text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0305046 UCSD-PTH-03-07

Baryon Charges in 4d Superconformal Field Theories and Their AdS Duals

Ken Intriligator and Brian Wecht

Department of Physics

University of California, San Diego

La Jolla, CA 92093-0354, USA

We consider general aspects of the realization of R and non-R flavor symmetries in the $`AdS_5\times H_5`$ dual of 4d $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal field theories. We find a general prescription for computing the charges under these symmetries for baryonic operators, which uses only topological information (intersection numbers) on $`H_5`$. We find and discuss a new correspondence between the nodes of the SCFT quiver diagrams and certain divisors in the associated geometry. We also discuss connections between the non-R flavor symmetries and the enhanced gauge symmetries in non-conformal theories obtained by adding wrapped branes.

May 2003

1. Introduction

Interesting gauge theories arise in string theory from D-branes at geometric singularities. This was first studied for orbifold singularities \[1,,2\] and, more recently, for more general singularities. In this paper, we will be especially interested in 4d $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal field theories (SCFTs) which can be string engineered by placing $`N`$ D3 branes at the conical singularity of a general (local) Calabi-Yau 3-fold $`X_6`$. For large $`N`$, it is useful to consider the AdS dual  description of these SCFTs, which is IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times H_5`$ with $`H_5`$ the horizon manifold  of $`X_6`$. A mirror IIA construction is to wrap $`N`$ D6 branes on the SYZ  $`T^3`$ of the mirror geometry $`\stackrel{~}{X}_6`$.

String theory and AdS/CFT provide useful insights into the SCFTs which can be so constructed. For example, AdS/CFT implies that the D3 brane world-volume gauge theory actually does flow to an interacting RG fixed point in the IR. It is thus interesting to study generally which quiver gauge theories can be string engineered, and what sorts of general predictions string theory makes about these SCFTs.

Many techniques have been developed over the past several years to help determine, given a general singularity $`X_6`$, precisely what is the associated world-volume quiver gauge theory (or rather theories, since there can be many Seiberg dual descriptions of the same superconformal field theory). As of yet, however, there is no completely general method to systematically answer this question. A partial answer can be found via partial resolution of orbifold singularities , but there is no systematic method for following the RG flow from the orbifold SCFT to that of the partially resolved singularity. Another method, which is useful for toric singularities, is to go to the mirror IIA description, where the gauge group and matter content can be determined in terms of intersections of 3-cycles \[7,,8,,9\]. Still another method, which seems to give correct results  even outside of its expected regime of validity, is to analyze the IIB D3-brane gauge theories (“bundles on cycles”) in the large volume limit, and then just extrapolate to the opposite limit of singular $`X_6`$. For a selection of additional relevant references, see \[11,,12,,13,,14,,15,,16,,17\].

We will here study some general aspects of the world-volume SCFTs which can be constructed via IIB D3-branes at singularities and aspects of their AdS duals, focusing particularly on the geometric realization of the flavor symmetries of SCFTs. We will here only consider cases where the world-volume gauge theory has already been determined by the above mentioned methods, but we hope that some of the methods we discuss could also be helpful in determining the world-volume gauge theories for more general singularities.

The world-volume gauge theories thus obtained are of the general quiver form

$$\underset{\alpha }{}U(Nd_\alpha ),$$

where $`\alpha `$ run over the nodes of the quiver. The quiver and coefficients $`d_\alpha `$ depend on the particular singularity. The theories are generally chiral, with $`n_{\alpha \beta }>0`$ chiral superfield bifundamentals $`Q_{\alpha \beta }^i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}n_{\alpha \beta }`$, in the $`(Nd_\alpha ,\overline{Nd_\beta })`$ of $`U(Nd_\alpha )\times U(Nd_\beta )`$. We take $`n_{\beta \alpha }=n_{\alpha \beta }`$, and draw the arrows on the quiver so that $`n_{\alpha \beta }>0`$ means that the arrow(s) point from node $`\alpha `$ to node $`\beta `$. Absence of gauge anomalies requires each node to have the same number of incoming and outgoing arrows, so $`_\beta n_{\alpha \beta }d_\beta =0`$ for every $`\alpha `$.

The SCFT is specified by the quiver diagram and the superpotential, which is also determined from the geometry and is a sum of terms of the form

$$W=a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}\mathrm{Tr}Q_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Q_{\alpha _l\alpha _{l+1}}^{i_l}\mathrm{}Q_{\alpha _k\alpha _1}^{i_k}$$

with the bifundamental gauge indices contracted in a closed loop to form a gauge invariant meson of the quiver theory. There are also gauge invariant baryons, but these generally do not enter into the superpotential.

We will be interested in studying the bifundamentals $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ and their charges under the flavor symmetries. In the AdS dual, we only see the gauge invariant operators; in particular, we see the baryons formed from the bifundamentals rather than the bifundamentals themselves. To simplify our discussion, we will here only consider cases where all $`d_\alpha =1`$ in (1.1), so the baryons are simply $`B_{\alpha \beta }=det_{N\times N}(Q_{\alpha \beta })`$. Thus, the charges of the $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ are just a factor of $`N`$ times those of the $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$. In AdS/CFT the baryonic operators map to particles in the $`AdS_5`$ bulk, which arise as D3 branes wrapping 3-cycles of $`H_5`$.

The 4d $`𝒩=1`$ SCFT has a global symmetry group $`SU(2,2|1)`$, where $`SU(2,2|1)`$ contains the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry whose existence is necessary for a SCFT and where $``$ are non-R flavor symmetries. We will be especially interested in a $`U(1)^n`$ subgroup of $``$; these are the flavor symmetries under which all $`n_{\alpha \beta }`$ bifundamentals $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ carry the same charge, so the baryons are charged under these. In the AdS dual, the continuous global symmetries are all gauge symmetries in the $`AdS_5`$ bulk. In particular, $`U(1)_R`$ arises as a Kaluza-Klein gauge field coming from the metric; it is associated with a geometric isometry of the horizon manifold $`H_5`$. The $`U(1)^n`$ gauge fields in $`AdS_5`$ arise via reduction of the IIB RR gauge field $`C_4`$ on $`n`$ independent 3-cycles of $`H_5`$. Since the baryons are wrapped D3s, they are charged under these gauge fields.

Supposing that $`H_5`$ is a regular Einstein-Sasaki manifold (this assumption might not actually be necessary for our discussion to apply), it can be written as a $`U(1)`$ fibration over a four dimensional surface $`V_4`$ . The $`U(1)`$ fiber is the isometry associated with the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, and the baryons $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ must wrap this fiber since they are charged under the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ \[12,,14\]. In addition, the baryons wrap certain holomorphic 2-cycles $`L_{\alpha \beta }V_4`$. The holomorphic condition on the 2-cycles is necessary for the 3-cycle obtained via including the $`U(1)_R`$ fiber to be supersymmetric.

Therefore the baryons, and thus also the bifundamentals $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ in our quiver gauge theory, are associated with divisors $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ on $`V_4`$. All $`n_{\alpha \beta }`$ bifundamentals connecting nodes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are associated with the same divisor $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$, and we take $`L_{\alpha \beta }=L_{\beta \alpha }`$. As far as we know, a general method for determining the correct $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ has not appeared in the literature, though they were discussed in detail for a particular example, $`V_4=dP_3`$, in . As we discuss, the $`U(1)_R`$ and flavor charges of the $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ are determined via topological intersections with the corresponding $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$. For example, the $`U(1)_R`$ charge of the baryons is related to their dimension via $`R[B_{\alpha \beta }]=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }[B_{\alpha \beta }]`$, which is proportional to the volume of the 3-cycles which the baryon wraps \[12,,14\]. This yields (when all $`d_\alpha =1`$ in (1.1))

$$R[Q_{\alpha \beta }]=\frac{2c_1L_{\alpha \beta }}{c_1c_1},$$

measured by the intersection of the divisor with the first Chern class of $`V_4`$.

The $`U(1)^n`$ non-R flavor charges in $``$ are given by all possible independent divisors $`J_i`$ of $`V_4`$ which are orthogonal to the first Chern class of $`V_4`$:

$$J_ic_1=0,i=1\mathrm{}n.$$

This condition, via (1.1), is required for the flavor current to be $`U(1)_R`$ neutral. We can pick an arbitrary basis of such $`J_i`$, satisfying $`J_ic_1=0`$. The charges of the bifundamentals under these flavor symmetries is

$$F_i[Q_{\alpha \beta }]=J_iL_{\alpha \beta }.$$

While the overall normalization of the R-symmetry is fixed, that of the other flavor symmetries is irrelevant.

It is interesting that string theory “knows” which is the correct superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, i.e. precisely which $`U(1)_R`$ is the one which is in the same supermultiplet as the stress tensor. In the geometry, this preferred $`U(1)_R`$ is precisely that which is measured by $`c_1`$, rather than some linear combination of $`c_1`$ and the $`J_i`$. Finding the correct superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ directly via field theory methods was, until recently, an open problem. Inspired by our geometric results discussed here, we have very recently found  a field theory method to determine the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$. We will verify in examples that our field theory condition  agrees with the result (1.1).

We find some interesting properties which the divisors $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$, which describe the bifundamentals in the quiver, must satisfy. We now summarize these results for the simplifying case where all $`d_\alpha =1`$ in (1.1). First, our $`U(1)_R`$ and flavor symmetries (1.1) and (1.1) must not have any ABJ anomalies. This is equivalent to the requirement that, for every node $`\alpha `$, we must have

$$\underset{\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|L_{\alpha \beta }=(N_f(\alpha )1)c_1.$$

$`N_f(\alpha )`$ is the total number of flavors at node $`\alpha `$: $`N_f(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}_\beta |n_{\alpha \beta }|`$. In addition, the superpotential must respect these charges. This implies that every term in the superpotential must have net divisor equal to $`c_1`$, since then (1.1) and (1.1) properly assign the superpotential R-charge 2 and flavor charge 0. Hence, for every non-zero superpotential term, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }Q_{\alpha \beta }^{m_{\alpha \beta }}`$, we must have

$$\underset{\alpha \beta }{}m_{\alpha \beta }L_{\alpha \beta }=c_1.$$

Furthermore, we find that the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be written as differences of divisors $`L_\alpha `$, which are associated with the nodes of the quiver:

$$L_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{n_{\alpha \beta }}{|n_{\alpha \beta }|}(L_\beta L_\alpha )+c_1\theta _{\alpha \beta }\text{where}\theta _{\alpha \beta }\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\frac{n_{\alpha \beta }}{|n_{\alpha \beta }|}(L_\beta L_\alpha )0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }\frac{n_{\alpha \beta }}{|n_{\alpha \beta }|}(L_\beta L_\alpha )<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

By taking $`\beta `$ to be the endpoint of the $`|n_{\alpha \beta }|`$ arrows, and $`\alpha `$ the start, the factors $`n_{\alpha \beta }/|n_{\alpha \beta }|`$ become $`+1`$. The sign of $`L`$ in (1.1) refers to the sign of $`c_1L`$, and we’ll always choose the $`L_\alpha >0`$ in this sense. We require that all $`L_{\alpha \beta }0`$ because the expression (1.1) must assign non-negative R-charge to all chiral superfields. For most $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$, the $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$ term in (1.1) vanishes. In fact, every term in the superpotential (1.1) has precisely one $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ for which the associated $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }=1`$, with the others having $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }=0`$, and this ensures that (1.1) is satisfied: every superpotential term has net divisor $`c_1`$.

