text:
# A Petri theorem for rank-2 vector bundles with canonical determinant

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. The problem

Petri’s general conjecture establishes the unobstructedness of linear series on a general compact Riemann surface $`C`$ of genus $`g>1`$. (See, for example, \[C2\].) Some years ago, Bertram-Feinberg \[BF\] and Mukai \[M\] independently formulated an analogous conjecture for stable rank-$`2`$ vector bundles on $`C`$ with determinant $`\omega _C`$. The conjecture is that the natural map

(1)
$$Sym^2H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(Sym^2E\right)$$

is injective for all stable $`E`$. The stronger assertion that

(2)
$$H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(EE\right)$$

is injective is known to be false for some stable bundles \[T\]. In this paper, over a generic Riemann surface $`C`$ of genus $`g>3`$, we construct examples of globally generated, semi-stable bundles $`E`$ for which the stronger assertion is true. We accomplish this by employing Hitchin’s theory of spectral curves \[H\] to reduce the problem to an assertion about line bundles $`L`$ of a spectral cover

$$\stackrel{~}{C}C$$

and then applying to $`(\stackrel{~}{C},L)`$ the techniques used in \[C2\] to establish Petri’s general conjecture. A critical ingredient will be a condition introduced by Beauville \[B\] which equates, under sufficiently general conditions, the local analytic deformation space of $`E`$ with twists of $`L`$ by skew-symmetric line bundles on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. The necessity of this condition is shown by an example of V. Mercat, which we explore in an Appendix to this paper.

### 1.2. Hitchin’s spectral curves

Let $`E`$ be a stable rank-$`2`$ vector bundle over $`C`$ with

$$detE=\omega ,$$

the canonical line bundle on $`C`$. We have a natural isomorphism

(3) $`E`$ $``$ $`Hom(E,\omega )`$
$`e`$ $``$ $`e`$
Following the theory of Hitchin \[H\], let

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{Hom}(E^{},E)=\mathrm{Hom}(E^{},E^{}\omega ).$$

Replacing $`\phi `$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }\frac{tr\stackrel{~}{\phi }}{2}$$

if necessary, we can (and will) assume that

(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(Hom^0(E^{},E^{}\omega )\right)$$

where $`Hom^0`$ means homomorphisms of trace zero. We assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is not the zero homomorphism. Now

$$y^2+\phi $$

is the characteristic polynomial of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ where

$$\phi =det\stackrel{~}{\phi }H^0\left(\omega ^2\right).$$

and $`y`$ takes values in sections of $`\omega `$. Considering $`\phi \left(C\right)`$ as a curve in the geometric line bundle $`\omega ^2`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ denote the inverse image of $`C`$ under the squaring map

$$\omega \omega ^2.$$

We then have a double covering

$$\pi :\stackrel{~}{C}C$$

branched at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=zero\left(\phi \right),$$

and the arithmetic genus $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is computed from the identity

$`2\stackrel{~}{g}2`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(2g2\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(2g2\right)+1.`$
### 1.3. Globally generated $`E`$

As in §4 of \[vGI\], suppose that $`E`$ is globally generated. We can then some construct morphisms $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ as follows. Let

(5)
$$WH^0\left(E\right)$$

be any subspace such that the evaluation map

$$W𝒪_CE$$

is surjective. Then we have the standard exact sequence

(6)
$$0FW𝒪_CE0.$$

So for each quadric

$$QSym^2W$$

we obtain a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & E^{}& \stackrel{\epsilon ^{}}{}& W^{}𝒪_C& & F^{}& & 0\\ & & & & ^T& & & & \\ 0& & F& & W𝒪_C& \stackrel{𝜀}{}& E& & 0\end{array}$$

where

$$T\left(w^{}\right)=Q|w^{}W^{}=W.$$

So we have an induced morphism

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}=\epsilon T\epsilon ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }Hom^0(E^{},E).$$

Rewriting

$`Hom^0(E^{},E)`$ $`=`$ $`Hom^0(E^{},E^{}\omega )=Sym^2E,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ $``$ $`\left((e_1^{},e_2^{})\stackrel{~}{Q}\left(e_1^{}\right)|e_2^{}\right)`$
the map

$`Sym^2W`$ $``$ $`H^0\left(Sym^2E\right)`$
$`Q`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$
is just the standard map induced by multiplication of sections.

On the other hand, for any section $`y`$ of $`\omega `$, we have

(7)
$$y:E^{}E^{}\omega =E$$

with trace $`2y.`$ For fixed $`cC`$, let

$$e_1,e_2$$

be a basis for $`E_c`$ and let

$$e_1e_2=y_c\omega _c.$$

Then the mapping $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$ is given by

$`e_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y\left(c\right)}{y_c}}e_2`$
$`e_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y\left(c\right)}{y_c}}e_1.`$
and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_c`$ is given by

