text:
# Radio and X-ray observations of the jet in Centaurus A

## 1 Introduction

In the years since the launch of Chandra it has become apparent that many FRI radio galaxies and BL Lac objects have kpc-scale X-ray jets (e.g., Worrall, Birkinshaw & Hardcastle, 2001; Harris & Krawczynski, 2002, and refs therein). On the basis of the continuity of the radio/optical/X-ray spectrum, it has been argued in several cases (e.g., Hardcastle, Birkinshaw & Worrall, 2001) that the emission mechanism is synchrotron radiation. In this case, the X-rays are giving us information on a population of extremely energetic electrons, with random Lorentz factors ($`\gamma `$) as high as $`10^8`$. It may even be the case that all kpc-scale FRI jets (including those of the BL Lac objects, the unification partners of FRI radio galaxies) are synchrotron X-ray sources at some level, with the high-energy particle acceleration being linked to the strong deceleration that the jet is known to undergo on these scales.

Although the overall morphological agreement between the radio, optical (where observed) and X-ray jets is generally good, reinforcing our confidence in a synchrotron model, there are often significant differences in detail: particularly notable are the tendency for the inner parts of the jet to have a higher X-ray to radio flux density ratio, and the offsets between the peak positions of X-ray and radio knots, which are typically in the sense that the X-ray knot’s position is closer to the core (Hardcastle et al., 2001, 2002). To date there has been no particularly satisfactory explanation for these observations. Of course, we should not expect to see a detailed agreement between the radio and X-ray images, if the X-ray emission is synchrotron: the loss timescale for the radio-emitting electrons is of the order of hundreds of thousands of years, assuming a magnetic field strength close to the equipartition value, while the loss timescale for an X-ray-emitting electron in the same field is of the order of tens of years. In other words, the X-ray-emitting electrons are telling us where particles are being accelerated now, while the radio-emitting electrons tell us about the time-averaged particle acceleration, combined with the effects of downstream motion (i.e. motion away from the core). Arguments of this kind have been used to explain the observed offsets, but in most sources it is hard to make them quantitative because of the limited spatial resolution of Chandra.

Centaurus A, at a distance of 3.4 Mpc (Israel, 1998), is the closest radio galaxy: $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ corresponds to 17 pc. Cen A is therefore the only source where the spatial size corresponding to Chandra’s sub-arcsecond angular resolution is comparable to the energy-loss travel distance of the X-ray emitting electrons (assuming moderately relativistic bulk motion). An understanding of the processes going on in Cen A is critical if we are to understand the X-ray jets in other, more distant FRI sources. In earlier papers (Kraft et al., 2000, 2002, \[hereafter K02\]) we have presented Chandra and radio observations of Cen A, showing that the radio/X-ray relationship is complex. In this paper we present new, high-dynamic-range radio data and new, high-spatial-resolution X-ray imaging spectroscopy, which together shed new light on the dynamics and acceleration processes in the jet and counterjet.

J2000.0 co-ordinates are used throughout this paper, and the spectral index $`\alpha `$ is defined in the sense that $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$.

## 2 Radio observations and data reduction

We observed Cen A using the NRAO Very Large Array (VLA) in A and B configurations at 8.4 GHz in 2002. The source had previously been observed (PI Burns) in the A, B, C and DnC VLA configurations in 1990/91; we presented earlier images from these observations in K02. In this paper we make use only of the A and B-configuration data from the earlier observations. Observational details for both epochs are given in Table 1. Apart from the use in 2002 of a closer phase calibrator, and the narrow bandwidth used in the 1991 B-array observations, the 1991 and 2002 observations were very similar. 3C 286 was used as the flux calibrator in all observations, and in all cases Cen A was observed for essentially the whole time permitted by the elevation limits of the VLA antennae.

The data reduction was initially carried out in a standard manner using aips. As reported in K02, the individual observations from 1991 were flux- and phase-calibrated, flagged, and then self-calibrated in phase and amplitude, starting with a point-source model in the case of the A-array data, to give images with respectable but limited dynamic range, $`10^4:1`$. A more realistic measure of the image quality, on-source peak to off-source peak, was 2000:1; artefacts around the strong core gave rise to structure in the noise.

The 2002 data were reduced in a very similar way, and immediately gave significantly better results111The most plausible explanation for the superior quality of the 2002 data is that it is due to changes in the VLA’s calculation of correlation coefficients, which were implemented in 1998: Taylor, Ulvestad & Perley (2002), section 3.10.. But these images were still limited by artefacts around the core, which showed up at around 10 times the r.m.s. noise level. Since it was possible to make an image that contained all the flux at A-array, we then attempted baseline-based self-calibration, using the aips task blcal to generate a set of baseline corrections from the image that could then be applied directly to the data. Because of the danger of forcing the data to match the model using this method, we determined only a single set of baseline-based corrections for all times present in the dataset. The corrections were then applied to the A-array dataset using the aips task split. The result, after deep cleaning using the imagr task, was an image with an off-source noise level of 50 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1, and no obvious core-related artefacts. The noise level was still some way above the expected thermal value ($`10`$ $`\mu `$Jy beam-1), but corresponded to a dynamic range of 120,000:1, among the highest ever achieved with the VLA in continuum mode. By examining the difference between the baseline-corrected and non-baseline-corrected maps, we verified that no significant changes in source structure had been forced by the baseline-based calibration.

It was not possible to apply the same method to the 1991 A-array dataset, because an adequate model (representing all the flux visible in the $`uv`$ dataset) could not be made from the image derived from self-calibration. Instead, we amplitude- and phase-calibrated the 1991 dataset, and then determined baseline corrections, using an image made from the 2002 data (after using uvsub to correct for the effects of core variability). The result was an image with an off-source r.m.s. noise of 98 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1, not as good as that in the 2002 map, but still acceptable. A comparison of the maps before and after this process showed that no significant changes to the source structure had been forced by the cross-calibration of the datasets, in the sense that subtraction of the maps showed no structure that could not be attributed to noise in the non-baseline-corrected dataset.

Finally, the B-array data were cross-calibrated and baseline self-calibrated in a very similar way (although in this case we found that some core-related artefacts in the 1991 data could only be removed by a time-varying baseline-based calibration). It was then possible to combine the individual A and B-array datasets to produce images representing both compact and relatively extended structure, or to combine all four datasets to produce an image with better sampling and (presumably) fidelity than could be provided by the individual epochs of observation. We use this multi-epoch dataset when comparing with the X-ray data discussed later in the paper.

Imaging during the calibration process was carried out using the imagr task only. After calibration was complete we experimented with using the maximum-entropy deconvolution routine vtess. Using standard ‘hybrid’ mapping techniques to remove the flux from the bright core before applying vtess, and convolving the maximum-entropy images with the same Gaussian beam as that fitted by imagr to the $`uv`$ data, we obtained images which appeared smoother than the clean-based ones, although they suffered from a slight positive bias. Subtraction of the vtess and imagr images revealed striping in the extended parts of the residual image, which we attribute to the known instabilities in the clean algorithm. As this striping has an amplitude of up to 50% of the total in the faint extended emission, it could potentially have serious effects on the measurements of positions of faint or extended features in the jet. Accordingly, we use vtess-derived maps for positional measurements. However, we note that bright knots appear identical in the imagr and hybrid maps (i.e., image subtraction gives residuals close to zero), and their positions as determined using jmfit change by only a few mas if vtess rather than imagr is used, so that we do not believe that the deconvolution method has a significant effect on the positions estimated for bright jet features.

There are artefacts around the core in all polarization (Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$) maps (which were all made using imagr). We attribute the artefacts to the limited accuracy of the correction for the ‘leakage’ terms (determining the amount of unpolarized flux which appears in the polarization channels) carried out by the task pcal. The core appears polarized at about the 0.2% level, consistent with the expected performance of pcal (particularly as the parallactic angle coverage of the phase calibrator was limited by the short observing time) but enough to cause the observed artefacts. Since the artefacts are different from dataset to dataset, polarization images based on more than one dataset are particularly badly affected, and so we do not present maps made from such images here.

The initial calibration of the A-array data with a point source model caused us to lose the absolute astrometry of the images (which, as discussed in K02, was not very accurate in the case of the 1991 data in any case). To correct for this, we followed K02 and set the positions of the cores in all observations to accurate values derived from an archival 8-GHz Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) observation which had not been calibrated in this way. Our adopted radio core position is $`13^\mathrm{h}25^\mathrm{m}27\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}609`$, $`43\mathrm{°}01^{}08\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}91`$. Because our two images are referenced at the core, we are implicitly assuming that in the search for proper motion described below (§4.1.1) the core is stationary. However, as we shall see, the full range of detected knot motions cannot possibly be attributed to changes in core structure.

Radio beam sizes quoted in what follows are the major and minor full widths at half maximum (FWHM) of the restoring or convolving elliptical Gaussians, derived in the usual way by fitting to the center of the dirty beam. Because of the extreme southern declination of Cen A, the long axis of the restoring beam is always oriented within a few degrees of the north-south direction, and so its position angle is not quoted.

