text:
# Kaon Interferometry at RHIC from AMPT Model

## 1 Introduction and Summary

Particle interferometry based on the Hanbury-Brown Twiss (HBT) effect has been used extensively in heavy ion collisions to extract the information on the emission source of particles . In particular, the long emission time as a result of the phase transition from the quark-gluon plasma to hadronic matter in relativistic heavy ion collisions may lead to an emission source which has a much larger radius in the direction of the total transverse momentum of detected two particles ($`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$) than that perpendicular to both this direction and the beam direction ($`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$) . Since the quark-gluon plasma is expected to be formed in heavy ion collisions at RHIC, it is surprising to find that the extracted ratio $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ from a Gaussian fit to the measured two-pion correlation function in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV is close to one , very different from predictions of hydrodynamical models .

Since particle interferometry probes the phase-space distributions of particles at freeze-out, it is natural to apply transport models to HBT. The reason is that particle freeze-out is dynamically generated in transport models when the mean-free-path exceeds the system size at later stage of expansion, whereas freeze-out has to be imposed in hydrodynamical models. Using a multi-phase transport (AMPT) model, we have found that the small pion $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio could be due to a large and positive space-time correlation in the emission source . Furthermore, the pion source at freeze-out is highly non-Gaussian, leading to much larger pion source radii than the radius parameters from a Gaussian fit to the three-dimensional correlation function.

In this study, we extend the work of Ref. by studying the kaon interferometry in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC energies. Using the AMPT model, we find that, unlike the pion case, the kaon source radii extracted directly from the emission function are close to the fitted radius parameters extracted from a Gaussian fit to the three-dimensional correlation function. Our results also show that the kaon emission source has a large and positive correlation between time and position along the $`\mathrm{out}`$-direction at freeze-out, similar to what we have found earlier for the pion emission source. We expect that the study of kaon interferometry, as well as other observables such as the strange hadron elliptic flow, will be useful in understanding the dynamics of strange quarks and hadrons in heavy ion collisions at RHIC.

## 2 A MultiPhase Transport Model - AMPT

The AMPT model is a hybrid model that uses the minijet partons from hard processes and excited strings from soft processes in the HIJING model  for the initial condition of relativistic heavy ion collisions. The time evolution of partons is then described by the ZPC  parton cascade model, and that of hadrons by an extended ART model . In the default AMPT model, only minijet partons are included in the parton cascade with a parton scattering cross section of $`\sigma _p=3`$ mb. After partons freeze out, they combine with their parent strings and then fragment to hadrons according to the Lund string fragmentation as implemented in PYTHIA . The default model has been quite reasonable in describing the measured rapidity distributions of charge particles , particle to antiparticle ratios , and the spectra of low transverse momentum pions, kaons , multi-strange baryons  and $`\varphi `$ mesons  in heavy ion collisions at SPS and/or RHIC.

Since the initial energy density in Au+Au collisions at RHIC is expected to be much larger than the critical energy density at which the transition from hadronic matter to quark-gluon plasma would occur , the AMPT model has been extended to allow the conversion of initial excited strings to partons at RHIC energies . In this string melting scenario, hadrons that would have been produced from string fragmentation are converted instead to valence quarks and/or antiquarks. Interactions among these partons are again described by the ZPC parton cascade model. The transition from the partonic matter to hadronic matter at parton freeze-out is achieved using a simple quark coalescence model by combining two nearest partons into mesons and three nearest partons into baryons (or anti-baryons) . With the energy in excited strings taking part in the early partonic interactions and using quark coalescence to model hadronization, the extended AMPT model with string melting  is able to describe the observed elliptic flow at RHIC , which the default AMPT model failed to reproduce.

At present, the ZPC parton cascade  in the AMPT model includes only two-parton elastic scatterings. The in-medium differential cross section is given by $`d\sigma _p/d\widehat{t}=9\pi \alpha _s^2(1+\mu ^2/\widehat{s})/2/(\widehat{t}\mu ^2)^2`$, where the effective screening mass $`\mu `$ in principle depends on the temperature and density of the partonic matter. In this study, we take $`\mu `$ as a parameter in order to study the effect of partonic scatterings. Also, for simplicity, we assume the same scattering cross section for partons of different flavors. We note, however, that comparisons of high-quality data on the elliptic flow of strange hadrons  with theoretical predictions  is expected to provide very useful information on the interactions of strange quarks in dense matter.

## 3 Two Ways of Extracting Radius Parameters

To evaluate the two-kaon correlation function requires the knowledge of the single kaon emission function $`S(x,𝐩)`$. In the AMPT model, it is obtained from the kaon space-time coordinate $`x`$ and momentum $`𝐩`$ at kinetic freeze-out. The HBT correlation function for two identical hadrons of momenta $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is then given by

$`C_2(𝐐,𝐊)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4x_1d^4x_2S(x_1,𝐊)S(x_2,𝐊)\mathrm{cos}[Q(x_1x_2)]}{d^4x_1S(x_1,𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏})d^4x_2S(x_2,𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})}},`$ (1)
where $`𝐊=(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})/2`$ and $`Q=(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐},E_1E_2)`$. Expecting that the emission function is sufficiently smooth in momentum space, one can evaluate the correlation function by using $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ for $`𝐊`$ in the numerator of above equation.

First, the size of the emission source can be extracted from the emission function via the curvature of the correlation function at $`𝐐=0`$:

$$R_{ij}^2(K)=D_{x_i,x_j}(K)D_{x_i,\beta _jt}(K)D_{\beta _it,x_j}(K)+D_{\beta _it,\beta _jt}(K).$$
(2)
In the above, $`\beta =𝐊/K_0`$ with $`K_0`$ denotes the average energy of the two kaons; $`x_i(i=13)`$ are spatial coordinates of a kaon at freeze-out; and $`D_{x,y}=xyxy`$ with $`x`$ denoting the average value of $`x`$. In this study we use the usual “out-side-long” ($`\mathrm{𝑜𝑠𝑙}`$) coordinate system .

On the other hand, the measured correlation function $`C_2(𝐐,𝐊)`$ is usually fitted by a Gaussian function in $`𝐐`$, i.e.,

$`C_2(𝐐,𝐊)=1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}R_{ii}^2(K)Q_i^2\right),`$ (3)
We note that, for central heavy-ion collisions, the above fitted radius parameters would be identical to the source radii given by the curvature of the emission function at $`𝐐=0`$ (i.e. Eq. (2)) only when the emission source is Gaussian in space and time.

## 4 AMPT Results at RHIC Energies

### 4.1 Two-kaon correlation function

Using the program Correlation After Burner , we have evaluated the correlation function $`C_2(𝐐,𝐊)`$ of two kaons in their longitudinally comoving frame for central ($`b=0`$ fm) Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV. In Figure 1, we show the invariant correlation function, i.e., the correlation function as a function of $`Q_{\mathrm{inv}}\sqrt{Q^2}`$, and its projections onto one of the $`Q_{\mathrm{out}},Q_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{long}}`$ axes. In evaluating the projected correlation function, the other two $`𝐐`$-components have been integrated over the range $`040`$ MeV/$`c`$. The dash-dotted curves in Figure 1 represent results from the default AMPT model (no string melting), while the other curves are from the extended AMPT model with string melting but using different values for $`\sigma _p`$. It is seen that the one-dimensional kaon correlation functions become narrower as $`\sigma _p`$ is increased in the extended AMPT model. Their dependence on $`\sigma _p`$ seems, however, to be much weaker than that of the pion correlation function .

### 4.2 Source radii versus fitted radius parameters

The source radii for kaons within $`1<y<1`$ and $`200<p_\mathrm{T}<400`$ MeV$`/c`$ are shown in Figure 2 (a). The results are obtained from both the default AMPT model (shown at $`\sigma _p=0`$) and the extended AMPT model with string melting. For the latter, we have used different parton cross sections of $`\sigma _p=3`$, 6, 10, and 15 mb. It is seen that these radii have values between 2 and 5 fm, and they are much smaller than the source radii for low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ pions (between 7 and 25 fm) . The $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio (solid curves without symbols) from the kaon emission function is also shown in Figure 2 (a), and it increases appreciably with increasing parton scattering cross section.

The radius parameters obtained from fitting the three-dimensional correlation function $`C_2(𝐐)`$ by Eq. (3) are shown in Figure 2 (b). We find that they are close (mostly within $`30\%`$) to the source radii determined directly from the emission function. This is contrary to the pion case, where the pion source radii can be more than twice larger than the radius parameters from the Gaussian fit . Note that kaons from $`\varphi `$ meson decays have been included in the evaluation of the correlation function $`C_2(𝐐)`$ but not in the source radii (due to the long lifetime of $`\varphi `$); however, pions from $`\omega `$ decays have been included in the source radii in Ref. . Figure 2 (b) also shows that $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ from fitted radius parameters changes little with parton cross section, in contrast to the significant increase seen in the source radii shown in Figure 2 (a).

Figure 3 (a) shows the extended AMPT results with $`\sigma _p=10`$ mb for kaon source radii as functions of $`m_\mathrm{T}`$ in the six $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-bins, $`020040060080010001500`$ GeV$`/c`$, for Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV. We see that for all $`m_\mathrm{T}`$ the source radii (solid) are close to the corresponding fitted radius parameters (filled squares). We note that, before making quantitative predictions on kaon correlations, abundances of strange resonances such as $`K^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ need to be checked, and the effects of other resonances not yet included in the AMPT model also need to be investigated.

### 4.3 $`xt`$ correlation and the $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ ratio

Figure 3 (b) and (c) show the $`x_{\mathrm{out}}x_{\mathrm{side}}`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{out}}t`$ distributions at freeze-out for $`K_S^0`$ with $`200<p_\mathrm{T}<400`$ MeV$`/c`$ and $`1<y<1`$. The kaon emission source shows a positive shift in $`x_{\mathrm{out}}`$ as in the pion case , consistent with a strong transverse flow. The emission source also appears to be highly non-Gaussian, which leads to different values of radius parameters extracted from the two methods in Section 3 . The solid curve with open diamonds in Figure 3 (c) gives the average value $`x_{\mathrm{out}}`$ as a function of freeze-out time $`t`$. The kaon emission source is seen to have a strong positive $`x_{\mathrm{out}}t`$ correlation as in the pion emission source .

Since $`R_{\mathrm{side}}^2=D_{x_{\mathrm{side}},x_{\mathrm{side}}}`$, but

$$R_{\mathrm{out}}^2=D_{x_{\mathrm{out}},x_{\mathrm{out}}}2D_{x_{\mathrm{out}},\beta _{}t}+D_{\beta _{}t,\beta _{}t},$$
(4)
the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ contains information about the duration of emission (in the last term) and has been studied extensively . We note, however, that a direct relation between $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and the emission duration exists only if the $`x_{\mathrm{out}}t`$ correlation term $`D_{x_{\mathrm{out}},\beta _{}t}`$ is small, which is not the case according to our results from the extended AMPT. E.g, the above equation for the kaons is numerically written as $`3.4^2352\times 22+20`$ in units of fm2. The $`x_{\mathrm{out}}t`$ correlation term $`D_{x_{\mathrm{out}},\beta _{}t}`$ is thus positive ($`+22`$ fm2) and comparable to the magnitude of $`D_{\beta _{}t,\beta _{}t}`$ ($`20`$ fm2), making it difficult to extract information about the duration of emission from $`R_{\mathrm{out}}/R_{\mathrm{side}}`$. The situation is similar for the pion emission source, e.g., for mid-rapidity pions with $`125<p_\mathrm{T}<225`$ MeV$`/c`$, numerically the corresponding Eq. (4) is $`17^21852\times 168+431`$ in units of fm2.

