text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0207106 HUTP-02/A030 ITFA-2002-24

On Geometry and Matrix Models

Robbert Dijkgraaf

Institute for Theoretical Physics &

Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics

University of Amsterdam

1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

and

Cumrun Vafa

Jefferson Physical Laboratory

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Abstract

We point out two extensions of the relation between matrix models, topological strings and $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories. First, we note that by considering double scaling limits of unitary matrix models one can obtain large $`N`$ duals of the local Calabi-Yau geometries that engineer $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories. In particular, a double scaling limit of the Gross-Witten one-plaquette lattice model gives the $`SU(2)`$ Seiberg-Witten solution, including its induced gravitational corrections. Secondly, we point out that the effective superpotential terms for $`𝒩=1`$ $`ADE`$ quiver gauge theories is similarly computed by large $`N`$ multi-matrix models, that have been considered in the context of $`ADE`$ minimal models on random surfaces. The associated spectral curves are multiple branched covers obtained as Virasoro and $`W`$-constraints of the partition function.

July, 2002

1. Introduction

In  we have shown how the effective superpotential in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories, that are obtained by breaking an $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory by adding a tree-level superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ for the adjoint scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, can be computed by a large $`N`$ hermitian matrix models. More precisely, the effective superpotential of the $`𝒩=1`$ theory considered as a function of the gluino condensates $`S_i`$ is—apart from the universal $`S_i\mathrm{log}(S_i/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ terms coming from the pure $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills theory—given exactly by a perturbative series that is computed by the planar diagrams of the matrix model with potential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Furthermore, the contributions of this gauge theory to the induced supergravity corrections $`R^2F^{2g2}`$ (with $`R`$ the Riemann curvature and $`F`$ the graviphoton field strength) are similarly computed exactly by the genus $`g>0`$ matrix diagrams.

This gauge theory/matrix model correspondence was a consequence of the large $`N`$ dualities of \[2,,3,,4\] that relate the computation of holomorphic F-terms in the world-volume theories of D-branes to partition functions of topological strings in local Calabi-Yau geometries—a relation that was further explored in \[5,,6,,7,,8,,9,,10,,11\]. In the simplest case these local non-compact Calabi-Yau manifolds take the form

$$vv^{}+y^2W^{}(x)^2+f(x)=0.$$

One finds that in the B-model topological string the tree-level free energy can be computed in terms of the periods of the meromorphic differential $`ydx`$ on the associated Riemann surface

$$y^2W^{}(x)^2+f(x)=0.$$

As we argued in  this curve and the associated special geometry arises naturally from the large $`N`$ dynamics of the matrix integral with action $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. But we should stress again that the relation with matrix models goes beyond the planar limit. The higher genus string partition functions $`_g`$ and the related gravitational couplings of the gauge theories are exactly computed in the $`1/N`$ expansion of the matrix models.

Let us briefly summarize these connections, for more details see . We start with the hermitian matrix integral

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }e^{S(\mathrm{\Phi })}$$

with action

$$S(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}W(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

and $`W(x)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n+1`$. The matrix integral can be reduced to an integral over the eigenvalues $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the potential $`W(x)`$. In the classical limit $`g_s0`$, where one ignores the interactions among the eigenvalues, the equation of motion is given by

$$y(x)=g_s\frac{S}{x}=W^{}(x)=0.$$

The associated classical spectral curve is

$$y^2W^{}(x)^2=0,$$

where $`x,y`$ can be considered as complex variables. Writing $`W^{}(x)=_i(xa_i)`$ we see that this singular genus zero planar curve has $`n`$ double points at the critical points $`x=a_i`$.

Sometimes it can be helpful to think of the $`(x,y)`$-plane as a phase space, with $`y`$ the momentum conjugate to $`x`$, as given by the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (1.1). Then (1.1) has an interpretation as the zero-energy level set of the (bosonic part of the) supersymmetric quantum mechanics Hamiltonian associated to the superpotential $`W(x)`$, and $`S(x)`$ can be thought of as the semi-classical WKB action of the associated quantum mechanical ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)e^{S(x)}`$.

Classically, the $`N`$ eigenvalues will cluster in groups of $`N_i`$ in the critical points $`a_i`$ where they will form some meta-stable state. The relative number of eigenvalues or filling fraction of the critical point $`a_i`$ we will denote as

$$\nu _i=N_i/N.$$

If $`g_s`$ is not zero, we have to take into account the Coulomb interaction that results from integrating out the angular, off-diagonal components of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The equation of motion of a single eigenvalue $`x`$ in the presence of the Dyson gas of eigenvalues $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ is now modified to

$$y=W^{}(x)2g_s\underset{I=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{xx_I}.$$

We will now take the large $`N`$ ’t Hooft limit keeping both $`\mu =g_sN`$ and the filling fractions $`\nu _i`$ fixed. In this case each critical point has its own ’t Hooft coupling

$$\mu _i=g_sN_i=\mu \nu _i.$$

The collective dynamics of these eigenvalues in the large $`N`$ limit can be summarized geometrically as follows. Each of the $`n`$ double points $`x=a_i`$ gets resolved into two branch points $`a_i^+,a_i^{}`$. The resulting branch cuts $`A_i=[a_i^{},a_i^+]`$ are filled by a continuous density of eigenvalues that behave as fermions and spread out due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This process of splitting up of double points is very analogous to transition from the classical to the quantum moduli space in the Seiberg-Witten solution of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories —a relation that was explained in . The resolution of double points is captured by deforming the classical spectral curve (1.1) into the quantum curve

$$y^2W^{}(x)^2+\mu f(x)=0,$$

where the quantum deformation $`f(x)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$. The filling fraction $`\nu _i`$ is related to the size of the branch cut $`A_i`$. Roughly, the higher the proportion of eigenvalue at the critical point $`a_i`$, the larger the cut. More precisely, we have

$$\mu _i=\mu \nu _i=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{A_i}y(x)𝑑x$$

(This equation can be considered as analogous to the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition.) Finally the tree-level free energy $`(\mu _i)`$ can be computed in terms of the dual $`B`$-periods by the special geometry relations

$$\frac{}{\mu _i}=_{B_i}y(x)𝑑x,$$

where the cycles $`B_i`$ run from the branch cuts to some cut-off point at infinity.

2. Unitary matrix models and the Seiberg-Witten solution

We have reviewed how the effective superpotential in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories obtained by breaking an $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory can be computed by a large $`N`$ hermitian matrix model. This raises the question whether there exists a matrix model that computes directly holomorphic F-terms in the underlying undeformed $`𝒩=2`$ theory as described by the rigid special geometry of the Seiberg-Witten solution . As explained in  it is indeed possible to extract the geometry of the $`𝒩=2`$ solution from the effective superpotential of the $`𝒩=1`$ deformation of $`𝒩=2`$ theory and thereby, indirectly, from the associated matrix model. But here we will pursue a more direct relation—we will show that indeed there is a large $`N`$ matrix model that computes the SW solution directly. The matrix model for $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory turns out to be a double scaling limit of the most simple unitary matrix model—the so-called one-plaquette or Gross-Witten model .

2.1. Geometrical engineering of $`𝒩=2`$ theories

Our strategy will be the following. The $`𝒩=2`$ theory can be geometrically engineered by taking a suitable limit of type IIB string theory on a local Calabi-Yau \[14,,15,,16,,17\]. This local CY produces directly the Seiberg-Witten curve that encodes the dynamics of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory. More precisely the genus zero topological B-model amplitudes on the local CY capture the Seiberg-Witten geometry. The higher genus amplitudes compute the contributions of the gauge theory to certain gravitational terms of the form $`R^2F^{2g2}`$ \[18,,19\]. We will now engineer a matrix model that is large $`N`$ dual to this local CY geometry. In particular the planar limit gives the SW geometry and the $`1/N`$ corrections capture the generation of the corresponding gravitational terms.

To be specific, let us discuss here the simplest case of pure $`SU(2)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ Yang-Mills theory. The SW solution is given in terms of the familiar elliptic curve

$$w^2=(y^2+u)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4,$$

where $`u`$ is the coordinate on the moduli space, i.e. the vev of the adjoint $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the gauge theory scale, that we will sometimes set conveniently to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$.

The local CY obtained in the geometric engineering is given by the algebraic variety \[15,,16,,17\]

$$vv^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(z+\frac{1}{z}\right)+2(y^2+u)=0$$

with $`z𝐂^{}`$, i.e. an invertible variable. After reducing over the $`(v,v^{})`$-plane the associated Riemann surface is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(z+\frac{1}{z}\right)+2(y^2+u)=0.$$

Since $`z0`$ we can multiply by $`z`$ and substituting $`w=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2z+y^2+u`$ to bring the curve in the form (2.1).

Furthermore, the reduction of the holomorphic three-form on the CY gives directly the SW differential $`ydz/z`$. The prepotential $`(u)`$ is then obtained by computing the periods of this meromorphic one-form along the $`A`$-cycle and $`B`$-cycle of the elliptic curve (2.1). Note that there are four branch points at $`y=\pm \sqrt{u\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$. In the classical limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ they coalesce pairwise in two double points $`y=\pm \sqrt{u}`$. The moduli space contains two singularities at $`u=\pm 1`$ where monopoles respectively dyons become massless.

Since $`z`$ is a $`𝐂^{}`$ variable, it makes sense to write $`z=e^{ix}`$ with the variable $`x`$ periodic modulo $`2\pi `$, and reexpress the original local CY and the resulting curve (2.1) as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{cos}x+y^2+u=0,$$

with SW differential $`ydx`$. This way of writing the equation suggests a relation to a matrix model with some suitable potential $`W(x)`$. In fact, since $`x`$ is now a periodic variable this suggest a unitary matrix model where $`z=e^{ix}`$ will get interpreted as the eigenvalue of a unitary matrix $`U`$.

