et al. 2000; but see also Brown et al. 2001), and not of the astrophysical conditions in the NGC 4636 ISM. We therefore empirically correct the intraseries Fe L-shell line ratios in our subsequent modeling, using Capella as the calibrator. Following Behar et al. (2001), we choose to normalize the relative line intensities to the intensity of the 15.26 Å line for Fe XVII and its spectroscopic equivalent for Fe XVIII. This choice gives the best agreement with the remainder of the L-shell complex for each ion, particularly the higher series lines.

### 3.2 Cross-Dispersion Profiles

The RGS is a slitless, nearly stigmatic spectrometer, which means we can place some constraints on the spatial dependence of the various emission lines, by examining the profile of the emission line fluxes and their ratios in the cross-dispersion direction. We first look at the ratio of the two $`2p3s`$ lines of Fe XVII at 17.1 Å to that of the $`2p3d`$ line of Fe XVII at 15.0 Å, which is plotted in Figure 2a. As can be seen, this ratio is significantly peaked toward the center of the gaseous halo of the galaxy. Since these lines originate from the same charge state of a single element, the observed spatial dependence cannot be due to gradients in either the temperature or elemental abundances within the ISM. Instead, it is most likely produced by resonance line scattering of the 15.0 Å photons. The oscillator strength for the $`2p3d`$ transition is substantially higher than that of the $`2p3s`$ lines. For the inferred densities and temperatures in the core of the NGC 4636 ISM, the 15.0 Å line optical depth is greater than unity, while the 17.1 Å blend optical depth is negligible. The 15.0 Å photons typically scatter one or more times before exiting the medium, flattening the intensity profile of that line in comparison to the others. Hence, accurate treatment of resonance line scattering is essential to correctly modeling the extracted spectrum. 111In deriving the line intensities given in Tables 1 and 2, we used an extraction region of $`2^{}`$ in the cross-direction. Since this is much larger than the angular scale of the observed variations, resonance scattering does not affect these integrated line intensities.

In Figure 2b, we plot the ratio of the 17.1 Å line of Fe XVII to the 16.0 Å line of Fe XVIII. Here again, it is centrally peaked. However, these are both $`2p3s`$ transitions, and neither has sufficient optical depth for the profile to be affected by resonance scattering. In this case, the variation in the ratio must be associated with a temperature gradient, which makes the Fe XVII and Fe XVIII ion fractions a function of radius. The temperature must drop by $`2030`$ percent from the outer regions of the halo toward the core.

Finally, in Figure 2c, we plot the ratio of the Fe XVII 17.1 Å blend to the Ly$`\alpha `$ line of O VIII at 19.0 Å. These lines have similar, but not exactly identical emissivity dependences on temperature. As can be seen, there is only a mild spatial dependence, of the same order as expected for the inferred temperature gradient. The implication is that there is not a severe relative abundance gradient in the halo. We also find no strong evidence of abundance gradients by looking at the profiles of line ratios involving the other elements.

### 3.3 Quantitative Spectral Fitting

As we have shown, proper modeling of the gas distribution in the ISM of NGC 4636 requires careful treatment of both temperature gradients and resonance line transfer. In addition, since this is an extended source, the line spread function of the RGS instrument is dependent on the spatial distribution of the emission. All of these factors require that the spatial and spectral distributions be modeled jointly. Standard spectral fitting procedures cannot be used for this purpose.

We have developed a new approach to spectral fitting of extended sources which relies on Monte Carlo methods (Peterson, Jernigan, & Kahn 2001). Assuming given 3-dimensional spatial distributions for the relevant plasma parameters, Monte Carlo photons are generated within the medium at positions and wavelengths weighted by the emissivity model. These photons are then scattered in both frequency and space based on line scattering probabilities, evaluated assuming velocity widths appropriate to maxwellian doppler broadening at the local gas temperature. At each scatter, the photon is given a new trajectory and frequency until it escapes from the model medium. After projection onto the sky, the photons are propagated through an instrument Monte Carlo simulator to predict the eventual detected position in both the dispersion and cross-dispersion coordinates, and the CCD charge content of the event. A separate Monte Carlo algorithm, calibrated on deep observations of the Lockman Hole, is used to generate an appropriate sample of background events. The final simulated data set is subjected to the identical set of extractions as are applied to the measured data. The observed and simulated data are compared by means of a $`\chi ^2`$ statistic in each of the various dimensions. This process is repeated by iterating on the parameters characterizing the spatial and spectral distributions until an acceptable fit is obtained. In order to maintain high accuracy in the simulation, the number of simulated photons is chosen to be ten times higher than that of the observed data set.