### 4.4 Energy dependence

Figure 4 shows the correlation functions for both neutral and charged kaons within $`1<y<1`$ and $`200<p_\mathrm{T}<400`$ MeV$`/c`$ from AMPT model with string melting and $`\sigma _p=10`$ mb for $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ and $`200A`$ GeV. The effect due to Coulomb interactions is included for $`K^+`$ correlation functions using the program Correlation After Burner . The kaon correlation functions are found to change only slightly from $`130A`$ to $`200A`$ GeV at RHIC.

## Acknowledgments

We appreciate stimulating discussions with H. Huang, M. Murray, S. Pratt and N. Xu. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-01ER41190 (Z.W.L.) and by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-0098805 as well as the Welch Foundation under Grant No. A-1358 (C.M.K.)

## References


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0305225 DFPD/02/TH/36 SISSA 23/2003/EP

Branched Matrix Models and the Scales of Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

Marco Matone1 and Luca Mazzucato2

1Dipartimento di Fisica “G. Galilei”, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,

Università di Padova, Via Marzolo, 8 – 35131 Padova, Italy

2International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste, Italy

In the framework of the matrix model/gauge theory correspondence, we consider supersymmetric $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with $`U(1)^N`$ symmetry breaking pattern. Due to the presence of the Veneziano–Yankielowicz effective superpotential, in order to satisfy the $`F`$–term condition $`_iS_i=0`$, we are forced to introduce additional terms in the free energy of the corresponding matrix model with respect to the usual formulation. This leads to a matrix model formulation with a cubic potential which is free of parameters and displays a branched structure. In this way we naturally solve the usual problem of the identification between dimensionful and dimensionless quantities. Furthermore, we need not introduce the $`𝒩=1`$ scale by hand in the matrix model. These facts are related to remarkable coincidences which arise at the critical point and lead to a branched bare coupling constant. The latter plays the role of the $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ scales tuning parameter. We then show that a suitable rescaling leads to the correct identification of the $`𝒩=2`$ variables. Finally, by means of the mentioned coincidences, we provide a direct expression for the $`𝒩=2`$ prepotential, including the gravitational corrections, in terms of the free energy. This suggests that the matrix model provides a triangulation of the istanton moduli space.

May 2003

1. Introduction

During the last year, our understanding of the nonperturbative dynamics of four–dimensional supersymmetric gauge theory has achieved a dramatic advance. Motivated by insights from the geometric engineering perspective , in a series of papers  Dijkgraaf and Vafa have proposed that some exact holomorphic quantities of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories are captured by an auxiliary matrix model. In particular, under the assumption that the low energy $`F`$–term physics is described by a glueball superfield, they proposed that the $`𝒩=1`$ effective superpotential is completely obtained by evaluating the genus zero free energy of the related matrix model. This conjecture has been proved by two different techniques, first by showing that the relevant superspace diagrams reduce to a zero dimensional theory  and then by showing that the generalized Konishi anomaly equations in the chiral ring of the gauge theory are equivalent to the loop equations of the related matrix model . Very recently, an apparent discrepancy has been found between the standard field theory computation and the matrix model result, both in the perturbative approach  and from the Konishi anomaly point of view . The solution of this puzzle has been proposed in  by investigating the ambiguity in the UV completion of the supersymmetric gauge theories.

A strong check of the DV conjecture can be performed in the cases where the gauge theory exact quantities are already available, e.g. by testing the well known $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, namely Seiberg–Witten theory . A recent step in this direction  concerns the exploration of the way in which the well known duality structure of the SW theory appears inside the matrix model itself (see also ). The usual matrix model formulation of the SW theory  poses a number of questions. Let us briefly discuss the main issues.

The first concerns the extremization of the superpotential. The matrix model conjecture for the SW theory with $`U(N)`$ gauge group requires the soft breaking of $`𝒩=2`$ to $`𝒩=1`$ by adding a tree level superpotential. Now, due to the usual structure of the Veneziano–Yankielovicz effective superpotential , namely the appearance of the log terms, the $`F`$–term condition for the glueball superfields $`S_i`$, strictly speaking, cannot give the expected extremum condition $`_{i=1}^NS_i=0`$.

A second crucial point is related to the fact that the most basic feature of the SW gauge theory, namely the duality structure, is not displayed in its matrix model counterpart. As explained in , the first step in investigating such deep aspect is to consider the scaling properties of the matrix model free energy. In particular, it was shown that the natural variable in order to display the SW duality is a rescaled version of the glueball superfield. Therefore, the question arise whether there exists a formulation of the conjecture that by itself provides this additional structure.

Another important issue is related to the introduction of dimensionful quantities in the matrix model. On one hand, in the usual formulation one introduces by hand a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ directly in the free energy of the matrix model, relying on a gauge theory expectation. The presence of such a dimensionful object in the matrix model provides in turn serious troubles in analyzing the monodromy properties of the free energy. Moreover, the identification of the $`u`$-modulus of the SW theory and of the dynamically generated scale of the gauge theory is performed at the critical point by comparing it to the known SW curve. In this respect, one might ask if any information about the scales and the modulus of the gauge theory is present even outside the critical point. Finally, in the usual approach one identifies the dimensionless ’t Hooft couplings of the matrix model with the dimensionful gauge theory glueball superfields. This identification then leads to some problems in the interpretation of the extremum condition, namely introducing the concept of “eigenvalue holes” corresponding to the unstable extrema of the matrix model potential. Actually, all the issues considered so far will turn out to be tightly related one to each other.

In this paper we will present a first investigation of this fact, mainly stating the most interesting results. The details of the calculations and crucial generalizations will be given in . In Section 2, by addressing the problem of the minimization of the superpotential, we will show that

$$_0(S_2,S_1)_0(S_1,S_2).$$

Requiring that this symmetry exactly holds, one should modify the free energy by adding some bilinear terms such that the new free energy

$$_0^{(k)}=_0+\delta _0^{(k)},$$

displays different branches that depend on the odd number $`2k+1`$. In this way we obtain

$$_0^{(k)}(e^{i\kappa }S_2,e^{i\kappa }S_1)=_0^{(k)}(S_1,S_2),$$

where $`\kappa (2k+1)\pi `$. Then we will show that, in order to compare the matrix model quantities with the well known SW exact results, we have to perform a rescaling transformation on the matrix model variables . In Section 3 we show that the proposed free energy is given by the matrix model with potential

$$W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{1}{3}e^{\frac{3i}{4}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }^3\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{12}\right),$$

where, with respect to the usual formulation, the couplings disappear. A crucial term in the evaluation of the matrix model is the gaussian contribution which, due to the phases, will be given by

$$e^{\frac{i}{4}\kappa (M_1^2M_2^2)}.$$

This will also solve the questions related to the identification of dimensionful quantities. We then show that, in order to reproduce the expected extremum condition, the correct gauge theory bare coupling is

$$\tau _0\tau _0^{(k)}=\frac{2}{\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\frac{\kappa }{2\pi },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ are the dynamically generated scale of the $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories, respectively. This clearly shows the role of the bare coupling as the $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ scales tuning parameter. Moreover, the nonperturbative relation found in  implies that at the critical point

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2=4u,$$

where $`u`$ is the SW modulus. Finally, it turns out that the free energy directly evaluated at the critical point is equal, up to a numerical factor, to the one obtained by integrating twice the effective coupling constant evaluated at the extremum. In other words, we find that

$$e^{\widehat{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^6}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(M_1))\times \mathrm{Vol}(U(M_2))}𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }_1𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }_2e^{W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)}|_{M_1=e^{i\kappa }M_2𝒮/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3}.$$

This in turn provides a direct matrix model formulation for the $`𝒩=2`$ instantons, including the gravitational corrections, and shows that the matrix model provides a kind of triangulation of the instanton moduli space.

2. Branches from the Symmetry of the Free Energy

In this section we start investigating the structure of the planar contribution to the free energy $`_0`$ of the matrix model. Since the matrix model formulation reproducing the CIV prepotential  has the advantage of a direct test with the established results of SW theory, we focus on this case. Nevertheless, many of the results we will find have a more general validity as they concern the matrix model formulation by itself rather than the specific SW realization.

Let us then start with the free energy derived in . The strategy will be to analyze its structure in relation with the exact $`𝒩=2`$ results it should reproduce at the extremum. In the analysis we will use the relationship between the $`𝒩=2`$ $`u`$–modulus and the prepotential for the gaugino condensate derived in . This investigation will lead to introduce additional terms to $`_0`$ that will help us in deriving the matrix model formulation.

2.1. Stating the problem

In our explicit computation we will consider the case of a $`U(2)`$ gauge group spontaneously broken to $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ with a cubic tree level superpotential. In this simple case we have two superfields $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, that will describe the effective Abelian dynamics. Let us consider the matrix model and write down the expression of the free energy

$$_0(S_i)=\underset{j=1,2}{}\frac{S_j^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{S_j}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}(S_1+S_2)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{\Delta }^6\underset{n3}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_{n,j}\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)^{nj}\left(\frac{S_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)^j.$$

It turns out that the coefficients of the expansion satisfy the property

$$c_{n,j}=(1)^nc_{n,nj},c_{n,j}=(1)^j|c_{n,j}|.$$

Eq.(2.1) has been derived in  by the matrix model formulation, except for the term depending on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that should be added by hand, as expected from the gauge theory. This expression for $`_0`$ differs by the relative sign between the infinite sum and the first two contributions with respect to  (as we will see, this fits with the implied expressions for the $`𝒩=2`$ modulus $`u`$ and the effective coupling constant $`\tau `$). Note that besides the second term, also the third one, as follows by $`c_{n,j}=(1)^nc_{n,nj}`$, is symmetric under the transformation $`S_1S_2`$, $`S_2S_1`$. However, due to the log term, we have

$$_0(S_2,S_1)_0(S_1,S_2).$$

On the other hand, to get the value $`S_1=S_2S`$ at the extremum we need the exact symmetry. The extremum corresponds to the minimum of $`W_{eff}`$, which is usually evaluated by setting the bare coupling constant $`\tau _0`$ to zero. This gives

$$\underset{i}{}\tau _{ij}=0,j=1,2,$$

where $`\tau _{ij}=\frac{^2_0}{S_iS_j}`$, that is $`\tau _{11}=\tau _{22}=\tau _{12}`$. On the other hand, setting $`S_1=S_2`$, in $`\tau _{ij}`$, gives

$$\tau _{11}\tau _{22}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)=(2k+1)\pi i,$$

$`k𝐙`$, so that $`\tau _{11}\tau _{22}`$ does not vanish. Therefore, the symmetry of $`_0`$ under $`S_1S_2`$, $`S_2S_1`$ should be exact in order to get the critical value $`S_2=S_1`$. This suggests modifying $`_0`$ in such a way that the following two crucial features hold:

(1) The critical value for $`S`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which follows from the condition $`\tau _{12}+\tau _{11}=0`$ evaluated at the extremum, be unchanged and fit with the exact result \[17,,13\].