2.2. Unitary matrix models

Unitary matrix models are defined as integrals over the group manifold $`U(N)`$ of the form

$$Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(N))}_{U(N)}𝑑U\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}W(U)),$$

where $`dU`$ is the Haar measure. As in the hermitian matrix models, one can diagonalize $`U`$ and express everything in integrals over its eigenvalues

$$U\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\alpha _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\alpha _N}),$$

where the $`\alpha _i`$ are periodic variables, giving

$$Z=\underset{I}{}d\alpha _I\underset{I<J}{}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\alpha _I\alpha _J}{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{g_s}\underset{I}{}W(\alpha _I))$$

Note that such a unitary matrix model can be viewed as a special case of a hermitian model by writing $`U=e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a ‘compactified’ hermitian matrix, i.e. a matrix with a periodic spectrum $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+2\pi `$. Such a periodicity is achieved by adding multiples of $`2\pi `$ to the eigenvalues $`\alpha _I`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This addition of multiple images is the familiar way to compactify transverse directions for D-branes or for matrix models in M-theory . For example, in this way the Vandermonde determinants in the measure become after regularization

$$\underset{n𝐙}{}(\alpha _I\alpha _J+2\pi n)=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\alpha _I\alpha _J}{2}\right).$$

The unitary matrix model describes a collection of particles in a potential $`W(\alpha )`$ on the unit circle interacting through a Coulomb potential. The equation of motion of the unitary model is

$$W^{}(\alpha _I)2g_s\underset{J}{}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\alpha _I\alpha _J}{2}\right)=0$$

The large $`N`$ solution proceeds exactly as in the uncompactified case. One introduces again a resolvent, this time defined as

$$\omega (x)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{x\alpha _I}{2}\right),$$

that satisfies a quadratic loop equation that can be derived in exactly the same way as in the hermitian case. In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`g_sN=\mu `$ fixed this loop equation takes the following familiar form, when written in terms of the variable $`y=W^{}(x)+2\mu \omega (x)`$,

$$y^2W^{}(x)^2+4\mu f(x)=0.$$

The quantum correction $`f(x)`$ in this unitary case is given by the expression

$$f(x)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}\left(W^{}(x)W^{}(\alpha _I)\right)\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{x\alpha _I}{2}\right)$$

2.3. The Gross-Witten model

Our candidate unitary matrix model will be a much studied one, namely the so-called Gross-Witten model  with potential $`W(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. This model was originally introduced as a lattice discretization of two-dimensional (non-supersymmetric) Yang-Mills theory. In such a lattice model to each plaquette with holonomy $`U`$ around the edge one associates the Wilson action (in other contexts known as the Toda potential)

$$S(U)=\frac{ϵ}{2g_s}\mathrm{Tr}(U+U^1)=\frac{ϵ}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi })$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be thought of as the lattice approximation to the gauge field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, and in the limit $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ this gives the quadratic Yang-Mills action $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$. (The parameter $`ϵ`$ we introduce for convenience. It can of course be absorbed by rescaling $`g_s=g_{YM}^2`$). In a general lattice model one integrates over a collection of plaquettes, but in two dimensions a single plaquette suffices to compute for instance a Wilson loop action.

The GW model has two critical points

$$W^{}(\alpha )=ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )=0$$

at $`a_1=0`$ and $`a_2=\pi `$. Note that for real and positive $`ϵ`$ (the case relevant for Yang-Mills theory) the second point is an unstable critical point. But that issue is irrelevant for the holomorphic matrix models that we are considering here. The parameter $`ϵ`$ can be complex, and our eigenvalues $`e^{i\alpha }`$ are allowed to move off the unit circle into the punctured complex plane $`𝐂^{}`$. In fact, following our general philosophy, we will consider the perturbative expansion of the matrix integral (2.1) around the saddle point where $`N_1`$ eigenvalues are at the first critical point $`a_1`$ and $`N_2=NN_1`$ are at the second point $`a_2`$. So we are dealing with a two-cut, meta-stable solution to the matrix integral. These two cuts introduce a second parameter, besides the overall ’t Hooft coupling $`\mu =g_sN`$, namely the relative filling fraction

$$\nu =(N_1N_2)/N.$$

If we introduce the separate ’t Hooft couplings for the two critical points

$$\mu _1=g_sN_1,\mu _2=g_sN_2,$$

then the difference of these couplings is related to the filling fraction

$$\mu ^{}=\mu _1\mu _2=g_s(N_1N_2)=\mu \nu .$$

We will be interested in computing the planar limit of the free energy $``$ as a function of the two coupling $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$, or equivalently as a function of the ’t Hooft coupling $`\mu `$ and the filling fraction $`\nu `$. Although $`\nu `$ takes values in the interval $`[1,1]`$ the final result will turn out to be a holomorphic function of $`\nu `$.

The planar limit can be computed solving the loop equation (2.1). To this end we have to compute the quantum correction $`f(x)`$ defined in (2.1). For our choice of potential $`W(x)=ϵ\mathrm{cos}x`$ this becomes the following average over the eigenvalues

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f(x)=& \frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}ϵ\left(\mathrm{sin}x\mathrm{sin}\alpha _I\right)\mathrm{cot}(\frac{x\alpha _I}{2})\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}ϵ\left(\mathrm{cos}x+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& ϵ(\mathrm{cos}x+u)\hfill \end{array}$$

Here the constant $`u`$ is defined as the average

$$u=\frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I.$$

In the semi-classical approximation $`g_s0`$ we have

$$u\frac{N_1N_2}{N}=\nu .$$

since there are $`N_1`$ eigenvalues at the critical point $`\alpha _I=0`$ and $`N_2`$ eigenvalues at $`\alpha _I=\pi `$, that contribute respectively $`+1`$ and $`1`$ to the average of $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I`$.

Inserting our expression for $`f(x)`$ into (2.1) gives the spectral curve

$$y^2ϵ^2\mathrm{sin}^2x+4\mu ϵ(\mathrm{cos}x+u)=0.$$

We see that the original double points $`a_1=0`$ and $`a_2=\pi `$ now split up in four branch points $`a_1^\pm ,a_2^\pm `$. The two branch cuts

$$A_1=[a_1^{},a_1^+],A_2=[a_2^{},a_2^+]$$

describe the condensation of eigenvalues around the two critical points. The discontinuities in $`y`$ give the eigenvalue density $`\rho (\alpha )`$. Integrating the one-form $`ydx`$ around the branch cuts $`A_i`$ gives the filling fractions $`N_i/N`$. These relations allow one to express the filling fraction, or more precisely the relative coupling $`\mu ^{}=\mu \nu `$, in terms of the period

$$\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_Ay(x)𝑑x$$

where $`A`$ is a one-cycle homologous to $`A_1A_2`$. This equation describes the exact relation between the variables $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`u`$. Integrating the same differential over the conjugated $`B`$-cycle encircling the cut $`[\alpha _+^{(1)},\alpha _{}^{(2)}]`$ computes the variation of the free energy $``$ under a change of the relative number of eigenvalues in the two cuts,

$$\frac{}{\mu ^{}}=_By(x)𝑑x.$$

Note that the GW solution assumes that all eigenvalues center around the stable vacuum $`a_1=0`$, in which case $`N_2=0`$ and $`\nu =1`$. In fact we claim that for this vacuum we have exactly $`u=1`$, so that the spectral curve is given by

$$y^2ϵ^2\mathrm{sin}^2x+4\mu ϵ(\mathrm{cos}x+1)=0.$$

Indeed, since one only fills the stable critical point $`a_1=0`$ with eigenvalues, only this double point will get resolved into two branch points. The second critical point $`a_2=\pi `$ remains unresolved. Inserting $`u=1`$ gives the GW solution for the large $`N`$ eigenvalue density that can be written as in

$$\rho (\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{2ϵ}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)}.$$

2.4. Double scaling limit

Now we will take a double scaling limit of the GW model to obtain the SW solution relevant for $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. In this limit we will send $`N\mathrm{}`$ and at the same time $`ϵ0`$ and $`\nu 0`$, keeping $`ϵN_i`$, $`\nu /ϵ`$ and $`g_s`$ fixed—or, equivalently, we will send the ’t Hooft coupling $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ keeping the difference of the two couplings $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$

$$\mu ^{}=g_s(N_1N_2)=\mu \nu $$

fixed. In this limit the absolute difference in eigenvalues $`N_1N_2`$ remains finite, but $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ become both infinite, and therefore the relative filling fraction $`\nu =(N_1N_2)/N`$ goes to zero.

After rescaling $`y`$ appropriately, the spectral curve reduces in this limit exactly to the SW curve (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$)

$$y^2+\mathrm{cos}x+u=0.$$

Note that the double scaled curve depends only on a single parameter $`u`$ that at weak coupling could be identified with the filling fraction $`\nu =(N_1N_2)/N`$ of the matrix model. Of course the limit we are taking is at a strong coupling point and the relation between $`u`$ and matrix model modulus $`\mu ^{}`$ is more complicated, as discussed above.

As we have already mentioned, the prepotential is now computed by the periods of the differential $`ydx=ydz/z`$ along the $`A`$ and $`B`$ cycles. This allows us to identify the SW periods as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a& =_Ay(x)𝑑x=\mu ^{}\hfill \\ \hfill a_D& =_By(x)𝑑x=\frac{}{\mu ^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

From the original four branch points $`a_1^\pm ,a_2^\pm `$ obtained in resolving the two double points $`a_1,a_2`$, our double scaling limit takes the branch points $`a_1^{},a_2^+`$ to infinity while keeping $`a_1^+,a_2^{}`$ at finite distance. This leaves two homology one-cycles: the $`B`$-cycle that runs around the cut $`[a_1^+,a_2^{}]`$ and the dual $`A`$-cycle that is homologous to $`A_1A_2`$. This behaviour of the branch points is exactly the behaviour in the double scaling limit one takes in the old matrix models \[21,,22\], as we also noted in . For example, the $`(2,3)`$ critical point of the one-matrix model was obtained starting from a curve of the form $`y^2=x^6+\mathrm{}`$ and the double scaling limit got rid of the all monomials with power more than $`x^3`$ giving an equation of the form $`y^2=x^3+\mathrm{}`$ (Note that these branch points in the $`x`$-plane should not be confused with the branch points in the $`y`$-plane that are relevant for the SW solution.)

The double scaling is very analogous to the limit that was used in the A-model topological string in . In fact, when the scaling limit is embedded in type II string theory, the resulting CY geometry based on (2.1) will have RR flux through the compact cycles $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$. It is crucial that the remaining compact cycle $`B`$ does not carry any Ramond flux. We are thus engineering a large $`N`$ dual of a geometry without fluxes.