(8) $`e_1^{}`$ $``$ $`Q_{11}e_1+Q_{12}e_2`$
$`e_2^{}`$ $``$ $`Q_{21}e_1+Q_{22}e_2.`$
where

$$Q_{ij}=Q(e_i^{},e_j^{}).$$

The mapping

$$(y_c\stackrel{~}{Q}_cy\left(c\right)):E_c^{}E_c$$

drops rank if and only

$$y\left(c\right)=\pm y_c\sqrt{det\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_{11}& Q_{12}\\ Q_{21}& Q_{22}\end{array}\right)}$$

with eigenvectors given by the zeros of the quadratic form

$$Q|_{E_c^{}}\text{.}$$

### 1.4. $`E`$ as a pushforward of a line bundle

For smooth $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, the eigenvector subspace

$$\{(c,v)E^{}:\stackrel{~}{\phi }\left(v\right)=\left(\pm \sqrt{\phi }\right)v\}$$

has the structure of a line bundle $`L^{}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. The restriction map

$$Hom(E^{},𝒪_C)Hom(L^{},𝒪_C)=:L$$

induces an isomorphism

$$E=\pi _{}L.$$

Since

$$det\pi _{}L=\omega ,$$

we have

$$\mathrm{deg}L=2\left(2g2\right)=\stackrel{~}{g}1.$$

For any small deformation $`L^{}`$ of $`\left\{L\right\}`$ in $`Pic^{\stackrel{~}{g}1}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}\right)`$, $`E^{}=\pi _{}L^{}`$ is stable, but

$$detE^{}$$

may not equal $`\omega `$, a difficulty we can always remedy by twisting $`L^{}`$ by $`\pi ^{}\left(M\right)`$ for some $`\left\{M\right\}Pic^0\left(C\right)`$.

Let

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \iota :\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}\\ \hfill yy\end{array}$$

denote the involution on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. By considering $`\pm 1`$-eigenspaces, $`\iota `$ induces an isomorphism

(9)
$$\pi _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}=𝒪_C𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)=𝒪_C𝒪_C\left(\omega ^1\right)=𝒪_CT_C.$$

A first-order deformation of $`L`$ is given by an element of

$$H^1\left(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}\right)=H^1\left(𝒪_C\right)H^1\left(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right).$$

By the projection formula, first-order deformations in $`H^1\left(𝒪_C\right)`$ change $`det\pi _{}L`$. Thus first-order deformations with fixed determinant are given by elements of

$$H^1\left(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right)H^1\left(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}\right).$$

The natural map

$$\pi _{}End\left(L\right)End\left(\pi _{}L\right)$$

is an element of

$$𝒪_CHom(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),End^0E)$$

where $`End^0`$ denotes those endomorphism of trace zero. The summand of this map in

$$Hom(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),End^0E)=Hom^0(E^{},E)$$

is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(Hom^0(E^{},E^{}\omega )\right)$$

considered as the inclusion

(10)
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }:𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)End^0E$$

The induced mapping

(11)
$$H^1\left(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right)H^1\left(End^0E\right)$$

is an isomorphism for general choice of $`(C,\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$. (See \[B\], §1.5.)

### 1.5. $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ arising from a quadric

Returning to the exact sequence $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$, the dual sequence

$$0E^{}W^{}𝒪_CF^{}0$$

lets us view $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ as a morphism

$`l`$ $`:`$ $`CG:=Gr(2,W^{}).`$
$`c`$ $``$ $`\left(E_c^{}\right)`$
So we see that, if we choose a quadric $`Q`$ on $`\left(W^{}\right)`$, then for

(12)
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\stackrel{~}{Q}$$

we have that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the inverse image of $`C`$ under the double cover of $`\left(W\right)`$ branched at $`cC`$ exactly when the line $`l\left(c\right)`$ is tangent to the quadric $`Q`$. So, if we choose $`Q`$ generally, $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has $`2g2`$ distinct branchpoints in $`C`$ and so must be smooth. (The authors wish to thank Christian Pauly for pointing this fact out to us and providing the above proof.) Thus $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the double cover of $`C`$ induced from the standard double cover of $`G`$ induced by the quadric $`Q`$, that is, the double cover branched along the divisor consisting of those lines tangent to $`Q`$.

Continuing in the situation $`\left(\text{12}\right)`$, a section

$$wWH^0\left(E\right)$$

gives a section of $`L`$ which vanishes exactly when one of the two points of

$$\left(E_c^{}\right)Q$$

lies in the hyperplane $`wW=W^{}`$. So

(13)
$$\pi _{}L=𝒪_G\left(2\right).$$

### 1.6. Quotients of $`C\times ^3`$

If $`E`$ is globally generated, we can choose $`W`$ in $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ such that

(14)
$$dimW=3.$$

In this case, we obtain a morphism

(15) $`C`$ $``$ $`\left(W\right)=^2.`$
$`c`$ $``$ $`\left(F_c\right)`$
Since

$$c_1\left(F\right)=\omega ^1$$

we see that $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ is a projection of the canonical mapping. Conversely suppose we take any projection of the canonical curve

$$p:C^2,$$

whose center does not meet the canonical curve. Then the resulting exact sequence

$$0p^{}𝒪_^2\left(1\right)\stackrel{𝑝}{}^3𝒪_CE0$$

gives rise to a globally generated rank-$`2`$ bundle $`E`$ with canonical determinant. If a section of $`E`$ coming from $`w^3`$ has $`m`$ zeros, then