(2) The effective gauge coupling constant $`\tau _{11}`$ evaluated at the critical point reproduces the well known SW exact result .

It turns out that if one chooses a vanishing bare coupling constant, then there is a modification to the free energy satisfying the above conditions, except for an apparently irrelevant term. The additional term reads

$$\delta _0^{(k)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}{12}(S_1S_2)\frac{i}{4}\kappa (S_1^2S_2^2)+\frac{i}{2}\kappa S_1S_2\frac{3}{4}(S_1^2+S_2^2),$$

where

$$\kappa (2k+1)\pi ,k𝐙,$$

so that the modified free energy $`_0^{(k)}_0+\delta _0^{(k)}`$ displays the requested symmetry

$$_0^{(k)}(e^{i\kappa }S_2,e^{i\kappa }S_1)=_0^{(k)}(S_1,S_2).$$

In the following, after discussing the crucial scaling properties of the free energy, we will check that the addition of (2.1) to the free energy reproduces the requested features at the extremum (see also ). However, we will see that it remains a “minor discrepancies”. Removing it will lead to the exact formulation with a unequivocally fixed bare coupling constant.

2.2. Rescaling the free energy

In  it has been shown that the free energy satisfies a scaling property which selects the natural variables to make duality transparent. In this respect, we note that the duality one obtains in $`𝒩=1`$ is the one induced, by consistency, by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy of $`𝒩=2`$. The scaling property of the free energy is obtained by first rescaling $`S_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$S_i𝒮_i=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_i,\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$

and then performing the map

$$_0^{(k)}(S_i,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })_0^{(k)}(𝒮_i,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=\mu ^6_0^{(k)}(S_i,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

where $`\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Note that since the comparison with the SW curve gives  $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=4u`$, we thus have $`\mu =(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/4u)^{1/2}`$. We observe that whereas in the original free energy the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ appears in pair with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, in the rescaled free energy we have that $`\mu `$ is “decoupled” from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. More precisely, $`_0^{(k)}`$ has the structure

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^6_0^{(k)}(𝒮_i,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=^{(k)}(\frac{𝒮_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3},\frac{𝒮_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})\left(\frac{𝒮_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}+\frac{𝒮_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\mu .$$

Let us show that the dependence of $`S`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ still follows after modifying the free energy as in (2.1). The extremum condition (2.1) holds unchanged also for the rescaled variables, in particular $`𝒮𝒮_1=e^{i\kappa }𝒮_2`$. Set $`\tau ^{(k)}=\frac{^2_0^{(k)}}{S_iS_j}`$. From the condition $`\tau _{11}^{(k)}+\tau _{12}^{(k)}=0`$ we get the expansion of $`\mu `$

$$\mu ^4=\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{n3}{}b_n\left(\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^{n2}\right],$$

where

$$b_n=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}|c_{n,j}|(nj)(n2j1).$$

We shall see that this expansion leads to a set of relations that constrain the coefficients of the free energy. Inverting (2.1) as a series for $`𝒮/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ in powers of $`\mu ^4`$, one obtains

$$𝒮=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(\mu ^4+6\mu ^8+140\mu ^{12}+4620\mu ^{16}+\mathrm{}),$$

that expressed in terms of $`S`$ coincides with the series given in .

2.3. An unwanted term

The asymptotic expansion for $`\tau ^{(k)}\tau _{11}^{(k)}`$ reads1 In the following expressions we have rescaled $`\tau ^{(k)}`$ by $`1/\pi i`$.

$$\tau ^{(k)}=\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}+\frac{1}{4\pi i}\underset{n3}{}n(n1)a_n\left(\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^{n2},$$

where $`a_n=_{j=0}^n|c_{n,j}|`$. As a check of the formulation outlined so far, we would like to compare the result of the matrix model computation (2.1) to the known expression of the SW effective coupling constant $`\tau `$.

In order to do this we have to plug the expansion (2.1) into (2.1). Since $`\mu ^4(u)=2^6(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2/u)^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, by using the asymptotic expansion of $`u(a)`$ in  we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau ^{(k)}=& \frac{\kappa }{2\pi }+\tau _{SW},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the well known expression for the SW gauge coupling  reads, after setting $`\widehat{a}=a/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}`$,

$$\tau _{SW}=\frac{2i}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}2+\frac{2i}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\widehat{a}+\frac{3}{4\pi i}\widehat{a}^4+\frac{105}{2^7\pi i}\widehat{a}^8+\frac{165}{2^7\pi i}\widehat{a}^{12}+\mathrm{}$$

Notice that the term $`\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }𝒮^2`$ in the onshell rescaled free energy, which generates the discrepancy (2.1), cannot be reabsorbed by changing the phase of $`𝒮`$. Actually, the only phase that leaves the perturbative series of the onshell free energy $`_{n3}a_n(𝒮/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)^n`$ invariant is $`e^{2l\pi i}`$, $`l𝐙`$. On the other hand, we have

$$_0^{(k)}(e^{2l\pi i}𝒮)=_0^{(kl)}(𝒮),$$

so that a term $`𝒮^2`$ multiplied by a half odd number would survive. The fact that $`\tau ^{(k)}`$ does not exactly coincide with the SW effective coupling constant is a crucial question. Understanding and removing this discrepancy is a key step in our investigation.

2.4. Coincidences at the extremum

By evaluating the relevant quantities at the extremum, some interesting coincidences arise. The first step is a remark that, although obvious, needs to be stressed. This concerns how the prepotential is evaluated at the extremum. As we said, one first evaluates2 In this subsection we omit the superscript $`k`$ labelling the branches. $`\tau `$ at the extremum, then integrates it twice with respect to $`𝒮`$ (with care on the integration constants). Of course, this should be different from the function one obtains by directly evaluating it, that is $`_0(𝒮_i,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with $`𝒮_i`$ and $`\mu ^4`$ replaced by their expressions at the extremum. We denote this function as

$$\widehat{}_0(𝒮)_0|_{𝒮,\mu }$$

where here and in the following we use the notation

$$f|_𝒮f|_{𝒮𝒮_1=e^{i\kappa }𝒮_2},f|_{𝒮,\mu }f|_{𝒮𝒮_1=e^{i\kappa }𝒮_2,\mu =\mu (𝒮).}$$

Remarkably, it turns out that directly evaluating $`_0`$ at the extremum one gets

$$\widehat{}_0(𝒮)=4_0(𝒮).$$

Let us set $`\widehat{𝒮}_D^i(𝒮)\frac{_0}{𝒮_i}|_{𝒮,\mu }`$. We have

$$\widehat{𝒮}_D^2(𝒮)=\widehat{𝒮}_D^1(𝒮)=2𝒮_D(𝒮)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{}_0}{𝒮},$$

where $`𝒮_D(𝒮)=\frac{_0(𝒮)}{𝒮}`$. Since $`\mu `$ appears in $`_0`$ only through the term $`(𝒮_1+𝒮_2)^2\mathrm{ln}\mu `$, it follows that in evaluating $`\widehat{}_0`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_D^i`$ we do not need the value of $`\mu `$ at the extremum (given in Eq.(2.1)). In other words, just setting $`𝒮𝒮_1=e^{i\kappa }𝒮_2`$, we obtain both $`\widehat{}_0`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_D^i`$. In order to evaluate $`_0`$ directly at the extremum we need only this “trivial part” of the condition coming from the extremum. In particular, we have

$$\tau =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{𝒮}_D}{𝒮}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{^2\widehat{}_0}{𝒮^2}.$$

Consider now the following nonperturbative relation

$$\mu ^4=\frac{32^4\pi i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\left(_0^{(k)}\frac{𝒮}{2}\frac{_0^{(k)}}{𝒮}\right),$$

which is the analogue of the $`U(1)_R`$ anomaly equation derived in SW theory . A first interesting consequence of the above coincidences is that this relation between $`\mu `$ and the prepotential also holds, except for a factor $`4`$, if one first computes the Legendre transform of $`_0`$ with respect to $`𝒮_i^2`$, and then evaluates it at the extremum. Since, as we said, the critical values are independent of the value of $`\mu `$ at the extremum, by (2.1) and (2.1) we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}{6\pi i}\mu ^4=(2_0𝒮_j_{𝒮_j}_0)|_𝒮=8_04𝒮_𝒮_0=2\widehat{}_0\widehat{𝒮}_j\widehat{𝒮}_D^j=2\widehat{}_0\widehat{𝒮}_𝒮\widehat{}_0,$$

where $`\widehat{𝒮}_1𝒮`$, $`\widehat{𝒮}_2𝒮`$. Among the various versions (2.1) of the relation (2.1), there is only one which can be satisfied by the unrescaled $`_0(S_i)`$, i.e.

$$u=\frac{3\pi i}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}\left(2_0(S_i)S_j_{S_j}_0(S_i)\right)|_{S,\mu },$$

where $`\mu =(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/4u)^{1/2}`$. This is the version of the relation found in  in the form derived by Dymarsky and Pestun  (see also ). In this respect we note that while the relation between $`\mu `$ and $`_0(𝒮_i,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })`$ holds in the versions given in (2.1), this is not the case for $`_0(S_i,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ that satisfies the relation only in the case in which the extremum is considered after the Legendre transform with respect to $`S_i^2`$ has been evaluated, that is Eq.(2.1).

The detailed analysis of these coincidences will be presented elsewhere . The origin of the observed coincidences relies on two crucial facts, namely the symmetry (2.1) of the free energy and the remarkable structure (2.1), that emerges after the rescaling. Moreover, due to the latter structure, one can easily prove that the gauge coupling is not affected by replacing the term $`\mathrm{ln}\mu `$ by a generic function $`f(\mu )`$, including $`f0`$ (in this case $`\tau _{ij}=_{ij}`$).

2.5. Recursion relations

The relation between the $`𝒩=2`$ $`u`$–modulus and the prepotential, in the context of the SW theory, leads to the proof of the SW conjecture . The analogous relation in the matrix model is given by (2.1). Since this has a nonperturbative nature, it can then be argued that this relation puts strong constraints on the structure of the matrix model formulation itself. Remarkably, this is indeed the case as by (2.1) and (2.1) we get

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{n3}{}b_n\left(\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^{n2}\right]=16\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}+6\underset{n3}{}(2n)a_n\left(\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^{n1},$$

which provides infinitely many conditions on the coefficients $`c_{n,i}`$ of the $`𝒩=1`$ free energy. Even if apparently these conditions do not unequivocally fix the $`c_{n,i}`$ it is plausible that there exists a simple argument leading to fix them completely. In particular,

$$b_{n+3}\frac{6n}{n+1}b_{n+2}+6na_{n+2}\frac{6}{n+1}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n2}{}}(j+1)(nj1)a_{nj+1}b_{j+3}=0.$$

which has been explicitly checked up to $`n=7`$ .