## 3 X-ray observations

The X-ray observations were taken on 2002 September 03 with Chandra, as part of the High Resolution Camera (HRC) guaranteed time program, and were made with the jet on the back-illuminated (S3) chip of the ACIS array for maximal sensitivity to soft photons. The active nucleus was at the aim point (whereas it was 4–5’ off-axis in the earlier Chandra observations: K02), so that we have in these observations, for the first time, a combination of sub-arcsecond resolution and good spectral sensitivity for the whole of the inner jet; the PSF in the inner jet is a factor $`2`$ smaller than in the previous ACIS observations. The roll angle of the satellite was chosen so that the frame transfer streak from the heavily piled-up nucleus of Cen A is perpendicular to the jet direction; it also places the X-ray arc known to lie around the southern inner lobe (K02; Kraft et al. 2003) on the front-illuminated S2 chip, giving us a sensitive and high-resolution image of that feature. In addition, there is some weak evidence for emission from the edge of the northern inner lobe. We will discuss these features in more detail elsewhere. Here we concentrate on the jet, all of whose X-ray emission lies on the S3 chip.

We inspected the background of the observations as a function of time and found no strong variations in count rate: the background appeared to be at the expected level. Accordingly, no time filtering was carried out. The effective exposure time was 45,182 s. To maximize the effective resolution, we generated a new level 2 events file without the 0.5-pixel randomization applied by the standard pipeline. We also processed the data to remove the effects of ‘streaking’ on the S4 chip. As reported by K02, we had manually adjusted the aspect solution of the earlier Chandra observations to bring them in line with known optical positions. No such adjustment was necessary for the new observations. The alignment between the radio and X-ray core positions is excellent.

We use the energy range 0.4–7.0 keV for all spectroscopy in what follows, except where otherwise stated. For imaging we mostly use the band 0.4–2.5 keV, as this removes much of the strong emission from the heavily absorbed X-ray nucleus without compromising the soft emission from the jet.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Radio emission

#### 4.1.1 Knots and proper motions

The high-dynamic-range images of the jet and counterjet (Fig. 1) give us two important pieces of information. Firstly, a number of compact faint radio knots are detected, including (for the first time) several clearly compact features in the large-scale counterjet region. (The inner counterjet knots denoted SJ1 and SJ2, and the large-scale features S1 and S2, had already been detected in the maps of Clarke, Burns & Norman ). The new knots (A2A, A3A/B, A5A, B1A, SJ3, S2A, S2B) are all faint (with flux densities of at most a few mJy at 8.4 GHz) but are unambiguously detected in both VLA imaging epochs. As we shall see below (§4.2), several of the new faint radio knots are associated with comparatively bright X-ray emission.

Secondly, mapping the difference between the two epochs (or even simply blinking between the two maps) reveals that some, but not all, of the features in the jet have detectable proper motions along the jet. The most obvious motion is that of A1B, the middle knot in the bright base-knot complex, which has an apparent motion on the sky over the 11-year baseline of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}101\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}001`$ in a position angle of 62° (defined in the sense north through east). The error quoted here is based on the errors returned by the aips Gaussian fitting task jmfit, fitting to both source and background, and so is likely to be optimistic, since it does not take into account systematic uncertainties due to, for example, the choice of fitting region: nevertheless, the proper motion is clearly detected. Further down the jet, the large-scale regions A2 and A3/4 appear to be moving coherently downstream. The apparent speed in these regions is hard to quantify, because there are few well-defined bright knots, but a measurement of the motion of the knot A3B, the brightest compact feature in this region, gives a proper motion of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}06\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}01`$. By contrast, most of the compact features in the jet and counterjet (A1A, A1C, A2A, A3A, A5A, B1A, SJ1, SJ2, SJ3, S2A, S2B) had no detectable proper motion within the errors, although the accuracy of positions determined by fitting Gaussians to these features is low in the case of the fainter knots. In addition to the proper motions, the inner knot (A1A) has varied significantly (increasing in flux by 10%) over the epoch of observations, while the extended emission downstream of A1C appears to have become fainter.

To confirm the reality of the apparent motions we used a version of the least-squares method discussed by Walker (1997), which involves shifting selected sub-regions of the jet so as to give the best match between the two epochs. The regions used in this method and the resulting best-fitting shifts are plotted in Fig. 2. The difficulties in applying this method to our data come from differences in background structure (due to slightly different short-baseline $`uv`$ coverage) coupled with real changes in knot structure, such as those seen in A1C. The best-fitting shift for the feature with the highest SNR, A1B, is in good agreement (within the errors) between the two methods: Walker’s method gives it a motion of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}12\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}03`$ (errors are $`1\sigma `$, derived from the least-squared fits and based on estimates of the on-source noise). The motions determined for the compact features A1A and A2A are consistent with zero. A1C’s apparent backward motion, which is formally marginally significant, is a result of the changes in the knot structure discussed above. Further out, Walker’s method gives somewhat higher estimated speeds for the A3 region, $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}14\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}03`$. Although the motions in the inner jet and counterjet are not formally significant, they are plotted because of the suggestive directions of the best-fitting shift vector; it will be of interest to see whether these become significant in future monitoring.

The motion of knot A1B corresponds to an apparent speed on the sky of $`0.51c`$, based on the jmfit results, while the apparent speed in region A3 is between $`0.3`$ and $`0.7c`$ depending on the method used. We are therefore observing subluminal proper motions in the kpc-scale jet of Cen A, with apparent speeds higher than those observed in the parsec-scale jet and counterjet (Tingay et al., 1998). If the speeds are taken to represent the bulk speeds of the source, this would imply jet acceleration on scales between $`1`$ and 250 pc. It is more plausible that the motions of the parsec-scale knots (and possibly also of knot A1B) do not trace the bulk fluid flow in the jet, and in fact Tingay et al. argue that the variability of sub-components of the parsec-scale jet implies speeds $`>0.45c`$. A similar trend, in the sense that apparent speed increases with distance from the nucleus, has been observed in VLBI studies of some core-dominated objects (Homan et al., 2001).

If we assume that the component speeds in the kpc-scale jet do represent the bulk flow in the jet (and this seems inescapable in the outer parts of the jet, where the moving features are extended) then the combination of jet sidedness, assuming intrinsic jet symmetry, and observed motion allows us to set some constraints on the speed and angle to the line of sight of the jet. In general, the constraints from jet sidedness and variability on VLBI scales have suggested that Cen A is at a reasonably large angle to the line of sight ($`\theta =50\mathrm{°}`$ – 80°, Tingay et al. 1998): the small-scale jet-counterjet ratio $`R`$ is between 4 and 8 (Jones et al., 1996), and the model-dependent speed constraints ($`\beta >0.45`$) then require large angles to avoid obtaining $`R>8`$. The situation is interestingly different in the kpc-scale jet: $`R>50`$ at knot A1B (where the limit comes from taking the SJ3 component to be the brightest possible base knot counterpart), and even in the A3 region $`R10`$ (the faint extended region S1 is taken to be the counterpart of A3). These measurements, together with the observed motions, give the constraints shown in Fig. 3. Taken at face value, they require much smaller angles to the line of sight than has been estimated from the VLBI observations: in fact, the angles to the line of sight proposed by Tingay et al. are too large for any amount of beaming to be able to account for the jet-counterjet ratio in the A1 region (Fig. 3), let alone the relatively mild beaming implied by the observed sub-luminal proper motion. At least one of the assumptions involved in the various estimates of $`\theta `$ must be incorrect. Probably the jet and counterjet are not completely intrinsically symmetrical, since we know that the larger-scale inner lobes are asymmetrical both in their radio structure and their environments (Kraft et al., 2003): if this were true, some of the constraints would be relaxed, particularly those based on the limits on the sidedness near the compact A1 base knots, and it would be possible to obtain consistent values of $`\theta `$ from the sub-pc and 100-pc-scale data. Angles to the line of sight $`50\mathrm{°}`$ are also more plausible in interpretations of the large-scale radio and X-ray properties of the source (e.g., Kraft et al., 2003). This interpretation does leave unanswered the question of why the base region (A1) of the northern jet is intrinsically much brighter than that of its presumed southern counterpart.

The fact that the base knot A1A has apparently increased in flux density by around 10% can in principle give rise to some additional constraints on speeds. A Gaussian fit to this feature suggests a FWHM of about 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4, corresponding to 7.3 pc (23 light years). It is therefore impossible for the knot to have varied coherently on a timescale of a decade: it must contain some smaller-scale substructure, which is consistent with the relatively small amplitude of variation. Even so, the fact that it has changed so obviously suggests that significantly relativistic speeds must be involved, at least comparable to those estimated from proper motions further out. If this is true, the fact that the knot is stationary does not allow us to conclude that the bulk flow through the knot is slow.

#### 4.1.2 Polarization structure

Our new observations give us good maps of the polarization structure in the inner jet, and these are shown in Fig. 4. They confirm the basic picture seen in earlier observations (Burns et al., 1983; Clarke et al., 1986) but have higher sensitivity and show more of the extended structure of the jet. We plot vectors perpendicular to the polarization $`E`$-vectors, which should be in the direction of the magnetic field in the emitting material if Faraday rotation is negligible, as we would expect it to be at this frequency from the rotation measure images of Clarke et al. (1992). The main point to note here is that the magnetic field direction appears to be almost entirely parallel to the jet over the whole region seen in these images (3 kpc along the jet), with the exception of a small region to the E and S of knot A2. There is no sign of the change to a transverse field direction along the center of the jet that is seen in some other FRI sources, and this appears to be the case on larger scales too (Clarke et al., 1992), although we do not detect polarization along the ridge-line of the large-scale jet. Accordingly, there is no evidence that we are seeing a region of the jet where a parallel component of the magnetic field at the edge might be thought to trace a slow-moving shear layer, as in some proposed models of jet deceleration and polarization structure (Laing, 1996). More recent versions of these models (e.g., Laing & Bridle, 2002a) do not predict a detectable transition to a transverse field direction in all cases. It is also interesting that the well-collimated inner part of the jet, before the flare point at knot A, appears to show a parallel field structure. This has been observed in some other sources (e.g., Owen et al., 1989; Hardcastle et al., 1996).