The GW model has a famous third order phase transition at (in our convention) $`\mu /ϵ=2`$. This signals a transition of the eigenvalue distribution in which the single cut changes topology and starts to cover the whole unit circle. After the GW phase transition the eigenvalue distribution is given by $`\rho (\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\mu /2`$. Geometrically speaking, in that phase all four branch points are on top of each other.

This phase transition is however not relevant in our model. First of all, we are studying a more general question by considering a stationary phase approximation around a meta-stable state with two clusters of eigenvalues and consequently have to work with a two-dimensional phase diagram $`(\mu ,\nu )`$. As we argued the GW solution puts $`\nu =1`$ and that is very far away from our double scaling limit in which $`\nu `$ tends to zero. Indeed in our limit the number of eigenvalues in the two cuts is roughly equal. Secondly, we are dealing with an holomorphic object, and holomorphy excludes any phase transitions, one can just go around the singularity. The GW phase transition is just a (very special) real slice of our complex phase diagram.

Finally it would be interesting to connect this approach to the beautiful semi-classical computation of the SW solution and its gravitational counterparts in . That computation was inspired by matrix integrals appearing in D-branes formulas.

2.5. Generalizations for general groups

It is not difficult to guess how the SW solution for gauge group $`SU(n)`$ can be engineered. In this case the curve associated to the local CY is of the form

$$\mathrm{cos}x+P_n(y)=0,$$

with $`P_n(y)`$ a polynomial of degree $`n`$. More generally we can consider a chain of $`U(n_i)`$ gauge theories with bifundamental matter, for which the corresponding curve has been obtained from the M5 brane viewpoint in  and from the viewpoint of geometric engineering in . This will give rise to a curve of the form

$$F(e^{ix},y)=0$$

where $`F`$ is a polynomial in $`e^{\pm ix}`$ and $`y`$. In particular if we consider the rank of all the gauge groups to be equal to $`n`$, then $`F`$ is a polynomial in $`y`$ of degree $`n`$. Moreover the difference in power of $`e^{ix}`$ between the highest and lowest powers is the number of $`U(n)`$ gauge groups plus 1. As we will discuss in greater detail in the next section in the context of hermitian multi-matrix models such curves are typically produced by a multi-matrix model consisting of $`n1`$ matrices. The choice of the coefficients in $`F`$ will be related to the choice of the action and some suitable double scaling limit, as we studied in the context of $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory here.

2.6. Connections with A-model topological strings

It is natural to ask if there is a connection with A-model topological strings, and in particular for A-models on local toric CY. As was demonstrated in \[26,,27\] the B-model mirrors are given by

$$vv^{}+F(e^{ix},e^{iy})=0$$

for some $`F`$. This is analogous to an infinite matrix model version of the unitary matrix models, as follows from our discussion above. In this case the A-model has a gauge theory dual involving certain correlations functions of Chern-Simons theory \[23,,28\]. It would be interesting to connect these matrix models directly with the Chern-Simons gauge theory computation, thus completing the circle of ideas. There are some hints that this idea indeed works .

3. Quiver matrix models

We will now turn to a related generalization of  where we will connect superpotential computations of quiver gauge theories to multi-matrix models.

3.1. $`𝒩=1`$ quiver gauge theories and topological strings

We will restrict our discussion here to the $`ADE`$ quivers, in particular the $`A_r`$ case, although one can also include the affine quivers based on the extended Dynkin diagrams $`\widehat{A}\widehat{D}\widehat{E}`$. Let $`r`$ denote the rank of the quiver $`G`$ and consider a partition

$$N=N_1+\mathrm{}+N_r.$$

In the associated $`𝒩=2`$ quiver gauge theory we assign to each of the $`r`$ vertices $`v_i`$ of the Dynkin diagram of $`G`$ a $`U(N_i)`$ gauge field and to links connecting vertices $`v_i`$ and $`v_j`$ we associate bifundamentals $`Q_{ij}`$ transforming in the representation $`(N_i,\overline{N}_j)`$ with a hermiticity condition $`Q_{ij}^{}=Q_{ji}`$.

For such a gauge theory we can write a general tree-level superpotential

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi },Q)=\underset{i,j}{}s_{ij}\mathrm{Tr}Q_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_jQ_{ji}+\underset{i}{}\mathrm{Tr}W_i(\mathrm{\Phi }_i),$$

with $`s_{ij}=s_{ji}=1`$ (for some ordering $`i<j`$), if the vertices $`v_i`$ and $`v_j`$ are linked in the Dynkin diagram (we will write this relation also as $`i,j`$), and $`s_{ij}=0`$ otherwise. Here the first term is the standard superpotential of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory with bifundamental matter. The additional potentials $`W_i(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ are introduced to break the supersymmetry down to $`𝒩=1`$.

Within type II string theory these quiver gauge theories are obtained by wrapping D5-branes over a particular CY geometry that is a fibration of the corresponding $`ADE`$ singularity over the complex plane . This geometry contains $`r`$ intersecting $`𝐏^1`$’s. According to \[7,,8\] in the large $`N`$ limit the geometry undergoes a transition to a deformed geometry where these $`𝐏^1`$’s are blown down and a number of $`S^3`$’s with RR flux are “blown up.” The corresponding smooth CY geometry gives a dual description of the gauge theory system.

In the context of B-model topological strings, the deformed CY geometry is dual to a two-dimensional large $`N`$ gauge system, obtained from a collection of B-branes wrapped on the intersecting $`𝐏^1`$’s. The world-volume theory of these branes consists of open topological strings. So each $`𝐏^1`$ gives rise to a two-dimensional field theory with Lagrangian

$$S(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{g_s}_{𝐏^1}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^1\overline{D}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0+W_i(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0)\omega \right).$$

where $`\omega `$ is some volume form on $`𝐏^1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^1`$ are adjoint fields of respectively spin 0 and spin 1 coupled to an $`U(N_i)`$ holomorphic gauge field. Here we included the effect of the superpotential $`W_i(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$. The open topological strings connecting different $`𝐏^1`$’s give as physical fields the bifundamentals $`Q_{ij}`$. Since the different $`𝐏^1`$’s intersect in points, the action of these bifundamental scalar fields localizes to the intersection point $`x`$ and is given by

$$S(Q)=\underset{i,j}{}\underset{x𝐏_i^1𝐏_j^1}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(Q_{ij}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_j^0(x)Q_{ji}(x)Q_{ji}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0(x)Q_{ij}(x)\right).$$

(Compare the similar computation for the coupling of open topological strings connecting Lagrangians A-branes intersection along one-dimensional curves in .)

As in  one can see that in the end this two-dimensional topological field theory can be completely reduced to the zero modes of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and $`Q_{ij}`$. Thereby the path-integral reduces to the “quiver matrix integral”

$$Z=\underset{i}{}d\mathrm{\Phi }_i\underset{i,j}{}dQ_{ij}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}W(\mathrm{\Phi },Q)\right).$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ (with $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$) is an $`N_i\times N_i`$ hermitian matrix and for every linked indices $`i,j`$ the variable $`Q_{ij}`$ is a $`N_i\times N_j`$ rectangular matrix, satisfying $`Q_{ij}^{}=Q_{ji}`$.

The generalization of the conjecture in  will now identify the free energy of the large $`N`$ quiver matrix model, for given filling fractions of the saddle points, with the closed topological string partition function in the corresponding deformed CY geometry, and this in turn with the effective superpotential of the quiver gauge theory.

3.2. Saddle points and dual CY geometry

The saddle points of the quiver superpotential have been discussed extensively in \[7,,8,,9\] following the mathematical literature. The eigenvalues $`x`$ of the adjoints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ have to satisfy a series of equations: one for every positive roots $`\alpha _k`$ of $`G`$. If that root is expressed in the simple roots $`e_i`$ as

$$\alpha _k=\underset{i}{}n_k^ie_i,$$

hen the associated condition reads

$$\underset{i}{}n_k^iW_i^{}(x)=0.$$

The saddle points can be labeled as $`x_{a,k}`$ with $`a=1,\mathrm{},d`$ and $`d`$ the maximal degree occurring in (3.1). If such a critical point appears with multiplicity $`N_{a,k}`$ then the total number of eigenvalues of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ in this saddle point is $`N_{a,k}n_k^i`$. A general saddle point is therefore parametrized by the filling fractions $`\nu _{a,k}=N_{a,k}/N.`$ We will consider the matrix integral in the limit where both the $`N_{a,k}`$ and $`N`$ tend to infinity keeping the filling fractions and the ’t Hooft coupling finite.

In the case of an $`A_r`$ quiver there is a more straightforward description of the saddle points \[7,,8,,9\]. Introduce the $`r+1`$ potentials

$$t_0(x)=0,t_i(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}W_j^{}(x),i=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

The the associated rational planar curves

$$yt_i(x)=0$$

intersect in various double points given by

$$t_j(x)t_i(x)=\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{j}{}}W_k^{}(x)=0.$$

The saddle points of the $`A_r`$ quiver matrix potential correspond exactly to these double points.

In this $`A_r`$ case the original singular CY geometry is given by

$$uv+\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\left(yt_i(x)\right)=0$$

which after reduction over $`u,v`$ gives precisely this collection of nodal curves. After the deformation the corresponding smooth Riemann surface is given by

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\left(yt_i(x)\right)+f(x,y)=0.$$

for a suitable normalizable quantum deformation $`f(x,y)`$. Again every double point gets resolved into two branch points. The resulting quantum curve is now an $`r+1`$ fold cover of the $`x`$-plane. By moving around in the $`x`$-plane these sheets will be exchanged through Weyl reflections acting on the parameters $`t_i`$.

The analogues of the meromorphic one-form are constructed by reducing the holomorphic three-form of the local CY over various cycles and for $`A_r`$ have the following description \[7,,8\]. Write the curve (3.1) in the factorized form

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\left(ya_i(x)\right)=0.$$

Then we have a basis of $`r1`$ meromorphic one-forms $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _{r1}`$ that is in one-to-one correspondence with a basis of positive roots for $`A_{r1}`$ given by

$$\eta _i=\left(a_{i+1}(x)a_i(x)\right)dx.$$

In the undeformed case, with $`a_i(x)=t_i(x)`$, this gives $`\eta _i=W_i^{}(x)dx=dW_i`$. Different choices of positive roots correspond to Weyl reflections, which are in fact the generalized Seiberg dualities of gauge theories (which should also have some direct interpretation as dualities of the matrix models). Note that in the case of $`A_1`$ we have

$$(ya)(y+a)=0,a^2=W^{}(x)^2+f(x)$$

and this gives the usual definition $`\eta =\pm ydx.`$

We will argue that this process of smoothing out the singular curve including the meromorphic differentials is exactly described by the large $`N`$ dynamics of the quiver matrix integral.