3. Branching the Matrix Model

At this stage it is useful to summarize some questions one meets in the matrix model formulation of supersymmetric gauge theories. Even if we are considering the specific case of the CIV free energy , the issues we are dealing with extend to more general cases.

The first problem concerns the gauge coupling constant. A starting point of our investigation was (2.1) showing that $`S_1=S_2`$ is not a solution. On the other hand, this is related to the lack of symmetry of the original free energy (2.1) under $`S_1S_2`$, $`S_2S_1`$. We then saw that this symmetry, and therefore the solution $`S_1=e^{i\kappa }S_2`$, can be restored by including additional terms to the free energy (2.1) depending on the odd number $`\frac{\kappa }{\pi }=2k+1`$ which specifies the symmetry, namely

$$S_1e^{i\kappa }S_2,S_2e^{i\kappa }S_1.$$

In this way one obtains the correct critical values for $`\mu `$, $`_0^{(k)}`$ and therefore $`\tau ^{(k)}`$. However, as we said, in comparing $`\tau ^{(k)}`$ with the SW effective coupling constant, one sees that they coincide up to the term $`\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }`$. This is not a minor question. First of all note that the exact expression of $`\tau `$ is necessary to get the correct monodromy. In general, rescaling or adding a constant to a function breaks its Möbius polymorphicity, in our case

$$\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }=\frac{A\tau +B}{C\tau +D},$$

where the constants are the entries of the matrices in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$. The only possibility to add a constant by preserving the monodromy properties of $`\tau `$ is that such a constant corresponds to a translation in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$. On the other hand, $`\tau ^{(k)}`$ in (2.1) differs from the SW effective coupling constant $`\tau `$ by the constant $`\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }`$, that is

$$\tau ^{(k)}=\tau \frac{\kappa }{2\pi },$$

and since the difference $`\tau ^{(k)}\tau `$ is a non integer number, (3.1) cannot correspond to a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy of $`\tau `$.

Another open question is related to the fact this formulation of the conjecture provides an expression for $`_0^{(k)}(S_j,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ while, in order to display the duality structure, we are forced to consider its rescaled version $`_0^{(k)}(𝒮_j,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=\mu ^6_0^{(k)}(S_j,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, as observed in . The properties of $`_0^{(k)}(𝒮_j,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })`$ indicate that this rescaling actually hides a property of the matrix model formulation which is still to be understood.

The last question concerns the nature of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is related to the scaling properties of the free energy. In the usual formulation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is to be identified with $`2\sqrt{u}`$ by comparing the matrix model curve at the extremum with the SW curve. But one should be led to investigate the meaning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ even outside the critical point. On the other hand, in passing to the effective superpotential of the gauge theory we would like to consider the $`𝒩=1`$ dinamically generated scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Related to these questions is the unpleasant feature that, in order to derive the free energy, one is forced to identify dimensionless quantities with dimensionful ones.

The above list concerns the main, strictly connected, questions related to the matrix model formulation of supersymmetric gauge theories. The problem is to understand whether there exists an exact matrix model formulation free of the above problems. In the following we will see that in fact there exists such a formulation and that, while possessing some of the relevant features of the original formulation, it leads to a natural explanation based on the two different dynamically generated scales of the $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ theories.

3.1. Branches in the matrix model

Let us consider as our starting point the matrix model with cubic potential . We now show that a suitable modification of that model actually leads to a formulation free of the problems outlined in the previous section. In order to find the matrix model potential we first note that we should introduce, in the usual cubic potential, the branches we labelled by the integer $`k`$

$$W^{(k)}=\mathrm{Tr}(m^{(k)}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+g^{(k)}\mathrm{\Phi }^3),k𝐙.$$

To specify the meaning of the index in the matrix potential we try to eliminate some of the dimensional problems one has from the very beginning in the formulation. First, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are dimensionless quantities, in order to be consistent one should require that $`m^{(k)}`$ and $`g^{(k)}`$ be dimensionless quantities.

Eliminating dimensionful quantities from the potential leads us to consider the following dimensionless branched matrix model potential

$$W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{1}{3}e^{\frac{3i}{4}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }^3\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{12}\right),$$

$`\kappa (2k+1)\pi ,k𝐙`$, where we added an integration constant for future purpose. With respect to the previous formulation this potential does not contain any parameter. Even if surprising, we will show that this will reproduce the exact $`𝒩=2`$ results and will be free of the problems outlined so far. Note that the $`\kappa `$–dependence can be completely absorbed in the matrix redefinition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_k=e^{\frac{i}{4}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ so that

$$W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^2+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^3\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{12}\right),$$

in other words

$$W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi })=W^{(0)}(\mathrm{\Psi }_k).$$

We consider the two cut solution in which $`M_1`$ eigenvalues fluctuate around to the critical point $`a_1=0`$ and $`M_2=MM_1`$ eigenvalues fluctuate around the other critical point $`a_2=e^{\frac{i}{4}\kappa }`$. As usual, one passes to the eigenvalue representation getting as Jacobian the square of the Vandermonde determinant. In terms of the fluctuations around the two vacua

$$\lambda _i=a_1+\nu _{1i},i=1,\mathrm{},M_1,\lambda _i=a_2+\nu _{2i},i=M_1+1,\mathrm{},M,$$

we can exponentiate the Vandermonde determinant and obtain the matrix model around this vacuum

$$Z^{(k)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(M_1))\times \mathrm{Vol}(U(M_2))}D\mathrm{\Phi }_1D\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{e}^{W_1^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)W_2^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)W_I^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)},$$

where

$$W_1^{(k)}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+\frac{1}{3}e^{\frac{3i}{4}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_1^3\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{12}\right),$$

$$W_2^{(k)}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\frac{1}{3}e^{\frac{3i}{4}\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_2^3\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{12}\right).$$

Note that the constant term $`\mathrm{𝟏}/12`$ in (3.1) is the one which leads to a constant contribution to $`W_1^{(k)}+W_2^{(k)}`$ that vanishes when $`M_1=M_2`$. The interaction term $`W_I^{(k)}`$ is obtained by expanding the log when exponentiating the Vandermonde determinant. While referring to  for the details about the evaluation of this matrix model, here we just comment on the quadratic contribution. This is important as it shows that whereas, as in the previous approaches, the propagator has the “wrong” sign, this is precisely what we need. While this is usually seen as a problem of the formulation and so its effect is essentially ignored, we see that the minus sign leads to the correct expression for the free energy. If $`m`$ denotes the coefficient of the quadratic contribution, then it is usually assumed that this leads to $`m^{\frac{1}{2}(M_1^2+M_2^2)}`$. However, in our case $`m=e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }`$ and the minus sign for the quadratic contribution to the second matrix potential corresponds to a minus sign of the exponent

$$e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }=e^{\frac{i}{2}\kappa }.$$

It follows that the quadratic terms give the following contribution to $`Z^{(k)}`$

$$e^{\frac{i}{4}\kappa (M_1^2M_2^2)},$$

which is exactly what we need for reproducing the second term in (2.1). So, we see that the minus sign turns out to be correct in the matrix model formulation. Finally, the planar contribution to the free energy reads

$$F_0^{(k)}(M_j)=\frac{1}{12}(M_1M_2)+\underset{i=1,2}{}\frac{M_i^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}M_i\frac{i}{4}\kappa (M_1^2M_2^2)$$

$$\frac{i}{2}\kappa M_1M_2\frac{3}{4}(M_1^2+M_2^2)+\underset{n3}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_{n,j}M_1^{nj}M_2^j.$$

3.2. The gauge theory coupling

The above results would suggest identifying $`M_i`$ with $`S_i/\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$. However, in this case the new expression (3.1), besides a global rescaling, displays two basic differences with respect to the old free energy (2.1).

First of all we note the absence of the term

$$(S_1+S_2)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right).$$

This term is problematic because, on the one hand, there is no reason for the appearence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the matrix model free energy; as we already pointed out, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence is usually added by hand from a gauge theory guess. On the other hand, we have seen that this term plays a basic role in evaluating the extremum of the effective superpotential.

The second difference is that whereas in $`_0^{(k)}=_0+\delta _0^{(k)}`$, as in (2.1), we have the term

$$\frac{i}{2}\kappa S_1S_2,$$

the analogous contribution in (3.1), that is $`\frac{i}{2}\kappa M_1M_2`$, has opposite sign. Fortunately, we saw that directly evaluating the rescaled free energy $`_0^{(k)}(𝒮_1,𝒮_2)`$ at $`𝒮_1=e^{i\kappa }𝒮_2`$, reproduces the SW prepotential except for the term $`(2k+1)𝒮^2`$. It is precisely because of this change of sign of the term (3.1) in (3.1), that this unwanted additional term is now missing, so that the first condition coming from the extremum, i.e. $`\tau _{11}^{(k)}=\tau _{22}^{(k)}`$, by itself reproduces the correct SW coupling as in (2.1). But we should now take into account both the change of sign of (3.1) and simultaneously get the exact expression for $`\mu `$. Nevertheless, requiring that the second condition be consistent with the first one, leads to a new view on the structure of the bare coupling constant $`\tau _0`$! The idea is quite natural. Namely, note that in evaluating the extremum (2.1) we have forgotten the bare coupling constant by simply putting it to zero. But we can just use a nonzero value of $`\tau _0`$ to get the correct critical values. More precisely, we set

$$\tau _0\tau _0^{(k)}=\frac{2}{\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }.$$

Before identifying the two scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, we make a couple of comments on this proposal. A first interesting consequence of (3.1) is that

$$\tau _0^{(j)}\tau _0^{(k)}=kj,$$

that will be discussed in . The second observation is that, as we will see, the term $`\frac{2}{\pi i}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ inside $`\tau _0^{(k)}`$ compensates the fact that (3.1) is now missing, as it should, since it cannot derive from the matrix model, from the new free energy (3.1). Furthermore, the role of the term $`\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }`$ in $`\tau _0^{(k)}`$ is that of compensating the change of sign of the term (3.1) in (3.1), a request coming from the need of obtaining the correct expression for $`\mu `$ as given in (2.1).