### 4.2 The radio/X-ray relation

#### 4.2.1 Identification of radio and X-ray features

The new X-ray and radio data allow a more detailed comparison to be made between the two wavebands than was previously possible. The most striking new results are the good detection (in X-rays and radio) of the inner, well-collimated part of the jet, and the association of several previously known X-ray knots with faint compact radio features. Fig. 5 shows the quality of the new X-ray data, while Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the radio and X-ray structures. The unprocessed resolutions of the data are somewhat different: the Chandra PSF close to the core can be fitted as a circular Gaussian with FWHM $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}65`$, while the radio data have an elongated beam, as discussed above. To simplify comparison in Fig. 6 we have smoothed the X-ray emission with a $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ Gaussian kernel and used a circular restoring beam in the radio mapping (after appropriate weighting of the $`uv`$ plane) so that both images have a resolution of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}85`$ (the FWHM of a circular Gaussian) close to the core. The effective resolution of the Chandra data is somewhat lower ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}95`$) at the furthest distances from the core shown on this Figure, but we do not regard this as a significant problem.

It is clear from these images that some of the previously known X-ray knots in the jet (AX2, AX3, AX5, AX6, BX2 in the notation of K02, as used in Fig. 5) are associated with the newly discovered weak radio knots: AX2 with A2A, AX3 with A3A, AX5 (or part of it) with A5A, AX6 with A6A and BX2 with B1A. In addition, the two X-ray knots SX2A and SX2B are coincident with the counterjet radio features S2A and S2B. In the jet, extended X-ray emission is associated with most, but not all, of the radio emission region: for example, there is no strong X-ray emission associated with the bright extended region A2 (as opposed to the weak compact knot A2A). In several places there is brighter radio emission downstream of a faint radio knot associated with an X-ray feature: this is true of the radio features A2, A3 and B.

The results show that the radio to X-ray flux density ratio is strongly variable as a function of position in the jet. Some radio regions have comparatively strong radio emission and weak X-ray emission (for example region A4) while others, of which the radio knot B1A is probably the clearest example, have strong X-ray emission and weak radio emission. There are some X-ray sources in or near the jet which have no detectable radio counterparts. The X-ray feature BX3 is an example of this, although it is possible that it is unrelated to the jet (as suggested by its point-like X-ray appearance compared to other jet sources: if it is unrelated to the jet, it is most probably a LMXB associated with NGC 5128). Equally, there are comparatively bright radio features with no X-ray detections. This is true of the counterjet features SJ2 and SJ3 (Fig. 6). As Fig. 7 shows, there are also strong differences between the X-ray properties of the knots in the bright A1 region (in this figure we retain the full resolution of both datasets for clarity). The knot A1B, the brightest of the three in the radio, has by far the faintest X-ray emission. In the following subsection, we investigate the radio and X-ray spectra of these regions quantitatively.

#### 4.2.2 X-ray spectroscopy and flux densities for compact features

We extracted spectra and flux densities for all the compact X-ray features associated with radio knots, together with the corresponding radio flux densities. Fig. 5 shows some of the extraction regions, and the results are tabulated in Table 2; total counts in the knots vary between $`1000`$ for the brightest features and $`100`$ for the faintest. In each case we fitted a power-law model absorbed with a free, zero-redshift absorbing column (which in general includes both the Galactic column density, $`7\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, and the much larger column from the dust lane of Cen A). We included the effects of the reduced quantum efficiency of the detector at the epoch of observations by using the acisabs model to correct the response files222As described in the ciao threads: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/apply\_acisabs/ .. The X-ray flux densities quoted are the unabsorbed values. We determined background using nearby, off-jet background regions. All the fits were good. The corresponding radio flux densities are those of the compact features, measured where possible by fitting a Gaussian and background level to the radio images. We also tabulate, in parentheses, the total radio flux densities (including flux from any extended background emission seen in the A-array map) in the regions corresponding to the X-ray extraction regions, which provides an upper limit on the radio emission from the X-ray features. In some cases this total flux density is a very conservative limit, as it includes part of another radio feature: this is true of knots A1A and A1C (contaminated by A1B) and A2A (contaminated by extended emission from the A2 region). We find that the radio to X-ray flux ratios of the different knots vary by more than an order of magnitude, and the best-fitting X-ray spectral indices for radio-associated features range from 0.3 to 1.4. Fig. 8 gives a graphical representation of the differences in the properties of the knots.

The column densities inferred from the spectral fits, and tabulated in Table 2, are consistent with a single value of the absorbing column, $`6\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2, in the inner regions of the jet (AX1–6), as reported by K02. In knot BX2 and in the counterjet features, the absorbing column density is lower, and is generally consistent with the Galactic value. This is qualitatively as we would expect from sensitive imaging of the dust features in Cen A (e.g., Schreier et al., 1996); the entire inner part of the jet lies in the dust lane.

#### 4.2.3 Sizes of X-ray features

We noted in K02 that several of the X-ray knots in the jet appeared to be significantly extended. Some of these (the most obvious example being AX1: Fig. 7) are now seen to have sub-structure on scales smaller than the resolution of the data that was then available to us. Knot BX2, by contrast, appears to be genuinely resolved in our new data. Fig. 9 shows a comparison between the observations and a simulation, using the web-based ray-tracing tool ChaRT333See http://cxc.harvard.edu/chart/ ; we followed the threads described at http://cxc.harvard.edu/chart/threads/prep/ and http://cxc.harvard.edu/chart/threads/marx/ in order to generate simulated point sources matched to our data., of the Chandra point-spread function at this position for the observed energy distribution of BX2. Visual inspection and radial profiling both show that BX2 is resolved transversely to the jet direction, on scales of 1″. This extension is also present in the radio data, though the elongated radio beam makes it less obvious. We have searched for X-ray extension in the other isolated, compact radio-related knots such as AX6 and found little significant evidence that it is present, which implies sizes in the X-ray $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ ($`10`$ pc); these are again consistent with the radio observations. The complex structure of the AX1 region means that a full deconvolution, which we have not carried out, would be required to derive good constraints on structure in the X-ray sub-knots, but we believe that both bright X-ray knots are probably marginally extended on scales $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$.

#### 4.2.4 The extended X-ray and radio emission

We extracted two spectra for extended regions of the jet. These were the faint inner jet between the nucleus and knot A1, and the extended emission in the jet between knot A2 and the knot B region, excluding all compact X-ray features. In both cases we used an off-source background region of the same size at the same radial distance from the nucleus. The radio emission was measured from the corresponding regions of the multi-epoch, A+B-configuration images without background subtraction. The results are tabulated in Table 2. Note that the X-ray to radio flux ratio for the extended jet is much lower than for any individual jet knot.

The X-ray emission on scales larger than that of the inner jet is shown in Fig. 10. Generally the extended X-rays are reasonably well matched to the radio emission on these scales; in particular, diffuse X-ray emission clearly extends to the edge of the radio jet. There are some faint compact X-ray features, identified by K02, which have no apparent compact radio counterparts, though we cannot rule out the possibility that their radio counterparts are simply too faint to be convincingly detected. To the north and downstream of the bright X-ray knot BX2 the extended X-rays appear to be associated with the edge of the jet, and to be absent in the jet center. A similar region of edge-brightening is seen further down the jet. These regions are marked with lines on Fig. 10; neither has a counterpart in the large-scale radio emission. Their detection raises the possibility that the edges of the jet, which are the locations where jet mass entrainment takes place in the standard FRI jet model (e.g., Laing & Bridle, 2002a) are privileged sites for the particle acceleration required to generate the X-ray emission.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Radio supernovae?

Although the X-ray knots with detected radio counterparts cannot be X-ray binaries in Cen A, since such objects have at most extremely weak radio counterparts, it is not out of the question that they could be jet-associated radio supernovae (SN) or supernova remnants (SNR). Capetti (2002) has suggested that in some cases type Ia supernovae may be triggered by jets444Capetti (2002) also suggested that SN1986G in NGC 5128 was associated with the jet in Cen A, but in fact the position of the SN means that this is not the case (Capetti, private communication, 2002). The location of SN1986G, a type Ia SN, is not at present a detectable source of radio or X-rays.. X-ray emission of luminosity comparable to that of the X-ray knots in Cen A (K02) is most likely to be produced by type II supernovae in dense environments rather than by SNIa, but there is evidence (Graham & Fassett, 2002) that the jet is inducing star formation in the host galaxy, so that this is not impossible. The radio luminosities of the weaker knots, with fluxes of a few mJy, are comparable to those of known SNR in M82 (Muxlow et al., 1994), which lies at a very similar distance, and at least some of the M82 sources have tentative X-ray associations of similar luminosity to the Cen A knots Matsumoto et al. (2001), although a full analysis of the M82 Chandra data has not yet been published. The main fact that convinces us that the Cen A knots are not related to supernovae is their good power-law spectra. The emission from a young SNR in a dense environment is expected to be thermal and to have a comparatively low temperature, $`1`$ keV (e.g., Fabian & Terlevich, 1996) while the only thermal models that can be fitted to flat-spectrum sources like BX2 require high temperatures ($`>6`$ keV at the 90% confidence level) and very low metal abundance. We therefore assume in what follows that the radio and X-ray knots reflect structures in the fluid flow in the jet.