We assume a $`\beta `$ profile (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976) to approximate the spatial distribution of the electron density within the central 2’:

$$n(R)=n_0\left[1+(R/R_c)^2\right]^{3\beta /2}.$$
(1)
The core radius, $`R_c`$, and the $`\beta `$ parameter were determined from fits derived from an available Chandra ACIS observation (Mushotzky et al. 2001), and were found to be 9” and 0.45 respectively. The central density, $`n_0`$, is left as a free parameter. To accommodate the observed temperature gradient, we assume a temperature distribution of the form:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T(R)\hfill & =\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}T_{\mathrm{min}}+(T_{\mathrm{max}}T_{\mathrm{min}})(\frac{R}{R_c})^\alpha \hfill & \text{if }RR_c\hfill \\ T_{\mathrm{max}}\hfill & \text{if }R>R_c\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
with $`\alpha `$, $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ left as free parameters.

To model the gas emissivity, we use the APEC model, with the Fe L-shell $`2p3s`$ to $`2p3d`$ ratios adjusted to match the Capella values, as discussed in §3.1. The abundances of N, O, Ne, Mg, and Fe (which account for all of the observed features in the spectrum) are left as free parameters. The best fit values of all of these parameters are listed in Table 3. Here, the value of $`\chi ^2`$ quoted is for the comparison to the spectrum displayed in Figure 1, where the model has been overlayed. As can be seen, the fit is quite good. There are only small residuals in the vicinities of the brightest lines, possibly indicating that the assumed $`\beta `$-profile may still be too much of an over-simplication. The predicted cross-dispersion profiles for this same model are also plotted in the various panels of Figure 2. In general, there is excellent agreement with the data. We have not allowed for any abundance gradients in the model, and none appear to be required. The best-fit temperature distribution increases gradually from $`kT=0.55`$ keV at $`R=0`$ to $`kT=0.70`$ keV at $`R=42\mathrm{"}`$. With this temperature profile, the observed temperature-sensitive $`I`$(17.1Å)/$`I`$(16.0Å) ratio is fitted very well (Figure 2b).

Note that the $`I`$(17.1Å)/$`I`$(15.0Å) ratio is also well-described by the model (Figure 2a). This validates our conjecture that the observed variation in this ratio is associated with resonance scattering of the 15.0 Å photons. We emphasize that the gas density was not independently adjusted to fit this variation, i.e. the same density profile necessary to describe the observed intensity distribution (at the same assumed distance) also quantitatively accounts for the observed resonance scattering effects. In addition, our derived value for the central gas density is in good agreement with that found by Loewenstein et al. (2001) for the bremsstrahlung continuum in the Chandra ACIS spectrum.

In these spectral fits, no extra absorption beyond that associated with the Galactic column, $`N_\mathrm{H}=1.87\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (Murphy et al. 1996), is required. With our best-fit parameters, we find that the total X-ray luminosity within 1’ is $`1.87\pm 0.19\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1. This agrees well with the ROSAT (Matsushita 2001) and the recent Chandra (Loewenstein et al. 2001) measured values.

We have not attempted to develop and fit a full spatial-spectral cooling flow model for NGC 4636. However, important constraints on cooling flow models can be derived from the observed luminosities in the Fe XVII and O VII emission lines. The multiphase, isobaric cooling flow model of Johnstone et al. (1992) predicts a constant luminosity per temperature interval that is proportional to the mass deposition rate of cooling gas. This radiation is in addition to that emitted by the ambient gas, which has not yet cooled. Individual spectral line fluxes can thus be used to derive upper limits to the mass deposition rate, applicable within particular temperature ranges of sensitivity.