Let us now identify the scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. The meaning of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is obvious, as it plays the role of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ appearing in the expression of the $`𝒩=2`$ effective coupling, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_22^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}`$. Since in this new approach the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameter simply disappeared, the natural choice for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is just the $`𝒩=1`$ dynamically generated scale, as it should appear in the expression of the effective potential. Therefore, we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1},\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=2}.$$

3.3. The prescription

We now consider the link between the matrix model and the gauge theory. The prescription is to make the following dimensionless identification in (3.1)

$$M_1=\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3},M_2=\frac{S_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3},$$

with the free energy given by

$$_0^{(k)}(S_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^6F_0^{(k)}\left(\frac{S_i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right),$$

that is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0^{(k)}(S_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)=& \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}{12}(S_1S_2)+\underset{j=1,2}{}\frac{S_j^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{S_j}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)\frac{i}{4}\kappa (S_1^2S_2^2)\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{i}{2}\kappa S_1S_2\frac{3}{4}(S_1^2+S_2^2)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^6\underset{n3}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_{n,j}\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)^{nj}\left(\frac{S_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)^j.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that in the present derivation the $`M_i`$ are identified with the dimensionless quantities $`S_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3`$ and there is no need to add by hand any additional scale. Furthermore, we note that one can consistently define the matrix model with $`M_i`$ replaced by $`S_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3`$. After this identification is made, one analytically continues $`S_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3`$ so that the critical case can be consistently considered.

By (3.1) and (3.1) the gauge theory effective superpotential is

$$W_{eff}^{(k)}(S_i)=\underset{j=1,2}{}\left(\frac{_0^{(k)}}{S_j}2\pi i\tau _0^{(k)}S_j\right)=$$

$$\underset{j=1,2}{}S_j\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{S_j}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)14\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\right)\right]+i\kappa S_2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3\underset{n2}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}d_{n,j}\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)^{nj}\left(\frac{S_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)^j,$$

where $`d_{n,j}=c_{n+1,j}(n+1j)+c_{n+1,j+1}(j+1)`$. Observe that

$$W_{eff}^{(k)}(e^{2k_i\pi i}S_i)=W_{eff}^{(k)}(S_i)+\underset{j=1,2}{}2\pi ik_iS_i,$$

where $`k_i𝐙`$, $`i=1,2`$. It follows that the linear contribution to the effective superpotential has the structure $`_{j=1,2}(2\pi ik_j1)S_j+\pi iS_2`$, so that the term $`\pi iS_2`$ plays a special role as it cannot be completely reabsorbed by a phase shift of the $`S_i`$.

Minimizing $`W_{eff}^{(k)}`$ in (3.1) gives the two $`F`$–term conditions

$$SS_1=e^{i\kappa }S_2,$$

and

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\right)^4=\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{n3}{}b_n\left(\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}\right)^{n2}\right].$$

In order to identify the $`𝒩=2`$ effective coupling constant, we should first recognize the relationship between the two scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ at the extremum.

Additional contributions to the Veneziano–Yankielowicz superpotential  have already been considered in literature, for example by Kovner and Shifman . More recently, Cachazo, Seiberg and Witten  first observed that in considering the critical points, which follow from the Veneziano–Yankielowicz superpotential $`W^{VY}`$, one may consider, in the case of $`SU(N)`$, either $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N}/S^N)=0`$ or $`N\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3/S)=0`$, leading to an apparent ambiguity. Then they observed that $`W^{VY}`$ can be defined on each of the $`N`$ possible infinite cover of the $`S`$–plane. In particular, according to their analysis, one should explicitly include additional branches to $`W^{VY}`$. In the case of symmetry breaking pattern $`U(N)_jU(N_j)`$ they obtained

$$W_{eff}(S_i)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(2\pi i\tau _0S_j+N_jS_j\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^3/S_j)+1\right]+2\pi ib_jS_j\right)+𝒪(S_iS_j),$$

where the $`b_j`$ are integers with $`b_1=0`$. It is interesting to observe that the additional contribution $`2\pi i_jb_jS_j`$, representing the relative shifts of theta vacua, is reminiscent of the $`i\kappa S_2`$ term in (3.1). However, note that whereas $`\kappa /\pi `$ is odd, the additional term in (3.1) always depends on the even numbers $`2b_j`$. Furthermore, unlike (3.1), for each $`N_j=1`$, the corresponding term $`2\pi ib_jS_j`$ in (3.1) can be exactly obtained, as it should, by the phase shift $`S_je^{2\pi ib_j}S_j`$ in the argument of $`W_{eff}`$. The reason is that the $`b_j`$’s label the theta vacua of each factor in the broken gauge group, and so they play no role in the Abelian case. Therefore, even if these contributions have a similar structure, they appear of different nature. In particular, whereas the Cachazo, Seiberg and Witten term is based on the general properties of the logarithm, our additional term is a consequence of the request that at the critical point $`S_1+S_2=0`$, as it should in the model we are considering. Nevertheless, in spite of the differences, it is likely that further investigation in this direction may lead to a better understanding of the Veneziano–Yankielowicz superpotential and related issues.

3.4. SW modulus and the scales

Apparently, we do not have any information concerning the identification of the $`u`$ modulus. In previous formulations this was argued by identifying the parameters of the matrix model potential and the SW curve. Here we have a different view which is strictly related, as the structure of the bare coupling constant $`\tau _0^{(k)}`$ indicates, to the RGE. In the previous approaches one identified $`u`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ using the derivation of the matrix potential from the SW curve, leading to some questions outlined in previous sections. In our case, by (3.1) and the nonperturbative relation (2.1), which still holds for the free energy (3.1), we recover again the identity (2.1), as explained in detail in . Therefore, by means of monodromy arguments we can make the identification at the critical point

$$\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3}=\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3}.$$

Furthermore, this implies that the left hand side of (2.1) and that of (3.1) coincide, i.e.

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\right)^4=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{4u}\right)^2,$$

by means of which we recover the relation between the $`u`$–modulus and the $`𝒩=1`$ scale

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2=4u,$$

and (3.1) becomes $`𝒮/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3=S/8u^{3/2}`$. Thus we have found that in the present formulation at the critical point the $`𝒩=1`$ scale coincides with $`2`$ times the square root of the $`u`$–modulus of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory.

We can as well modify the prescription (3.1) by means of (3.1) and make the following identification in (3.1)

$$M_1=\frac{𝒮_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3},M_2=\frac{𝒮_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3},$$

with the free energy given by

$$_0^{(k)}(𝒮_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^6F_0^{(k)}\left(\frac{𝒮_i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3}\right).$$

By evaluating $`_0^{(k)}(𝒮_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ directly at $`𝒮𝒮_1=e^{i\kappa }𝒮_2`$, we see that the $`k`$–dependence completely disappears. In particular, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{4\pi i}_0^{(k)}(𝒮,e^{i\kappa }𝒮,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3}{24\pi i}𝒮\frac{3}{8\pi i}𝒮^2+\frac{1}{4\pi i}𝒮^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^6}{4\pi i}\underset{n3}{}a_n\left(\frac{𝒮}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3}\right)^n,$$

that now precisely corresponds to the SW prepotential as obtained by integrating twice $`\tau `$ with respect to the glueball superfield.

Note that the absence of any parameter in the expression of the free energy allows us to look for its monodromy properties. To understand this aspect, observe that if the term $`(S_1^2+S_2^2)\mathrm{ln}\mu `$ is present in the expression of the free energy, the monodromy would involve $`\mu `$ dependent terms leading to a rather involved analysis.

In the usual formulation the potential depends on some parameters, namely the couplings, whereas in (3.1) they are missing. This is due to the fact that simply we need not double the number of parameters. Actually, once $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`_0`$ are given, we have enough information to get the full SW theory. In particular, the above discussion shows that the $`u`$–modulus arises in terms of $`a`$ through the relation (2.1).

4. Triangulating the Instanton Moduli Space

Results in noncritical strings uncovered a deep connection between algebraic–geometrical structure and Liouville theory. It should be stressed that, on one hand, Liouville theory arises in the description of the moduli space of Riemann surfaces, in particular the Liouville action is the Kähler potential for the Weil–Petterson metrics. On the other hand, Liouville theory is the crucial quantum field theory for noncritical strings. In particular, in  it was shown that there is an analytic formulation for 2D pure quantum gravity which is directly expressed in terms of the Liouville geometry of moduli space of punctured spheres, reproducing the Painlevé I (Liouville $`F`$–models). In that paper it was also argued that the eigenvalues of the matrix model should be seen as punctures on a Riemann sphere, which can be identified with the branch points on the Riemann sphere itself. We note, in passing, that the relation between punctured spheres and hyperellittic Riemann surfaces leads to relations between Weil–Petterson volumes for such surfaces, e.g. $`Vol_{WP}(\overline{}_{1,1})=2Vol_{WP}(\overline{}_{0,4})`$. Furthermore, there is the isomorphism $`\overline{}_{2,0}\overline{}_{0,6}`$. One may expect that these relationships hide more general properties of moduli spaces, which should be strictly related to the Deligne–Knudsen–Mumford compactification. The latter, together with the Wolpert restriction phenomenon, is at the heart of the recursion relations associated to the Painlevé I as derived in . The analogy with the recursion relation for the $`𝒩=2`$ instantons suggested the formulation of instanton numbers in terms of intersection theory . Recalling that 2D quantum gravity also leads to a natural triangulation of moduli space of Riemann surfaces, one might expect that a similar structure arises in instanton theory. Remarkably, we have that the coincidences discussed in Section 2 provide the following direct identification of the $`𝒩=2`$ prepotential

$$e^{\widehat{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^6}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(U(M_1))\times \mathrm{Vol}(U(M_2))}𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }_1𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }_2e^{W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)}|_{M_1=e^{i\kappa }M_2𝒮/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3},$$

where

$$W^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)=W_1^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)+W_2^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)+W_I^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2).$$

This gives a direct way of expressing $`𝒩=2`$ instanton contributions, including the gravitational corrections considered in , in terms of a matrix model. The above remarks then suggest that this formulation should be related to a kind of triangulation of instanton moduli space.

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank L. Alday, D. Bellisai, G. Bertoldi, G. Bonelli, M. Cirafici, R. Dijkgraaf, F. Fucito, E. Gava, H. Ooguri, P. Pasti, G.C. Rossi, M. Serone, D. Sorokin, M. Tonin, G. Travaglini and M. Tsulaia for useful discussions. Work partially supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime.