### 5.2 Knot properties

We can rule out the possibility that the X-ray bright, radio-faint knots are simply compressions in the synchrotron-emitting fluid that makes up the extended jet. As an example, we consider the case of knot BX2, which has a well-constrained, flat $`\alpha _{\mathrm{RX}}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{X}`$. The extended jet has a steep $`\alpha _{\mathrm{RX}}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{X}`$, and so, if we model its spectrum as a simple broken power law in frequency, with a low-frequency (radio) spectral index similar to the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{RX}}`$ of BX2, the break to a steeper spectral index must occur at comparatively low frequencies, $`\nu _\mathrm{b}10^{12}`$ Hz. For adiabatic compression of this material to produce the spectrum seen in knot BX2, where the break frequency would be above the soft X-ray band ($`\nu _\mathrm{b}5\times 10^{17}`$ Hz), we require 1-dimensional compression factors $``$ of about 30, since $`\nu _\mathrm{b}^4`$ for a tangled field geometry (Leahy, 1991). But such high compression factors would increase the radio volume emissivity of the knot over that of the parent material by a factor $`10^{11}`$ ($`j_\nu ^{(5+4\alpha )}`$), whereas the ratio of the volume emissivities of the knot and extended jet (assuming spherical symmetry for the one and a truncated-cone geometry with uniform filling factor for the other) is $`2`$. BX2 is an extreme case, but similar arguments apply to the other compact jet features.

Instead, it must be the case that the knots are privileged sites for the in situ particle acceleration that is required throughout the jet. For the the base knots (AX1A, AX1C) this is not particularly surprising; these are presumably related to the transition between the faint, well-collimated, efficient inner jet and the much brighter extended jet (Fig. 7). They can be modeled as standing shocks at the base of the jet, and we cannot even rule out the possibility that their radio-to-X-ray spectra are described by a standard continuous injection model (e.g., Leahy, 1991), as used to describe the hotspots in FRII radio sources, in which the spectral index steepens from $`0.5`$ to $`1.0`$ at some frequency.

What does this imply for the weaker knots — AX2, AX3A, AX6, BX2 and the counterjet features? One clue is provided by the fact that none of the radio counterparts of these features appears to be moving with the jet flow, although for some of them (AX2, AX3A, AX6) there is nearby and downstream apparently moving structure. This strongly suggests that these features are also standing shocks in the jets, which is consistent with the observation that at least one of them is extended perpendicular to the jet direction (§4.2.3). It is very hard to imagine a model purely related to the fluid flow in the jet that would give rise to this kind of localized stationary shock after the jet flare point at knot A1. Instead, the shocks must be related to some feature of the jet’s environment that is fixed or slowly-moving in the galaxy frame, a point we return to below (§5.3).

By contrast, the features that are clearly moving in the radio images (A1B, A2, A3/A4) have comparatively little X-ray emission; A2 and A4 in particular appear to have X-ray to radio ratios less than the values typical for the extended jet as a whole. For the speeds inferred from the proper motion and sidedness constraints (Fig. 3) the Doppler factor is $`>1`$ in these regions, so beaming, for a fixed spectral shape, would tend to increase the observed X-ray to radio flux density ratio (since the spectral index of the X-ray-emitting material is steeper than the radio spectral index, so that the $`K`$-correction is greater). So it is likely that the high-energy particle acceleration in these regions is less efficient than in the jet as a whole. This would again be consistent with a picture in which the distributed particle acceleration process is more efficient in the slower-moving edges of the jet than in the faster-moving regions which we would expect to be closer to the jet center.

The detection of some large-scale counterjet X-ray features with associated radio knots confirms that there is continuing energy transport, and thus presumably collimated outflow, on scales of $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ or 850 pc, projected, from the core on the counterjet side of Cen A. It is still not clear whether the 6 or so X-ray features without radio counterparts that lie in the inferred counterjet region (Fig. 6) are all related to the counterjet. The properties of the brightest of these, SX1 (Table 2), are extreme compared to those of the jet knots, but we cannot rule out a flat-spectrum power law ($`\alpha 0.5`$) extending from the radio to the X-ray, which would give rise to a radio flux density around 50 $`\mu `$Jy; our radio images are still not quite sensitive enough to detect this.

### 5.3 Standing shocks

If the radio-weak, X-ray bright, stationary or slow-moving knots in the post-A1 region are indeed standing shocks in the jet, then we would expect them to be related to some feature of the jet environment approximately fixed in the frame of the host galaxy. Here we concentrate on models in which the jet is interacting with discrete, compact objects (Blandford & Königl, 1979). We can obtain a constraint on the mass of these objects from the fact that they are not observed to move. The minimum energy density $`ϵ`$ in the jet is of order a few $`\times 10^{11}`$ J m-3. If we assume that the bulk flow speed $`v_j0.5c`$ (i.e. only mildly relativistic, with Lorentz factor $`1`$), then a limit on the mass $`M`$ of an object not moving visibly with the flow is given by

$$M\pi R^2ϵ\left(\frac{v_j}{c}\right)\frac{t}{v_l}$$

where $`v_l`$ is the minimum speed of proper motions that we could observe (say $`0.1c`$), $`R`$ is the radius of the object, and $`t`$ is the length of time that the object has been experiencing the thrust from the jet; we assume that the kinetic energy density of the jet dominates its mass-energy density, as is the case for a plasma consisting only of relativistic electrons. Considering the minimum energy in the inner lobes ($`E2\times 10^{48}`$ J) and requiring that this should have been supplied by the jet, $`EϵA_Xv_jt`$ where $`A_X`$ is the cross-sectional area of the jet, we obtain $`t`$ of the order of a few $`\times 10^6`$ years, which we can treat as a limit on the timescale that the jet has been currently active (clearly the total energy in the middle and outer lobes of Cen A is much larger, but these may well be the results of earlier epochs of AGN activity.) Taking $`R`$ to be comparable to the sizes of the smaller radio knots, $`10`$ pc, and using a jet radius of 60 pc, we obtain values of $`M`$ for the obstacle of the order of a few solar masses (or more). $`M`$ can be less than this if $`R`$ or $`t`$ are less than our estimates. Given the velocity dispersion in NGC 5128 (Israel, 1998), the time for an individual star to cross the jet would be of order a few $`\times 10^5`$ years, which would relax the limit on $`M`$ somewhat. On the other hand, there is no particular reason to believe that the energy density in the jet is the minimum energy, and some evidence that it is greater for FRI jets (e.g., Laing & Bridle, 2002b) which would increase the required mass.

We expect that there will be $`10^9`$ stars in the inner kpc of the galaxy (the region including the compact knots) and so the jet would be expected to include a few $`\times 10^6`$ stars at any given time: even if stars are ablated rapidly by the jet, new stars would enter from the edges on short timescales. Clearly the particle acceleration regions cannot be associated with individual normal stars, although it is possible that ‘shocklets’ around each star contribute to the required diffuse high-energy particle acceleration which occurs throughout the jet.

The objects responsible for the discrete radio and X-ray features (AX2, AX3A, AX6, BX2 and the counterjet features) must be considerably rarer than normal stars. Possibilities include high-mass-loss stars (e.g. Wolf-Rayet stars) and entrained gas clouds. The size of the interaction region $`r_w`$ for a high-mass-loss star is given by ram-pressure balance between the stellar wind with speed $`v_w`$ and the jet:

$$r_w=\left(\frac{\dot{M}v_wc^2}{4\pi ϵv_j}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

and so, for a Wolf-Rayet with a mass-loss rate $`\dot{M}`$ of $`10^4M_{}`$ yr-1 and $`v_w2000`$ km s-1 we can readily obtain scale sizes of the order of 10 pc if the jet is near its minimum energy density. These are rather extreme properties even for a Wolf-Rayet, however (e.g., Nugis & Lamers, 2000), and would require what is a rather large (though not impossibly large) number of Wolf-Rayets per normal star, given the stellar densities estimated above; the Wolf-Rayet fraction is known to depend strongly on the star formation rate.

On the other hand, various types of gaseous material are present in the inner part of the galaxy. Hot gas is known to be present from its thermal X-ray emission, but its central density is only $`3.7\times 10^2`$ cm-3 (Kraft et al., 2003) which means that a 10-pc-diameter cloud would be a factor of a few below our derived lower mass limit. Molecular material is known to be present in the inner part of Cen A, particularly the dust lane (e.g., Wild & Eckart, 2000): for a density of $`300`$ cm-3, a 10-pc-diameter molecular cloud would have $`8\times 10^3M_{}`$, which is certainly not excessive given the estimated total molecular hydrogen mass of $`4\times 10^8M_{}`$ (Israel, 1998), and more than satisfies the constraints on mass derived above. $`10^4`$-K line-emitting material, which is known to be associated with the inner jet (Brodie, Königl & Bowyer, 1983) as well as being present on larger scales (Morganti et al., 1991) would have similar or somewhat lower densities to molecular material, and would be equally suitable as obstacles if the clump size was great enough; alternatively, the line emission seen by Brodie et al. 1983 could be the result of stripping and shock-excitation of colder material. In any case, we consider interaction with clouds of cold or warm gas to be more likely than interaction with high mass-loss stars as the explanation for the stationary radio and X-ray knots in Cen A.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that Cen A’s jet is probably an order of magnitude lower in kinetic luminosity than the jets in well-known 3C FRI sources with X-ray jets like 3C 31 and 3C 66B. This means that the stellar-wind interaction model, at least, is probably not viable as an explanation for any X-ray/radio features in those jets. Interaction with external gas clouds is still a possibility, but Cen A’s host is probably richer in molecular material than a typical FRI host elliptical.