The anomaly free condition (1.1) implies that, for every node $`\alpha `$ of the quiver,

$$\underset{\beta }{}n_{\alpha \beta }L_\beta =\underset{outgoing\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|L_\beta \underset{incoming\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|L_\beta =0\text{mod}c_1;$$

we could write the specific coefficient of $`c_1`$ on the RHS in terms of $`N_f(\alpha )`$ and the $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$, but (1.1) suffices for a later application. Outgoing $`\beta `$ means those nodes where the arrow goes out from $`\alpha `$, toward $`\beta `$. We used the fact that, mod $`c_1`$, $`0=_\beta |n_{\alpha \beta }|L_{\alpha \beta }=_\beta n_{\alpha \beta }(L_\beta L_\alpha )`$, and $`_\beta n_{\alpha \beta }=0`$.

Using (1.1), the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ charges (1.1) and other flavor charges (1.1) can be expressed as differences of charges associated with the nodes of the quiver:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R[Q_{\alpha \beta }]& =R(\beta )R(\alpha )+2\theta _{\alpha \beta },R(\alpha )\frac{2c_1L_\alpha }{c_1c_1},\hfill \\ \hfill F_i[Q_{\alpha \beta }]& =F_i(\beta )F_i(\alpha )F_i(\alpha )J_iL_\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$

As we discuss in section 2, the $`L_\alpha `$ in (1.1) are expected to have some natural mathematical meaning, in some way related to a dual version of the collection of bundles on divisors $`𝒪(D_\alpha )`$. However, we were not able to make this precise here, and did not find a fully general method to independently obtain the $`L_\alpha `$ from first principles.

As we also discuss, Seiberg duality  has a simple action on the $`L_\alpha `$. To simplify the discussion, we consider the case where the dualized gauge group at node $`\alpha `$ has $`N_f=2N_c`$, so that the rank of the dualized gauge group is the same as it was originally; then all $`d_\alpha =1`$, for both the original and also the dualized quivers. We write the bifundamentals associated with node $`\alpha `$ as $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`Q_{\alpha \gamma }`$, $`Q_{\rho \alpha }`$, and $`Q_{\sigma \alpha }`$ with the arrows going out from node $`\alpha `$ out to $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (which could be the same node) and into node $`\alpha `$ from $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ (which could also be the same). The dualized quiver has dual quark bifundamentals, with reversed arrows, and also bifundamentals corresponding to the mesons of the original $`U(N)_\alpha `$ theory. We show that the duality correspondences and R-charge and flavor charge assignments imply that Seiberg dualizing node $`\alpha `$ only changes the $`L_\alpha `$ of that node, as

$$L_\alpha ^{}=L_\beta +L_\gamma L_\alpha ,$$

with the $`L`$’s associated with the other nodes remaining unchanged after Seiberg duality.

One can also construct non-conformal theories, e.g. by wrapping D5 branes on cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_iX_6`$, with the other directions filling the uncompactified 4d space transverse to $`X_6`$. As discussed in , there is a flux condition which requires that the two-cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ of $`X_6`$ not intersect any compact 4-cycles (this condition also rules out wrapping D7s on 4-cycles). The cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ which the D5’s wrap correspond to divisors in $`V_4`$, and the flux condition implies that they must have zero intersection with $`c_1(V_4)`$. Thus the total 5-brane charge must be that of $`N_i`$ D5s wrapped on divisors $`J_i`$ of $`V_4`$, i.e. $`_iN_iJ_i`$ where every $`J_i`$ satisfies $`c_1J_i=0`$. These are the same $`J_i`$ in (1.1), corresponding to the non-R flavor symmetries of the SCFT theory without wrapped D5s. Indeed, the flavor symmetries of the SCFT without wrapped D5s become part of the gauge symmetry in the theory with wrapped D5’s:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}U(N+M_\alpha )\text{with}M_\alpha =\underset{i}{}N_iJ_iL_\alpha .$$

Because the flavor charges (1.1) of the bifundamentals have become part of their gauge charge in the theory (1.1) with added wrapped D5s, consistency of the theory (1.1) requires that the flavor symmetries $`F_i`$ have vanishing ’t Hooft anomalies

$$\mathrm{Tr}F_i=0\text{and}\mathrm{Tr}F_iF_jF_k=0\text{for all}i,j,k.$$

This can be seen to be the case from the origin of these symmetries in the $`AdS_5\times H_5`$ dual, as the reduction of $`C_4`$ on 3-cycles of $`H_5`$: the $`C_4`$ gauge field does have the particular Chern-Simons type terms which would be needed to yield non-zero ’t Hooft anomalies upon reduction on $`H_5`$.

The outline of this paper is as follows: In section 2, we discuss how our main results, reviewed above, are obtained. In section 3, we discuss aspects of ’t Hooft anomalies and our field theory result  for determining the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$. In section 4, we illustrate our ideas for the examples of certain toric and non-toric del Pezzo surfaces. We expect that the methods apply more generally.

While this paper was in preparation, Chris Herzog and James McKernan alerted us to their related work .

Note added in revised version, July ’03: Several of the loose ends raised in this paper were subsequently analyzed and clarified in a nice paper by Herzog and Walcher . Among other things, they presented a precise notion of the “dual” to the exceptional collection, which is related to the $`L_\alpha `$ that we introduced in (1.1).

2. Some string predictions

One way to find the quiver gauge theory associated with a singularity is in terms of a collection of sheaves. These often can be written as $`𝒪(D_\alpha )`$, where $`D_\alpha `$ is some set of divisors of $`V_4`$. Given such an collection, the number of bifundamentals can then be computed by the formula

$$n_{\alpha \beta }=\chi (𝒪(D_\alpha ),𝒪(D_\beta ))\chi (𝒪(D_\beta ),𝒪(D_\alpha )),$$

where $`\chi (𝒪(D_\alpha ),𝒪(D_\beta ))=_{i=0}^3(1)^i\mathrm{dimExt}^i(𝒪(D_\alpha ),𝒪(D_\beta ))`$ is the relative Euler characteristic of the two sheaves. (For an exceptional collection one of the two terms in (2.1) vanishes.) A small modification of (2.1), though, is generally needed: at certain nodes, the directions of the bifundamentals need to be flipped. This is seen in the gauge theory because otherwise some gauge groups would be anomalous. The flip is a continuation of $`NN`$ for the corresponding node. Precisely which nodes require such a flip can be determined by the methods of \[7,,8\].

We consider the situation where all gauge groups at nodes $`\alpha `$ are $`U(N)`$, to simplify the analysis of the baryons $`B_{\alpha \beta }=det_{N\times N}(Q_{\alpha \beta })`$. If there is a multiplicity $`n_{\alpha \beta }>1`$ of bifundamentals, there will be a corresponding multiplicity of baryons; we do not consider such baryon multiplicities further. In AdS/CFT, the baryons arise as D3 branes wrapped on 3-cycles of $`H_5`$, with the dimension of the corresponding operator directly proportional to the volume of the corresponding 3-cycle, see \[12,,14\]. This yields $`R(B_{\alpha \beta })=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }(B_{\alpha \beta })=\frac{2}{3}\mu _3L^4\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^3)`$, where $`\mu _3`$ is the tension of the brane. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^3`$ corresponds to a holomorphic divisor $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ of $`V`$, combined with the $`S^1`$ fiber. As discussed in \[12,,14\], we have

$$\mathrm{Vol}(H_5)=\left(\frac{2\pi q}{3}\right)\mathrm{Vol}(V)=\left(\frac{\pi ^3q}{27}\right)c_1c_1,$$

where $`2\pi q/3`$ is the length of the $`U(1)`$ fiber and $`c_1`$ is the first Chern class of $`V`$, with $`c_1c_1_Vc_1c_1`$. Here $`q`$ is defined by $`c_1(V)=qc_1(U(1))`$, with $`c_1(V)`$ the first Chern class of the 2 complex dimensional Kähler-Einstein manifold $`V`$, which satisfies $`\omega =\frac{\pi }{3}c_1(V)`$ with $`\omega `$ the Kähler form of $`V`$, and $`c_1(U(1))`$ is the first Chern class of the $`U(1)`$ line bundle. Then $`R(B_{\alpha \beta })=\frac{2}{3}\mu _3L^4\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^3)`$ yields

$$R(B_{\alpha \beta })=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)\left(\frac{N\pi }{2\mathrm{Vol}(H_5)}\right)\left(\frac{2\pi q}{3}\right)\frac{\pi }{3}c_1L_{\alpha \beta }=2N\frac{c_1L_{\alpha \beta }}{c_1c_1}.$$

Since $`R[B_{\alpha \beta }]=NR[Q_{\alpha \beta }]`$, this yields (1.1).

The non-R flavor symmetries $``$ under which the baryons are charged come from reducing the IIB gauge field $`C_4`$ on 3-cycles of $`H_5`$. These 3-cycles must include the $`U(1)`$ fiber direction, along with some divisors $`J_i`$ of $`V_4`$. Since these flavor symmetries must be R-neutral, (1.1) implies that the $`J_i`$ must satisfy $`c_iJ_i=0`$. A similar consideration as in (2.1) then leads to the flavor charge assignments of the baryons and hence the bifundamentals, as in (1.1). Again, the overall normalization of these non-R $`U(1)`$ flavor charges is irrelevant, so we drop the normalization factor of $`2/(c_1c_1)`$ for these.