3.3. $`ADE`$ matrix models

Quite remarkably it turns out that the quiver matrix integrals (3.1) (up to some minor details) have already been studied in the context of the “old matrix models.” They have been used to describe the coupling of $`ADE`$ conformal minimal models to two-dimensional gravity by Kostov , see also the reviews \[33,,34\], and they have naturally emerged in the study of matrix models and integrable systems in the work of the ITEP group . We will follow closely these works in presenting the main results, leaving the details to the literature.

First of all, one can immediately integrate out the bifundamental fields $`Q_{ij}`$ in the quiver matrix integral to give an effective interaction between the adjoint fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$

$$det\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_j\right)^1$$

After expressing everything in terms of the eigenvalues of the remaining hermitian matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _{i,1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{i,N_i})$$

the quiver matrix integral reduces to

$$Z=\underset{i,I}{}d\lambda _{i,I}\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i,I<J}{}}\left(\lambda _{i,I}\lambda _{i,J}\right)^2}{{\displaystyle \underset{i<j,I,J}{}}\left(\lambda _{i,I}\lambda _{j,J}\right)^{|s_{ij}|}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}\underset{i,I}{}W_i(\lambda _{i,I})\right).$$

Note that if we introduce the Cartan matrix of $`G`$

$$C_{ij}=2\delta _{ij}|s_{ij}|=e_ie_j,$$

then the quiver eigenvalue measure, that generalizes the usual “fermionic” Vandermonde determinants of the one matrix model

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )^2=\underset{I<J}{}\left(\lambda _I\lambda _J\right)^2,$$

can now be written as

$$\underset{(j,J)(i,I)}{}\left(\lambda _{i,I}\lambda _{j,J}\right)^{e_ie_j/2}.$$

The resemblance to a correlation function of vertex operators is not accidental—it was in fact the main motivation to study these kind of matrix models in since it allows one to express the partition function as a particular state in a two-dimensional chiral CFT, to be more precise the level one realization of the corresponding $`ADE`$ current algebra.

In the large $`N`$ limit this many-flavor Dyson gas of eigenvalues will spread out in cuts around the saddle points and will form a continuum of eigenvalues described by a series of densities functions

$$\rho _i(x)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}\delta (x\lambda _{i,I}).$$

The solution of the model proceeds again through the resolvents or loop operators of the matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$

$$\omega _i(x)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{x\mathrm{\Phi }_i}\right)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{I}{}\frac{1}{x\lambda _{i,I}}.$$

The jump of $`\omega _i(x)`$ across a branch cut measure the eigenvalue density $`\rho _i(x)`$.

In fact, it is natural to work with a closely related object—the derivative of the matrix model action $`S`$ with respect to an eigenvalue of type $`i`$ evaluated at a general position $`x`$ in the complex plane (away from the cuts) as it interacts with all the other eigenvalues,

$$y_i(x)=g_s_iS=W_i^{}(x)2\mu C^{ij}\omega _j(x).$$

As we already mentioned in  for a multi-matrix model we want to identify the one-forms $`\eta _i`$ (3.1) coming from the local CY geometry with the expressions $`y_i(x)dx`$, up to a possible change of basis. The most powerful and general technique that can be used to relate the CY geometry to the matrix model are the loop equations.

3.4. Loop equations and collective fields

Before we discuss the loop equations of the multi-matrix models, let us first rewrite the solution of the one-matrix model as used in  in a more suggestive form, that is actually a standard technique in matrix model technology. Here we found among others the reviews \[33,,34,,36\] very helpful.

The resolvent $`\omega (x)`$ has a natural interpretation as a loop operator. More precisely, the inverse Laplace transform

$$\frac{dx}{2\pi }e^{ix\mathrm{}}\omega (x)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)$$

is the zero-dimensional analogue of the Wilson loop. The non-linear all-genus loop equation is usually written in terms of $`\omega (x)`$ as

$$_𝒞\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\frac{W^{}(z)}{xz}\omega (z)=\mu \omega (x)^2$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates an expectation value within the matrix integral. The contour $`𝒞`$ encircles all the cuts but not the point $`x`$. This equation is supplemented with the boundary condition $`\omega (x)1/x`$ at infinity. The loop equation acts as a Schwinger-Dyson equation of the matrix model. It gives a recursive relation to solve for the loop operator and the free energy. In the planar limit we have large $`N`$ factorization $`\omega (x)^2=\omega (x)^2`$ and the loop equation becomes algebraic.

Loop operators are closely connected to collective fields. By integrating out the angular variables the individual eigenvalues start to behave as fermions, and the collective field is essentially constructed by bosonization of these fermion fields. In  we have already speculated that this collective field should be identified with the Kodaira-Spencer field  describing the closed strings moving on the local CY geometry.

For a single matrix model the collective field is defined as the chiral two-dimensional scalar field

$$\phi (x)=W(x)2g_s\underset{I}{}\mathrm{log}(x\lambda _I)$$

It clearly satisfies $`\phi (x)=y(x)`$ with

$$y=W^{}(x)2g_s\underset{I}{}\frac{1}{x\lambda _I}=W^{}(x)2\mu \omega (x)$$

So in view of (3.1) we can identify the function $`\phi (x)`$ with the action $`S(x)`$ of a single eigenvalue as a function of its position $`x`$ in the complex plane in the presence of the gas of other eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$. The function $`\phi (x)`$ is multi-valued in the $`x`$-plane. It has branch cuts around which it changes sign. It is therefore only properly defined on the double cover

$$y^2W^{}(x)^2+f(x)=0.$$

On this Riemann surface $`\phi (x)`$ has quantized periods around the $`A`$-cycles, given by the filling numbers $`\mu _i=g_sN_i`$. Since it is a chiral field the periods around the dual $`B`$-cycles are not independent and expressed by the special geometry relations as $`/\mu _i`$.

Note that if we work with a general, not necessarily polynomial, superpotential

$$W(x)=\underset{n0}{}t_nx^n,$$

then the expectation value of the field $`\phi (x)`$ inserted in the matrix integral can be represented by a linear differential operator in the couplings $`t_n`$ acting on the partition function. For example,

$$\phi (x)=\left(\underset{n>0}{}nt_nx^{n1}2g_s^2\underset{n0}{}x^{n1}\frac{}{t_n}\right)Z,$$

and similarly for multi-point functions. (Here we used that the derivative $`/t_n`$ brings down a factor $`\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^n`$.)

With this notation there is an elegant way to write the loop equations. Introduce the holomorphic stress-tensor

$$T(x)=(\phi )^2=\underset{n}{}L_nx^{n2}$$

Then the all-genus loop equation (3.1) of the one-matrix model can be rewritten in the suggestive form

$$_𝒞\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{xz}T(z)=0,$$

That is, the expectation value $`T(x)`$ has no singular terms if $`x0`$. Therefore we can also express (3.1) equivalently as the Virasoro constraints \[37,,38\]

$$L_nZ=0,n1.$$

The derivation of the constraints in the matrix model is completely standard—it simply expresses the Ward identities following from the invariance under infinitesimal reparametrization of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+1}`$ of the matrix variable $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

In the planar limit we can substitute the classical values for $`\phi (x)=y`$ in $`T(x)`$ and then equation (3.1) is a consequence of (3.1) that can now be written as

$$T(x)=W^{}(x)^2f(x),$$

which shows that $`T(x)`$ is indeed regular (even polynomial) at $`x=0`$.

3.5. Quiver theories and $`W`$-constraints

The large $`N`$ solution of the quiver matrix integral (3.1) now proceeds along similar lines \[32,,35\]. One introduces $`r`$ scalar fields $`\phi _i(x)`$ through the one-forms (3.1) as

$$y_i(x)dx=\phi _i(x)$$

One can then show that the multi-valued fields $`\phi _i(x)`$ are actually the values of one single-valued field $`\phi (x)`$ (essentially the full matrix model action) on a $`r+1`$ branched cover of the complex $`x`$-plane. This branched cover is the spectral curve associated to the quiver matrix integral, and turns out to be given by (3.1) in the $`A_r`$ case.

The general derivation of the curve proceeds through generalized loop equations. For these multi-matrix model we do not only have the Virasoro constraints, expressing reparametrization invariance in the matrix variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. There are also higher order relations \[37,,38\]. The full set of loop equations are obtained by showing that the partition function $`Z`$ satisfies a set of $`W`$-constraints, labeled by the Casimirs of the corresponding $`ADE`$ Lie algebra, which contains the Virasoro constraints. These constraints take the form

$$_𝒞\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{xz}𝒲^{(s)}(z)=0,$$

where $`𝒲^{(s)}(x)`$ is a spin $`s`$ current in the $`W`$-algebra. When expressed in modes these equations take the form

$$𝒲_n^{(s)}Z=0,n1s.$$

In the case of $`A_r`$ there is leading spin $`r+1`$ current that with a suitable basis of vectors $`\phi _0,\mathrm{},v_r`$ can be written as

$$𝒲^{(r+1)}(x)\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}(v_i\phi )+\mathrm{}$$

We claim that in the planar limit this loop equation translates directly into the curve (3.1).