$$p\left(C\right)$$

must have an $`m`$-fold point at $`w`$ and conversely. Assuming $`C`$ is not hyperelliptic, by a result of Lazarsfeld (see Theorem 1.1 of \[G\]) there are three sections $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma H^0\left(\omega \right)`$ such that the map

$$\alpha +\beta +\gamma :H^0\left(\omega \right)H^0\left(\omega ^2\right)$$

is surjective. Dually, for general $`C`$, the generic map

$$H^1\left(T_C\right)H^1\left(𝒪_C\right)^3$$

induced by the choice of $`3`$ sections of $`\omega `$ is injective, so that

(16)
$$^3H^0\left(E\right)$$

is surjective for generic $`C`$ and $`p`$. Now any non-semi-stable bundle $`E`$ has a sub-bundle of degree at least $`g`$ and therefore a section with $`g`$ or more zeros. Therefore $`p\left(C\right)`$ has a $`g`$-tuple point. Thus we conclude that, for general choice of $`C`$ and $`p`$, the bundle $`E`$ is semi-stable if $`g>2`$ since $`p\left(C\right)`$ has only nodes. Furthermore, for general choice of $`C`$ and $`p`$ and generic

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }Hom^0(E^{},E).$$

the associated spectral curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is smooth.

We also claim that the map $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ is an isomorphism in this case. To see this last assertion, it will suffice to prove that $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ is an isomorphism for some special choice of $`C,p,\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$. For example let $`C^{}`$ be a general curve which has a vanishing theta-null, that is, admits a line bundle $`J`$ with $`J^2=\omega `$ and

$$h^0\left(J\right)=2.$$

(This is a codimension-one condition on $`C`$.) Let

$$E^{}=JJ.$$

Since $`J`$ is globally generated, so is $`E^{}`$. If $`g>3`$, then $`C^{}`$ is not hyperelliptic, so again by the result of Lazarsfeld there are three sections $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma H^0\left(\omega \right)`$ such that the map

$$\alpha +\beta +\gamma :H^0\left(\omega \right)H^0\left(\omega ^2\right)$$

is surjective. Define

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}:J^{}J^{}JJ$$

by the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \alpha \end{array}\right).$$

The mapping

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }Hom^0(\left(E^{}\right)^{},E^{})`$ $``$ $`H^0\left(\omega ^2\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ $``$ $`Tr\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\phi }\right)`$
is therefore surjective. So by Serre duality, the map

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}:H^1\left(T_C\right)H^1\left(End^0E^{}\right)$$

is injective. (Compare \[B\], §1.3.) Now for generic

$$WH^0\left(E^{}\right),dimW=3$$

$`E^{}`$ is a quotient as in $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ and so given by a sub-bundle $`F^{}`$ corresponding to a projection of the canonical curve $`C^{}`$ into $`^2`$. But the triple $`(C^{},F^{},\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{})`$ can be deformed to the generic such triple $`(C,F,\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$, that is, to the generic projection of a general curve $`C`$ of genus $`g`$ to $`^2`$. The resulting quotient $`E`$ is globally generated by construction and $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is injective by semi-continuity of rank. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is an isomorphism since the general quotient $`E`$ has $`h^0\left(End^0E\right)=0`$

Finally in the situation $`\left(\text{14}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{12}\right)`$, given $`cC`$, we can choose three conics $`Q_1,Q_2,Q_3`$ such that

$$Q_i|_{E_c^{}}$$

form a basis for $`Sym^2E_c`$. Thus for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i=\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ in $`\left(\text{10}\right)`$, the map

(17)
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1+\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2+\stackrel{~}{\phi }_3:𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3End^0E$$

is generically surjective. Thus the same is true for generic choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }Hom^0(E^{},E)`$.

### 1.7. The theorem

In what follows we shall treat only those rank-$`2`$ bundles $`E`$ such that:

$`E`$ is simple, globally generated, $`detE=\omega `$.

The map $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ is an isomorphism for generic $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }Hom^0(E^{},E)`$.

Notice that, since $`𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)=T_C`$, Condition 2) implies that

$$h^0\left(End^0E\right)=3g3+0+3\left(1g\right)=0,$$

that is, $`E`$ is simple. Since $`H^0\left(E\right)=H^0\left(L\right)`$, global generation in Condition 1) requires that

$$h^0\left(L\right)3.$$

So we are restricting attention to a locally closed subvariety of relatively high codimension in $`𝔐\left(C\right)`$.

Let

$$W_{2,\omega }^r𝔐\left(C\right)$$

denote the scheme defined by those $`E`$ such that $`h^0\left(E\right)r+1`$. Bertram-Feinberg \[BF\] and Mukai \[M\] show that $`W_{2,\omega }^r`$ has the natural structure of a determinantal scheme whose cotangent space at $`(C,E)`$ is the cokernel of the map

(18)
$$Sym^2H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(Sym^2E\right)$$

and that, if $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$ is injective, then $`W_{2,\omega }^r`$ is smooth and reduced and so of dimension

$$\rho (2,r,\omega )=3g3\frac{\left(r+1\right)\left(r+2\right)}{2}$$

at $`(C,E)`$. The purpose of this paper is to prove:

###### Theorem 1.1.

If $`C`$ is of general moduli and $`E`$ satisfies Condition 1 and Condition 2 above, the map

$$H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(EE\right)$$

is injective, so that $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$ is also. If $`g4`$, there exist bundles $`E`$ satisfying Conditions $`1`$ and $`2`$ so that, by semi-continuity, these conditions are satisfied for a generic globally generated $`E`$ with canonical determinant.