The condition that the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry be anomaly free is that, at every node $`\alpha `$,

$$2d_\alpha +\underset{\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|(R[Q_{\alpha \beta }]1)d_\beta =0.$$

In our situation, where all $`d_\alpha =1`$, this together with (1.1) requires

$$c_1\underset{\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|L_{\alpha \beta }=(N_f(\alpha )1)c_1c_1,$$

where $`N_f(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}_\beta |n_{\alpha \beta }|`$ is the number of flavors at node $`\alpha `$. Likewise, the condition that the $`U(1)_i`$ flavor symmetries associated with $`J_i`$ have vanishing ABJ anomaly at every node $`\alpha `$ is

$$\underset{\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|F_i[Q_{\alpha \beta }]=0.$$

This, together with (1.1), implies that

$$J_i\underset{\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|L_{\alpha \beta }=0\text{for all}J_ic_1=0.$$

Taken together, (2.1) and (2.1) imply (1.1), which is a very restrictive condition on the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$.

In addition, the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ must satisfy another condition in order that the superpotential respect the $`U(1)_R`$ and flavor symmetries. Since every term in the superpotential must have R-charge 2 and non-R flavor charge zero, the total divisor associated with any superpotential term must be precisely $`c_1`$. Thus a necessary (but generally not sufficient) condition for a non-zero superpotential term $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }Q_{\alpha \beta }^{m_{\alpha \beta }}`$ is

$$\underset{\alpha \beta }{}m_{\alpha \beta }L_{\alpha \beta }=c_1.$$

We have found that, furthermore, the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be written as a difference of divisors $`L_\alpha `$ which are associated with the nodes of the quiver, as in (1.1). The condition (1.1) is sufficiently restrictive so that, given the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$, the $`L_\alpha `$ can be determined – up to the addition of an overall constant divisor to all $`L_\alpha `$, which would cancel on the RHS of (1.1).

We expect that the $`L_\alpha `$ must have a natural mathematical interpretation, which could be used to independently determine them. To get some insight into what this direct interpretation of the $`L_\alpha `$ might be, consider the process of partially resolving the geometric singularity. This corresponds to turning on a FI term at some node, which forces some bifundamentals to then have a non-zero expectation value, Higgsing the world-volume gauge theory down to that of the resolved singularity. Thus the bifundamental divisors $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ are naturally associated with differences of FI terms at the nodes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$: roughly, $`L_{\alpha \beta }\zeta _\beta \zeta _\alpha `$. We interpret this as in (1.1). Note that the FI terms are dual to the bundles at the nodes, since we have a corresponding coupling $`d^4xd^4\theta \zeta _\alpha V_\alpha `$, so this suggests that the $`L_\alpha `$ are dual<sup>1</sup> We thank M. Douglas for suggesting this to us. to the $`𝒪(D_\alpha )`$. We do not presently, however, have a prescription for how to make this precise.

So, for the present work, we found the $`L_\alpha `$ on a case-by-case basis by first obtaining the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$, and then using (1.1). We have found that, at least in all those cases which we have considered, it is possible to take $`L_\alpha =D_\alpha `$ for most, but not all, of the nodes. In particular, in the examples that we considered, we can take $`L_\alpha =D_\alpha `$ for all of those nodes for which no $`NN`$ flip is required to get the bifundamentals via (2.1). For those nodes which do require such a flip, the $`L_\alpha D_\alpha `$ and, since we do not yet know the general procedure for determining these $`L_\alpha `$, we determined them on a case-by-case basis in the examples by imposing the very restrictive consistency conditions, discussed above, which the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ must satisfy.

As mentioned in the introduction, we can also consider non-conformal theories, obtained by wrapping $`N_i`$ D5 branes on 2-cycles of $`X_6`$. Doing so leads to a quiver of the same form as in the conformal case, but with the gauge group modified, as in (1.1); as indicated, the $`L_\alpha `$ determine the gauge group modification:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}U(N+M_\alpha )\text{with}M_\alpha =\underset{i}{}N_iJ_iL_\alpha .$$

Absence of gauge anomalies at every node $`\alpha `$ requires

$$\underset{\beta }{}n_{\alpha \beta }(N+M_\beta )=0,$$

which is indeed satisfied thanks to (1.1), since $`J_ic_1=0`$.

These theories with the wrapped D5s effectively gauge our previously global $`U(1)^n`$ flavor symmetries. Consider, as an example, the case where $`N_1=1`$ and all other $`N_i=0`$. The gauge group is then $`_\alpha U(N+J_1L_\alpha )`$, which has as a subgroup $`U(1)\times _\alpha U(N)`$, with bifundamentals $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ having charge $`J_1(L_\beta L_\alpha )`$ under the $`U(1)`$. The additional gauged $`U(1)`$ here is just the flavor $`U(1)`$ associated with $`J_1`$. Likewise, the general gauge theory (2.1) has as a subgroup $`U(1)^n\times _\alpha U(N)_\alpha `$, where the $`U(1)^n`$ correspond to what were flavor symmetries before we added the wrapped D5s.

There is another condition on the $`M_\alpha `$ appearing above, which is required by the flux condition discussed e.g. in :

$$c_1\underset{\alpha }{}(N+M_\alpha )ϵ_\alpha D_\alpha =0,$$

where $`ϵ_\alpha =+1`$ for all nodes except for those which require a $`NN`$ sign flip in (2.1); for these flipped nodes, $`ϵ_\alpha =1`$. Considering the case of no wrapped D5s, the $`D_\alpha `$ must satisfy

$$c_1\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha D_\alpha =0\text{thus}\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha D_\alpha =\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{N}_iJ_i.$$

If we took for the $`ϵ_\alpha D_\alpha `$ the “fractional brane” charges of the sort discussed e.g. in , we would have $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i=0`$ in (2.1), but generally we will not make that choice, instead taking the $`D_\alpha `$ to satisfy the weaker condition (2.1). Including wrapped D5s, we must have $`_\alpha M_\alpha ϵ_\alpha c_1D_\alpha =0`$, implying that $`_\alpha ϵ_\alpha (J_iL_\alpha )D_\alpha `$ is in the span of the $`J_i`$.

Finally, consider the action of Seiberg duality  on a node $`\alpha `$, which we suppose has $`N_f=2N_c`$ in order for the gauge group to be self-dual. We also suppose that all $`d_\alpha =1`$ in (1.1). We write the bifundamentals associated with node $`\alpha `$ as $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`Q_{\alpha \gamma }`$, $`Q_{\rho \alpha }`$, and $`Q_{\sigma \alpha }`$ with the arrows going out from node $`\alpha `$ out to $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (which could be the same node) and into node $`\alpha `$ from $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ (which could also be the same). The dualized quiver has dual quark bifundamentals, with reversed arrows, and also bifundamentals corresponding to the mesons of the original $`U(N)_\alpha `$ theory. We write the dual quarks as $`Q_{\beta \alpha }^{}`$, $`Q_{\gamma \alpha }^{}`$, $`Q_{\alpha \rho }^{}`$, and $`Q_{\alpha \sigma }^{}`$. The bifundamentals coming from the mesons are $`Q_{\rho \beta }^{}=Q_{\rho \alpha }Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`Q_{\sigma \beta }^{}=Q_{\sigma \alpha }Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`Q_{\rho \gamma }^{}=Q_{\rho \alpha }Q_{\alpha \gamma }`$, and $`Q_{\sigma \gamma }^{}=Q_{\sigma \alpha }Q_{\alpha \gamma }`$. Since the R-charge and flavor charges, given by (1.1) and (1.1), must respect this map, the divisors associated with the meson legs of the dual quiver must satisfy

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_{\rho \beta }^{}& =L_{\rho \alpha }+L_{\alpha \beta },L_{\sigma \beta }^{}=L_{\sigma \alpha }+L_{\alpha \beta },\hfill \\ \hfill L_{\rho \gamma }^{}& =L_{\rho \alpha }+L_{\alpha \gamma },L_{\sigma \gamma }^{}=L_{\sigma \alpha }+L_{\alpha \gamma }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Duality maps the baryons of the original theory to those of the dual, as $`Q_{f_1}\mathrm{}Q_{f_{N_c}}=ϵ_{f_1\mathrm{}f_{N_f}}q^{f_{N_c+1}}\mathrm{}q^{f_{N_f}}`$ . For our theory, this implies a mapping $`detQ_{\alpha \beta }=detQ_{\gamma \alpha }^{}`$, and hence the map $`Q_{\alpha \beta }Q_{\gamma \alpha }^{}`$. We reversed the direction of the arrows, because the dual quarks transform in the conjugate flavor representation (and we then need to apply charge conjugation on node $`\alpha `$ to get back bifundamentals). We exchanged the $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ because of the $`ϵ_{f_1\mathrm{}f_{N_f}}`$ in the baryon map, which maps e.g. $`detQ_{\alpha \beta }`$ to $`detq_{\gamma \alpha }`$. Likewise, the other bifundamentals map as $`Q_{\alpha \gamma }Q_{\beta \alpha }^{}`$, $`Q_{\rho \alpha }Q_{\alpha \sigma }^{}`$, and $`Q_{\sigma \alpha }Q_{\alpha \rho }^{}`$. Since the R-charge and flavor charge assignments, given by (1.1) and (1.1), must respect this map, the divisors associated with the dual quark legs of the dual quiver must satisfy

$$L_{\gamma \alpha }^{}=L_{\alpha \beta },L_{\beta \alpha }^{}=L_{\alpha \gamma },L_{\alpha \rho }^{}=L_{\sigma \alpha },L_{\alpha \sigma }^{}=L_{\rho \alpha }.$$

The dual theory has superpotential terms such as $`W=\frac{1}{\mu }Q_{\rho \beta }^{}Q_{\beta \alpha }^{}Q_{\alpha \rho }^{}+\mathrm{}`$, which must respect the $`U(1)_R`$ and flavor symmetries, and hence must have total divisor $`c_1`$:

$$L_{\rho \beta }^{}+L_{\beta \alpha }^{}+L_{\alpha \rho }^{}=c_1.$$

Finally, all of the other nodes and legs of the original quiver are otherwise untouched by the Seiberg duality on node $`\alpha `$, so their charges, and hence leg divisor assignments, are the same in the dual as in the original theory.

All of these conditions can be satisfied very simply in terms of our relation (1.1) for writing the divisors of the quiver’s legs in terms of divisors associated with the nodes. Seiberg duality only acts on the $`L_\alpha `$ of the dualized node $`\alpha `$, with the $`L`$’s of all other nodes unchanged. The conditions (2.1) are then almost immediately satisfied, though there is are apparently non-trivial conditions coming from the terms proportional to $`c_1`$: $`\theta _{\rho \beta }=\theta _{\rho \alpha }+\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$ etc.; we verified that these conditions are indeed satisfied in all of our examples. The conditions in (2.1) are also satisfied by $`L_\alpha ^{}`$ as in (1.1), with the other node $`L^{}s`$ untouched. For example, (1.1) gives for the first relation in (2.1): $`L_\alpha ^{}L_\gamma +c_1\theta (L_\alpha ^{}L_\gamma )=L_\beta L_\alpha +c_1\theta (L_\beta L_\alpha )`$, which is indeed satisfied when $`L_\alpha ^{}=L_\beta +L_\gamma L_\alpha `$. Note also that using (2.1), (2.1), and $`N_f(\alpha )=2`$, (2.1) is equivalent to (1.1).