To be completely explicit let us give some more detail for the simplest case of $`A_2`$. Here we have two matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ with potentials $`W_i(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ and $`W_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)`$. The classical singular curve is after a shift in $`y`$ given by

$$\left(yt_1(x)\right)\left(yt_2(x)\right)\left(yt_3(x)\right)=0$$

with

$$t_1=(2W_1^{}+W_2^{})/3,t_2=(W_1^{}W_2^{})/3,t_3=(W_1^{}+2W_2^{})/3,$$

all polynomials in $`x`$. To find the quantum curve we introduce the resolvents

$$w_1(x)=\underset{I}{}\frac{1}{x\lambda _{1,I}},w_2(x)=\underset{I}{}\frac{1}{x\lambda _{2,I}},$$

and the one-forms $`y_i(x)dx`$

$$y_1=W_1^{}\mu (2\omega _1\omega _2),y_2=W_2^{}\mu (2\omega _2\omega _1).$$

We now claim that the quantum curve is given by

$$\left(ya_1(x)\right)\left(ya_2(x)\right)\left(ya_3(x)\right)=0,$$

where the functions $`a_i(x)`$ are no longer polynomials, but instead are defined as

$$a_1=t_1+\mu \omega _1,a_2=t_2\mu (\omega _1\omega _2),a_3=t_3\mu \omega _2.$$

With this choice we have, as claimed before,

$$a_2a_1=y_1,a_3a_2=y_2.$$

Now after some algebra, expanding out terms like $`\omega _i(x)^3`$, one verifies that indeed

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(ya_1(x)\right)\left(ya_2(x)\right)\left(ya_3(x)\right)=\hfill \\ & \left(yt_1(x)\right)\left(yt_2(x)\right)\left(yt_3(x)\right)+f(x)y+g(x)=0\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ polynomials.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. de Boer, M. Mariño, and E. Verlinde for discussions. The research of R.D. is partly supported by FOM and the CMPA grant of the University of Amsterdam, C.V. is partly supported by NSF grants PHY-9802709 and DMS-0074329.

References

relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “Matrix models, topological strings, and supersymmetric gauge theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0206255. relax R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1415 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9811131\]. relax C. Vafa, “Superstrings and topological strings at large N,” J. Math. Phys. 42, 2798 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0008142\]. relax F. Cachazo, K. A. Intriligator and C. Vafa, “A large $`N`$ duality via a geometric transition,” Nucl. Phys. B 603, 3 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103067\]. relax J.D. Edelstein, K. Oh and R. Tatar, “Orientifold, geometric transition and large $`N`$ duality for SO/Sp gauge theories,” JHEP 0105, 009 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104037\]. relax K. Dasgupta, K. Oh and R. Tatar, “Geometric transition, large $`N`$ dualities and MQCD dynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 610, 331 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105066\]; —–, “Open/closed string dualities and Seiberg duality from geometric transitions in M-theory,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0106040\]; —–, “Geometric transition versus cascading solution,” JHEP 0201, 031 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0110050\]. relax F. Cachazo, S. Katz and C. Vafa, “Geometric transitions and $`N=1`$ quiver theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0108120. relax F. Cachazo, B. Fiol, K. A. Intriligator, S. Katz and C. Vafa, “A geometric unification of dualities,” Nucl. Phys. B 628, 3 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0110028\]. relax K. h. Oh and R. Tatar, “Duality and confinement in $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theories from geometric transitions,” arXiv:hep-th/0112040. relax H. Fuji and Y. Ookouchi, “Confining phase superpotentials for SO/Sp gauge theories via geometric transition,” arXiv:hep-th/0205301. relax F. Cachazo and C. Vafa, “$`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ geometry from fluxes,” arXiv:hep-th/0206017. relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19 (1994) \[Erratum-ibid. B 430, 485 (1994)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9407087\]. relax D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “Possible Third Order Phase Transition In The Large $`N`$ Lattice Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 21, 446 (1980). relax S. Kachru, A. Klemm, W. Lerche, P. Mayr, C. Vafa, “Nonperturbative Results on the Point Particle Limit of N=2 Heterotic String Compactifications,” Nucl. Phys. B 459, 537 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9508155\]. relax A. Klemm, W. Lerche, P. Mayr, C.Vafa, N. Warner, “Self-Dual Strings and N=2 Supersymmetric Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 477, 746 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9604034\]. relax S. Katz, A. Klemm and C. Vafa, “Geometric engineering of quantum field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 497, 173 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9609239\]. relax S. Katz, P. Mayr, C. Vafa, “Mirror symmetry and Exact Solution of 4D N=2 Gauge Theories I,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1, 53 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9706110\]. relax M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 165, 311 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9309140\]. relax I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K.S. Narain, T.R. Taylor, “Topological Amplitudes in String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 413, 162 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9307158\]. relax W. I. Taylor, “D-brane field theory on compact spaces,” Phys. Lett. B 394, 283 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9611042\]. relax P. Ginsparg and G. W. Moore, “Lectures On 2-D Gravity And 2-D String Theory,” arXiv:hep-th/9304011. relax P. Di Francesco, P. Ginsparg and J. Zinn-Justin, “2-D Gravity and random matrices,” Phys. Rept. 254, 1 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9306153\] relax M. Aganagic, M. Marino and C. Vafa, “All loop topological string amplitudes from Chern-Simons theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0206164. relax N. A. Nekrasov, “Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting,” arXiv:hep-th/0206161. relax E. Witten, “Solutions Of Four-Dimensional Field Theories Via M Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 500, 3 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9703166\]. relax K. Hori and C. Vafa, “Mirror Symmetry,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0002222\]. relax K. Hori, A. Iqbal and C. Vafa, “D-Branes And Mirror Symmetry,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0005247\]. relax D. E. Diaconescu, B. Florea and A. Grassi, “Geometric transitions, del Pezzo surfaces and open string instantons,” arXiv:hep-th/0206163. relax M. Marino, “Chern-Simons theory, matrix integrals, and perturbative three-manifold invariants,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0207096\]. relax S. Kachru, S. Katz, A. E. Lawrence and J. McGreevy, “Open string instantons and superpotentials,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 026001 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9912151\]. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot invariants and topological strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 577, 419 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9912123\]. relax I. K. Kostov, “Gauge invariant matrix model for the A-D-E closed strings,” Phys. Lett. B 297, 74 (1992) \[arXiv:hep-th/9208053\]. relax I. K. Kostov, “Bilinear functional equations in 2D quantum gravity,” in Razlog 1995, New trends in quantum field theory, 77–90, \[arXiv:hep-th/9602117\]. relax I. K. Kostov, “Conformal field theory techniques in random matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/9907060. relax S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov and S. Pakuliak, “Conformal matrix models as an alternative to conventional multimatrix models,” Nucl. Phys. B 404, 717 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9208044\]. relax A. Morozov, “Integrability And Matrix Models,” Phys. Usp. 37, 1 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9303139\]. relax R. Dijkgraaf, H. Verlinde and E. Verlinde, “Loop Equations And Virasoro Constraints In Nonperturbative 2-D Quantum Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 348, 435 (1991). relax M. Fukuma, H. Kawai and R. Nakayama, “Continuum Schwinger-Dyson Equations And Universal Structures In Two-Dimensional Quantum Gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6, 1385 (1991).


format: text

text:
# Chandra follow-up of bursters with low persistent emission

## 1 Introduction

Many low-mass X-ray binaries show bursts of X-rays which are characterized by a rapid rise and exponential decay, and by a black body spectrum with spectral softening during the decay i.e. the emitter cools. Such type I X-ray bursts are interpreted as thermonuclear flashes on surfaces of neutron stars, and thus effectively identify the emitting source as a neutron star as opposed to a black hole. The theory of these bursts predicts a relation between the accretion rate onto the neutron star, as measured by the persistent X-ray luminosity, and the properties of the X-ray burst. Briefly, for very low and very high accretion rates, no X-ray bursts are expected, because thermonuclear fusion is steady (Fujimoto et al. 1987). At intermediate accretion rates, hydrogen/helium fusion occurs sporadically in bursts, and the burst frequency is a function of the accretion rate per square meter on the neutron star. Because the effectively accreting area of the neutron star is also a function of the accretion rate, the burst frequency is a non-monotonic function of the persistent X-ray luminosity. Recent reviews of burst theory are given by Bildsten (1998, 2000).

Low-mass X-ray binaries are discovered as either persistent sources or transient sources. The transient sources with neutron stars show outbursts lasting for weeks, sometimes up to years, at luminosities above $`10^{36}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. During their quiescent state their luminosity drops to a level of $`10^{3233}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (e.g. Campana et al. 1998), and the time averaged luminosities are $`\text{ }<10^{36}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (e.g. White et al. 1984). Most bursts are emitted by systems at luminosities $`\text{ }>10^{36}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, e.g. the transients Aql X-1 and Cen X-4 emitted X-ray bursts when they were in outburst (Koyama et al. 1981, Matsuoka et al. 1980).

The Wide Field Cameras (WFC) on board the Italian-Dutch Satellite BeppoSAX discovered sporadic type I bursts from nine previously unknown burst sources, which had persistent X-ray fluxes below the WFC detection limit of a few times $`10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (2-28 keV). At 8 kpc, the distance of the Galactic center, these flux limits correspond to luminosities of $`10^{36}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Four of the nine previously unknown burst sources were detected with other instruments at fluxes well below the WFC detection limit (see Table 1). The five other bursters are listed in Table 2. In this article we present Chandra observations which we obtained in order to determine the flux levels of these five burst sources.

The persistent luminosities of the nine previously unknown burst sources are (possibly far) below $`10^{36}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, i.e. below the level X-ray bursts are usually observed. This is the reason why Cocchi et al. (2001) suggested that these sources are members of a new class of bursters with low persistent emission (see also Cornelisse et al. 2002).

The nine sources can be used to explore the low end of the relation between luminosity and burst properties. The long waiting times between type I bursts, compared to brighter burst sources, plus the low persistent emission level make these sources difficult to discover. Its large field of view makes the WFC an efficient instrument for the detection of such rare events.

In Sect. 2 we describe the Chandra observations and data analysis and in Sect. 3 we discuss which of the detected sources are the most likely candidates for each burster. In Sect. 4 we briefly present unpublished but relevant observations with other instruments of SAX J1806.5$``$2215 and GRS 1741.9$``$2853. In Sect. 5 we discuss the implications for the class of low persistent emission bursters.