For $`C`$ is a curve of genus $`g`$ of general moduli, this result has been conjectured for all stable rank-$`2`$ $`E`$ with canonical determinant by Bertram-Feinberg and by Mukai (loc. cit.). A corollary in the special case in which $`E`$ satisfies Condition 1 and Condition 2 above is that the map

$$^2H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(^2E\right)=H^0\left(\omega \right)$$

is also injective. So, in particular

$$3\frac{h^0\left(E\right)\left(h^0\left(E\right)1\right)}{2}g.$$

### 1.8. Analogy with proof of Petri conjecture

Our proof will develop analogously to the proof of the classical Petri conjecture for line bundles in \[C2\]. In particular we employ Kuranishi theory as in \[C1\] and \[C2\] to relate $`n`$-th order deformation theory of $`(C,\iota ,L)`$ to the first cohomology of sheaves of (holomorphic) differential operators

$$𝔇_n\left(L\right)$$

of order $`n`$ on sections of $`L`$.

## 2. The space $`\left(E^{}\right)`$

Let

$$X=\left(E^{}\right).$$

The natural inclusion

$$L^{}E^{}$$

induces an imbedding

(19)
$$\stackrel{~}{C}X$$

which assigns to an eigenvalue $`(c,\sqrt{\phi \left(c\right)})`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ the corresponding eigenvector in $`E_c^{}`$. Abusing notation we will let

$$\pi :XC$$

also denote the projection map extending $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$.

Thus we have the exact sequences

(20)
$$0T_\pi T_X\pi ^{}T_C0$$

and

$$0\pi _{}T_\pi \pi _{}T_XT_C0.$$

Notice that the Euler sequence

$$0𝒪_X\pi ^{}E^{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)T_\pi 0$$

gives

$$T_\pi =\pi ^{}T_C𝒪_X\left(2\right)$$

and

$`\pi _{}T_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`End^0\left(E^{}\right)=End^0E`$
$`=`$ $`T_CSym^2E.`$
Since

$`Ext^1(\pi ^{}T_C,T_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`H^1\left(\pi ^{}\omega T_\pi \right)`$
$`=`$ $`H^1\left(\omega \pi _{}T_\pi \right)`$
$`=`$ $`H^1\left(\omega End^0E\right)`$
$`=`$ $`H^0\left(End^0E\right)^{}`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
the sequence $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ is split and hence so is its push-forward. Thus non-canonically

(21) $`T_X`$ $`=`$ $`T_\pi \pi ^{}T_C`$
(22) $`\pi _{}T_X`$ $`=`$ $`End^0ET_C.`$
The Euler sequence also gives

$$0𝒪_X\pi ^{}End\left(E^{}\right)\pi ^{}\pi _{}T_\pi 0.$$

The kernel of the mapping

$`\pi ^{}End\left(E^{}\right)`$ $``$ $`\pi ^{}E^{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$
$`(c,\left[v\right],\epsilon )`$ $``$ $`(c,\left[v\right],\epsilon |_{\left[v\right]})`$
at $`(c,\left[v\right])`$ is those endomorphisms $`\epsilon `$ which vanish on $`v`$ and so the kernel of

(23)
$$\pi ^{}End\left(E^{}\right)T_\pi $$

is those $`\epsilon `$ such that $`v`$ is an eigenvector of $`\epsilon `$. Thus the inclusion

$$\pi ^{}T_C\pi ^{}End\left(E^{}\right)$$

in $`\left(\text{10}\right)`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }Hom(E^{},E^{}\omega )$$

composes with $`\left(\text{23}\right)`$ to give a map

(24)
$$\pi ^{}T_CT_\pi $$

of line bundles on $`X`$ which vanishes exactly along $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Thus

$$T_\pi =𝒪_X\left(\stackrel{~}{C}\right)\pi ^{}T_C.$$

By the Euler sequence

$$\pi ^{}det\left(E^{}\right)𝒪_X\left(2\right)=T_\pi $$

so that

(25)
$$𝒪_X\left(\stackrel{~}{C}\right)=𝒪_X\left(2\right).$$

## 3. The higher $`\nu `$-maps

The isomorphism $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$ and the resulting exact sequence

$$0𝒪_X\left(1\right)𝒪_X\left(1\right)L0$$

gives, by applying $`R\pi _{}`$, isomorphisms

$$H^i\left(E\right)=H^i\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)H^i\left(L\right)$$

for all $`i0`$. The tangent space to the deformation space of $`(X,𝒪_X\left(1\right))`$ is

$$H^1\left(𝔇_1\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)\right)=H^1\left(\pi _{}𝔇_1\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)\right)$$

and the element $`\alpha H^0\left(L\right)=H^0\left(E\right)`$ deforms to first-order under $`\zeta H^1\left(𝔇_1\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)\right)`$ if and only if

$$\zeta \alpha H^1\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)=H^1\left(E\right)$$

vanishes. (See \[AC\] or \[C2\].)