3. ’t Hooft anomalies

It is useful to consider the ’t Hooft anomalies of the global flavor symmetries $`U(1)_R`$ and $`U(1)_{F_i}`$ of the SCFTs. The conditions (2.1) and (2.1), that $`U(1)_R`$ and $`U(1)_{F_i}`$ have vanishing ABJ anomalies at each node, ends up implying that they also have vanishing linear ’t Hooft anomalies (relevant for coupling to gravity):

$$\mathrm{Tr}R=\mathrm{Tr}F_i=0.$$

This is a consequence of the quiver gauge group form (1.1), with only purely chiral, bifundamental matter.

The various cubic ’t Hooft anomalies (again, taking all $`d_\alpha =1`$ in (1.1) to simplify) are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}R^3& =N^2\underset{\alpha }{}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|(R[Q_{\alpha \beta }]1)^3\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}RF_iF_j& =\frac{1}{2}N^2\underset{\alpha \beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|(R[Q_{\alpha \beta }]1)F_i[Q_{\alpha \beta }]F_j[Q_{\alpha \beta }],\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}R^2F_i& =\frac{1}{2}N^2\underset{\alpha \beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|(R[Q_{\alpha \beta }]1)^2F_i[Q_{\alpha \beta }],\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}F_iF_jF_k& =\frac{1}{2}N^2\underset{\alpha \beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|F_i[Q_{\alpha \beta }]F_j[Q_{\alpha \beta }]F_k[Q_{\alpha \beta }].\hfill \end{array}$$

We can evaluate these in terms of the geometry via (1.1) and (1.1).

Interestingly, for each of the ’t Hooft anomalies (3.1), we can also make an independent prediction. For example, using the AdS/CFT prediction for the central charges $`a`$ and $`c`$  and their relation with the $`\mathrm{Tr}R^3`$ ’t Hooft anomaly \[24,,25\] leads to the prediction

$$\mathrm{Tr}R^3=\frac{8}{9}N^2\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(S^5)}{\mathrm{Vol}(H_5)},$$

which we can write in terms of $`q`$ and $`c_1c_1`$ using (2.1). (And also $`\mathrm{Tr}R=0`$, which we’ve already seen to indeed be the case.) So both (3.1) and (3.1) compute $`\mathrm{Tr}R^3`$ via geometric data; hence, some mathematical identity must ensure that the two, apparently different, geometric computations always agree. We do not yet have a general understanding of this expected identity, but check that the computations indeed agree in all of our examples.

As discussed in , the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ charge has the property that, among all possibilities, it maximizes $`3\mathrm{Tr}R^3\mathrm{Tr}R`$. If we write the most general $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry as $`R=R_0+_is_iF_i`$, where $`R_0`$ is an arbitrary initial R-symmetry and $`s_i`$ are real parameters, maximizing $`3\mathrm{Tr}R^3\mathrm{Tr}R`$ with respect to the $`s_i`$ yields: $`9\mathrm{Tr}R^2F_i=\mathrm{Tr}F_i`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}RF_iF_j<0`$ . In the present context, where all $`U(1)_{F_i}`$ have $`\mathrm{Tr}F_i=0`$, we thus must have

$$\mathrm{Tr}R^2F_i=0\text{and}\mathrm{Tr}RF_iF_j<0,$$

specifically the latter matrix in $`i`$ and $`j`$ must have all negative eigenvalues. We check in all cases that (3.1), using (1.1) and (1.1), indeed satisfies (3.1). Again, we suspect that some mathematical identity ensures that this is indeed always the case, e.g. the first identity in (3.1) requires

$$\underset{\alpha \beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|(2\frac{c_1L_{\alpha \beta }}{c_1c_1}1)^2(J_iL_{\alpha \beta })=0,$$

for all $`J_i`$ satisfying $`c_1J_i=0`$.

Finally, the flavor symmetries $`F_i`$ are expected to have all vanishing cubic ’t Hooft anomalies

$$\mathrm{Tr}F_iF_jF_k=0\text{for all}i,j,k.$$

Any non-zero such cubic ’t Hooft anomalies would require the presence of Chern-Simons 5-forms $`AFF`$ in the $`AdS_5`$ bulk \[26,,27\], but such a term does not have a candidate 10d origin, in terms of the 10d gauge fields $`C_4A\eta `$ and $`F_5=F\eta `$, with $`\eta `$ a 3-form on $`H_5`$. Further, as we mentioned above, the $`F_i`$ flavor symmetries become part of the gauge symmetry upon including wrapped D5s. Hence absence of gauge anomalies of those theories requires (3.1). Again we can check in all examples that, indeed,

$$\underset{\alpha \beta }{}|n_{\alpha \beta }|(J_iL_{\alpha \beta })(J_iL_{\alpha \beta })(J_kL_{\alpha \beta })=0,$$

for all $`i,j,k`$, with $`J_{i,j,k}c_1=0`$.

4. del Pezzo examples

Consider the case where $`X_6`$ is a local Calabi-Yau which is a complex cone over the del Pezzo surface $`dP_n`$. Recall that $`dP_n`$ is a copy of $`𝐏^2`$ blown up at $`n`$ points, where $`0n8`$. Each blown-up point corresponds to an exceptional divisor $`E_i`$, and there is also a divisor $`D`$ which is the pullback of a hyperplane on $`𝐏^2`$. The intersection numbers of these divisors are

$$DD=1,E_iE_j=\delta _{ij},DE_i=0,$$

and the first Chern class (anti-canonical class) is

$$c_1=3D\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_i.$$

There are $`n`$ linearly independent divisors $`J_i`$ satisfying $`J_ic_1=0`$, so there will be a non-R $`U(1)^n`$ flavor symmetry under which the baryons are charged. These $`J_i`$ correspond to the root lattice of the exceptional group $`E_n`$, with $`E_1=A_1`$, $`E_2=A_1+A_1`$, $`E_3=A_3`$, $`E_4=A_4`$, $`E_5=D_5`$, and $`E_{6,7,8}`$ as expected. In particular, if we take for our basis

$$J_i=E_iE_{i+1}\text{ for }i=1\mathrm{}n1\text{,}\text{and}J_n=DE_1E_2E_3$$

their intersections $`J_iJ_j`$ are given by the $`E_n`$ Cartan matrix. The $`dP_n`$ automorphisms correspond to the $`E_n`$ Weyl reflections on the $`J_i`$.

Rewriting (2.1) in this language, the R-charge of a baryon $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ corresponding to a holomorphic 2-cycle $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ is

$$R(B_{\alpha \beta })=2N\frac{c_1L_{\alpha \beta }}{c_1c_1}=2N\frac{c_1L_{\alpha \beta }}{9n}.$$

Since the numerator is an integer, this implies that the R-charge of any baryon in the $`dP_n`$ theory is an integer multiple of $`\frac{2N}{9n}`$. Also, using (3.1) and (2.1), we get that the cubic ’t Hooft anomaly must be

$$\mathrm{Tr}R^3=\frac{24N^2}{9n}.$$

In the following sections, we will work out our prescription in detail for the case of the toric del Pezzos $`dP_{n3}`$ and the non-toric del Pezzo $`dP_4`$. The $`dP_3`$ case was studied extensively in , so we start with that case first.

4.1. Cone over $`dP_3`$.

The are four known field theories that arise from the cone over $`dP_3`$ which are related to each other via Seiberg duality. One of these (usually called Model III) is described by the $`U(N)^6`$ theory given by the quiver in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Model III $`dP_3`$ quiver.

The correspondence between divisors and bifundamentals has already been worked out in  and is given in the following table:

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q_{\alpha \beta }& L_{\alpha \beta }\\ X_{51}& E_1\\ X_{24}& E_2\\ X_{53}& E_3\\ X_{43}& DE_1E_2\\ X_{25}& DE_1E_3\\ X_{41}& DE_2E_3\\ X_{16}& DE_1\\ X_{62}& DE_2\\ X_{36}& DE_3\\ X_{64}& D\\ X_{65}& 2DE_1E_2E_3\end{array}.$$

Note that, because the assignment of divisors and charges is the same for any of the $`|n_{\alpha \beta }|`$ bifundamentals connecting the same nodes, we have not explicitly written the fields $`Y_{16}`$, $`Y_{36}`$, and $`Y_{62}`$ in this table. It is of course important to include these multiplicities in all computations, e.g. when computing traces.

It is easily verified that the $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ (4.1) indeed satisfy our vanishing ABJ anomaly condition (1.1). Furthermore, the superpotential (found in \[12,,15\]) respects the symmetries, because every term in the superpotential has exactly one field for which $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }=1`$.

We now write these $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ as in (1.1). As seen in the table below, we can take the $`L_\alpha `$ to equal the $`D_\alpha `$ which define the collection of bundles, except at nodes 2,4,5. These are precisely the nodes where a flip is required  to obtain the quiver diagram; this seems to be a general connection. We also include in the table below the $`M_\alpha =_iN_iJ_iL_\alpha `$, which give the modification of the gauge groups in the quiver diagram with added wrapped D5’s, as in (1.1). The $`J_i`$ are as in (4.1): $`J_1=E_1E_2`$, $`J_2=E_2E_3`$, $`J_3=DE_1E_2E_3`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{Node}& L_\alpha & D_\alpha & M_\alpha \\ 1& E_1& E_1& N_3N_1\\ 2& 2DE_2& E_2& N_3N_1+N_2\\ 3& E_3& E_3& N_2+N_3\\ 4& 2D& DE_2& 2N_3\\ 5& 0& DE_3& 0\\ 6& D& D& N_3.\end{array}$$

One can readily check that these $`L_\alpha `$ and (1.1) reproduce the required $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ in (4.1).