### 5.4 The nature of ‘offsets’

The data for Cen A emphasize the importance of high spatial resolution in discussing apparent offsets between the radio and X-ray peaks in FRI jets. The strong variation in X-ray to radio flux ratio as a function of position that we observe in Cen A could give rise to apparent offsets between the peaks of unresolved or poorly resolved knots in more distant sources. For example, if Cen A were placed at the approximate distance of a well-studied nearby FRI like 3C 66B ($`z=0.0215`$), the resolution of Chandra and the VLA would correspond to tens of arcsec on Fig. 6. The knot B region would then be essentially unresolved, and would present a classical example of an offset between the radio and X-ray peaks, entirely because of the very different $`\alpha _{\mathrm{RX}}`$ values of BX2 and the remaining downstream regions of knot B. In order to make an adequate model of the physics underlying the ‘offset’ behavior, it is necessary to have radio and X-ray data with spatial resolution sufficient to sample the jet structure on the physical scales of interest. Unfortunately, Cen A is at present the only source for which that is true.

It is still of interest to ask why the observed ‘offsets’ are always in the sense that the X-ray peak lies closer to the nucleus. We suggested (Hardcastle et al., 2001) that the offsets in knot B of 3C 66B could be modeled in terms of a particle-accelerating shock together with downstream advection of radio-emitting particles, while the X-ray-emitting electrons would be rapidly quenched by synchrotron losses and/or expansion (a model subsequently discussed in more detail by Bai & Lee ). Of the features in Cen A, region A2 comes closest to this simple picture (Fig. 11). Almost all the X-ray emission comes from a region coincident with a very faint compact radio knot (A2A); downstream there is bright radio emission with little or no corresponding X-ray. The X-ray profile is certainly what we would expect from a model with particle acceleration and downstream advection. But this model does not simply explain the clear separation ($`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$, or 20 pc) between the faint knot A2A, coincident with the X-ray peak, and the peak of the radio emission. If the downstream advection were uniform, then, for a static region of particle acceleration, we would expect the radio profile to be brightest at the same place as the X-ray, and then to fade more slowly as a function of downstream distance. This model would explain the observed offsets in other, more distant sources, but it is not consistent with what we actually see in Cen A. If we require all the radio-emitting particles in the A2 region to have been accelerated at A2A, then we need, at least, non-uniform downstream advection to cause them to ‘pile up’ at the A2 peak.

There are two other areas in the inner jet where bright radio emission is seen downstream of a faint radio/bright X-ray knot, in the regions of knots A3/4 and B. These depart even more clearly from the expected behavior in the simple downstream advection model. Fig. 11 shows that the weak radio knot A3A, coincident with the brightest X-ray emission, leads the radio peak (A3B) by about 3″ (50 pc). However, in this case, there is X-ray emission from the radio peak too. In knot B, the X-ray peak, coincident with the radio knot B1A, is separated by around 8″ (140 pc) from the peak of the downstream diffuse emission, which again shows some weak X-ray emission.

We cannot rule out the possibility that the apparent association between weak upstream radio knots with bright X-ray emission and bright downstream diffuse radio features with faint X-ray emission is coincidental. There are only three clear cases, and other knots (such as A6 and the counterjet features) do not have bright downstream emission. However, if it is not coincidental, then it is certainly giving us information about the properties of the fluid flow. For example, if the compact knots are standing shocks in the flow, caused by interaction with static obstacles (§5.3) then it is conceivable that the bright downstream radio emission is due to compression and/or turbulent particle acceleration as the post-obstacle flow re-joins the main jet. In this case the downstream distance $`d`$ and the size of the obstacle $`R`$ would give us an estimate of the internal Mach number of the jet, $`d/R`$. The knot-to-peak distances for A2A and A3A are respectively about 20 and 50 pc, which would lead to estimates of $``$ of approximately 2 and 5 respectively for our adopted obstacle size of $`10`$ pc. (As the peak downstream distance for knot B is not well defined, we do not include it here.) These Mach numbers are at least in the expected region for the base of an FRI jet, being mildly supersonic, and (given our proper motion results) would imply relativistic internal sound speeds in these regions of the jet.

Finally, we note that offsets between the peak positions of radio and X-ray knots have been seen in the other extragalactic jet where comparatively high spatial resolution is available, M87’s (Wilson & Yang, 2002), where 1″= 78 pc. The peak-to-peak distances in the M87 knots that show offsets are also tens of parsecs, consistent with what we find above for the knots in Cen A, although the M87 jet is clearly rather physically different from Cen A’s (being somewhat narrower and much smoother) in the regions where the offset is observed. Based on our results above, we would predict that X-ray knots D and F in M87 are actually coincident with faint, as yet unseen features in the radio jet. If this is the case, the good optical information available for M87’s jet should place interesting constraints on the knot spectra.

### 5.5 The inner jet

The detection of the well-collimated inner jet in both radio and X-rays is of interest because, in the standard model of FRI radio sources, this represents the efficient, supersonic flow that transports energy up to the point where the jet disrupts and becomes trans-sonic and turbulent (which would be at knot A in Cen A). These jets are efficient in the sense that their radio luminosity per unit length is much less than is observed after the flare point. However, the detection of X-ray emission from these regions (in addition to Cen A, the inner jets of M87 \[Wilson & Yang 2002\] and 3C 66B \[Hardcastle et al. 2001\] have been detected in the X-ray) is of interest because, if it is synchrotron in origin, it shows that this region of the jet is still capable of in situ particle acceleration.555The situation is altered if the emitting regions of the inner jet are highly relativistic, with a bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$, as inferred for some FRII jets. In this case, the particle lifetimes are increased due to time dilatation. However, since, for plausible angles to the line of sight, the Doppler factor for such a jet would be less than 1, the observed X-rays would be generated by higher-energy electrons than for a sub-relativistic jet, while the inferred jet-frame magnetic field strength would be increased; at the same time, the energy density of microwave background and, more importantly, galactic photons in the jet frame is increased by a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, shortening the jet-frame loss timescale of the X-ray emitting electrons to the inverse-Compton process by the same factor. If the observed X-rays are in fact synchrotron, it is hard to evade the necessity for in situ acceleration. Producing the X-rays via the inverse-Compton process would require very large departures from equipartition, very large bulk Lorentz factors ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }50`$) coupled with small angles to the line of sight, or a combination of the two. In M87 and 3C 66B the inner jet has a considerably higher X-ray to radio ratio than the regions further from the nucleus. In Cen A the situation is complicated by the poorly constrained absorbing column in this region, which means that the unabsorbed flux density of the jet is uncertain (Table 2) but it is still clearly the case that the X-ray to radio ratio is higher than that in the extended jet as a whole, though probably not higher than those of some of the compact knots. (Here we assume, since the spatial resolution is insufficient to allow us to do anything else, that the X-ray and radio emission from the inner jet come from the same regions.) Unlike the M87 and 3C 66B inner jets, Cen A’s shows little evidence in radio or X-ray for knotty sub-structure which might be associated with oblique internal shocks giving rise to particle acceleration, while other possible particle acceleration mechanisms (such as second-order Fermi acceleration or turbulent magnetic field line reconnection) would be expected to be more efficient in the trans-sonic large-scale jet. Doppler boosting may be important here, particularly given the steep best-fitting X-ray spectral index. The observed X-ray to radio ratio goes as $`𝒟^{(\alpha _\mathrm{X}\alpha _\mathrm{R})}`$ and so, to bring the ratio in the inner jet in line with that in the extended jet (assuming little Doppler boosting in the latter), we need an inner jet Doppler factor $`6`$ (with a large uncertainty due to the uncertainty in the inner jet flux density and spectral index). Doppler factors of this order would require $`\theta 10\mathrm{°}`$, which is more or less possible given the constraints of Fig. 3, though, as we suggest above, such small angles to the line of sight are unlikely for other reasons. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that rapid bulk motion in Cen A’s inner jet is responsible for its high X-ray to radio flux ratio. If this were the case, the radio emission from the jet as we observe it would be boosted by a large factor, so that in reality it would be still more efficient in transporting energy.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

1. Our high dynamic range radio images of Cen A reveal subluminal apparent motions ($`v0.5c`$) in the hundred-parsec scale jet. Some extended regions of the jet appear to be moving coherently downstream, which suggests that the apparent speeds may be close to the bulk jet speed. If this is the case, and if the jet and counterjet are symmetrical, Cen A must make a comparatively small angle to the line of sight ($`\theta 15\mathrm{°}`$), which contrasts with the larger angles inferred from the parsec-scale properties of the source.
2. We have discovered faint radio counterparts to a number of the previously unidentified X-ray knots in the inner parts of the jet, demonstrating that the X-ray features are jet-related.
3. We also detect radio counterparts to some X-ray features on the counterjet side, suggesting that there is collimated flow on kpc scales in the counterjet region.
4. If the X-rays from the compact knots are due to synchrotron emission, then the radio to X-ray and X-ray spectra allow us to rule out a model in which the knots are simply compressions in the fluid flow: instead, they must be privileged sites for high-energy particle acceleration.
5. Almost all the strongly X-ray emitting knots appear to have radio counterparts that are static within the limits of our observations, suggesting that they trace stationary shocks in the jet flow. Plausibly they are the result of an interaction between the jet fluid and an internal obstacle such as a high-mass-loss star or molecular cloud. By contrast, the radio jet features that are apparently moving show weak or absent X-ray emission, although there is still diffuse X-ray emission throughout the jet that is not identified with discrete radio features.
6. Several of the radio-faint, X-ray-bright knots are associated with downstream bright radio emission, and we suggest that it is this behavior, seen at lower resolution, which gives rise to the observed offsets between the radio and X-ray peaks in some more distant FRI jets. The simplest possible model with particle acceleration and downstream advection does not explain the details of these observations.