## 2 Observations and data analysis

With the Chandra satellite (Weisskopf 1988) we observed the WFC error circles of the five burst sources without persistent emission listed in Table 2. For each field we used the ACIS-S3 detector in imaging mode. We analyzed the level 2 FITS data provided with the standard data products using the Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations Software (CIAO) version 2.1.3. None of the five observations showed periods of high background and we used all data. For source detection we used a wavelet-based algorithm (Freeman et al. 2002), only taking into account the events between 0.5 and 7 keV. We set the significance threshold for the source detection at $`10^6`$, i.e. giving at most one spurious source on the ACIS-S3 detector per observation. In the dithered detector image we checked each source region for the presence of flickering pixels. If a pixel detected more than one photon from a source during the whole observation we marked this as a flickering pixel; given the small number of photons in each source (see Table 3) we think that the chance probability that this happens is too small ($`10^5`$) to be coincidence. In Table 3 we have noted the source which is affected by a flickering pixel with an f. The count rate and position are not reliable for this source. The wavelet method also gives an estimate of the background. We consider all sources detected with a significance of more than 3$`\sigma `$. Only for the observation of SAX J1753.5-2349 no sources above 3$`\sigma `$ were detected; here we derive an upper limit of 5 counts.

## 3 Selecting candidate burst sources

In Table 3 we list the detected sources on the whole S3-chip for each observation, because there is still a 1% possibility that the source is outside the error circle. In all four observations there is more than one source inside or close to the WFC error circles. Based on the photon count rate, there are no extreme examples of sources which would qualify them as particularly likely candidates. This could very well mean that all detected sources are spurious and none are the bursters, also given that no source was detected during the observation of SAX J1753.5$``$2349.

Thus, we resort to several criteria to select viable burster candidates. We start with excluding all sources outside the WFC error circles. In Fig.1 we see that several X-ray sources are close to optical sources from the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey. We have listed the closest star from the USNO catalogue within 4′′ of the X-ray sources in Table 4. Given the small number of counts we estimate an error in the X-ray position of 1 pixel, i.e. $`0\stackrel{}{.}5`$, and a systematic error of another pixel. This gives a total error of $`0\stackrel{}{.}7`$. The positional error for the sources in the USNO Digitized Sky Survey is negligible in comparison. For each source in Table 4 we count the number of stars from the USNO catalogue inside the WFC error-circle and brighter than the potential counterpart. On the basis of this number we estimate the chance coincidence as in the following example. In the USNO catalogue the star closest to source D of SAX J1324.5$``$6313 is at $`0\stackrel{}{.}83`$ (see Table 4). We find 24 stars in the USNO catalogue inside the WFC error circle of $`1\stackrel{}{.}8`$ that are brighter than $`B`$$`=`$17.2 and $`R`$$`=`$15.3. This gives a chance probability of 0.14% that one arbitrarily chosen position falls within one of the 24 error circles of $`0\stackrel{}{.}83`$. The five Chandra sources inside the WFC error circle correspond to five trials, i.e. the chance probability that one or more of these sources are close to a star is 0.71%. In Table 4 we have listed the chance probabilities $`P`$ thus computed for all Chandra sources within 4′′ of an optical star.

Although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from a posteriori statistics, we think that the optical counterparts with $`P<0.1`$% are secure. The optical sources located at a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{ }>1^{\prime \prime }`$ from the X-ray position are very likely chance coincidences. This leaves only D of the SAX J1324.5$``$6313 field as a borderline case, which may or may not be the counterpart. We have indicated the optically identified sources in Table 3 with an asterisk.

Assuming that the $`V`$ magnitudes are between the $`B`$ and $`R`$ magnitudes given in the USNO Digitized Sky Survey, we find that the X-ray to optical flux ratios of these stars are well within the range of the coronal emission from normal nearby stars found in the ROSAT All Sky Survey (Hünsch et al. 1999; here we use that for coronal sources with interstellar absorption columns up to $`10^{21}`$ $`\mathrm{atoms}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ the ROSAT/PSPC count rate is typically 1/3 to 1/4 of the Chandra count rate). Soft X-ray transients with neutron stars have X-ray to optical flux ratios in quiescence several orders of magnitude higher than ordinary stars (e.g. Fig. 5 in Pooley et al. 2002a). Thus we conclude that the optically identified Chandra sources indicated in Table 3 are too bright in the optical for them to be the bursters.

Due to the small number of counts in each source, it is not possible to constrain the spectral shape of the X-ray emission. The most commonly used models to describe the quiescent emission of neutron star X-ray transients are 0.3 keV black body radiation, 0.3 keV Raymond-Smith emission, power-law emission with a slope of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3`$ or emission from a hydrogen atmosphere (e.g Campana et al. 1998). Added to these models is a hard energy tail detected at high energies (e.g. Campana et al. 1998, Asai et al. 1996). Here we assume emission from a hydrogen atmosphere of a neutron star (Zavlin et al. 1996) plus a power-law, as was, for example, found for the quiescent emission of the neutron star X-ray transients Cen X-4 and Aql X-1 (Rutledge et al. 2001a, 2001b). We estimate the number of photons below 2 keV using the average parameters found for Cen X-4 and Aql X-1, i.e. a power-law photon-index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.0, neutron star radius $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$=16 km, a neutron star temperature $`kT`$=100 eV, and a ratio of the unabsorbed flux (0.1-7 keV) expected from the H-atmosphere to the power-law component of 5:1. For such a spectrum we compute the flux for a source with 1 Chandra count per second, and the ratio of counts at energies between 0.5 and 2 keV to the total count rate. The resulting numbers are listed in Table 2. By comparison with the observed soft-to-total count ratios listed in Table 3 we can exclude sources which are harder than expected for soft X-ray transients in quiescence. We do not reject sources with soft spectra, because there is evidence that the photon-index of the power-law component could be higher than we have assumed (Campana et al. 1998). The two sources which are excluded in this way are indicated in Table 3 with s. Unacceptably high column densities are needed ($`10^{23}`$ $`\mathrm{atoms}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) to account for the lack of soft photons due to absorption (for source F of SAX J1806.5$``$2215 we do not detect anything below 2 keV). The fluxes do not significantly change if we assume the other spectral models or change the temperature and radius of the neutron star atmosphere model.

For all sources the distribution of the arrival times of the photons is compatible with a constant flux. Given the small number of photons for each source the limits on variability are not very constraining, but we can exclude that the flux measured is due to a flare lasting shorter than the exposure time.

Taking all these criteria into account we conclude that we have four candidate counterparts left for SAX J1324.5$``$6313 (source A, C, D and E), two for SAX J1752.3$``$3128 (A and B), two for SAX J1806.5$``$2215 (D and H), and three for SAX J1818.7$`+`$1424 (E, F and G). For SAX J1753.5$``$2349 we have no candidate.

## 4 SAX J1806.5$``$2215 and GRS 1741.9$``$2853

In ’t Zand et al. (1998) reported the detection of two X-ray bursts from SAX J1806.5$``$2215, and showed the analysis of the first burst. We take the opportunity of the present paper to report the detection of two additional type I bursts from SAX J1806.5$``$2215 during WFC observations on MJD 50537.91 and MJD 50732.90. No persistent emission is observed for this source in any WFC observation. The first and strongest burst (on MJD 50325.88) has a duration of $``$150 s, all other bursts last $``$20 s. The observed spectra can be well described by an absorbed black body model with temperatures between 1.7 and 2.2 keV. The unabsorbed bolometric peak flux of the strongest burst is $`(2.6\pm 1.2)\times 10^8`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. This gives an upper-limit on the distance of 8.0 kpc and neutron star radii between 4.8 and 7.0 km, assuming that the peak flux is below the Eddington limit of $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$=$`2\times 10^{38}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The waiting times between the four bursts are 41, 171 and 195 days, respectively.

Recently the ASM lightcurve of SAX J1806.5$``$2215 became available. It shows a faint but clear detection between March 1996 and October 1997. This coincides with the same period as the occurence of the four X-ray bursts observed with the WFC. The maximum persistent flux was $`2\times 10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (2-10 keV) , and slowly decreased over time. This is comparable to the upper-limit derived during the WFC observations. Assuming the distance derived above, this corresponds to a luminosity of $`2\times 10^{36}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

GRS 1741.9$``$2853 was in the field of view of a 47.2 ks ROSAT/PSPC pointed observation of the Galactic center region obtained on March 2–9, 1992. It is not detected, and we determine an upper-limit of 0.0003 cts s-1 (channels 50–240), corresponding to an unabsorbed luminosity in the 0.5 to 2.5 keV range of $`3\times 10^{34}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at the distance of 7.2 kpc, for an assumed power-law spectrum with photon index 1 absorbed by a column $`N_\mathrm{H}=10^{23}`$ $`\mathrm{atoms}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (see Cocchi et al. 1999). This proves that GRS 1741.9$``$2853 is a burster with low persistent emission.

## 5 Discussion

Three of the nine burst sources with low persistent emission discovered with the WFC were observed during ROSAT observations at luminosities of $``$$`10^{3435}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ a few years prior to the X-ray burst (Kaptein et al. 2000; Cornelisse et al. 2002; this paper). If the five burst sources of Table 2 had similar luminosities and spectra, their countrate with Chandra would be several orders of magnitude higher than the countrates of the sources listed in Table 3. Instead, the luminosities of the burst sources are at $`10^{33}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, comparable to the BeppoSAX/NFI observations of SAX J2224.9$`+`$5421 (Antonelli et al. 1999; in ’t Zand 2002, in preparation) and in the range of quiescent soft X-ray transients with neutron stars (e.g. Campana et al. 1998).

With the interstellar hydrogen column and upper limits to the distances listed in Table 2 and the spectrum described in Sect. 3, we compute the unabsorbed flux and upper limits to the luminosities between 0.5 and 7.0 keV. For the brightest candidate counterparts of SAX J1324.5$``$6313, SAX J1752.3$``$3128, SAX J1806.5$``$2215 and SAX J1818.7$`+`$1424 we obtain upper limits to the unabsorbed persistent luminosity of 4$`\times `$1032, 3$`\times `$1032, 2$`\times `$1032 and 4$`\times `$1032 $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, respectively. From the upper-limit derived from the observation of SAX J1753.5$``$2349 we get a luminosity of $`<4\times 10^{32}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (0.5-7 keV). These luminosities are indeed in the range expected for quiescent soft X-transients with a neutron star.