Since $`dP_3`$ has $`c_1=3DE_1E_2E_3`$, we write the three flavor currents as $`J_1=E_2E_1`$, $`J_2=E_2E_3`$, and $`J_3=DE_1E_2E_3`$. Then, we can use (1.1) and (1.1) to read off the charges:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Q_{\alpha \beta }& J_1& J_2& J_3& R\\ X_{51}& 1& 0& 1& 1/3\\ X_{24}& 1& 1& 1& 1/3\\ X_{53}& 0& 1& 1& 1/3\\ X_{43}& 0& 1& 1& 1/3\\ X_{25}& 1& 1& 1& 1/3\\ X_{41}& 1& 0& 1& 1/3\\ X_{16}& 1& 0& 0& 2/3\\ X_{62}& 1& 1& 0& 2/3\\ X_{36}& 0& 1& 0& 2/3\\ X_{64}& 0& 0& 1& 1\\ X_{65}& 0& 0& 1& 1\end{array}.$$

These are exactly the $`U(1)_C`$, $`U(1)_D`$, $`U(1)_E`$, and R charges found in .

Let’s now examine a Seiberg dual theory, known as Model IV. The quiver for this theory is obtained by Seiberg dualizing node 2; see Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Model IV $`dP_3`$ quiver.

The bifundamental/divisor correspondence has been worked out already in , so we only need to check that our prescription for Seiberg dualizing the $`L_\alpha `$ agrees. The only difference is in $`L_2`$, which becomes $`L_2^{}=L_4+L_6L_2=E_2`$, which checks with the results of .

4.2. Cone over $`dP_2`$

Since blowing down a divisor is equivalent to Higgsing an appropriate bifundamental, one can easily obtain the $`dP_2`$ quiver by Higgsing any bifundamental field in the $`dP_3`$ quiver that corresponds to an exceptional divisor. Depending on which divisor gets Higgsed, the resulting quiver will be one of two possible Seiberg dual theories. We choose to blow down $`E_2`$ or, equivalently, Higgs $`X_{24}`$. The resulting quiver appears in Figure 3 (for simplicity, we have relabeled nodes $`64`$ and $`4/22`$).

Figure 3: The $`dP_2`$ quiver resulting from Higgsing $`X_{24}`$.

It is easy to figure out the appropriate assignment of divisors here: We simply take the divisors from our $`dP_3`$ model and remove any $`E_2`$’s. In the case where bifundamental fields combine and point in the same direction, the divisors never differ by more than an $`E_2`$, and thus there is no ambiguity. In the case where bifundamentals combine that point in opposite directions, the resulting divisor is the one corresponding to the bifundamental that did not change direction, i.e. the one that had more flavors.

The $`L_\alpha `$ can be easily derived from our $`dP_3`$ example by simply blowing down the divisor $`E_2`$. Since the $`L_\alpha `$ for the nodes from the $`dP_3`$ quiver that get combined are the same up to an $`E_2`$, there is no ambiguity in how to assign the $`L_\alpha `$ for the $`dP_2`$ theory. We note that this also is true for any of the $`E_i`$ we could have chosen to blow down. This yields (relabeling $`E_3E_2`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Node}& L_\alpha & M_\alpha \\ 1& E_1& 2N_2N_1\\ 2& 2D& 2N_2\\ 3& E_2& N_1+N_2\\ 4& D& N_2\\ 5& 0& 0.\end{array}$$

The $`M_\alpha `$ in (4.1) give the gauge groups in the theory with added wrapped D5’s. We take $`J_1=E_1E_2`$ and $`J_2=D2E_1E_2`$, which satisfy $`J_ic_1=0`$ with $`c_1=3DE_1E_2`$ for $`dP_2`$. For the theory without wrapped branes, we get the following assignment of divisors and flavor charges:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Q_{\alpha \beta }& L_{\alpha \beta }& J_1& J_2& R\\ X_{51}& E_1& 1& 2& 2/7\\ X_{53}& E_2& 1& 1& 2/7\\ X_{25}& DE_1E_2& 0& 2& 2/7\\ X_{23}& DE_1& 1& 1& 4/7\\ X_{14}& DE_1& 1& 1& 4/7\\ X_{21}& DE_2& 1& 0& 4/7\\ X_{34}& DE_2& 1& 0& 4/7\\ X_{42}& D& 0& 1& 6/7\\ X_{45}& 2DE_1E_2& 0& 1& 8/7\end{array}$$

Notice that the non-R flavor charges here are given by linear combinations of the $`U(1)`$’s from $`dP_3`$ under which $`X_{42}`$ is neutral, $`J_1^{dP_2}=J_1^{dP_3}+J_3^{dP_3}`$ and $`J_2^{dP_2}=J_2^{dP_3}J_1^{dP_3}`$. This is also consistent with the divisors assigned to these flavor charges, as one sees by taking the appropriate linear combinations and removing any instances of the blown-down divisor.

The superpotential for this theory is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W_{dP_2}& =X_{51}X_{14}X_{45}+X_{53}X_{34}X_{45}+X_{51}Y_{14}X_{42}X_{25}+X_{53}Y_{34}Y_{42}X_{25}\hfill \\ & +X_{21}X_{14}Y_{42}+X_{23}X_{34}X_{42}+X_{21}Y_{14}Z_{42}+X_{23}Y_{34}Z_{42},\hfill \end{array}$$

where we don’t bother recording the exact coefficients. This indeed obeys the condition that every term has precisely one field with $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }=1`$.

The reader can easily verify that our ’t Hooft anomaly conditions are also satisfied: $`\mathrm{Tr}R^3`$ is indeed given by (4.1) for $`n=2`$, as required by (3.1). The condition (3.1) of  is indeed satisfied, showing that the geometry knows how to pick out the correct superconformal $`U(1)_R`$, via $`c_1`$. Finally, the flavor ’t Hooft anomalies (3.1) vanish, as generally happens for these string-constructed theories.

We also check that our prescription for Seiberg duality works. Dualizing on node 3 yields the other phase of $`dP_2`$, given in Figure 4:

Figure 4: The other phase of $`dP_2`$.

The only $`L`$ that changes is $`L_3`$, which becomes $`L_3^{}=L_2+L_5L_3=2DE_2`$. It is easy to check that this is consistent with the divisors one gets by appropriately Higgsing $`dP_3`$.

4.3. Cone over $`dP_1`$

It is useful here to Higgs the $`dP_2`$ theory to the $`dP_1`$ theory, since this is an especially simple example. To obtain this theory, Higgs the field $`X_{51}`$ from $`dP_2`$, which corresponds to blowing down the exceptional curve $`E_1`$. This yields the quiver in Figure 5.

Figure 5: The $`dP_1`$ quiver

The $`L_\alpha `$, $`D_\alpha `$, and $`M_\alpha `$ for wrapped branes are given by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{Node}& L_\alpha & D_\alpha & M_\alpha \\ 1& 2DE& E& N_1\\ 2& D& D& N_1\\ 3& 2D& DE& 2N_1\\ 4& 0& 0& 0.\end{array}$$

Note that here the flipped nodes are 1 and 3, where the $`L_\alpha `$ and $`D_\alpha `$ differ. Here, $`c_1=3DE`$, so we take $`J=D3E`$. This yields the following fields and charges.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}Q_{\alpha \beta }& L_{\alpha \beta }& J& R\\ X_{13}& E& 3& 1/4\\ X_{21}& DE& 2& 1/2\\ X_{34}& DE& 2& 1/2\\ X_{14}& D& 1& 3/4\\ X_{23}& D& 1& 3/4\\ X_{42}& D& 1& 3/4\end{array}$$

The superpotential here is

$$W=X_{42}X_{21}X_{14}+X_{42}X_{23}X_{34}+X_{42}X_{21}X_{13}X_{34}$$

which obeys the required conditions.

Seiberg dualizing on either node 1 or node 3 yields the same theory; one can check that the new $`L_\alpha `$ are identical to the original after relabeling nodes.

4.4. Cone over $`dP_4`$

As with the other del Pezzo surfaces, there are many different Seiberg dual quiver theories possible for $`dP_4`$. Here, we will use the one given in Figure 6 \[17,,9\]. It is straightforward to check that by Higgsing $`X_{67}`$, one returns to the Model III $`dP_3`$ quiver.

Figure 6: One possible quiver for $`dP_4`$

There is a unique assignment of $`L_\alpha `$ which reproduces the divisors on the above $`dP_3`$ Model III theory. These were found by enforcing that the field $`X_{67}`$ corresponds to the exceptional curve we’re blowing down, $`L_{67}=E_4`$, and that the remaining divisors can only differ from their $`dP_3`$ counterparts by this same exceptional curve. We also list the $`M_\alpha =_iN_iJ_iL_\alpha `$, relevant for the theory with added wrapped D5s.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Node}& L_\alpha & M_\alpha \\ 1& E_1& N_4N_1\\ 2& 2DE_2E_4& N_4N_1+N_2N_3\\ 3& E_3& N_2N_3+N_4\\ 4& 2DE_4& 2N_4N_3\\ 5& 0& 0\\ 6& DE_4& N_4N_3\\ 7& D& N_4.\end{array}$$

On $`dP_4`$, the first Chern class is $`c_1=3DE_1E_2E_3E_4`$. Thus, we can take as our $`J_i`$ to be $`J_1=E_1E_2`$, $`J_2=E_2E_3`$, $`J_3=E_3E_4`$, and $`J_4=DE_1E_2E_3`$. We thus find the divisors and charges to be

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}Q_{\alpha \beta }& L_{\alpha \beta }& J_1& J_2& J_3& J_4& R\\ X_{51}& E_1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 2/5\\ X_{24}& E_2& 1& 1& 0& 1& 2/5\\ X_{53}& E_3& 0& 1& 1& 1& 2/5\\ X_{67}& E_4& 0& 0& 1& 0& 2/5\\ X_{43}& DE_1E_2& 0& 1& 0& 1& 2/5\\ X_{25}& DE_1E_3& 1& 1& 1& 1& 2/5\\ X_{16}& DE_1E_4& 1& 0& 1& 0& 2/5\\ X_{41}& DE_2E_3& 1& 0& 1& 1& 2/5\\ X_{72}& DE_2E_4& 1& 1& 1& 0& 2/5\\ X_{36}& DE_3E_4& 0& 1& 0& 0& 2/5\\ X_{17}& DE_1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 4/5\\ X_{62}& DE_2& 1& 1& 0& 0& 4/5\\ X_{37}& DE_3& 0& 1& 1& 0& 4/5\\ X_{74}& DE_4& 0& 0& 1& 1& 4/5\\ X_{75}& 2D_iE_i& 0& 0& 0& 1& 4/5\end{array}$$

The superpotential for this theory  indeed obeys the condition that each term has precisely one field with nonzero $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$. (These charge and divisor assignments also apply for the $`PdP_4`$ case considered in , which has a slightly different superpotential.) We can also check that our ’t Hooft anomaly conditions (4.1), (3.1) and (3.1) are also satisfied.