References

relax F. Cachazo, K. A. Intriligator and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 603, 3 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103067\]. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 641, 3 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205297\]. relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 644, 3 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0206255\]; Nucl. Phys. B 644, 21 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0207106\]; arXiv:hep-th/0208048; \[arXiv:hep-th/0302011\]. relax R. Dijkgraaf, M. T. Grisaru, C. S. Lam, C. Vafa and D. Zanon, \[arXiv:hep-th/0211017\]. relax K. Konishi, Phys. Lett. B 135, 439 (1984). K. i. Konishi and K. i. Shizuya, Nuovo Cim. A 90, 111 (1985). relax F. Cachazo, M. R. Douglas, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 0212, 071 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211170\]. relax F. Cachazo, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 0302, 042 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0301006\]; JHEP 0304, 018 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303207\]. relax E. Witten, arXiv:hep-th/0302194. relax P. Kraus and M. Shigemori, JHEP 0304, 052 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303104\]. relax L. F. Alday and M. Cirafici, arXiv:hep-th/0304119. P. Kraus, A. V. Ryzhov and M. Shigemori, arXiv:hep-th/0304138. relax M. Aganagic, K. Intriligator, C. Vafa and N. P. Warner, arXiv:hep-th/0304271. relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19 (1994) \[Erratum-ibid. B 430, 485 (1994)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9407087\]. relax M. Matone, Nucl. Phys. B 656, 78 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0212253\]. relax L. Chekhov and A. Mironov, Phys. Lett. B 552, 293 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0209085\]. H. Itoyama and A. Morozov, \[arXiv:hep-th/0211245\]; relax S. G. Naculich, H. J. Schnitzer and N. Wyllard, Nucl. Phys. B 651, 106 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211123\]; JHEP 0301, 015 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211254\]. relax A. Dymarsky and V. Pestun, \[arXiv:hep-th/0301135\]. relax R. Dijkgraaf, S. Gukov, V. A. Kazakov and C. Vafa, \[arXiv:hep-th/0210238\]. relax G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Lett. B 113, 231 (1982). relax M. Matone and L. Mazzucato, work in progress. relax M. Matone, Phys. Lett. B 357, 342 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9506102\]; Phys. Rev. D 53, 7354 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9506181\]. relax H. Itoyama and A. Morozov, \[arXiv:hep-th/0301136\]. relax G. Bonelli, M. Matone and M. Tonin, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6466 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9610026\]. relax A. Klemm, M. Marino and S. Theisen, JHEP 0303, 051 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211216\]. relax A. Kovner and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2396 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9702174\]. relax M. Matone, J. Geom. Phys. 21, 381 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9402081\]. relax M. Matone, JHEP 0104, 041 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103246\]; Phys. Lett. 514, 161 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105041\]. relax N. A. Nekrasov, arXiv:hep-th/0206161. relax R. Flume and R. Poghossian, arXiv:hep-th/0208176. relax U. Bruzzo, F. Fucito, J. F. Morales and A. Tanzini, arXiv:hep-th/0211108.


text:
# Visual orbit for the low-mass binary Gliese 22 AC from speckle interferometry Based on observations collected at the German-Spanish Astronomical Centre on Calar Alto, Spain

## 1 Introduction

M dwarfs are the dominant population of the Galaxy as well in numbers as in stellar mass contribution. Furthermore, they mark the transition regime between stars and the now well established classes of substellar objects. Given these important properties, it is problematic that there is only a small number of empirically determined stellar masses at the lower end of the main sequence. In addition, most of these dynamical masses are affected with large uncertainties (e. g. Henry Hen98 (1998)). This means that the mass-luminosity relation for M dwarfs is not well calibrated. Moreover, theoretical evolutionary models for low-mass objects that cover also the substellar regime are not well checked with dynamical masses.
As a contribution to a solution of these problems we are carrying out a program aiming at a determination of visual orbits and thus dynamical masses for M dwarf binaries. Speckle interferometry with array cameras in the near infrared allows highly precise measurements of the relative astrometry in sub-arcsecond binary or triple systems.
This program has already led to orbit determinations for the very low-mass systems Gliese~866 (Woitas et al. Woi00 (2000)) and LHS~1070 BC (Leinert et al. Lei01 (2001)). The companions in these systems appear to have masses close to the stellar/substellar limit at $`M0.075M_{}`$. In this paper we discuss a first visual orbit determination for Gliese~22 AC that was briefly announced in IAU Commission 26 Information Circular 147 (Docobo et al. Doc02 (2002)).
A visual companion to the M2 star Gliese 22 (other designations: HIP 2552, BD +66$^∘$34, ADS 440, V~547~Cas) was first reported by Espin & Milburn (Esp26 (1926)). At the time of this detection the projected separation was 2$`\stackrel{}{.}`$79. The orbital motion of this companion with a period of $`320`$ yr has been monitored since its detection, and most recent orbital elements are given by Lampens & Strigachev (Lam01 (2001)). Alden (Ald47 (1947)) found that the primary component of this pair is itself an astrometric binary. Herafter, we will refer to this close pair as Gliese 22 AC and to the more distant third component as Gliese 22 B. Hershey (Her73 (1973)) presented orbital elements for Gliese 22 AC based on a rich collection of astrometric plates from the Sproul Observatory. This calculation was refined by Heintz (Hei93 (1993)) adding more data points and Söderhjelm (Sod99 (1999)) including the Hipparcos parallax of Gliese 22 into the analysis.The first two resolved visual observations of Gliese 22 AC were reported by McCarthy et al. (Mcc91 (1991)) using near-infrared speckle interferometry. Since the epoch of these first two measurements we regularly observed this pair obtaining 12 more data points, which uniformly cover almost an entire revolution. Based on these data, we present in this paper a visual orbit and a dynamical system mass that are more precise than the previous astrometric solutions. We will describe the techniques of observations and data analysis in Sect. 2 and present the result of the orbit calculation in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 we will discuss implications of the derived dynamical system mass on the mass-luminosity relation and theoretical models for very low-mass objects.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

The database for our visual orbit determination for Gliese 22 AC is given in Table 1. The observations numbered 1 and 2 were taken from McCarthy et al. (Mcc91 (1991)) while the other measurements are published here for the first time. Observations 3 and 4 made use of one-dimensional speckle interferometry. This observing technique and the reduction of these data are described in Leinert & Haas (Lei89 (1989)).
All other data points have been obtained with the near-infrared cameras MAGIC and OMEGA Cass at the 3.5-m telescope on Calar Alto. Both instruments are capable of taking fast sequences of short time exposures ($`t_{\mathrm{exp}}0.1\mathrm{s}`$) and in this way allow speckle interferometry with two-dimensional detector arrays. Typically we have taken 1000 short exposures for Gliese 22 and the nearby PSF calibrator (single star) SAO~11358 in the K band ($`\lambda =2.2\mu \mathrm{m}`$). A detailed overview of the data reduction and analysis has been given by Köhler et al. (Koe00 (2000)). Briefly, we obtain the modulus of the complex visibility by deconvolving the power spectrum of Gliese 22 with that of the PSF calibrator. The phase is recursively reconstructed using the algorithm by Knox & Thompson (KT74 (1974)) and the bispectrum method (Lohmann et al. Loh83 (1983)). As an example we show in Fig. 1 modulus and bispectrum phase obtained from the observation at 3 Nov 2001. In the two-dimensional observations Gliese 22 B is also in the detector array. Therefore, we fit a triple star model to the complex visibility and in this way determine the relative astrometry and the flux ratios of the companions B and C with respect to Gliese 22 A. Pixel scale and detector orientation are derived from astrometric fits to images of the Orion Trapezium cluster core where precise astrometry has been given by McCaughrean & Stauffer (Mcc94 (1994)). These calibration observations are however only available for the observations since 1995 (No. 9 to 14 in Table 1). For the previous observations we have determined pixel scale and detector orientation from visual binary stars that either have well known orbits ($α$ Psc, $ζ$ Aqr) or show no measurable orbital motion within 10 yr (RNO~1~BC). Position angles and projected separations of these binaries were calibrated with the help of the Trapezium cluster in subsequent observing runs. As an example we show our Trapezium-calibrated measurements of $`\alpha `$ Psc in Table 3, together with the prediction of the ephemerides from Scardia (Sca83 (1983)). In this way all our two-dimensional speckle observations were placed into a consistent system of pixel scale and detector orientation.
Position angles, projected separations and flux ratios for the companions C and B are given in Tables 1 and 2. The formal uncertainties of the relative astrometry are typically 5 – 10 milli-arcsec in $`x`$ and $`y`$ for the 2D data. These errors seem to be reasonable since they are in the same order of magnitude as the residuals of the orbital fit (see Table 3).

## 3 Results

To calculate the visual orbit indicated in Fig. 2, we used the method proposed by Docobo (Doc85 (1985)). A weight from 4 to 10 was assigned to the individual measurements (see Table 1) to take into account seeing conditions and the quality of different instruments. The resulting orbital elements and their uncertainties are presented in Table 4 together with the results of the three previous astrometric orbital solutions. Ephemerides for $`\theta `$ and $`\rho `$ until epoch 2015.0 are given in Table 5. The residuals of our data points with respect to our visual orbit and the most recent astrometric orbit by Söderhjelm Sod99 (1999) (Table 6) indicate that our visual orbit represents a significant improvement. This is also evident from Fig. 2 (right panel) where our data points are plotted together with all four orbits. The precision of the orbital elements is rather high, and we expect only minor changes to this orbit. Thus, grade 2 (good orbit) can be assigned to it according to the grading scheme described in the Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars (Hartkopf & Mason Har03 (2003)).
The system mass derived from $`a`$ and $`P`$, using the Hipparcos parallax (98.74 $`\pm `$ 3.37 milli-arcsec) is equal to $`0.592\pm 0.065M_{\mathrm{}}`$. This represents a rather high relative accuracy as the direct dynamical mass sum determination concerned. While a good quality orbit (in particular, $`a`$ and $`P`$ are determined with an accuracy of almost 1%) is obtained, the accuracy of mass determination is still 11%. The latter is a good accuracy itself since the usual values for post-Hipparcos epoch are in the order of $`2025`$% (see Martin et al. Mar98 (1998), Söderhjelm Sod99 (1999)) but it is worth noting that it could be even better.
The principal reason in this (and many other) cases is the low accuracy of the Hipparcos parallax (more than 3%) whose contribution to the mass error is 88% while semimajor axis and period contribution are almost insignificant (5% and 7% respectively). Gliese 22 AC is thus a good example of the overall mass accuracy deterioration due basically to the low relative accuracy of the parallax. Therefore, one must state that the sensibly higher accuracy next generation post-Hipparcos parallaxes are needed to drastically improve the relative accuracy of direct mass determination. Should semimajor axis, period and parallax be each determined with 1% accuracy, a mass determination accuracy of 5% can be achieved which is especially important for the lower end of luminosities in the HR diagram.