Next let

$$𝔇_n𝔇_n\left(E\right)$$

denote the image of $`\pi _{}𝔇^n\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)`$ under the natural map

$$\pi _{}𝔇_n\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)𝔇_n\left(\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right).$$

Using $`\left(\text{21}\right)`$ we have the (symbol) exact sequences

$$0𝒪_C𝔇_1\stackrel{𝜎}{}T_CEnd^0E0$$

and

$$0𝔇_{n1}𝔇_n\stackrel{𝜎}{}T_C^n\left(T_C^{n1}End^0E\right)0.$$

So we conclude from the symbol sequence

$$0𝔇_{n1}\left(E\right)𝔇_n\left(E\right)\stackrel{𝜎}{}T_C^nEndE0$$

that

(26)
$$𝔇_{n1}\left(E\right)𝔇_n.$$

From $`\left(\text{10}\right)`$, we have the inclusion

$$T_CT_CT_CEnd^0E$$

induced by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1=\sigma ^1\left(T_CT_C\right)$$

resulting in the (symbol) exact sequence

$$0𝒪_C\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1\stackrel{𝜎}{}T_CT_C0.$$

Since

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1\pi _{}𝔇_1\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)𝔇_1\left(\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)$$

is injective, we can (and will) consider $`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1`$ as a subsheaf of $`𝔇_1`$. In fact

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1𝔇_0\left(E\right)=𝒪_CT_C𝔇_0\left(E\right)=EndE$$

where the containment is given by sending $`𝒪_C`$ to scalar endomorphisms and using the map

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }:T_CEnd^0E.$$

Also, $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ implies that

$$H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1\right)$$

is the tangent space to the deformation space of pairs $`(C,E)`$. The subspace

$$S_\omega H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1\right)$$

of those deformations such that $`detE`$ remains the canonical bundle maps isomorphically onto $`H^1\left(T_CT_C\right)`$.

Let

$$S=\{\zeta S_\omega :(\zeta :H^0\left(E\right)H^1\left(E\right))=0\}.$$

The assumption that $`C`$ is generic implies that the map

(27)
$$SH^1\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1}{\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1𝔇_0\left(E\right)}\right)=H^1\left(T_C\right)$$

is surjective.

We let

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n𝔇_n$$

be the image of the natural map

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1^n𝔇_n$$

induced by composition of operators. We have the morphism of exact sequences

(28)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & \stackrel{~}{𝔇}_{n1}& & \stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n& \stackrel{𝜎}{}& T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & 𝔇_{n1}& & 𝔇_n& \stackrel{𝜎}{}& T_C^n\left(T_C^{n1}End^0E\right)& & 0\end{array}$$

As with the Petri problem for line bundles (see \[C2\]), we want to consider the maps

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }^n:H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n\right)\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))$$

and the induced maps

$$\nu ^n:H^1\left(T_C^n\left(T_C^{n1}Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)\right)\frac{\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))}{image\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{n1}}.$$

The surjectivity of $`\left(\text{11}\right)`$ shows that

(29)
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }^1\left(H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_1\right)\right)=image\left(H^1\left(EndE\right)\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))\right).$$

Analogously to the solution Petri problem for line bundles, we wish to show that, for general $`C`$ and $`E`$ as above,

(30)
$$\nu ^n=0$$

for $`n>1`$. The next two sections are devoted to a proof of this fact. In the next section, we construct elements of $`H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n\right)`$ whose symbols span $`H^1\left(T_C^n\left(T_C^{n1}Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)\right)`$ for $`n>1`$. In the following section we show that these elements lie in the kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^n`$.

## 4. Generators of the domains of the higher $`\nu `$-maps

To construct the requisite elements of $`H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n\right)`$, we need to choose divisors along which to make (Schiffer) deformations of our general curve $`C.`$ First recall that

$`H^1\left(\pi _{}T_X\right)`$ $`=`$ $`H^1\left(T_X\right)`$
$`=`$ $`H^1\left(T_\pi \pi ^{}T_C\right)`$
$`=`$ $`H^1\left(End^0E\right)H^1\left(T_C\right)`$
$`=`$ $`H^1\left(T_C\right)H^1\left(T_C\right)`$
is the tangent space to the deformations of $`X`$. The first factor corresponds to deformations of the bundle (with canonical determinant) and the second summand corresponds to first-order deformations of the base curve $`C`$. Suppose now that $`A`$ is a sufficiently ample simple divisor on $`C`$ and let $`U`$ be a small anaytic neighborhood of (the support of) $`A`$. The (non-canonical) splitting

$$T_X=T_\pi \pi ^{}T_C,$$

whose summands we will call the vertical and horizontal tangent spaces respectively) allows us to fix an isomorphism

$$\pi ^1\left(U\right)=U\times ^1.$$

such that

$$\pi ^{}T_C|_{\pi ^1\left(U\right)}=T_U𝒪_^1.$$

The inclusion

$$\pi ^{}T_CT_\pi $$

which vanishes along $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ also realizes $`\pi ^{}T_C`$ as a sheaf of (vertical) vector fields on $`X`$. Let

$$\alpha _1,\beta _1$$

be $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-sections of $`T_C`$ with support inside $`U`$ which are meromorphic some neighborhood of $`A`$ with poles only above the points of $`A`$ . By the above remarks, we have distinguished liftings of $`\alpha _1,\beta _1`$ to vector fields on $`X`$ supported in $`\pi ^1\left(U\right)`$ which are respectively horizontal and vertical. We denote the lifted vector fields again as $`\alpha _1,\beta _1`$. Then, as in \[C1\] and \[C2\],