It is also worth checking that one can Higgs this theory to $`dP_3`$ and watch the divisor $`E_4`$ collapse in the same manner we observed in the Higgsing of $`dP_3`$ down to $`dP_2`$. This indeed works; we note that Higgsing $`X_{67}`$ and relabeling the node $`6/77`$ produces exactly the results found above.

Finally, we can immediately construct the quivers and $`L_\alpha `$ for Seiberg dual theories. For example, dualizing on node 2 yields a quiver with $`L_2^{}=L_7+L_6L_2=L_4+L_5L_2=E_2`$ and all other $`L_\alpha `$ unchanged.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Douglas, J. Kumar, J. Roberts, R.P. Thomas, C. Vafa, and especially Mark Gross for discussions. We would also like to thank Chris Herzog and James McKernan for alerting us to their related work. This work was supported by DOE-FG03-97ER40546.

References

relax M. R. Douglas and G. W. Moore, “D-branes, Quivers, and ALE Instantons,” arXiv:hep-th/9603167. relax M. R. Douglas, B. R. Greene and D. R. Morrison, Nucl. Phys. B 506, 84 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9704151\]. relax O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9905111\]. relax D. R. Morrison and M. R. Plesser, “Non-spherical horizons. I,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9810201\]. relax A. Strominger, S. T. Yau and E. Zaslow, “Mirror symmetry is T-duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 479, 243 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9606040\]. relax C. Beasley, B. R. Greene, C. I. Lazaroiu and M. R. Plesser, “D3-branes on partial resolutions of abelian quotient singularities of Calabi-Yau threefolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 566, 599 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9907186\]. 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 A. Hanany and A. Iqbal, “Quiver theories from D6-branes via mirror symmetry,” JHEP 0204, 009 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108137\]. relax M. Wijnholt, “Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,” arXiv:hep-th/0212021. relax A. Bergman and C. P. Herzog, “The volume of some non-spherical horizons and the AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP 0201, 030 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108020\]. relax C. E. Beasley and M. R. Plesser, “Toric duality is Seiberg duality,” JHEP 0112, 001 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0109053\]. 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 D. Berenstein, C. P. Herzog and I. R. Klebanov, “Baryon spectra and AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP 0206, 047 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0202150\]. relax B. Feng, S. Franco, A. Hanany and Y. H. He, “Symmetries of toric duality,” JHEP 0212, 076 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205144\]. relax S. Franco and A. Hanany, “Geometric dualities in 4d field theories and their 5d interpretation,” JHEP 0304, 043 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0207006\]. relax B. Feng, S. Franco, A. Hanany and Y. H. He, “Unhiggsing the del Pezzo,” arXiv:hep-th/0209228. relax C. P. Boyer and K. Galicki, “On Sasakian-Einstein Geometry,” Int. J. Math. 11, 873 (2000) \[arXiv:math.dg/9811098\]. relax K. Intriligator and B. Wecht, “The exact superconformal R-symmetry maximizes a,” arXiv:hep-th/0304128. relax N. Seiberg, “Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 435, 129 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9411149\]. relax C. Herzog and J. McKernan, “Dibaryon Spectroscopy,” hep-th/0305048. relax C.P. Herzog and J. Walcher, “Dibaryons from Exceptional Collections,” hep-th/0306298 relax S. S. Gubser, “Einstein manifolds and conformal field theories,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 025006 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9807164\]. relax D. Anselmi, D. Z. Freedman, M. T. Grisaru and A. A. Johansen, “Nonperturbative formulas for central functions of supersymmetric gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 526, 543 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9708042\]. relax D. Anselmi, J. Erlich, D. Z. Freedman and A. A. Johansen, “Positivity constraints on anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 7570 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9711035\]. relax E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9802150\]. relax D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis and L. Rastelli, “Correlation functions in the CFT($`d`$)/AdS($`d+1`$) correspondence,” Nucl. Phys. B 546, 96 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9804058\].


format: text

text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

The customary picture of the fireball deceleration by an external medium neglects two physical agents in the problem that are important at radii $`R<10^{17}`$ cm: a radiative precursor (the prompt GRB) and a relativistic front of free neutrons. The radiative precursor preaccelerates the medium and loads it with $`e^\pm `$ pairs. This provides a new explanation for the early optical flashes in GRBs. The front of free neutrons must form in a standard baryonic fireball and change the mechanism of the fireball deceleration. The neutron effect, however, disappears if the fireball is strongly dominated by the Poynting flux. The neutrons thus provide a unique link between the progenitor physics and the observed external blast wave. The explosion mechanism at $`R<10^{17}`$ cm is testable with upcoming observations of early afterglows.

## 1 Introduction

The picture of an ultra-relativistic shell (“fireball”) ejected by a central engine became a customary model of GRBs. The shell emits the burst of $`\gamma `$-rays, sweeps up a static ambient medium, and decelerates, producing the afterglow emission. This simple model is consistent with the observational data. Recently, however, it has been realized to be intrinsically inconsistent at radii up to $`R10^{17}`$ cm. The picture is missing two physical agents that appear inevitably in the model:

(1) The prompt burst of $`\gamma `$-rays acts as a powerful precursor ahead of the fireball. It dramatically changes the early phase explosion, at radii $`R<2\times 10^{16}E_{53}^{1/2}`$ cm where $`E`$ \[erg\] is the isotropic energy equivalent of the $`\gamma `$-ray burst.

(2) The standard GRB fireball contains free neutrons. An interesting fraction of neutrons survive up to $`R8\times 10^{16}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}/300)`$ cm and changes the mechanism of the fireball-medium interaction.

Here, we describe these advances in the fireball physics. The radiative precursor turns out to have an important connection with the prompt optical flashes observed in GRBs — it offers a new explanation for the flash, alternative to the reverse-shock interpretation; this explanation works for the Poynting-dominated as well as barynic fireballs.

## 2 Radiative precursor

Radiative precursors are known to be important for interstellar shocks . In the case of GRB explosion, there is an evident fierce precursor: the initial burst of $`\gamma `$-rays with the isotropic energy equivalent up to $`3\times 10^{54}`$ erg. The $`\gamma `$-rays come to the observer before the afterglow,111In fact, the $`\gamma `$-rays can be emitted quite early inside the fireball, preceding the development of the external blast wave. The strong ms variability in GRB light curves is often cited as an evidence for small radius of $`\gamma `$-ray emission $`R10^{12}10^{14}`$ cm; the ensuing blast wave radiates at $`R10^{15}10^{17}`$ cm.  so they must propagate ahead of the blast wave and impact the external medium. This loophole of the GRB model has been noted recently -. Two major effects of the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor are preacceleration of the ambient medium and its loading with $`e^\pm `$ pairs. The exact numerical calculation of the medium dynamics in the precursor has been done and understood analytically . It is summarized and explained below.

Let $`dE/dS`$ be the energy column density of the $`\gamma `$-ray front \[erg/cm2\]. The GRB is likely beamed, yet it is convenient to define its isotropic equivalent $`E=4\pi R^2(dE/dS)`$. When an ambient electron is overtaken by the radiation front, it scatters energy $`e_{\mathrm{sc}}=\sigma _\mathrm{T}(dE/dS)=E\sigma _\mathrm{T}/4\pi R^2`$ (with a slight modification due to Klein-Nishina correction to Thomson cross section $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$). The $`e_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ should be compared with the electron rest-mass energy, and this gives the relevant dimensionless parameter,

$$\xi =\frac{e_{\mathrm{sc}}}{m_ec^2}=65E_{53}R_{16}^2.$$
(1)
One would like to know the velocity $`\beta `$ acquired by the medium behind the radiation front and the number of loaded pairs per one ambient electron, $`f=n_\pm /n_e`$. The medium dynamics in the front is nonlinear because the scattered photons turn into $`e^\pm `$ pairs which do more scattering, and the problem is further complicated by the transfer of the scattered radiation across the front. Yet an exact solution can be obtained and well approximated by a simple analytical model ,

$$\gamma (\xi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \xi <\xi _{\mathrm{acc}},\hfill \\ (\xi /\xi _{\mathrm{acc}})^3\hfill & \xi _{\mathrm{acc}}<\xi <3\xi _{\mathrm{acc}},\hfill \\ 3\sqrt{3}(\xi /\xi _{\mathrm{acc}})^{3/2}\hfill & \xi >3\xi _{\mathrm{acc}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
$$f(\xi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{exp}(\xi /\xi _{\mathrm{load}})+\mathrm{exp}(\xi /\xi _{\mathrm{load}})]\hfill & \xi <\xi _{\mathrm{acc}},\hfill \\ (\xi /\xi _{\mathrm{acc}})^2f_{\mathrm{acc}}\hfill & \xi _{\mathrm{acc}}<\xi <3\xi _{\mathrm{acc}},\hfill \\ 3(\xi /\xi _{\mathrm{acc}})f_{\mathrm{acc}}\hfill & \xi >3\xi _{\mathrm{acc}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{load}}=2030`$, depending on the spectrum of the gamma-rays, $`\xi _{\mathrm{acc}}=5\xi _{\mathrm{load}}=100150`$, and $`f_{\mathrm{acc}}=[\mathrm{exp}(\xi _{\mathrm{acc}}/\xi _{\mathrm{load}})+\mathrm{exp}(\xi _{\mathrm{acc}}/\xi _{\mathrm{load}})]/2=74`$.

If $`\xi <\xi _{\mathrm{load}}`$ nothing interesting happens with the medium in the $`\gamma `$-ray front: it remains almost static and $`e^\pm `$-free. If the front has $`\xi >\xi _{\mathrm{load}}`$, the runaway $`e^\pm `$ loading occurs. The number of loaded pairs depends exponentially on $`\xi `$ as long as $`\xi <\xi _{\mathrm{acc}}`$. The front acts as a relativistic accelerator if $`\xi >\xi _{\mathrm{acc}}`$, and the medium Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ grows with $`\xi `$ as a power-law. At $`\xi =\xi _{\mathrm{gap}}3\times 10^3`$, $`\gamma `$ exceeds the Lorentz factor of the ejecta; it implies that the radiative precursor pushes the external medium away from the fireball and opens a gap.

The $`\gamma `$-ray front expands with time, and its $`\xi `$-parameter evolves as $`\xi R^2`$ (Eq. 1), i.e., decreases. It starts at very high $`\xi `$ and then passes through $`\xi _{\mathrm{gap}}`$, $`\xi _{\mathrm{acc}}`$, and $`\xi _{\mathrm{load}}`$ at radii $`R_{\mathrm{gap}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, and $`R_{\mathrm{load}}`$, respectively,

$$R_{\mathrm{acc}}10^{16}E_{53}^{1/2}\mathrm{cm},R_{\mathrm{gap}}R_{\mathrm{acc}}/3,R_{\mathrm{load}}=2.3R_{\mathrm{acc}}.$$
(4)
The three characteristic radii define four stages of the explosion:

I. $`R<R_{\mathrm{gap}}`$. The ejecta move in a cavity cleared by the radiation front. The ambient medium surfs ahead with $`\gamma >\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$.