## 4 Discussion

We can now compare our dynamical mass with predictions from the present mass-luminosity relations on the lower main sequence as well as from theoretical evolutionary models for low-mass objcts. The absolute (system) K band magnitude for Gliese 22 AC is 6.26 $`\pm `$ 0.12 mag (McCarthy et al. Mcc91 (1991)) The mean flux ratio from all measurements in Table 1 is $`F_C/F_A=0.156\pm 0.005`$. This results in absolute magnitudes for the components:

$`K_A`$ $`=`$ $`6.42\pm 0.12`$
$`K_C`$ $`=`$ $`8.43\pm 0.13`$ (1)
The K band mass-luminosity relation given by Henry & McCarthy (Hen93 (1993), their Eq. 2) translates this into component masses:

$`M_A=0.378_{0.025}^{+0.028}M_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`M_C=0.136_{0.007}^{+0.007}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (2)
The sum of these masses is $`0.514\pm 0.029M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The dynamical system mass of $`0.592\pm 0.065M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is in line with this result only within its $`2\sigma `$ error. McCarthy et al. (Mcc91 (1991)) did a similar calculation and found that the mass sum derived from the infrared magnitude-mass relations of Henry & McCarthy (Hen90 (1990)) and the dynamical mass were remarkably consistent. For the latter they used however the orbit calculation by Hershey (Her73 (1973)) which is worse than our visual orbit (see Fig. 2) and results in a probably too low system mass of $`0.485\pm 0.071M_{}`$. Our result indicates that the the K band mass-luminosity relations by Henry & McCarthy probably underestimate stellar masses for M dwarfs. A similar result can be obtained for the optical mass-luminosity relation given by Henry et al. (Hen99 (1999)). Using resolved photometry taken with the HST Fine Guidance Sensors and updated parallax information (van Altena et al. Alt95 (1995)), these authors derive a system mass of $`0.489\pm 0.041M_{}`$. This is again distinctly lower than our dynamical value.
The components’ K band magnitudes from Eq. 4 can also be used to derive masses from the theoretical evolutionary models for low-mass stars and substellar objects presented by Baraffe et al. (Bar98 (1998), Bar02 (2002)). For this purpose one has to assume an age for Gliese 22. Since this system shows no signs of chromospheric activity (H$`\alpha `$ is in absorption, see Herbst & Miller Her89 (1989)), we adopt a lower age limit of $`10^8\mathrm{yr}`$. As can be seen from Table 7, the system mass derived from the theoretical models is $`0.54M_{\mathrm{}}`$ for all ages above this value. This is again less than the dynamical system mass of $`0.592M_{\mathrm{}}`$, but comparable to this empirical result within the uncertainties. The restriction of this discussion to ages $`10^8\mathrm{yr}`$ causes no bias since lower ages would yield much lower (and thus unrealistic) mass estimates.
Gliese 22 AC is a variable star that shows flare events with amplitudes of 0.6 mag at optical wavelenghts (Pettersen Pet75 (1975)). One may ask how this property influences the previous discussion. Even in the unlikely case that the components’ magnitudes from Table 4 were affected by flares, our conclusions would not be altered. Temporary higher luminosities would lead to higher mass estimates, and thus the masses inferred from the mass-luminosity relation and theoretical evolutionary models would be even lower than our values if derived from observations in the quiescent state of a flare star.

The lower mass component Gl 22 C is apparently a very low-mass star with a mass close to the hydrogen burning mass limit at $`M0.075M_{}`$. Therefore, it would be very interesting to derive its individual dynamical mass from an absolute orbit and compare it to the predictions of theoretical models. It will probably indeed be possible to disentangle the relative orbit for Gliese 22 AC into two absolute orbits for both components using the distant companion Gliese 22 B as astrometric reference. However, to obtain most reliable absolute orbits, a complete coverage of an orbital revolution of the AC pair is strongly desirable, and this is thus beyond the scope of this paper.

## 5 Summary

With the first calculation of a purely visual orbit from interferometric data we have largely improved on the accuracy of the orbital elements for the low-mass binary Gliese 22 AC and derived a dynamical system mass of $`0.592\pm 0.065M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The uncertainty of 11% is mostly due to the error of the Hipparcos parallax, while future ($`\rho `$, $`\theta `$) measurements will probably result in only minor changes of the orbital parameters. Based on the K band magnitudes of the components we have estimated their masses also from the mass-luminosity relation given by Henry & McCarthy (Hen93 (1993)) and from the theoretical evolutionary models for low-mass objects by Baraffe et al. (Bar98 (1998), Bar02 (2002)). In both cases the obtained mass sum is lower than the dynamical system mass. The component Gliese 22 C is apparently a very low-mass star with a mass around $`0.1M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and is thus located at the very end of the lower main sequence.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Rainer Köhler for providing his software package “Binary/Speckle” for the reduction of 2D speckle-interferometric data. J.W. acknowledges support from the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt under grant number 50 OR 0009. Visiting Observations on Calar Alto were made possible by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant numbers Wo 834/1-1, Wo 834/2-1 and Wo 834/4-1. This paper was supported by the grants AYA 2001-3073 of Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia and PGIDIT02 PXIC24301PN of Xunta de Galicia.


text:
# Heat capacity scaling function for confined superfluids

## I Introduction

Thermodynamic quantities such as the specific heat become non-analytic at a critical point associated with a second order phase transition. For a finite (or confined) system with a finite dimension such as a film characterized by a length $`L`$, close enough to the critical point such that the correlation length becomes comparable or larger than $`L`$, such thermodynamic quantities are significantly altered; the reason is that the degrees of freedom of the system are correlated to each other over the entire system. Examples of such confined systems are (a) a film of thickness $`L`$ where the system is confined in one spatial dimension, (b) a bar-like geometry with cross-section $`L\times L`$ and infinite length (such a pore or a wire) where the system is confined in its two spatial dimensions or (c) a cubic geometry of size $`L^3`$ where the system is finite in all three dimensions. For any thermodymamic observable we can define a system specific dimensionless quantity, a scaling functionfss ; for example, in the case of the specific heat near the critical point and for sufficiently large $`L`$ we may define the following scaling function:

$$f(x=tL^{1/\nu })=\frac{c(t,L)c(0,\mathrm{})}{c(0,L)c(0,\mathrm{})},$$
(1)
where $`t=T/T_\lambda 1`$ is the reduced temperature and $`c(t,L)`$ is the specific heat for the case of the system confined within a finite length $`L`$. For a given case of confining geometry and given the condition which the order parameter satisfies at the boundaries of the system, as $`L`$ approaches infinity and $`t0`$, the scaling function depends only on the value of the combination $`x=tL^{\frac{1}{\nu }}`$, namely on the length $`L`$ in units of the correlation length $`\xi (t)t^\nu `$. A dimensionless function such as $`f(x)`$ defined by Eq. 1 can be thought of as a universal scaling function for the specific heat for a well-defined confining geometry. In other words, the scaling function does not depend on the microscopic details, but only depends on the nature of the universality class of the system, the confining geometry and the boundary conditions which are felt by the order parameter.

In this limit ($`t0`$ and $`L\mathrm{}`$) the scaling function is different for the three different cases mentioned previously for the following reason: For a fixed value of $`x<<1`$ and for any large value of $`L`$ there is always a sufficiently small value of $`t`$ satisfying the condition where the correlation length is much larger than $`L`$. However, in this limit the case (a) is the case of a 2D plane, the case (b) is the case of a 1D line and the case (c) is the zero-dimensional case. Thus the value $`f(x)`$ for sufficiently small values of $`|x|`$ should be very different for these three geometries.

Though earlier experiments on superfluid helium films of finite thickness maps  seemed to confirm the validity of the finite-size-scaling(FSS), there were later experimentsrhee ; rheephys  where it was shown that the superfluid density of thick helium films does not satisfy FSS when the expected values of critical exponents were used. Similarly, in measurements of the specific heat of helium in finite geometries, other than the expected values for the critical exponents were found earlyc .

More recent experiments in microgravity environmentchex  as well as earth bound experimentsmehta1 ; mehta2  are consistent with scaling and they have determined the specific heat scaling function for the parallel plate (film) geometry (case (a)) and they are in reasonable agreement with the scaling function as was predicted by Monte Carlo simulationssm95 ; bes  and renormalization group techniquesRG . While the specific heat scaling function for case (b) confinement has been theoretically determinedpore  and it was found to be significantly suppressed relative to the case (a) there are so-far no experimental data to compare. More recently, the specific heat scaling function for the case (c) has been experimentally determinedcubes1 ; cubes2 .

The main goal of this paper is to present the results of our Monte Carlo simulations to determine the specific heat scaling function for cubes with open boundary conditions (BC) in all three directions (confining case (c)). In this case the scaling function characterizes the zero-dimensional to three-dimensional transition. Our results for the scaling function are compared to the very recently obtained experimental results for specific heat scaling function in the case of cubic confinementcubes1 ; cubes2 . We find satisfactory agreement with no free parameters. In addition, we present results for the specific heat scaling function for the parallel plate geometry on lattices of size $`L_1\times L_2\times L`$ with $`L_1=L_2>>L`$ where we have applied periodic BC along the $`L_{1,2}`$-directions and open BC along the film-thickness direction of size $`L`$. The latter case was carried out in order to compare the results for Dirichlet BC (on the top and bottom of the film) obtained earliersm95 ; bes . In Refs sm95 ; bes  it was found that while the results with periodic BC along the film-thickness direction were very different from those obtained with Dirichlet BC, the results obtained with Dirichlet BC fit the experimental results with no free parameter. In this paper we find that the scaling function obtained with open BC along the finite dimension is close to that obtained with Dirichlet and also fits reasonably well the experimental results obtained by the so-called Confined Helium Experimentchex  (CHEX).

## II Monte Carlo Calculation

We have performed a numerical study of the scaling behavior of the specific heat of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ in a cubic and in a film geometry at temperatures close to the critical temperature $`T_\lambda `$. The superfluid transition of liquid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ belongs to the universality class of the three-dimensional $`xy`$ model, thus, we are going to use this model to compute the specific heat at temperatures near $`T_\lambda `$ using the cluster Monte-Carlo method wolff . The $`xy`$ model on a lattice is defined as

$$H=J\underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{}{s}_i\stackrel{}{s}_j,$$
(2)
where the summation is over all nearest neighbors, $`\stackrel{}{s}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$ is a two-component vector which is constrained to be on the unit circle and $`J`$ sets the energy scale.

We define the energy density of our model as follows:

$$E=e=3\frac{1}{V}\underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{}{s}_i\stackrel{}{s}_j,$$
(3)
where $`V=L^3`$ for the cubes and $`V=HL^2`$ for the film geometry. We have calculated the specific heat using the expression

$$c=VT^2(e^2e^2).$$
(4)
The above thermal averages denoted by the angular brackets are computed according to

$`O=Z^1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}d\theta _iO[\theta ]\mathrm{exp}(\beta )},`$ (5)
where $`=H/J`$ the energy in units of $`J`$ and $`\beta =J/T`$. $`O[\theta ]`$ denotes the dependence of the physical observable $`O`$ on the configuration $`\{\theta _i\}`$, and the partition function $`Z`$ is given by

$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}d\theta _i\mathrm{exp}(\beta )}.`$ (6)
We computed the specific heat $`c(T,L)`$ of the $`xy`$ model as a function of temperature on several cubic lattices $`L^3`$ (with $`L=20,30,40,50`$ ). Open (free) boundary conditions were applied in all directions, namely the spins on the surface of the cube are free to take any value. These spins interact only with the 5 nearest neighbors, one in the interior and 4 on the surface of the cube and there is one missing neighbor. We have also calculated the specific heat scaling function $`f_1(x)`$ (to be defined in the following section) for the case of the parallel plate geometry $`L_1\times L_2\times L`$ ($`L_{1,2}>>L`$) using periodic boundary conditions along the long directions of the film and open BC along the thickness direction $`L`$. For this case we need to take the limit $`L_{1,2}\mathrm{}`$ first; in Ref. bes  it was found that using $`L_1=L_2=5L`$ was large enough, in the sense that systematic errors due to the finite-size effects from the fact that $`L_{1,2}`$ are not infinite are smaller than the statistical errors for realistic computational time scales. The present simulations for films were done on lattices $`60\times 60\times 12`$, $`70\times 70\times 14`$, and $`80\times 80\times 16`$.