(31)
$$[\overline{},e^{tL_{\alpha _1+\beta _1}}]$$

determines a deformation of $`X`$. There is a lifting of $`\alpha _1+\beta _1`$ to a vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1`$ on the total space of

$$𝒪_X\left(1\right)$$

with the property that

$$[\chi ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1]=0=[\chi ,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1]$$

where $`\chi `$ is the Euler vector field on $`𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$ . Any two liftings differ by an element

$$\left(a\pi \right)\chi $$

where $`a`$ is a function supported on $`U`$ and meromorphic near $`A`$ with poles only above the points of $`A`$. The tangent space to $`PicX`$ is $`H^1\left(𝒪_C\right)`$ and therefore as in Lemma 3.2 of \[C2\] we can arrange that a deformation

(32)
$$[\overline{},e^{\left(tL_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi }+t^3L_{a_3\chi }+\mathrm{}\right)}]$$

of the bundle $`𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$ has the property that

$$det\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)$$

remains canonical.

We can modify $`\left(\text{32}\right)`$ over a given deformation of $`C`$ by modifying $`\beta _1`$ as follows.

(33)
$$H^0\left(\pi ^{}\frac{T_C\left(A\right)}{T_C}\right)H^1\left(\pi ^{}T_C\right)=H^1\left(End^0E\right)$$

is surjective. Recalling that $`H^1\left(End^0E\right)`$ is the tangent space to $`𝔐\left(C\right)`$ at $`\left\{E\right\}`$, we can therefore choose a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-section $`\epsilon _1`$ of $`\pi ^{}T_CT_\pi `$ which is supported over $`U`$ and meromorphic at $`\pi ^1\left(A\right)`$ so that, applying $`\overline{}`$ to the element, we can realize any given element of $`H^1\left(End^0E\right)`$. Thus

(34)
$$[\overline{},e^{tL_{\alpha _1+\beta _1+\epsilon _1}}]$$

gives any first-order deformation of $`X`$ over the given deformation of $`C`$. Again using Lemma 3.2 of \[C2\] above we can arrange that a deformation

(35)
$$[\overline{},e^{\left(tL_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi }+t^3L_{a_3\chi }+\mathrm{}\right)}]$$

of the bundle $`𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$ has the property that

$$det\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)$$

remains canonical.

However the sections of

$$E=\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)$$

may not all deform under the deformation of $`(X,𝒪_X\left(1\right))`$ determined by $`\left(\text{35}\right)`$. We will call a deformation of $`X`$ admissible if all sections of $`\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$ do indeed deform. To modify $`\left(\text{34}\right)`$ to produce an admissible deformation, we proceed as follows. Choose a sufficiently ample divisor $`B`$ supported in an open set $`VC`$ disjoint from $`U.`$ Using the surjectivity of

$$H^0\left(\pi ^{}\frac{T_C\left(B\right)}{T_C}\right)H^1\left(\pi ^{}T_C\right)=H^1\left(End^0E\right)$$

we can choose a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-section $`\delta _1`$ of $`\pi ^{}T_C`$ which is supported on $`\pi ^1\left(V\right)`$ and meromorphic at $`\pi ^1\left(V\right)`$ and, applying $`\overline{}`$ to the element, we can realize any given element of $`H^1\left(End^0E\right)`$. And we can pick $`\delta _1`$ so that

$$[\overline{},e^{tL_{\alpha _1+\beta _1+\epsilon _1+\delta _1}}]$$

gives any first-order deformation of $`X`$ over the given deformation of $`C`$, in particular, the admissible one which must exist by the assumption that $`C`$ is generic. Similarly we can choose $`\delta _2`$ so that

$$[\overline{},e^{tL_{\alpha _1+\beta _1+\epsilon _1+\delta _1}+t^2L_{\delta _2}}]$$

gives the admissible second-order deformation over the given deformation of $`C`$, etc. Repeating this argument we achieve an admissible formal deformation

(36)
$$[\overline{},e^{tL_{\alpha _1+\beta _1+\epsilon _1+\delta _1}+t^2L_{\delta _2}+t^3L_{\delta _3}+\mathrm{}}]$$

of $`X`$ over the deformation $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$ of $`C`$. Again using Lemma 3.2 of \[C2\] above we can arrange that a deformation

(37)
$$[\overline{},e^{\left(tL_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2}+t^3L_{a_3\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3}+\mathrm{}\right)}]$$

of the bundle $`𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$ has the property that

$$det\pi _{}𝒪_X\left(1\right)$$

remains canonical.