II. $`R_{\mathrm{gap}}<R<R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. The ejecta sweep the $`e^\pm `$-rich medium that has been preaccelerated to $`1\gamma <\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$.

III. $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}<R<R_{\mathrm{load}}`$. The ejecta sweep the practically static medium ($`\gamma 1`$). The medium is, however, dominated by the loaded $`e^\pm `$.

IV. $`R>R_{\mathrm{load}}`$. The ejecta sweep the static pair-free medium. The precursor effect is negligible.

The blast wave develops at $`R>R_{\mathrm{gap}}`$. Technically, its model is constructed in the same way as it was done for a static external medium. The only complication is that now the preshock material is $`e^\pm `$-rich and moving relativistically. At $`R=R_{\mathrm{gap}}`$ the blast wave gently begins to sweep up the preaccelerated medium with a small relative Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rel}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}/\gamma 1`$. With increasing $`R>R_{\mathrm{gap}}`$, $`\gamma `$ falls off quickly and approaches $`\gamma =1`$ at $`R=R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ as $`\gamma =(R/R_{\mathrm{acc}})^6`$. Thus, the fireball suddenly “learns” that there is an interesting amount of relatively slow material on its way and hits it with a large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rel}}`$. This resembles a collision with a wall and results in a sharp rise in dissipation at $`RR_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ (see Fig. 4 in ). This dynamic effect is especially dramatic for GRBs with massive progenitors. Their ambient medium is a dense wind from the progenitor and the swept-up mass at $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{acc}}=m(R_{\mathrm{acc}})`$, (the “wall”) can exceed $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}^2c^2`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ is the total fireball energy. Then the delayed collision with $`m_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ is the main dissipation event in the history of the explosion.

We note here that the optically thin medium scatters only a small portion of the $`\gamma `$-ray energy. In view of this fact, the strong dynamical impact of the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor on the fireball deceleration might seem surprising. The clue to this paradox is the high Lorentz factor of the fireball, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}1`$. Because of high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, a small ambient mass is expected to efficiently decelerate the fireball: half of $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ would be dissipated when the fireball sweeps up a static $`m=E_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}^2c^2`$ . If, however, the fireball sends ahead a radiation precursor, it easily preaccelerates the medium to $`\gamma 1`$ by depositing a relatively small energy $`\gamma mc^2E_{\mathrm{ej}}`$. Even at $`\gamma >\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, the deposited energy is small, while the dynamical impact is enormous: $`m`$ runs away and the fireball moves freely in the cavity cleared by the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor. Thus, the fireball dissipation is delayed until the precursor is diluted sufficiently by side expansion.

The described scenario is modified if the $`\gamma `$-ray front is created by the blast wave itself rather than by internal dissipation in the fireball. Then a self-consistent blast wave model can be obtained without gap opening. If, however, the ambient medium is sufficiently dense then an “electro-magnetic catastrophe” can occur in the forward shock as described in . The runway production of $`\gamma `$-rays may result in a temporary gap openning and complicated temporal evolution of the shock. The feedback of the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor on the shock is a major agent governing this evolution.

## 3 The prompt optical flash

The optical flash was first detected in GRB 990123 . It occurs much earlier than the normal optical afterglow that is observed days after the $`\gamma `$-ray burst. In GRB 990123, the optical flash peaked less than minute after the GRB trigger. It was explained (and in fact predicted) as a possible emission from the reverse shock in the ejecta . This explanation would exclude the Poynting-flux models of GRB ejecta where the reverse shock is energetically unimportant or does not occur at all. This explanation, however, is not unique.

In fact, even in the absence of any emission from the reverse shock, one expects a soft flash from the forward shock . The blast wave evolution described above implies that the afterglow starts with a brief and very soft flash. It results from the pair loading and preacceleration of the ambient medium by the $`\gamma `$-ray front.

One can evaluate the effect using the customary synchrotron emission model. In the blast frame, the synchrotron spectrum of $`e^\pm `$ with Lorentz factor $`\gamma _e`$ peaks at

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_s=10^6B\gamma _e^2\mathrm{Hz},$$
(5)
where $`B`$ is the postshock magnetic field. The observed peak frequency is $`\nu _s\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_s`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the current Lorentz factor of the blast. $`B`$ is usually parametrized in terms of the equipartition value, so that $`B^2/8\pi `$ is a fraction $`ϵ_B`$ of the total energy density. Using the jump conditions at the shock front, one can write

$$B=c\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\gamma }\sqrt{\frac{32\pi ϵ_B\rho _0}{\gamma (1\beta )}}.$$
(6)
Thus, preacceleration of the preshock medium to $`\gamma >1`$ reduces $`B`$ by a factor of $`\gamma ^{1/2}`$.

A fraction $`ϵ_e0.010.1`$ of the energy of shocked ions is shared by $`e^\pm `$. The mean randomized Lorentz factor of the postshock $`e^\pm `$ is

$$\gamma _e\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\gamma }\frac{m_p}{fm_e}ϵ_e,$$
(7)
where $`f=n_\pm /n_e`$ is the pair loading factor. Substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) into (5), one finds that the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor reduces the synchrotron peak frequency $`\nu _s`$ by the factor of $`\gamma ^{5/2}f^2`$. This is a big effect at all $`R<R_{\mathrm{load}}2\times 10^{16}E_{53}^{1/2}`$ cm. The afterglow should start as a very soft signal, and it quickly hardens as $`\gamma (R)`$ and $`f(R)`$ decrease steeply with radius \[see Eqs. (1-3)\]. A maximum $`\nu _s`$ is achieved at $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}<R<R_{\mathrm{load}}`$, and then the usual decay sets in (see also Fig. 6 in ).

The initial soft flash should have a broad spectrum and can be observed in the optical band. It appears to be an inevitable result of the preacceleration and $`e^\pm `$-loading of the ambient medium. Because the flash is emitted by the forward shock, this mechanism works regardless the nature of the GRB ejecta. It applies to Poynting-flux ejecta as well as to standard baryonic fireballs.

One can easily evaluate the arrival time of the expected flash. The flash should peak at observed time

$$t_{\mathrm{flash}}\frac{R_{\mathrm{acc}}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}^2}(1+z)12E_{53}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}}{100}\right)^2\left(\frac{1+z}{3}\right)\mathrm{s},$$
(8)
where $`z`$ is the cosmological redshift of the burst. A nice feature of this prediction is that $`t_{\mathrm{flash}}`$ depends only on the isotropic equivalent of the burst energy, $`E`$, and the initial Lorentz factor of the ejecta, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$. If one manages to observe the peak of the flash and measure the burst redshift (which gives $`E`$), then one can infer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ — the unknown and probably most important parameter of the GRB phenomenon. The optical flash in GRB 990123 peaked at $`t_{\mathrm{flash}}20`$ s (corrected for cosmological time dilation) and the isotropic $`\gamma `$-ray energy of the burst was $`E3\times 10^{54}`$ erg . Eq. (8) then implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}200`$. This result does not depend on $`ϵ_B`$, $`ϵ_e`$, $`n_0`$, the beaming angle and the nature of the ejecta, or any other parameters of the explosion.

The energy of the pair-loaded flash is approximately

$$E_{\mathrm{flash}}m_{\mathrm{acc}}c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,$$
(9)
where $`m_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ is the ambient mass within $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. If $`m_{\mathrm{acc}}<E_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}^2c^2`$ (i.e. $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ is smaller than the characteristic deceleration radius of the fireball $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$) then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ during the flash; the main peak of the afterglow occurs later at $`R=R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ and emits more energy (in the X-ray bands). Then $`E_{\mathrm{flash}}`$ is a small fraction of the total energy of the explosion. In the case of a homogeneous ambient medium with density $`n_0=const`$, one finds

$$\frac{E_{\mathrm{flash}}}{E_{\mathrm{ej}}}10^3n_0\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}}{300}\right)^2\frac{E_{53}^{3/2}}{E_{\mathrm{ej}}^{}{}_{53}{}^{}}.$$
(10)
GRBs with massive progenitors occur inside dense star-forming clouds with $`n_0110^2`$ cm-3 and a detectable flash is expected. Even more importantly, the progenitor itself emits a powerful wind all the time before it explodes, and its wind is the actual ambient medium of the GRB (with density scaling with radius as $`R^2`$ out to a parsec distance). The wind from a Wolf-Rayet progenitor can easily have $`m_{\mathrm{acc}}>E_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}^2c^2`$. Then the main fireball dissipation occurs at $`RR_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ in the medium heavily loaded with $`e^\pm `$; the resulting powerful soft flash coincides with the main peak of the afterglow .

By now the early optical emission has been detected in four bursts: GRB 990123, GRB 021004, GRB 021211, and GRB 030329. The initial peak of the optical emission has been seen only in GRB 990123. This is naturally explained by the model described above: the flash should peak earlier than 10 s unless $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}<100E_{53}^{1/2}(1+z)^{1/2}`$ (see Eq. 8), and therefore it is difficult to detect the peak with current instruments. The proposed microsatellite ECLAIRs  would be very helpful as it can provide data in soft bands at all times, even much shorter than 10 s.

## 4 Neutron front

An intriguing aspect of the GRB explosion, again related to the ultra-relativistic character of the explosion, is a significant contamination of the fireball by free neutrons -. Besides opening a possibility to observe multi-GeV neutrinos generated by neutron-ion collisions, it has important implications for the afterglow physics: the very mechanism of the afterglow can be changed by neutrons at radii up to $`10^{17}`$ cm .

### 4.1 Neutronization of the Central Engine

What is ejected in a GRB explosion? Its engine is very dense and hot, and the central matter (or the matter surrounding the central black hole) is filled with $`e^\pm `$ pairs in thermodynamic equilibrium with blackbody radiation at a temperature $`kT=110`$ MeV. Its baryonic component is made of neutrons and protons (composite nuclei break up into free nucleons in the unshadowed region of the $`T\rho `$ plane in Fig. 1) and frequent $`e^\pm `$ captures onto nucleons take place,

$$e^{}+pn+\nu ,e^++np+\overline{\nu }.$$
(11)
These reactions quickly convert protons to neutrons and back, and establish an equilibrium proton fraction $`Y_e=n_p/(n_n+n_p)`$ which is shown in Figure 1. Any plausible GRB engines belong to the $`T\rho `$ region where $`Y_e<0.5`$ (see  and refs. therein). So, the neutrons are not only present in the central engines — they dominate.