Because our Chandra observations give more than one possible counterpart, several possible counterparts must be chance coincidences. This is in agreement with known $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}S`$ distributions, which predict $``$5 sources in the field of view (see e.g. Rosati et al. 2002). This raises the question whether all Chandra sources are chance coincidences, i.e. whether we have not detected the actual counterparts for the bursters. Given that these systems are neutron star low mass X-ray binaries, we compare them to known other systems, i.e. the soft X-ray transients in quiescence. The lowest X-ray luminosities detected for quiescent soft X-ray transients are $`10^{32}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (e.g. Cen X-4, Campana et al. 1998). This is around the detection limit for the Chandra observations discussed in this paper. We therefore consider it possible that we actually have detected the persistent flux of the bursters, and that they are soft X-ray transients in quiescence, for which no outburst has as yet been detected. If so, this implies that their actual distances are not much less than the upper limits listed in Table 2.

The persistent luminosities of the bursters observed with Chandra is well below the limit set with the WFC observations. This means that we cannot exclude that the persistent luminosity during the WFC observations was $``$10-100 times higher than detected with Chandra, and that it was this higher flux level which triggered the burst. The detections with ROSAT of 1RXS J171824.2$``$402934 and SAX J1828.5$``$1037, and of GRS 1741.9$``$2853 with GRANAT combined with non-detections at other epochs, show that the persistent flux level of these sources is variable.

The energy released during a burst due to nuclear fusion is about 1% of the accretion energy of the matter accreted onto the neutron star (see e.g. Lewin et al. 1993). Dividing the fluence of the bursts detected with the WFC by 1% of the persistent emission detected by Chandra we estimate burst intervals of $``$10 years. If only 1/6th of the persistent flux is due to accretion, the remainder being due to the cooling of the neutron star (i.e. if only the power-law component is due to accretion, see Sect. 3) the estimated burst intervals rise to $``$60 years. It is also suggested that the power-law component during quiescence is not due to accretion (see e.g. Campana et al. 1998), and this means that the waiting time derived above is an under-limit. This explains why these events are so rare, and why we have only seen one burst for most of these sources.

This raises the question how many of these burst sources with low persistent emission exist in our Galaxy. With the WFC the Galactic Center region is observed every half year since 1996, for a total observation time of $`5.5\times 10^6`$ s up to end 2001. If we assume the Galactic distribution of low-mass X-ray binaries derived by van Paradijs & White (1995), $``$50% of the population is in the field of view (40$`\times `$40) of the WFC. During all Galactic center observations 5 bursters with low persistent emission have been detected, i.e. SAX J1752.3$``$3128, SAX J1753.5$``$2349, SAX J1806.5$``$2215, 1RXS J171824.2$``$402934, and GRS 1741.9$``$2853 (the other four are outside the Galactic center region). This gives an average waiting time between the detection of these bursters of $`1.1\times 10^6`$ s. If we also assume that the waiting time between burst of one source is 60 years ($`1.9\times 10^9`$ s) we expect $`2\times 10^3`$ sources in the Galactic center region, giving $`4\times 10^3`$ sources in the whole Galaxy. If on the other hand these sources are extensive periods of time at a persistent luminosity of $`10^{34}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, as the detections of SAX J1828.5$``$1037, 1RXS J171824,2$``$402934, and GRS 1741.9$``$2853 suggests, the waiting time drops to 0.5 year (see Table 1). This gives a number of 30 sources in our Galaxy. We conclude that the estimates for the total number of X-ray bursters with low persistent fluxes range from 0.5 to 60 times the number of known bursters ($`70`$).

In this respect it is interesting to note that the first Chandra observations of globular clusters indicate that these systems harbour more quiescent soft X-ray transients than bursters with high persistent fluxes. For example, Liller 1, NGC 6440 and NGC 6652 all contain such quiescent sources in addition to the bright source (Homer et al. 2001, Pooley et al. 2002b, Heinke et al. 2001); and 47 Tuc, $`\omega `$ Cen, NGC 6752 and NGC 6397 contain quiescent sources but no bright source (Grindlay et al. 2001a, 2001b, Rutledge et al. 2001c, Pooley et al. 2002a). The formation mechanism for low-mass X-ray binaries in globular clusters (tidal capture or exchange encounter; see review by Hut et al. 1992) is different from the formation mechanism in the galactic disk (evolution of a primordial binary). If the ratio of quiescent to bright X-ray bursters depends on the formation mechanism, we do not necessarily expect comparable ratios in the cluster and in the Galactic disk.

If bursts can arise from quiescent systems, we must consider the possibility that a burst from a globular cluster is due to a dim source, rather than to the bright source in it. This would undermine the argument that a burst from a cluster proves that the bright source in it is a neutron star. Nonetheless, we think that the argument holds in all eleven cases where it has been applied so far, as bursts from dim sources are extremely rare. For example, we have detected $`2200`$ X-ray bursts in our WFC observations of the Galactic center region; only five of these are from dim sources. Indeed, bursts from the globular cluster NGC 6440 were detected only when the transient in this cluster was active (in ’t Zand et al. 2001).


text:
# Evolution of Nuclear Spectra with Nuclear Forces

## Abstract

We first define a series of $`NN`$ interaction models ranging from very simple to fully realistic. We then present Green’s function Monte Carlo calculations of light nuclei to show how nuclear spectra evolve as the nuclear forces are made increasingly sophisticated. We find that the absence of stable five- and eight-body nuclei depends crucially on the spin, isospin, and tensor components of the nuclear force.

A key feature of nuclear structure, of great importance to the universe as we know it, is the absence of stable five- or eight-body nuclei. This simple fact is crucial to both primordial and stellar nucleosynthesis. It leads to a universe whose baryonic content is dominated by hydrogen and 4He, with trace amounts of deuterium, 3He, and 7Li. It also enables stars like our sun to burn steadily for billions of years, allowing time for the evolution of life intelligent enough to wonder about such issues.

In this Letter we demonstrate that the binding energies, excitation structure, and relative stability of light nuclei, including the opening of the $`A=5`$ and 8 mass gaps, are crucially dependent on the complicated structure of the nuclear force. We do this by calculating the energy spectra of light nuclei using a variety of nuclear force models ranging from very simple to fully realistic, and observing how features of the experimental spectrum evolve with the sophistication of the force. We find that the spin-isospin and tensor forces present in long-range one-pion-exchange (OPE) are vital, which in turn may allow us to make a closer connection between nuclear structure and the underlying features of QCD OFUBHM01 ; KM97 .

Modern nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) potentials, such as the Argonne $`v_{18}`$ WSS95 , CD Bonn MSS96 , Reid93, Nijm I, and Nijm II SKTS94 , fit over 4300 elastic $`NN`$ scattering data with a $`\chi ^21`$. These potentials are very complicated, including spin, isospin, tensor, spin-orbit, quadratic momentum-dependent, and charge-dependent terms, with $``$40 parameters adjusted to fit the data. Despite this sophistication, these potentials cannot reproduce the binding energy of few-body nuclei like 3H and 4He without the assistance of a three-nucleon potential NKG00 . Three-nucleon ($`NNN`$) potentials, such as the Tucson-Melbourne TM79 , Urbana CPW83 , and Illinois PPWC01  models, are also fairly complicated, depending on the positions, spins, and isospins of all three nucleons simultaneously. A combination of $`NN`$ and $`NNN`$ potentials, such as the Argonne $`v_{18}`$ and Illinois 2 (AV18/IL2), evaluated with exact Green’s function Monte Carlo (GFMC) many-body calculations, can describe the spectra of light nuclei very well PPWC01 ; PVW02 .

The AV18 potential contains a complete electromagnetic (EM) interaction and a strong interaction part which is a combination of OPE and remaining shorter-range phenomenology. The strong interaction part is written as a sum of 18 operator terms:

$$v_{ij}^\pi +v_{ij}^R=\underset{p=1,18}{}v_p(r_{ij})O_{ij}^p.$$
(1)
The first eight operators,

$$O_{ij}^{p=1,8}=[1,\sigma _i\sigma _j,S_{ij},𝐋𝐒][1,\tau _i\tau _j],$$
(2)
are the most important for fitting S- and P-wave $`NN`$ data. The additional terms include six operators that are quadratic in L, three charge-dependent (CD) terms, and one charge-symmetry-breaking (CSB) term. The radial functions $`v_p(r)`$ have parameters adjusted to fit the elastic $`pp`$ and $`np`$ scattering data for $`E_{lab}350`$ MeV, the $`nn`$ scattering length, and the deuteron energy.

The Illinois $`NNN`$ potentials include a complete two-pion-exchange piece, three-pion rings, and a shorter-range phenomenological term:

$$V_{ijk}=V_{ijk}^{2\pi }+V_{ijk}^{3\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }R}+V_{ijk}^R.$$
(3)
The five Illinois models (IL1-IL5) each have $``$3 parameters adjusted to fit the energies of 17 narrow states in $`A8`$ nuclei as evaluated in GFMC calculations PPWC01 . Subsequent calculations of an additional 10 states in $`A=9,10`$ nuclei show that, without readjustment, the AV18/IL2 combination is able to reproduce 27 narrow states with an rms deviation of only 600 keV PVW02 .

The AV18/IL2 Hamiltonian is the standard of comparison for this Letter. We also present previously reported results for AV18 alone, and for a simplified, but still fairly realistic, potential called AV8 PPCPW97 . The “8” designates the number of operator components, which in this case means those of Eq.(2). The standard Coulomb interaction between protons, $`V_{C1}(pp)`$, is retained, but smaller EM terms are omitted. The prime denotes that this potential is not a simple truncation of AV18, but a reprojection, which preserves the isoscalar average of the strong interaction in all S and P partial waves as well as in the 3D1 wave and its coupling to 3S1. Consequently, the deuteron bound state is virtually identical to that of AV18, except that the omission of the small EM terms alters the binding energy from the experimental value of 2.22 MeV to 2.24 MeV. Details of this reprojection are given in Ref. PPCPW97 . Recently, the AV8 (without Coulomb) was used in a benchmark calculation of 4He by seven different methods, including GFMC, with excellent agreement between the various results KNG01 .

Here we define five new potentials, which are progressively simpler reprojections of AV8, designated AV6, AV4, AVX, AV2, and AV1 fortran . The reprojections preserve as many features of elastic $`NN`$ scattering and the deuteron as feasible at each level. GFMC calculations of $`A10`$ nuclei for these simpler models show how different features of the spectra correlate with specific elements of the forces.