Now we are ready to look at the symbols of the operators we have just constructed. In

$$H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)=H^1\left(T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)$$

we consider the subspace

$$H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)\right)$$

corresponding to the $`n`$-th power of vertical tangent vectors, that is, those lying in $`T_\pi .`$

###### Lemma 4.1.

i) Elements $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$ are of the form

$$_{n>0}D_nt^j$$

with

$$D_nH^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n\right).$$

ii) For $`n>1`$, the maps $`\nu _+^n`$ factor through

$$H^1\left(\frac{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)}{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)}\right)$$

iii) For $`n>1`$, the collection of such elements $`D_n`$ obtained by varying $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1`$ and the divisor $`A`$ have symbols

$$\sigma \left(D_n\right)$$

which span $`H^1\left(\frac{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)}{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)}\right)`$.

###### Proof.

i) Consider the (direct limit) exact sequence

$$0\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n𝒪_C\left(\mathrm{}\left(A+B\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n\frac{𝒪_C\left(\mathrm{}\left(A+B\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n}{\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n}0.$$

The coefficient of $`t^n`$ in $`e^{\left(tL_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2}+t^3L_{a_3\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3}+\mathrm{}\right)}`$ lies in $`H^0\left(\frac{𝒪_C\left(\mathrm{}\left(A+B\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n}{\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n}\right)`$.

ii) Suppose first that we restrict the elements $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$ to those for which $`\alpha _1=0`$. Then the symbols of the coefficients of $`t^n`$ lie in the “subspace of vertical symbols”

$$H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)\right)H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right).$$

Letting the subscript “$`n`$” denote the coefficient of $`t^n`$, we have by Lemma 4.1 of \[C2\] that we can vary $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`A`$ to obtain elements

$$D_n=[\overline{},e^{\left(tL_{0+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2}+t^3L_{a_3\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3}+\mathrm{}\right)}]_n$$

whose symbols generate

$$H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)\right)H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right).$$

Furthermore these elements $`D_n`$ have the property that

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }^n\left(D_n\right)image\left(H^1\left(End^0E\right)Hom(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))\right)image\left(\nu ^1\right).$$

Thus for $`n>1`$ we can consider $`\nu ^n`$ as a map

$$\nu ^n:H^1\left(\frac{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)}{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)}\right)\frac{Hom(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))}{image\left(\nu ^{n1}\right)}.$$

iii) Notice that our restriction on the support of the $`\delta _j`$ insures that, for $`n>1`$, the coefficient of $`t^n`$ in $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$ has the same symbol in

$$H^1\left(\frac{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)}{T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C0\right)}\right)$$

as

(38)
$$\left\{[\overline{},e^{tL_{\alpha _1+\beta _1+\epsilon }}]\right\}$$

does. So it suffices to show that the symbols of the coefficients of $`t^n`$ in elements of the form $`\left(\text{38}\right)`$ generate

$$H^1\left(T_C^n\right)H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)=H^1\left(T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right).$$

But $`Sym^nH^0\left(𝒪_C^2\right)`$ generates $`H^0\left(Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)`$, so it suffices to show that elements of the form

$$[\overline{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^n]$$

generate $`H^1\left(T_C^n\right)`$. But this is again the content of Lemma 4.1 of \[C2\]. ∎

## 5. Vanishing higher $`\nu `$-maps

###### Lemma 5.1.

For generic $`C`$ and for $`E`$ satisfying Condition 1 and Condition 2, the maps

$$\nu ^n:H^1\left(T_C^n\left(T_C^{n1}Sym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)\right)\frac{\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))}{image\left(\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{n1}\right)}$$

vanish for $`n>1`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.1 therefore, it suffices to show that, for each expression $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$, there are operators

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_nH^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n\right)$$

such that

1) $`\stackrel{~}{D}_n`$ has the same symbol in

$$H^1\left(T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)$$

as the coefficient of $`t^n`$ in

(39)
$$[\overline{},e^{\left(tL_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2}+t^3L_{a_3\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3}+\mathrm{}\right)}],$$

2)

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }^n\left(\stackrel{~}{D}_n\right)=0.$$

The proof of this fact is identical to the proof given in §3.4-3.5 of \[C2\]. The notational dictionary is

$`referencepaper`$ $``$ $`thispaper`$
$`X_0`$ $``$ $`X`$
$`L_0`$ $``$ $`𝒪_X\left(1\right)`$
$`S^n\left(T_{X_0}\right)`$ $``$ $`T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right).`$
In the proof we consider the line bundle

$$\stackrel{~}{E}\left(1\right)=𝒪_{\left(H^0\left(E\right)\right)}\left(1\right)𝒪_X\left(1\right)$$

on the product

$$\left(H^0\left(𝒪_X\left(1\right)\right)\right)\times X.$$

Just as in §3.4-3.5 of \[C2\] we use Lemma 2.9 and Lemma 3.1iii) of loc. cit. to twist the Kuranishi data $`\left(\text{39}\right)`$ above to obtain

(40)
$$[\overline{},e^{\left(tL_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1+\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1+a_1\chi }+t^2L_{a_2\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2}+t^3L_{a_3\chi +\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3}+\mathrm{}\right)}e^{L_{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_T\left(t\right)}}]$$

for which the condition that the tautological section extends under deformation implies that the map

$$H^0\left(\stackrel{~}{E}\left(1\right)\right)_{n>0}H^1\left(\stackrel{~}{E}\left(1\right)\right)t^n$$

given by $`\left(\text{40}\right)`$ is $`0`$. ∎

Next notice that the generic surjectivity of $`\left(\text{17}\right)`$ implies that the maps