We used the Monte Carlo method and in particular Wolff’s cluster algorithmwolff . We carried out of the order of 30,000 MC steps for thermalization to obtain equilibrium configurations. We made of the order of 10,000-50,000 measurements allowing 500 MC steps between successive measurements to obtain statistically uncorrelated configurations.

## III Scaling functions

The main goal of this paper is to present a calculation of the specific heat scaling function for the case of cubic confinement and open BC. In this calculation we have used open BC in all three directions of the cube. We found that using open BC the results for the specific heat scaling were very close to those obtained with Dirichlet BC. This will be demonstrated in the next section where we compare the previously published resultssm95 ; bes  for films with Dirichlet BC and results reported in this paper for films with open BC.

One can imagine a number of different scaling functions for the specific heat. Any dimensionless combination such as the ratio given by Eq. 1 can be used as a scaling function. However, the various experimental groups have extracted two scaling functions, the so-called $`f_1(x)`$ and $`f_2(x)`$ with $`x=tL^{\frac{1}{\nu }}`$. These scaling functions are defined as follows:

$$c(t,L)c(t_0,\mathrm{})=L^{\alpha /\nu }f_1(tL^{1/\nu })$$
(7)
$$[c(t,\mathrm{})c(t,L)]t^\alpha =f_2(tL^{1/\nu })$$
(8)
We limit our goal to calculate the specific heat scaling function for the confined geometry and not the bulk critical exponents nor critical amplitude ratios. We take the values for the bulk critical exponents and the universal amplitude ratios as determined experimentallyLPE . Previous MC work such as the work of Ref. sm3d  shows that the critical exponents are within error bars from the experimental values. Our approach to use the experimentally determined values of the critical exponents and amplitude ratios and to determine the scaling function by applying FSS on the calculated $`c(t,L)`$, has no fitting parameters and this allows no ambiguity. Therefore we use $`\nu =0.6709`$ as obtained from accurate experimentsLPE  such as the so-called Lambda Point Experiment (LPE), an experiment in microgravity environment. The hyperscaling relation $`\alpha =23\nu `$ yields $`\alpha /\nu =0.0189`$, and the correlation length $`\xi (t)`$ = $`\xi _0^\pm |t|^\nu `$ becomes equal to the system size $`L`$ at the reduced temperature $`t_0`$, i.e., $`t_0=(\xi _0^+/L)^{1/\nu }`$ with $`\xi _0^+=0.498`$.

In order to find the universal function $`f(x)`$ defined by Eq. 1, we need to know $`c(0,\mathrm{})`$. We use the bulk values for $`c(0,\mathrm{})`$ obtained by studying the finite-size scaling of the specific heat of cubes with periodic BCsm3d . In Fig. 1 the scaling function $`f(x)`$ obtained for cubes with open BC in all three directions is compared to that obtained with periodic BCsm3d .

The scaling function $`f_1(x)`$ (Eq. 7) can be calculated using our calculated $`c(t,L)`$ and

$$c(t_0,\mathrm{})=c(0,\mathrm{})+c_1^+t_0^\alpha ,$$
(9)
where the values of $`c(0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`c_1^+`$ for the $`xy`$ model are obtained from referencesm3d .

In order to calculate the universal function $`f_2(x)`$ (Eq. 8), we need to know the bulk specific heat $`c(t,\mathrm{})`$ also. Since we are restricting ourselves to the critical region we may write the following

$`c(t>0,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`c(0,\mathrm{})+c_1^+t^\alpha ,`$ (10)
$`c(t<0,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`c(0,\mathrm{})+c_1^+/r|t|^\alpha ,`$ (11)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^+}{c_1^{}}},`$ (12)
where $`r`$ is the universal amplitude ratio and it is most accurately determined experimentallyLPE ; lipachui  from the critical properties of bulk helium to be $`r=1.053(2)`$LPE . Inserting Eqs. 10 and 11 into Eq. 8, we obtain

$`f_2(tL^{1/\nu })=[c(0,\mathrm{})c(t,L)]t^\alpha +c_1^+,t>0,`$ (13)
$`f_2(tL^{1/\nu })=[c(0,\mathrm{})c(t,L)]|t|^\alpha +c_1^+/rt<0.`$ (14)
which can be calculated by using our computed $`c(t,L)`$ and the values of $`c(0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`c_1^+`$ from Ref.sm3d .

## IV Films with open boundary conditions

In Ref. sm95 ; bes  the specific heat scaling function for a parallel plate geometry on lattices of size $`L_1\times L_2\times L`$ with $`L_1=L_2>>L`$ was calculated. In Ref. sm95 ; bes  periodic BC along the $`L_{1,2}`$-directions and staggered (Dirichlet) BC or periodic along the film-thickness direction of size $`L`$ were applied. It was found that while the calculated scaling function for the parallel-plate geometry using periodic BC along all three directions was very different from that obtained with Dirichlet BC along the top and bottom of the plate and periodic BC along the other two long directions, the latter scaling function fits the experimental results with no free parameter. This was explained on the basis that physically the order parameter along the film thickness vanishes at the boundaries of the film and therefore Dirichlet BC are more appropriate.

In this paper we have used open BC along the top and the bottom of the plate, instead of Dirichlet, and periodic BC along the two long directions of the plate. Since the film terminates on the top and on the bottom surface, for the pseudospins which belong to these two surfaces (in language of the $`xy`$ model) there is no neighboring spins beyond the top and the bottom surface plane of the plate. Therefore, even if we use open (free) boundary conditions this termination acts as “a zero order parameter constraint” beyond the top and the bottom of the plate. This implies that these two BC, namely staggered BC and open BC, are very similar for thick enough films.

In order to make a direct comparison of our calculated $`f_1(x)`$ to the experimental $`f_1(x)`$, we express all lattice units in physical units using the following equationsm95

$`f_1(x)|_{phys}`$ $`=\lambda f_1(x)|_{lattice},`$ (15)
$`\lambda `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_mk_B}{a^3}}(a/\AA )^{\frac{\alpha }{\nu }}`$ (16)
where $`V_m`$ is the molar volume of liquid helium at the lambda point and saturated vapor pressure, $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`a`$ the lattice spacing in the $`xy`$ model required to make contact with the critical behavior of the correlation length in helium. This prefactor $`\lambda =15.02J/(Kmol)`$ and it was determined in Ref.sm95 .

In Fig. 2 we compare the results for $`f_1`$ for the case of films obtained with open BC along the direction of the film thickness to those obtained earliersm95 ; bes  and to the experimental resultschex ; mehta2 . It is clear that within error bars our results for the specific heat scaling function are the same for both cases of BC.

While the scaling function is sensitive to boundary conditions, this indicates that it is hard to distinguish Dirichlet from open BC for the specific heat scaling function. We feel that when we use physical BC the agreement between the theoretical results for the specific heat scaling function and the experimental results is quite good taking into consideration the fact that there is no free parameter.

## V Cubic confinement

In this section we present the results for the scaling functions $`f_1(x)`$ and $`f_2(x)`$ obtained for cubes of size $`L^3`$ with $`L=20,30,40,50`$ using open and periodic BC in all three directions. As was shown in the previous section open (free) BC are similar to using Dirichlet BC and they both express the physical condition imposed by the confinement or the termination of the system. In Fig. 3 we compare the scaling function $`f_1(x)`$ obtained for open BC with that obtained for periodic BCsm3d . Notice the suppression of $`f_1(x)`$ when calculated with open BC relative to the case of periodic BC. This is similar to the case of the parallel-plate geometry (Fig. 2). The scaling functions $`f_1(x)`$, however, are very different for cubic and parallel-plate geometry. Notice, for instance, that for the case of cubic confinement with open BC $`f_1(x)`$ is negative for all values of $`x`$ something very different of what happens for any of the calculated of the experimental scaling functions for parallel-plate confinement.

In Fig. 4 we give the results of our present Monte Carlo calculation of the function $`f_2(x)`$ for cubes with open BC using Eqs 13,14. Fig. 5 shows the results of our calculation with periodic boundary conditions. Fig. 6 compares the scaling function $`f_2(x)`$ obtained for open BC and for periodic BC. Notice the qualitatively different behavior for the same scaling function for the same geometry but different boundary conditions.

Experimentally the universal scaling function $`f_2(x)`$ for cubic confinement has just become availablecubes1 ; cubes2 . In order to make a direct comparison of our calculated scaling function $`f_2(x)`$ to the experimentally determined, we express all lattice units in physical units. The prefactor is the same as in the case of the function $`f_1(x)`$:

$`f_2(x)|_{phys}`$ $`=\lambda f_2(x)|_{lattice},`$ (17)
where $`\lambda `$ is the constant given in the previous section by Eq. 16 and its numerical value is $`\lambda =15.02J/(Kmol)`$.

In Fig. 6 $`f_2(x)`$ obtained from our MC calculation is compared with the experimental datacubes1 ; cubes2 . The agreement between the scaling function calculated with open BC and experiment is quite satisfactory considering the fact that there is no free parameters.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have used the $`xy`$ model which describes the fluctuations of the superfluid order parameter near the critical point to calculate the scaling functions associated with the specific heat for the case where the superfluid is confined in a cubic geometry and in parallel-plate geometry. Both in the theoretical calculations and in the experiments, the region very near the superfluid transition is probed such that the correlation length associated with the superfluid order parameter is of the size of the confining length.

First, we calculated the specific heat scaling function for the case of parallel plate confining geometry using open boundary conditions along the top and the bottom surfaces of the film. Our results are very close to those obtainedsm95 ; bes  with Dirichlet (staggered BC) along the top and the bottom surfaces of the film. Both calculations are in satisfactory agreement with the experimental resultschex ; mehta1 ; mehta2  while the results of earlier calculations using periodic boundary conditionssm3d  were found to disagree with the experimental scaling function near the superfluid transition.

Just recently, experimental measurementscubes1 ; cubes2  on superfluid helium confined in cubes became available. This prompted us to calculate the heat capacity scaling function of superfluids for cubic confinement. When we used open boundary conditions in all three directions of the cube we find very good agreement between the calculated and the measuredcubes1 ; cubes2  scaling functions with no adjustable parameter. On the contrary, if periodic boundary conditions are used at the boundaries of the cube, which are unphysical boundary conditions for a confined system, there is great disagreement between the calculated and the measured specific heat scaling functions.

## VII Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by NASA grants NAG-1773 and NAG-2867 and by the University of Athens Office of Scientific Research. The authors are grateful to M.O. Kimball and F. M. Gasparini who kindly provided access to their experimental results before publication and to J. A. Lipa for providing a copy of the most recent analysis of the LPE experimentLPE  before acceptance for publication.