Assuming the $`\beta `$-profile described above, our observed Fe XVII line intensities imply an upper limit to the mass deposition rate of 0.21 $`M_{}`$ yr-1. Assuming that iron L-shell emission dominates the cooling of the gas, which is true in this temperature range, this derived limit on the mass deposition rate is relatively insensitive to the iron abundance. That is not true for oxygen. However, we can fix the O/Fe abundance ratio using the relative intensity of the O VIII Ly$`\alpha `$ line. With that constraint, the measured O VII line intensities near 22 Å imply an upper limit on the cooling flow mass deposition rate of 0.30 $`M_{}`$ yr-1. Note that these limits are a factor 3–5 below the inferred theoretical mass deposition rates for the halo of this galaxy derived from imaging observations (e.g., Bertin & Toniazzo 1995). They are also significantly below the value, $`0.43\pm 0.06`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1, inferred from O VI observations in the UV band by Bregman et al. (2001). Similar discrepancies between mass deposition rates inferred from imaging data and those allowed by the RGS spectra have been found for massive cooling flow in clusters of galaxies (Peterson et al. 2001; Kaastra et al. 2001; Tamura et al. 2001) and had even been suggested by the original ASCA data (cf. Makishima et al. 2001).

## 4 Discussion

Giant elliptical galaxies are the most massive and the oldest stellar systems in the universe. Analyses of their stellar spectra, and their evolution with time has indicated that most of the stars formed at very high redshift. There is little evidence of any significant star formation within the last 5 Gyrs. The hot X-ray emitting ISM in these systems is the repository of the total mass loss from stellar winds, planetary nebulae, and supernovae. As such, its metal abundances are very sensitive to both the abundances in the stars themselves, and to the Type Ia supernova rate.

Previous analyses of X-ray emission from ellipticals (cf., Arimoto et al. 1997) presented some fundamental challenges to our understanding of the formation and evolution of these systems. Given that the stars are believed to be supermetal rich, and that supernovae only add metals to the interstellar gas, it was expected that the X-ray spectra would yield metal abundances well in excess of solar. The general picture was that the low-Z elements should be strongly skewed to those of massive supernovae (Type IIs), while Fe should show a particular enhancement, as high as 2 - 5 times solar, due to the contributions of Type Ia supernovae.

The first quantitative test of these predictions came with ASCA, which provided moderate resolution X-ray spectra, suitable for identifying broad emission “humps” associated with each of the major elemental constituents. Contrary to expectations, fits to ASCA spectra invariably yielded significantly subsolar abundances (Matsumoto et al. 1997). In the intervening years, a variety of suggestions have been offered to explain this discrepancy: Problems with the iron L-shell atomic physics in the available spectral codes (Arimoto et al. 1997; Matsushita, Ohashi & Makishima 2000); multi-temperature distributions in the emitting gas (Buote 1999); abundance gradients and metallicity dependent supernova rates (Finoguenov & Jones 2000); excess helium abundance (Drake 1998). The multitude of possibilities arises from the fact that the available ASCA data did not have sufficient spatial or spectral resolution to constrain the situation in any real detail. Abundance information could only be derived by global fits to the entire spectrum, which are known to produce misleading results if the assumptions invoked are invalid. In fact, as shown in Matsushita et al. (1997), the iron abundance can be increased to $`1`$ solar if systematic errors are allowed at 20% level in the spectral fittings to ASCA data.

It is worth noting that the abundance patterns of the stars in giant ellipticals are also subject to uncertainties. In particular, Trager et al. (2000) and Kobayashi and Arimoto (1999) have shown that one can really only reliably determine the relative abundances of the alpha elements, and the Fe/alpha ratio. It appears that there is often a steep alpha element abundance gradient in the inner regions of the galaxy, without an accompanying gradient in the iron abundance. Such effects call into question the simple chemical enrichment models that have previously been developed for these systems.

The XMM-Newton RGS observations of NGC 4636 presented here provide the most accurate and unambiguous abundance determinations to date for the ISM of a giant elliptical galaxy. We have shown that there is a weak, but measurable, temperature gradient in the inner regions of the ISM. In addition, we have shown that resonance scattering of the high oscillator strength iron lines is non-negligible, consistent with expectations given the measured central electron density in the gas. Both of these effects are very important, and must be properly taken into account in the derivation of abundance constraints from the X-ray spectrum. The high statistical quality of our data, coupled with the high spectral and spatial resolution that the RGS provides, makes our abundance and temperature constraints far more robust than any previous determinations.