We are grateful to Mark Birkinshaw for discussion of the jet fluid dynamics, and to an anonymous referee for a number of comments which helped us improve the presentation of the paper. MJH thanks the Royal Society for a research fellowship. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.


format: text

text:
# 1 ln|det{𝑀̂(ϵ)}| versus ϵ for a sequence of random draws. These results are for the 𝑈(2) lattice theory, with 2×2 lattice.

Introductory remarks.  Models with exact lattice supersymmetry have been discussed in the literature by a few groups. For example, latticizations of super-Yang-Mills , supersymmetric quantum mechanics , the 2d Wess-Zumino model , and direct constructions in the spirit of the Ginsparg-Wilson relation—as suggested by Lüscher  and worked out in noninteracting examples —have all been considered.111An approach very similar to  has been applied in , yielding slightly different expressions. In this letter we will be interested in the super-Yang-Mills constructions that lead to a Euclidean lattice theory . The method of building such models is based on deconstruction of extra dimensions . The corresponding interpretation in terms of the world-volume theory of D-branes has led to the latticizations of 2d, 3d and 4d supersymmetric gauge theories. These lattice constructions are all arrived at by orbifold projections of supersymmetric matrix models; i.e., in each case we quotient a matrix model by some discrete symmetry group of the theory. Degrees of freedom that are not invariant with respect to the combined action of the orbifold generators are projected out.222For a detailed discussion, we refer the reader to . Thus, throughout this letter we will have occasion to speak of “orbifolded” matrix models and “nonorbifolded” matrix models.

A major motivation for efforts to latticize supersymmetric models is that some nonperturbative aspects of supersymmetric field theories are not accessible by the usual techniques, such as holomorphy. One hope of a lattice supersymmetry program of research is that it would lead to, e.g., simulations that would provide further data on supersymmetric field theories, especially those that include super-Yang-Mills.333For a recent review of existing work on this broad topic, and a complete list of relevant references, see . With exact lattice supersymmetry the target (continuum) theory may be obtained in a more controlled fashion. Indeed, in some cases it may be obtained without the need for fine-tuning .

In this enterprise, it is of great practical importance that the fermion determinant, obtained integrating over the fermion degrees of freedom in the partition function, be positive. For let $`\varphi `$ be the lattice bosons in the theory, and $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ the lattice fermions. We obtain444 Here we assume ordinary finite dimensional Berezin integration for the fermion coordinates; thus we avoid subtleties of the Weyl determinant present in continuum theories . The class of theories studed here result from a 4d $``$ 0d dimensional reduction, where the Pfaffian one obtains has an equivalent determinant form .

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d\varphi d\overline{\psi }d\psi ]\mathrm{exp}\left[S_B(\varphi )\overline{\psi }M(\varphi )\psi \right]}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d\varphi ]detM(\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left[S_B(\varphi )\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle [d\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left[S_{\text{eff}}(\varphi )\right]},`$
$`S_{\text{eff}}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`S_B(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}detM(\varphi ).`$ (2)
A positive555Strictly speaking, we require only positive semi-definite $`detM(\varphi )`$, provided $`detM(\varphi )=0`$ occurs only for some subset of the boson configurations; this subset has measure zero. However, if $`detM(\varphi )0`$, i.e., for all boson configurations, then $`Z`$ is not well-defined. This latter situation is what occurs in the theory that we study here. $`detM(\varphi )`$ for all $`\varphi `$ allows us to unambiguously calculate in an equivalent bosonic theory with action $`S_{\text{eff}}(\varphi )`$. Expectation values of operators $`𝒪(\varphi )`$ may be obtained using this action:

$`𝒪(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{[d\varphi ]𝒪(\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left[S_{eff}(\varphi )\right]}{[d\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left[S_{eff}(\varphi )\right]}}`$ (3)
Fermionic correlators will simply involve $`M^1(\varphi )`$ in the operator of interest. In the case of positive $`detM(\varphi )`$, the techniques of estimation by Monte Carlo simulation are robust; otherwise the situation is murkier.

We now summarize the content of our work:

* In this letter we show that the lattice theory with (2,2) 2d super-Yang-Mills as its target , obtained from orbifolded supersymmetric matrix models, possesses a problematic fermion determinant. Due to a zeromode fermion, $`detM(\varphi )0`$, i.e., for all boson configurations.
* We then suggest how the zero eigenvalue can be factored out in a controlled way in order to exhibit the determinant for the other fermions. For the orbifolded matrix models, we carry out this factorization (numerically) in the special case of a $`U(2)`$ gauge theory, and show that it is robust. As an example, we present our results for a $`2\times 2`$ lattice.
* We further validate our method by applying it to nonorbifolded $`U(k)`$ supersymmetric matrix models, which also contain ever-present zeromode fermions, corresponding to the $`U(1)`$ “gaugino” in the decomposition $`U(k)U(1)\times SU(k)`$. We correctly reproduce the fermion determinant for the nonorbifolded $`SU(k)`$ matrix models by our factorization method. As an example, we present our results for $`U(5)U(1)\times SU(5)`$.
* Once the zeromode fermion has been factored out of the orbifolded matrix models studied here, we find that the remaining product of eigenvalues is generically nonzero with arbitrary complex phase.
* We explain how this is not in conflict with results in nonorbifolded $`SU(k)`$ supersymmetric matrix models. (For example, in an appendix of  it was shown that the product of eigenvalues for the fermion matrix is positive semi-definite.) It is found that the orbifold procedure lies at the heart of this matter.
* We conclude with a discussion of the implications of out results for lattice simulations of the latticized (2,2) 2d super-Yang-Mills theories.

Zeromode fermion.  Here we will focus on the orbifolded supersymmetric matrix models that have as their target theory (2,2) 2d super-Yang-Mills with $`U(k)`$ gauge group. The “mother theory” is a nonorbifolded $`U(kN^2)`$ supersymmetric matrix model. The “daughter theory” is obtained by orbifolding the “mother theory” by a $`Z_N\times Z_N`$ symmetry group, leaving intact (among other things) a $`U(k)^{N^2}`$ symmetry group that will become the gauge symmetry of the $`N\times N`$ lattice theory. The lattice theory is obtained by studying the “daughter theory” about a particular boson configuration that is a stationary point of the action; i.e., it is a point in the moduli space of the “daughter theory.”

The orbifolded matrix model discussed here has been described in detail in ; we refer the reader there for further details. For our purpose it suffices to note that in the $`U(k)`$ case the theory contains666Our notation is standard: $`𝐦`$ labels sites on a 2d square lattice, so that $`𝐦𝐙\times 𝐙`$, with $`𝐙`$ the set of integers. bosons $`x_𝐦,y_𝐦`$ that are $`k\times k`$ complex matrices. The bosons $`x_𝐦,y_𝐦`$ may written in terms of a Hermitian basis

$`T^\mu \{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}}\mathrm{𝟏}_k,T^a\},(T^a)^{}=T^a,x_𝐦=x_𝐦^\mu T^\mu ,y_𝐦=y_𝐦^\mu T^\mu .`$ (4)
It is always possible to choose the $`T^a`$ such that

$`\text{Tr}(T^\mu T^\nu )=2\delta ^{\mu \nu }.`$ (5)
Furthermore we define

$`\text{Tr}(T^\mu T^\nu T^\rho )=2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}}t^{\mu \nu \rho }`$ (6)
and note that (underlining implies all permutations are to be taken):

$`t^{\underset{¯}{\mu \rho 0}}=\delta ^{\mu \rho }.`$ (7)
One finds that the fermionic part of action is given by

$`S_F={\displaystyle \frac{2}{g^2\sqrt{k}}}(\alpha _𝐦^\mu ,\beta _𝐦^\mu )M_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \rho }\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _𝐧^\rho }{\xi _𝐧^\rho }}\right).`$ (8)
Here $`\alpha _𝐦^\mu ,\beta _𝐦^\mu ,\lambda _𝐧^\rho ,\xi _𝐧^\rho `$ are the lattice fermions, with upper index corresponding to the basis $`T^\mu `$ introduced above. The fermion matrix $`M_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \rho }`$ is given by (sum over $`\nu `$ implied in the entries, $`\widehat{\mathit{ı}},\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}`$ unit vectors):

$`M_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \rho }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{x}_𝐦^\nu t_{𝐦,𝐧\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^{\mu \rho \nu }\overline{x}_𝐦^\nu & t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }y_{𝐦+\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^\nu +t_{𝐦,𝐧+\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}}^{\mu \rho \nu }y_𝐧^\nu \\ & \\ t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{y}_𝐦^\nu t_{𝐦,𝐧\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}}^{\mu \rho \nu }\overline{y}_𝐦^\nu & t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }x_{𝐦+\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}}^\nu t_{𝐦,𝐧+\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^{\mu \rho \nu }x_𝐧^\nu \end{array}\right).`$ (11)
Here we have introduced the compact notation

$`t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }=\delta _{𝐦,𝐧}t^{\mu \nu \rho }.`$ (12)
The fermion zero mode is easily established. We consider fermions of the form

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _𝐧^\rho }{\xi _𝐧^\rho }}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta ^{\rho 0}\lambda }{0}}\right),𝐧.`$ (13)
Then in this case

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}\overline{x}_𝐦^\nu (t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }t_{𝐦,𝐧\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^{\mu \rho \nu })\lambda _𝐧^\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}\overline{x}_𝐦^\nu (t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu 0}t_{𝐦,𝐧\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^{\mu 0\nu })\lambda `$
$`=\overline{x}_𝐦^\mu \lambda {\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}(\delta _{𝐦,𝐧}\delta _{𝐦,𝐧\widehat{\mathit{ı}}})=0.`$ (14)
By similar arguments

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}\overline{y}_𝐦^\nu (t_{𝐦,𝐧}^{\mu \nu \rho }t_{𝐦,𝐧\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}}^{\mu \rho \nu })\lambda _𝐧^\rho =0.`$ (15)
Thus (13) is an eigenvector of $`M`$ with eigenvalue zero. It follows that $`detM(x,y)0`$, for all configurations of bosons. This clearly poses a difficulty for defining $`S_{\text{eff}}(x,y)`$. We will shortly address a method to factor out this zero eigenvalue, and study it in some detail for the $`U(2)`$ case. However, we first make a few remarks on the existence of the indentically zero eigenvalue.