When the neutronized matter is ejected into a high-entropy fireball, it remains neutron-dominated because (1) expansion occurs too fast and $`Y_e`$ freezes out at its initial value below 0.5, or (2) the fireball partially absorbs the neutrino flux from the engine, which tends to keep $`Y_e<0.5`$ (see  for details).

### 4.2 Ejected Neutrons Survive the Nucleosynthesis

As the fireball expands and cools, free nucleons tend to recombine into $`\alpha `$-particles (like they do in the big bang). This process competes, however, with rapid expansion and can freeze out. For this reason, nucleosynthesis is suppressed in fireballs with a high photon-to-baryon ratio $`\varphi =n_\gamma /n_b`$ (or, equivalently, high entropy per baryon $`s/k=3.6\varphi `$). A minimum $`\varphi `$ in GRBs is $`10^5`$, which is just marginal for nucleosynthesis (detailed nucleosynthesis calculations have been done recently in ,,). Even in the extreme case of complete helium production, however, there are still leftover neutrons because of the neutron excess ($`Y_e<0.5`$). The nucleon recombination into $`\alpha `$-particles consumes equal numbers of $`p`$ and $`n`$, and the minimum mass fraction of leftover neutrons is $`X_n=12Y_e`$.222For a similar reason, 75% of baryons in the universe are protons. There was a proton excess at the time of primordial nucleosynthesis with $`Y_e7/8`$. After nucleon recombination, it resulted in mass fraction $`X_p=2Y_e1=0.75`$ of leftover protons.

In addition, the synthesized helium is likely destroyed during the ensuing evolution of the explosion . This happens if (1) there appears a significant relative bulk velocity between the neutron and ion components (as a result of neutron decoupling during the acceleration stage of the fireball) or (2) internal shocks occur and heat the ions to a high temperature.

Thus, a substantial neutron component appears inevitably in the standard fireball scenario. The neutrons develop a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=10^210^3`$ at the very beginning of the explosion when the fireball is accelerated by radiation pressure; they are collisionally coupled to the ions in the early dense fireball, and decouple close to the end of the acceleration stage. Then the neutrons coast and gradually decay with a mean lifetime $`\tau _\beta 900`$ s and a mean decay radius $`R_\beta =c\tau _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$,

$$R_\beta =0.8\times 10^{16}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{300}\right)\mathrm{cm}.$$
(12)
We will show below that neutrons change the fireball-medium interaction at radii as large as $`10R_\beta `$.

### 4.3 Neutron-Fed Blast Wave

Let us remind what happens in a relativistic explosion without neutrons. The ejected fireball with mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}=E_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}c^2`$ and Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ sweeps up an ambient medium with density $`n_0=110^2`$ cm-3 and gradually dissipates its kinetic energy. The dissipation rate peaks at a characteristic “deceleration” radius $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}10^{16}`$ cm where half of the initial energy is dissipated. $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ corresponds to swept-up mass $`m_{\mathrm{dec}}=M_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$. Further dynamics is described by the self-similar blast wave model. How does this picture change in the presence of neutrons?

At radii under consideration, $`R>10^{15}`$ cm, the ejected fireball is a shell of thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$. In contrast to neutrons, the ion component of the fireball is aware of the external medium and its Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases. As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases below $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, the ions fall behind and separate from the neutrons. Thus the fireball splits into two relativistic shells which we name N (neutrons) and I (ions). The mass of the leading N-shell is decreasing because of the $`\beta `$-decay,

$$M_n(R)=M_n^0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R}{R_\beta }\right).$$
(13)
The N-shell energy, $`E_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }_nM_nc^2`$, remains, however, huge compared to the ambient rest-mass $`mc^2`$ even at $`R>R_\beta `$. For example, at $`R=R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ one finds $`E_n/m_{\mathrm{dec}}c^2=X_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}\mathrm{exp}(R_{\mathrm{dec}}/R_\beta )`$ where $`X_n=M_n^0/M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ is the initial neutron fraction of the fireball.

The neutron decay products $`p`$ and $`e^{}`$ share immediately their huge momentum with ambient particles due to two-stream instability and the N-shell leaves behind a mixed trail with a relativistic bulk velocity $`\beta <\beta _n=(11/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2)^{1/2}`$ ,

$$\beta (R)=\frac{\beta _n}{1+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta )^1},\gamma (R)=\frac{1}{(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1}{(\zeta ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1)^{1/2}},$$
(14)
where

$$\zeta (R)=\frac{\mathrm{d}M_n}{\mathrm{d}m}=\frac{M_n}{R_\beta }\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}R}\right)^1,$$
(15)
and $`m(R)`$ is ambient mass enclosed by radius $`R`$. There exists a characteristic radius $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$ where the trail becomes nonrelativistic ($`\beta =0.5`$). It is defined by condition $`\zeta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^1`$ \[see Eq. (14)\], which requires about 10 e-foldings of the decay (for a typical $`m_\beta m_{\mathrm{dec}}10^5M_n^0`$). Thus,

$$R_{\mathrm{trail}}10R_\beta =0.8\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{300}\right)\mathrm{cm}.$$
(16)
$`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$ depends very weakly (logarithmically) on the ambient density and the initial neutron fraction of the fireball, $`X_n`$.

The decaying N-shell not only accelerates the ambient medium. It also compresses the medium, loads with new particles, and heats to a high temperature. The rest-frame density and relativistic enthalpy of the trail are

$$n=n_0(1+\zeta )\left(\zeta ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1\right)^{1/2},\mu =\frac{(\zeta ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1)^{1/2}}{1+\zeta },$$
(17)
where $`n_0`$ is the medium density ahead of the N-shell. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^1<\zeta <\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ one finds $`\mu 1`$, i.e. the thermal energy of the trail far exceeds its rest-mass energy.

The ion fireball follows the neutron front and collects the trail. As a result, (1) the ion Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases and (2) a shock wave propagates in the trail material. The shock has a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and it cannot catch up with the neutron front (unless $`n_0[R]`$ falls off steeper than $`R^3`$). Dynamics and dissipation in the shock are discussed in . We emphasize here that the shock propagates in a relativistically moving, dense, hot, and possibly magnetized medium left behind the leading neutron front. It is very different from the customary shock in a cold and static interstellar medium. A similar situation may take place for fireballs expanding in plerionic surroundings .

The neutron impact ceases at $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}10^{17}`$ cm, which can leave an imprint on the observed afterglow. For example, the shock dissipation can have a second bump , and a spectral transition is also possible. The arrival time of radiation emitted at $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$ is approximately $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}/2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c`$ (counted from the arrival of first $`\gamma `$-rays). It may be as long as 30 days or as short as a few seconds, depending on the fireball Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R_{\mathrm{trail}})`$. Recent early observation of a GRB afterglow (GRB 021004) discovered a strong re-brightening at $`10^3`$ s, which may be related to neutrons. Also, we do not exclude a possible relevance of neutrons to the 20 day bumps observed in a few GRBs, as the time coincides with $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}/c`$.

Neutron signatures should be absent if the fireball is dominated by a Poynting flux and has extremely low baryon loading. Then the neutron component decouples early, with a modest Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, and decays at small radii, $`RR_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. The upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ due to decoupling is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n300(\dot{M}_\mathrm{\Omega }/10^{26})^{1/3}`$ where $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ \[g/s\] is the mass outflow rate per unit solid angle of the fireball .

## 5 Conclusions and prospects

The deceleration radius of GRB fireballs is believed to be in the range $`10^{15}10^{17}`$ cm, depending on the ambient density and the energy of the explosion. It falls in the interesting range where the prompt $`\gamma `$-rays and free neutrons strongly impact the fireball interaction with the external medium. Therefore, the blast wave, at least at its early stage, should involve the described effects. The upcoming data from Swift may be crucial for understanding the basic mechanism of the fireball deceleration. Recent observations of variable early afterglows in GRB 021004 and GRB 030329 indicate that additional complications may be involved such as clumpy ambient medium or refreshed afterglows.

The explosion scenario and its observational signatures depend on the nature of the ejecta. If the fireball is dominated by Poynting flux, the reverse shock emits little energy, and the observed early optical flash must be dominated by the forward shock in the manner described in section 3. If the fireball is dominated by baryons rather than Poynting flux, the reverse shock can also contribute to the flash.

The formation of a leading neutron front appears to be a robust feature of a baryonic fireball, and detection of neutron signatures in the afterglow emission would be important. The current poor understanding of the shock physics and particle acceleration in GRBs impede, however, definite predictions for such signatures, and the model needs to be developed in this direction. For bright bursts, $`E10^{54}`$ erg, the pair-loading radius $`R_{\mathrm{load}}`$ of the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor gets comparable to $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$, and then the neutrons and $`\gamma `$-rays have a combined impact on the ambient medium. This situation has not been studied yet.

Afterglows observed to date typically have first data points hours or days after the prompt GRB. The main peak of the blast wave emission is missed. It is expected at seconds or minutes (and possibly overlaps with the prompt $`\gamma `$-rays). The observed tail of the afterglow comes from the slowed-down blast wave, which has an estimated radius $`R10^{17}`$ cm. With Swift it may be possible to observe routinely earlier afterglows that come from smaller radii. The afterglow is expected to rise sharply in soft bands at observed time $`t_{\mathrm{obs}}10E_{53}^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}/100)^2(1+z)`$ s. The initial flash must be very soft, and it can emit significant energy before a normal X-ray afterglow sets in, especially in the massive progenitor scenario. The peak of this flash is difficult to detect because it happens quickly, however, future observations may overcome this technical difficulty. Swift should be able to see optical emission 30-70 s after the beginning of the burst, and the proposed ECLAIRs would detect flashes at much smaller times . A detected initial flash of the afterglow would provide valuable information on the ejecta Lorentz factor, and its time profile and spectrum can give indications on the nature of the ambient medium, and hence the progenitor.

Additional diagnostics for the fireball-medium interaction will be provided by GLAST. At the afterglow radii, the ambient medium is likely optically thin (even after $`e^\pm `$ loading by the $`\gamma `$-ray precursor), and then the bulk of GRB radiation passes freely through it. However, the most energetic $`\gamma `$-rays may encounter a substantial $`\gamma \gamma `$ opacity made by the scattered radiation. If the ambient medium is a wind from a massive progenitor, the prompt $`\gamma `$-rays should be absorbed above $`ϵ_{\mathrm{br}}=550`$ MeV, depending on the density of the wind . This produces a spectral break that should be easily detected by GLAST. The scattered $`\gamma `$-rays may also be observed as an echo of the burst .