Nevertheless, our derived values: O/Ne $`0.7`$ solar, O/Mg $`0.8`$ solar, O/Fe $``$ 0.6 solar, and Fe $``$ 0.87 solar, are still difficult to reconcile with the chemical enrichment models. In particular, these values do not match the Type Ia and Type II models in Gibson, Lowenstein and Mushotzky (1997), nor any linear superposition of these models. The iron abundance has been increased significantly compared with those previous measurements, but it is still lower than the theoretical predictions. One possible explanation is that iron has been escaping from the ISM, as inferred by the observed large scale metal abundance gradient in NGC 4636 (Mushotzky et al. 1994; Matsushita et al. 1997). We believe that our results and future investigations set a standard to which new models of the evolution of giant ellipticals should be compared.

Equally puzzling is the clear lack of a measurable cooling flow in the ISM of NGC 4636. It has been well accepted for over fifteen years (e.g., Nulsen et al. 1984) that the central regions of giant elliptical galaxies should exhibit strong cooling flows. For NGC 4636, our inferred central density indicates a cooling time of less than $`10^8`$ years. This is compatible with the sound crossing time evaluated at the local sound speed, which means that the gas should be cooling as fast as it possibly can. There are no obvious sources of heating in this gas - Type Ia supernovae and stellar winds provide too little energy. In addition, recent Chandra observations (Lowenstein et al. 2001) have shown that there is no active nucleus present in this galaxy. A previous outburst from a now dormant active nucleus could provide the required heat (Jones et al. 2001), but it is unclear yet how common such outbursts might be.

However, as we have shown the weakness of the Fe XVII and O VII lines, and the absence of gas at temperatures less than 500 eV are in strong disagreement to the cooling flow models. There is only a weak temperature gradient and no other evidence of multiphase gas. In particular, the higher resolution RGS data do not support the conclusions of Buote & Fabian (1998), which were derived from ASCA observations of this source.

As noted in §3.3, problems with cooling flow models have also emerged from XMM-Newton RGS observations of clusters of galaxies. The issue is actually more severe for NGC 4636 given the wealth of discrete spectral lines available in the lower temperature range appropriate to elliptical halos. It is conceivable that our data could be compatible with a model in which some unknown form of rapid cooling occurs, radiating most of the energy in the ultraviolet. The fact that the O VI measurements from FUSE (Bregman et al. 2001) suggest a higher mass deposition rate than allowed by our O VII upper limits might argue for such a picture. Turbulent mixing layers (Begelman & Fabian 1990) could possibly accomplish this by entraining the X-ray gas and rapidly mixing it down to temperatures of order $`10^5`$ K. Additionally, the distortion of the emission measure distribution by adiabatic compression (Nulsen 1998) might conceivably explain our results given the relatively narrow temperature range we are sampling. Regardless of the eventual explanation, this observation does demonstrate that the discrepancies with cooling flow predictions occur even on small scales, not only for the massive flows in galaxy clusters.

This work was supported by a grant from NASA to Columbia University for XMM-Newton mission support and data analysis. We wish to thank other key members of the RGS team for their advice on instrument calibration and data analysis issues. H. Xu is also partially supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 19803003) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Project 973).

Figure Captions

Fig.1–The raw, extracted RGS spectrum of NGC 4636 (black), plotted as a function of wavelength. The data from both first and second spectral orders from RGS1 and RGS2 have been added together in constructing this histogram. The best fit model, allowing for a temperature gradient and accounting for resonance line scattering effects, is plotted in red. The residuals to the model fit are plotted below.

Fig.2–The ratios of various emission lines (as indicated in the panels), plotted as a function of position in the cross-dispersion direction. The data (with appropriate error bars) are plotted as crosses. The predictions of the best-fit spatial/spectral model are plotted as diamonds.


text:
# Improved percolation thresholds for rods in three-dimensional boxes

\[

## Abstract

We improve our previous results for the percolation thresholds of isotropically oriented rods in three dimensional boxes. We prove again the applicability of the excluded volume rule in the slender-rod limit (radius/length$`0`$). Other limits for the rod sizes are discussed and important finite-size effects are revealed.

\]

We have previously  revealed errors of earlier simulations  for the percolation of permeable rods in three dimensions. We have also presented corrected results  that confirm the excluded volume theory. In this short preprint we give more accurate numerical values for the percolation thresholds, obtained by extended computer simulations. Given the importance of such results in designing composite materials (electrically conducting polymers, fiber-inforced plastics) it is useful to summarize and disscus the obtained percolation thresholds.