The zeromode fermion is nothing but the “zero-momentum” mode of the Fourier transform of a given $`\lambda _𝐦^0`$:

$`\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\mathrm{𝟎}^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐦}{}}\lambda _𝐦^0.`$ (16)
In the formalism introduced in , $`\lambda _𝐦^0`$ appears in the superfield

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐦^0=\lambda _𝐦^0\left[\overline{x}_{𝐦\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^\mu x_{𝐦\widehat{\mathit{ı}}}^\mu \overline{x}_𝐦^\mu x_𝐦^\mu +\overline{y}_{𝐦\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}}^\mu y_{𝐦\widehat{\mathit{ȷ}}}^\mu \overline{y}_𝐦^\mu y_𝐦^\mu +id_𝐦^0\right]\theta .`$ (17)
Here $`d_𝐦^0`$ is an auxiliary boson and $`\theta `$ is an odd (Grassman) superspace coordinate. The zero-momentum part of this supermultiplet is just

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{𝐦}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐦^0=\lambda +id\theta ,d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐦}{}}d_𝐦^0.`$ (18)
That is, the zeromode fermion is in a multiplet that contains just itself and an auxiliary boson. It is a lattice version of a Fermi multiplet . Thus there is no physical zeromode boson that corresponds to the zeromode fermion.

The existence of the zeromode fermion can be understood in terms of the “mother theory;” i.e., the nonorbifolded matrix model. There, the bosons $`x,y`$ and their conjugates are understood in terms of a “vector boson” $`v`$:

$`v=v_m\overline{\sigma }_m=v_0+i𝐯𝝈=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{x}& y\\ \overline{y}& x\end{array}\right)`$ (19)
where $`v_m`$ are Hermitian matrices that are Lie algebra valued in $`U(kN^2)`$:

$`(v_m)_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}=v_m^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}i,j=1,\mathrm{},k,\mu ,\nu ,\mu ^{},\nu ^{}=1,\mathrm{}N.`$ (20)
Note that the indices of generators have been written in such a way that the $`U(k)^{N^2}`$ subgroup has been manifestly factored out. One should think of one $`U(k)`$ factor “living” at each site. Similarly, the fermions of the mother theory are given by

$`\psi _{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}=\psi ^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}},\psi ^\alpha =\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda ^\alpha }{\xi ^\alpha }}\right)`$ (21)
with a corresponding expression for $`\overline{\psi }`$. The fermion action in the mother theory takes the form

$`S_F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\text{Tr}\left(\overline{\psi }\overline{\sigma }_m[v_m,\psi ]\right).`$ (22)
Now note that the diagonal $`U(1)_{\text{diag}}U(kN^2)`$ fermions do not appear $`S_F`$. That is,

$`\psi ^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\psi ^0\delta _{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}`$ (23)
and $`\psi ^0`$ disappears because of the commutator. Since $`\psi ^0`$ is a two component fermion, it gives two zeromode fermions of the mother theory, independent of the boson configuration $`v_m`$. The boson action takes the form

$`S_B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}\text{Tr}\left([v_m,v_n][v_m,v_n]\right).`$ (24)
Here again, the $`U(1)_{\text{diag}}`$ boson disappears from the action because of the commutators. It is a zeromode for all boson configurations.

Most of the fields of the mother theory are projected out in the orbifold construction. The projections depend on charges with respect to a $`U(1)_{r_1}\times U(1)_{r_2}`$ global symmetry group. As it turns out, the $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ fermions are $`U(1)_{r_1}\times U(1)_{r_2}`$ neutral. It follows that only the diagonal parts with respect to the “site” indices $`(\mu \nu ,\mu ^{}\nu ^{})`$ survive in the orbifolded matrix model (“daughter theory”):

$`\lambda ^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\lambda ^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu \nu }.`$ (25)
But this includes the zeromode fermion of the mother theory. On the other hand, none of the components of $`v`$ are $`U(1)_{r_1}\times U(1)_{r_2}`$ neutral. It follows that, in the orbifolded matrix model, they are all off-diagonal777In the lattice theory, these are interpreted as link fields beginning at the site labeled by $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ and ending at the site labeled by $`(\mu ^{},\nu ^{})`$. with respect to the indices $`(\mu \nu ,\mu ^{}\nu ^{})`$. Hence the zeromode bosons of the mother theory are projected out in the orbifolded theory. Similarly, none of the $`\xi ^\alpha `$ fermions of the mother theory are $`U(1)_{r_1}\times U(1)_{r_2}`$ neutral, so that the second zeromode fermion $`\xi ^0`$ of the mother theory disappears in the projection.

Deformed $`U(k)`$.  The zeromode eigenvalue of the orbifolded matrix model can be factored out as follows. We deform the fermion matrix (11) according to

$`MM+ϵ\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_f}`$ (26)
where $`N_f`$ is the dimensionality of the fermion matrix and $`ϵ1`$ is a deformation parameter that we will eventually take to zero. We factor out the zero mode through the definition

$`\widehat{M}(0)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\widehat{M}(ϵ),\widehat{M}(ϵ)=ϵ^{1/N_f}(M+ϵ\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_f}),`$
$`det\widehat{M}(0)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ^1det(M+ϵ\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_f}).`$ (27)
If this deformation is added to the action, it explicitly breaks the exact lattice supersymmetry and gauge invariance. This infrared regulator could be removed in the continuum limit, say, by taking $`ϵaN^1`$. Noting that $`L=Na`$ is the physical size of the lattice, the equivalent requirement is that $`ϵL^1`$ be maintained as $`a0`$, for fixed $`L`$. Thus in the thermodynamic limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$), the deformation is removed. The parameter $`ϵ`$ is a soft infrared regulating mass, and is quite analogous to the soft mass $`\mu `$ introduced by Cohen et al.  in their Eq. (1.2) to control the bosonic zeromode of the theory. In the same way that a finite $`\mu `$ does not modify the final results of the renormalization analysis of Section 5 of , our $`ϵ`$ does not modify the result of the quantum continuum limit. The essence of the argument is that we have introduced a vertex that will be proportional to the dimensionless quantity $`g_2^2ϵa^3g_2^2a^3/L`$, where $`g_2`$ is the 2d coupling constant. Such contributions to the operator coefficients $`C_𝒪`$ in Eq. (5.2) of  vanish in the thermodynamic limit and because the target theory is super-renormalizable, we are assured that the perturbative power counting arguments are reliable and the correct continuum limit is obtained.

Of course it remains to study the convergence of $`det\widehat{M}(ϵ)det\widehat{M}(0)`$. Indeed, for $`U(2)`$ lattice theory (i.e., the orbifolded matrix model with $`U(2)^{N^2}`$ symmetry) we have performed this analysis numerically for a large number of boson configurations drawn randomly from a Gaussian distribution, as will be detailed below. We find that the convergence is rapid and that a reliable estimate for $`det\widehat{M}(0)`$ can be obtained in this way. Furthermore, we find that for $`ϵ1`$, the phase of $`det\widehat{M}(ϵ)`$ quickly converges to a constant value, and that it is uniformly distributed throughout the interval $`(\pi ,\pi ]`$ for the random Gaussian boson variables.

As a check of our method, we have studied also the analogous deformation of the nonorbifolded $`U(k)`$ supersymmetric matrix models, where the two zeromode fermions in $`\psi ^0`$ are present. Indeed, as will be discussed below, we find that

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ^2det(M_{U(k)}+ϵ\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_f})=detM_{SU(k)}.`$ (28)
That is, we obtain the determinant of the nonorbifolded $`SU(k)`$ supersymmetric matrix model, which has the zeromode fermions factored out. With appropriate conventions, $`detM_{SU(k)}`$ is positive semi-definite.888For some conventions on the $`SU(k)`$ generators and the overall coefficient in $`S_F`$ of Eq. (22) it is possible that a constant phase (i.e., independent of boson configurations) may be present. However, this factors out of (3) and is of no concern.