The AV6 is obtained by deleting the spin-orbit terms from AV8 and adjusting the potential to preserve the deuteron binding. The spin-orbit terms do not contribute to S-wave $`NN`$ scattering, and are the smallest contributors to the energy of 4He KNG01 . They also do not contribute to scattering in the 1P1 channel, but are important in differentiating between the 3P0,1,2 channels. Thus this model does not give a very good fit to $`NN`$ scattering data. To fix the deuteron, we choose to subtract a fraction of the AV8 spin-orbit potential’s radial function from the central potential in the $`ST=10`$ channel, adjusting the coefficient to get an energy of 2.24 MeV:

$$v_{10}^c(AV6^{})=v_{10}^c(AV8^{})0.3v_{10}^{ls}(AV8^{}).$$
(4)
This choice preserves the OPE potential, while the deuteron D-state and quadrupole moment are barely changed. Spin and isospin terms are projected from the $`v_{ST}^c`$ as in Eq.(30) of Ref. WSS95 , while tensor terms remain the same as in AV8.

The AV4 potential eliminates the tensor terms. The 1S0 and 1P1 potentials are unaffected, but the coupling between 3S1 and 3D1 channels is gone and the 3P0,1,2 channels deteriorate further. The central $`ST=10`$ potential is again adjusted to fix the deuteron binding:

$$v_{10}^c(AV4^{})=v_{10}^c(AV6^{})+0.8735v_{10}^t(AV6^{}),$$
(5)
but now there is no D-state and no quadrupole moment.

Although many aspects of $`NN`$ scattering have been sacrificed at the AV4 level, such a potential still allows us to differentiate between the four possible $`ST`$ channels. Any further reduction in the operator structure sacrifices this feature. We consider three such simplifications: 1) AVX, where the operators are 1 and the space exchange operator $`P_{ij}^x=\frac{1}{4}(1+\sigma _i\sigma _j+\tau _i\tau _j+\sigma _i\sigma _j\tau _i\tau _j)`$; 2) AV2, with operators 1 and $`\tau _i\tau _j`$; and 3) AV1, which is just a pure central force. AVX allows one to differentiate between the spin-isospin weighted averages of S-wave and P-wave forces by setting $`v^c+v^x=\frac{1}{2}(v_{01}^c+v_{10}^c)`$ and $`v^cv^x=\frac{1}{10}(9v_{11}^c+v_{00}^c)`$. In this case, the average of the S-waves gives a deuteron that is bound by only 0.43 MeV, but the intrinsic repulsion in odd partial waves is retained. AV2 allows one to differentiate between 1S and 3S potentials, analogous to the Malfliet-Tjon (MT) I-III interaction MT69 , with the combinations $`v^c+v^\tau =v_{01}^c`$ and $`v^c3v^\tau =v_{10}^c`$. Finally, AV1 is just the average of 1S and 3S potentials, analogous to the MT V interaction. The AV2 preserves the correct deuteron binding of 2.24 MeV, but the AV1 again has a deuteron bound by only 0.43 MeV. While the MT interactions were intended only for use in s-shell ($`A4`$) nuclei, they have been used in larger systems acting either in all partial waves, or only in even partial waves BLO00 . Here we treat AV1, AV2, and AVX as operators acting in all partial waves.

In the independent-particle (IP) model, nuclear states can be characterized by quantum numbers $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L[n]`$ as well as $`J^\pi `$, where $`L`$ and $`S`$ are the orbital and spin angular momenta, $`[n]`$ designates the Young tableau of the spatial symmetry, and $`J^\pi `$ are the total angular momentum and parity BM69 . Realistic interactions down to the AV6 level mix states of different $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L[n]`$, but for the AV4 and simpler interactions there is no mixing of different values of $`S`$ and essentially no mixing of $`L`$ or $`[n]`$.

Our many-body calculations are made with the GFMC method, details of which may be found in Refs. PPWC01 ; PVW02 ; PPCPW97 ; WPCP00 . The GFMC method is in principle exact for the AV8 and simpler potentials, while for the AV18 and AV18/IL2 models some small parts of the interaction have to be calculated perturbatively. We believe the calculation of binding energies for AV18 and AV18/IL2 is accurate to 1–2%, and better for the simpler models. Results for 26 $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L[n]`$ states in nuclei ranging from 4He to 10B are shown in Fig. 1. The Hamiltonians are, from left to right for each nucleus, AV1, AV2, AVX, AV4, and AV6. Results for 25 $`J^\pi `$ states are shown in Fig. 2 for AV6, AV8, AV18, AV18/IL2, and experiment results .

The simple AV1 and AV2 interactions approximately reproduce the energies of s-shell nuclei (3H is overbound by $`0.6`$ MeV). However, every additional nucleon significantly increases the binding, so p-shell nuclei are progressively more bound and no mass gaps appear. With such forces, nuclear matter will not saturate until the repulsive cores of the interaction start to overlap at many times the empirical density. For AV1, the strong interaction does not differentiate between different isospin states, so 6He and 6Li would have the same energy except that the Coulomb interaction makes 6Li less bound. Consequently, the $`\beta `$-stable nuclei in the $`4A10`$ regime would all be isotopes of helium. The AV2 avoids this particular problem by preserving separately the deuteron binding and 1S scattering; it also improves the saturation behavior slightly. Both models have the curious feature that the spectrum is reversed in order, i.e., the lowest p-shell eigenstates are the ones that are spatially least symmetric. This lowers the energy by reducing the amount of overlap of the repulsive potential cores in the wave function. Thus the ground state for 8Be is a 3P state, which has degenerate spin of $`J^\pi =0^+,1^+,2^+`$. The spectra are also very compressed compared to experiment.

The AVX and AV4 overcome many of the limitations of the simplest models by preserving the difference between attractive even- and repulsive odd-partial waves. Both provide significant saturation, particularly the feature that $`A=5`$ nuclei are unstable. However, the $`A=8`$ mass gap is a more subtle effect, since both these models predict 8Be to have slightly more than twice the binding of 4He. The lowest states are the spatially most symmetric, so 8Be now has a 1S $`J^\pi =0^+`$ ground state. The spectrum is also less compressed. Because the AVX does not differentiate between 1S and 3S interactions, it shares the failing of AV1 in having 6He more bound than 6Li, but due to the correct ordering of spatial symmetries, 8Be is much more bound than 8He.

The tensor forces in AV6 provide significant additional saturation compared to the simpler potentials. This is due to 1) a less attractive $`v_{10}^c`$ because much of the binding of the deuteron is now provided through tensor coupling to the 3D channel, and 2) the ability of the tensor interaction with third particles to change an attractive 1S pair into a repulsive 3P pair FPPWSA96 . This saturation is sufficiently strong to underbind all the nuclei with respect to experiment, and it opens the $`A=8`$ mass gap by making 8Be less than twice as bound as 4He. However, it leaves the $`A=6,7`$ nuclei with only marginal stability. The tensor forces begin to mix the $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L[n]`$ states so they are no longer eigenstates, but several sets of states, like the $`2^+`$ and $`3^+`$ states in 6Li, remain nearly degenerate.

The spin-orbit terms in AV8 provide much more mixing and clearly break the $`J^\pi `$ degeneracy, producing a spectrum that is properly ordered in the $`A8`$ nuclei, although the splittings of most spin-orbit partners are smaller than observed. The binding energies shift slightly compared to AV6, some up and some down, with the $`A=6,7`$ nuclei becoming more stable while the $`A=5,8`$ mass gaps are preserved. Going to the full AV18 interaction decreases the overall binding energies slightly, because the less attractive higher partial waves in $`NN`$ scattering are now accurately represented, but the relative excitations are virtually unchanged. However, the energy differences among isobaric multiplets, like the 7Li,7Be mirror nuclei, are improved due to the addition of the extra EM, CD, and CSB terms in AV18.

Finally, the addition of the IL2 $`NNN`$ potential to AV18 gives a very accurate description of the light nuclei. It adds the necessary additional binding that the realistic $`NN`$ potentials lack and increases the splittings among spin-orbit partners. It makes 6He and 8He strong-stable, and it produces the correct 3+ ground state for 10B, where all the simpler models (and other realistic $`NN`$ interactions like CD Bonn navratil ) incorrectly give a 1+ state.

Many of the results from these models can be understood by simply counting the number of $`ST`$ pairs, $`N_{ST}`$, in the IP wave function for a given state and applying a weight factor appropriate for the potential. A good estimate of the relative binding for the AV4 and higher models is obtained using weights from the OPE potential: $`3N_{10}+3N_{01}N_{11}9N_{00}`$. This reflects the approximately equal attraction in 3S and 1S potentials, the small repulsion in 3P, and the large repulsion in 1P. The values for 4He, 5He, 6He, 6Li, 7Li, 8He, 8Be, and 10B ground states are 18, 18, 21, 21, 27, 24, 36, and 39, respectively. With this estimate, the marginal stability of 5He and 8Be against breakup and the roughly equal binding of 6He and 6Li are expected. It also provides the order of excited states and thus the relative amount of mixing, e.g., in 7Li the 2P, 4P, and 2P states get weights of 27, 21, and 15, as the number of S-wave pairs decreases going from  to  symmetry, and the ratio of 3P to 1P pairs decreases going from quartet to doublet spin.

For AV6 and up, the importance of the OPE potential is evident from its expectation value, which is typically 80% of $`v_{ij}`$ PPWC01 . These findings are consistent with the important role of the spin-isospin interaction in fixing the shell gaps in nuclei OFUBHM01 , and support a close connection between nuclear structure and the underlying features of QCD, particularly the special role of the pion as the Goldstone boson, and the dominance of spin-isospin and tensor forces in $`1/N_c`$ expansions KM97 .

We see from the present studies that purely central nuclear forces are nonsense for nuclei beyond the s-shell, where it is crucial to incorporate the difference between attractive even and repulsive odd partial waves. While a model like AV4 can produce the energy saturation and clustering that appears in the p-shell, our model calculations suggest that obtaining the mass gaps at $`A=5,8`$ and stable $`A=6,7`$ nuclei is a very sensitive issue, and may well require both tensor and spin-orbit forces as in the AV8 model. Finally, to get a truly good fit both to the ground state binding energies, the spin-orbit splittings in the excitation spectra, and (in the case of 10B) the ordering of spin states, we need multinucleon forces.

We thank J. L. Friar, D. Kurath, D. J. Millener, and V. R. Pandharipande for many useful discussions. The many-body calculations were performed on the parallel computers of the Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. This work is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.