The studied system is formed by permeable sticks with the form of capped cylinders (cylinders of length $`L`$ and radius $`R`$ capped with two hemispheres of radius $`R`$). It was conjectured  that the percolation threshold, $`q_p`$, is proportional to the inverse of the expected excluded volume, $`V_{ex}`$:

$$q_p=\frac{N_c}{V}\frac{1}{V_{ex}}$$
(1)
(We denoted by $`N_c`$ the number of sticks at percolation and by $`V`$ the volume of the cube in which the percolation problem is considered.) For sticks with the form of capped cylinders the excluded volume is given by

$$V_{ex}=\frac{32\pi }{3}R^3+8\pi LR^2+4L^2R<sin(\gamma )>,$$
(2)
where $`<sin(\gamma )>`$ is the average value of $`sin(\gamma )`$ for two randomly positioned sticks, and $`\gamma `$ is the angle between them. For isotropic orientation of rods ($`<sin(\gamma )>=\pi /4`$) it was shown by a cluster expansion method  that the proportionality in (1) becomes equality in the $`R/L0`$ slender-rod limit. This equality is known as the excluded-volume rule.

We have studied the problem inside a cube with unit sizes. In order to preserve homogeneity near the cube’s frontiers, the coordinates of the centers of the cylinders were generated uniformly in the interval $`[(L/2+R),1+(L/2+R)]`$. The orientation of the cylinders was isotropic. We detected the intersection of two capped cylinders by calculating the minimum distance between points on the two axes of the corresponding cylinders and by comparing this distance with $`2R`$. Each time a new stick was generated, it was assigned to a cluster if it intersected a previous one, otherwise a new cluster was created; a stick may also unify two or more clusters that were previously separated. We considered percolation achived when a cluster spanned the cube from one face to the opposite one. The critical concentration is given by the number of sticks inside the cube at percolation, $`N_c`$. If a capped cylinder was only partially inside the cube, it contributed to $`N_c`$ with a fractional value less than one, corresponding to the fraction of its volume inside the cube to its total volume. We generated many percolation realizations (usually $`5000`$) for each considered $`L`$ and $`R`$ pair, and the average $`N_c`$ was calculated as the mean of the obtained percolation thresholds.

The obtained results are summarized in Figs. 1 - 3.

On Fig. 1 we plot the quantity $`s=q_pV_{ex}1`$ as a function of $`R/L`$ for various fixed $`L`$ values. In the limit $`R/L0`$ our simulations suggest the analytically predicted $`s=0`$ relation . This is nicely proven by our large-scale simulation data for $`L=0.2`$ (for systems of up to $`N_c=810^4`$ rods). The convergence for the applicability of the excluded volume rule is however rather poor. As an example in this sense we found in the $`R/L0`$ limit ($`R/L<0.05`$), for $`L=0.15`$, $`s`$ scaling as a function of $`R/L`$ with an exponent of $`0.58`$. From Fig. 1 is also clear that for smaller values of $`L`$ and the same $`R/L`$ ratios the value of $`s`$ gets smaller. There are thus important finite-size effects, which are less evident in the $`R/L0`$ limit.

We have checked that in the limit of $`L0`$ the $`s=0`$ equality still does not hold. This is clear from our simulation data for $`R/L=0.5`$, $`R/L=0.25`$ and $`R/L=0.1`$. The data presented on Fig. 2 suggest that in the limit $`L0`$, $`s`$ is linearly converging to $`1.58`$, $`1.46`$ and $`1.14`$ for $`R/L=0.5`$, $`R/L=0.25`$ and $`R/L=0.1`$, respectively. This linear convergence may be useful for approximating the $`s`$ value given $`R`$ and $`L`$.

Problems with the applicability of the excluded-volume rule appears also in the $`L1`$ limit, where the length of the sticks approaches the charactheristic length of the box. This is nicely visible from Fig. 3 where we have plotted $`s`$ as a function of $`R/L`$ for two fixed $`R`$ values ($`R=0.01`$ and $`=0.02`$, respectively). In the limit of very small $`R/L`$ values one can observe again the increasing difference from the $`s=0`$ theoretical result, due to $`L`$ values approaching the characteristic box size.

In conclusion, our results suggest that the excluded-volume rule is applicable in the slender-rod limit ($`R/L0`$) for stick lengths much smaller than the characteristic box-size. For all other cases important deviations from this rule are present. Decreasing the rod length improves the applicability of the excluded-volume rule, but the $`R/L0`$ condition is still necessary in the $`L0`$ limit.