Deformed $`U(2)`$.  Here we specialize to the orbifolded matrix model with $`U(2)^{N^2}`$ symmetry, which becomes the $`U(2)`$ gauge invariance of an $`N\times N`$ lattice theory. In this case we take

$`T^\mu \{\mathrm{𝟏}_2,\sigma ^a\},x_𝐦=x_𝐦^0+x_𝐦^a\sigma ^a,y_𝐦=y_𝐦^0+y_𝐦^a\sigma ^a.`$ (29)
Then the fermion matrix is given in (11), where in the present case

$`t^{000}=1,t^{\underset{¯}{a00}}=0,t^{\underset{¯}{ab0}}=\delta ^{ab},t^{abc}=iϵ^{abc}.`$ (30)
The lattice theory is obtained by expansion about a point in moduli space:

$`x_𝐦^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{2}}}+\mathrm{},y_𝐦^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{2}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (31)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represent the quantum fluctuations. For this reason, in our study of $`det\widehat{M}(ϵ)`$ we scan over a Gaussian distribution where $`x_𝐦^0,y_𝐦^0`$ have a a nonzero mean $`1/a\sqrt{2}1`$. The remainder of the bosons are drawn with mean zero. All bosons are taken from distributions with unit variance.

In Figs. 1 and 2 we display $`\mathrm{ln}|det\widehat{M}(ϵ)|`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}det\widehat{M}(ϵ)`$ versus $`ϵ`$ for the case of $`N=2`$, the smallest lattice possible, of size $`2\times 2`$. Each line corresponds to a different random draw. It can be seen that the convergence is rapid and reliable. As a check, we have computed the eigenvalues of the undeformed matrix $`M`$, using the math package Maple, for the same set of random boson configurations. We find that in each case the product of nonzero eigenvalues agrees with $`det\widehat{M}(0)`$ in magnitude and phase to within at least 5 significant digits. This conclusively demonstrates that the complex determinant is not an artifact of the deformation, but is a property of the nonzero eigenvalues of the undeformed matrix $`M`$.

For a set of $`10^5`$ draws on the bosons of this $`2\times 2`$ lattice, we have extrapolated to $`ϵ0`$ and binned $`\mathrm{arg}det\widehat{M}(ϵ)`$ over its range, with bins of size $`\pi /100`$. In Fig. 3 we show the frequency for each bin, as a fraction of the total number of draws. In the extrapolation, we decreased $`ϵ`$ by powers of 10 until the change in both $`\mathrm{ln}|det\widehat{M}(ϵ)|`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}det\widehat{M}(ϵ)`$ were both less than $`10^4`$ per decade. This was done for each draw to get a reliable estimate for $`det\widehat{M}(0)`$. In each of the $`10^5`$ draws the $`10^4`$ per decade criterion was reached well before $`ϵ=10^{10}`$.

To summarize, once the zeromode eigenvalue is factored out, the product of the nonzero eigenvalues has arbitrary phase. Consequently an ambiguity exists in defining $`S_{\text{eff}}(x,y)`$ for the orbifolded matrix model theory. We are presently exploring whether or not this can be overcome for the purposes of simulation. At present, however, all we can say is that this difficulty is rather troubling.

Comparison to nonorbifolded $`U(k)`$ and $`SU(k)`$ matrix models.  As mentioned above, the nonorbifolded supersymmetric $`U(k)`$ matrix models contain two ever-present zeromode fermions in the $`\psi ^0`$ that appears in (23). Then $`detM_{U(k)}0`$. However, it is easy enough to just work with the nonorbifolded $`SU(k)`$ matrix model, so that $`\psi ^0,\overline{\psi }^0`$ are never in the theory to begin with. Then with appropriate conventions $`detM_{SU(k)}0`$. A proof of this result has been given in an appendix of .

As a test of our method, we have verified (28) numerically, for a sequence of random Gaussian draws on the bosons $`v_m^\alpha `$ that appear in (22). In Fig. 4 we show the quantity

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ)=\mathrm{ln}\left[ϵ^2|det(M_{U(k)}+ϵ\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_f})|\right]\mathrm{ln}|detM_{SU(k)}|`$ (32)
as a function of $`ϵ`$ for the case of $`k=5`$. Indeed it can be seen that the convergence as $`ϵ0`$ is quite rapid. We find that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }(10^3)|<10^4`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }(10^4)|<10^9`$ as a rule. In Fig. 5 we show the quantity

$`\varphi (ϵ)=\mathrm{arg}\left[ϵ^2det(M_{U(k)}+ϵ\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_f})\right]`$ (33)
as a function of $`ϵ`$, again for $`k=5`$. The value for $`SU(5)`$ in our conventions is $`\varphi =0`$. It can be seen that a rapid convergence to this value is obtained.

One might wonder how the generic phases of Fig. 3 are obtained in the orbifolded matrix models, given the positivity of the fermion determinant in the nonorbifolded $`SU(k)`$ matrix models. Firstly, one should note that the proof given in  shows only that for each eigenvalue $`𝔢`$ of $`M_{SU(k)}`$ there exists also an eigenvalue $`𝔢^{}`$, and that these always come in pairs. The proof relies essentially on the relation

$`\sigma ^2v^\alpha \sigma ^2=\sigma ^2(v_0^\alpha +i𝐯^\alpha 𝝈)\sigma ^2=(v^\alpha )^{}.`$ (34)
On the other hand, the $`Z_N\times Z_N`$ orbifold action on the mother theory bosons is generated by

$`v^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\rho \nu ,j\rho ^{}\nu ^{}}`$ $``$ $`e^{i\pi \sigma ^3/N}v^\alpha e^{i\pi \sigma ^3/N}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\rho \mu }(T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu ^{}\rho ^{}}^1`$
$`v^\alpha (T^\alpha )_{i\rho \mu ,j\rho ^{}\mu ^{}}`$ $``$ $`e^{i\pi \sigma ^3/N}v^\alpha e^{i\pi \sigma ^3/N}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\rho \nu }(T^\alpha )_{i\mu \nu ,j\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu ^{}\rho ^{}}^1`$ (35)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\text{diag}(\omega ,\omega ^2,\mathrm{},\omega ^N),\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/N)`$. Thus because of the $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\pi \sigma ^3/N)`$ factors, the orbifold projection does not commute with the operations of the proof given in ; i.e., Eq. (34). The fermion matrix of the projected theory—i.e., the orbifolded matrix model—lacks many of the eigenvalues of the mother theory; it should come as no surprise that not all eigenvalues are removed in pairs $`(𝔢,𝔢^{})`$. After all, we already know that only one of the zero eigenvalues is removed from the $`U(kN^2)`$ mother theory. For this reason it is not at all contradictory that the projected theory has a product of nonzero eigenvalues that is not positive, nor real.

Discussion.  The existence of a zeromode fermion in the orbifolded matrix models has been reliably handled by our deformation method, and the approach is easily implemented numerically. Analytic methods in nonorbifolded supersymmetric matrix models have also involved deformations of the theory to render quantities of interest well-defined ; however, these involve the introduction of auxiliary fields, which are expensive to implement in a simulation. For this reason, we prefer the method described here. In spite of the complex fermion determinant in the orbifolded matrix models, our approach allows for a detailed study of the partition function by Monte Carlo methods, analogous to what has been performed in  for nonorbifolded supersymmetric matrix models. It would be interesting to see how expectations based on continuum results might be realized in the present context. For example, in  it was shown that 4d $`𝒩=1`$ pure super-Yang-Mills has a positive fermion determinant. Since the (2,2) 2d target theory studied here is a dimensional reduction of this model, it is rather surprising that we find arbitrary complex phase. However, it remains to be seen whether or not the lattice action described here possesses reflection positivity, or whether this is only obtained in the continuum limit. Study of this issue is in progress.

We suspect that the difficulties faced here may be, broadly speaking, related to those faced in defining the phase of the fermion measure in the attempts to realize chiral gauge theories on the lattice with an exact chiral gauge symmetry . In the present context, we have an exact chiral fermionic symmetry: lattice supersymmetry acts on the $`\lambda _𝐦,\xi _𝐦`$ but not on the $`\alpha _𝐦,\beta _𝐦`$ that appear in (8). A resolution of one problem may lead to answers for the other.

In our opinion, the deconstruction approach to lattice supersymmetry remains an exciting topic, whatever difficulties may face attempts to simulate the theory. For example, the relatively simple systems described here provide another context in which the difficulties999See for example  and references therein. that plague the complex Langevin approach  and other complex action techniques might be studied.

We are presently exploring whether or not the complex phase can be overcome for the purposes of simulation. A typical approach would be to compute averages of an operator $`𝒪`$ from the re-weighting identity:

$`𝒪={\displaystyle \frac{𝒪e^{i\varphi }_{p.q.}}{e^{i\varphi }_{p.q.}}}`$ (36)
Here, $`\varphi =\mathrm{arg}det\widehat{M}(0)`$, as above, and “p.q.” indicates phase-quenching: expectation values are computed with the replacement $`det\widehat{M}(0)|det\widehat{M}(0)|`$. Thus the effective bosonic action

$`S_{\text{eff}}^{}=S_B\mathrm{ln}|det\widehat{M}(0)|`$ (37)
is used to generate the phase-quenched ensemble by standard Monte Carlo techniques. However, it is well-known that this suffers efficiency problems: the number of configurations required to get an accurate estimate for, say, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )_{p.q.}`$, grows like $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }FN_f^2)`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is the difference in free energy densities between the full ensemble and the phase-quenched ensemble. Recall that $`N_f`$ is the dimensionality of the fermion matrix. On the other hand, if the phase-quenched distribution is highly concentrated near one value of $`\varphi `$, the phase essentially factors out of the partition function and efficient simulations can be done using the phase-quenched ensemble. Thus it is of interest to study the distribution of $`\varphi `$ in the phase-quenched ensemble rather than the Gaussian distribution used here. Research in this direction is currently in progress and we hope to report on it soon.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Erich Poppitz for numerous helpful discussions and suggestions. Thanks are also owed to Wolfgang Bietenholz for enlightening communications, and to the referee who made a number of useful comments. This work was supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.