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1+\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2+\stackrel{~}{\phi }_3:\left(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3\right)T_C^{n1}\left(End^0E\right)T_C^{n1}$$

are all generically surjective. Thus the maps

(41)
$$H^1\left(\left(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right)T_C^{n1}\right)^3=H^1\left(\left(𝒪_C\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3\right)T_C^{n1}\right)H^1\left(\left(End^0E\right)T_C^{n1}\right)$$

are all surjective. For $`i=1,2,3`$, let

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(i\right)}$$

be the sheaf $`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n`$ on $`C`$ derived from the spectral curve associated to $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i`$. Now define a map

$$F:\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(1\right)}\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(2\right)}\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(3\right)}𝔇_n$$

by adding the three maps

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(i\right)}𝔇_n$$

associated to the spectral curves for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. We have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & _i\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_{n1}^{\left(i\right)}& & _i\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(i\right)}& & \left(T_C^nSym^n\left(𝒪_C^2\right)\right)^3& & 0\\ & & ^F& & ^F& & ^F& & \\ 0& & 𝔇_{n1}& & 𝔇_n& & T_C^n\left(\left(End^0E\right)T_C^{n1}\right)& & 0\end{array}$$

and the generic surjectivity of $`\left(\text{41}\right)`$ and induction shows that

(42)
$$F_{}:H^1\left(_i\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_n^{\left(i\right)}\right)H^1\left(𝔇_n\right)$$

is surjective for each $`n`$.

###### Corollary 5.2.

Letting

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }^n:H^1\left(𝔇_n\left(E\right)\right)\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))$$

denote the natural maps induced by the action of $`𝔇_n\left(E\right)`$ on sections of $`E`$, the induced maps

$$\mu ^n:H^1\left(T_C^nEndE\right)\frac{\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))}{image\left(\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{n1}\right)}$$

are all zero for $`n1`$.

###### Proof.

Referring to $`\left(\text{26}\right)`$, consider the chain

$$𝔇_0=𝒪_C𝔇_0\left(E\right)=EndE𝔇_1𝔇_1\left(E\right)𝔇_2𝔇_2\left(E\right)\mathrm{}$$

of subsheaves and the image of $`H^1`$ of each in $`\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))`$. By $`\left(\text{29}\right)`$, Lemma 5.1, and the surjectivity of $`\left(\text{42}\right)`$, the induced maps on $`H^1`$ of the graded quotients of this chain into respective quotients of $`\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))`$ are all zero from

$$H^1\left(\frac{𝔇_1}{EndE}\right)\frac{\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))}{image\left(H^1\left(EndE\right)\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))\right)}$$

on. ∎

## 6. The BFM-conjecture for globally generated bundles

In this final section we prove the injectivity of the map

$$\mu _0:H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(EE\right)$$

in the case of a generic curve $`C`$ of genus $`g>1`$ and a vector bundle $`E`$ satisfying Condition 1 and Condition 2 of §1. (Notice that we have only established the existence of such $`E`$ when $`g>3`$ since we relied on the existence of a non-hyperelliptic $`E`$ with one vanishing theta-null.)

The isomorphism $`\left(\text{3}\right)`$ and Serre duality gives

$$H^1\left(E\right)=H^1\left(E^{}\omega \right)=H^0\left(E\right)^{}$$

so that we have a decompostion of

$$\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))=H^1\left(E\right)H^1\left(E\right)$$

into the direct sum

$$Sym^2H^1\left(E\right)^2H^1\left(E\right).$$

Looking at the $`\pm 1`$-eigenspaces of the natural action given by reversing factors, the map

$$H^1\left(EndE\right)\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))$$

is the direct sum of the maps

$$H^1\left(End^0E\right)Sym^2H^1\left(E\right)$$

and

$$H^1\left(𝒪_C\right)^2H^1\left(E\right).$$

Dually the multiplication map $`\mu _0`$ is the direct sum of the maps

$$Sym^2\left(H^0\left(E\right)\right)H^0\left(Sym^2E\right)$$

and

$$^2H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(^2E\right)=H^0\left(\omega \right).$$

This final argument generalizes a similar one in §9.14 of \[ACGH\]. Let

$$p_i:C\times CC$$

for $`i=1,2`$ denote the two projections and let $`DC\times C`$ denote the diagonal and $``$ its ideal in $`𝒪_{C\times C}`$. We have

$`𝔇_n\left(E\right)`$ $`=`$ $`Hom(\left(p_1\right)_{}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^{}E}{^{n+1}p_2^{}E}},E)`$
$`=`$ $`Hom(\left(p_1\right)_{}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^{}E}{^{n+1}p_2^{}E}},E^{}\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`Hom(\left(p_1\right)_{}{\displaystyle \frac{EE}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}},\omega ).`$
This gives a perfect pairing

$$𝔇_n\left(E\right)\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{EE}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}\omega $$

under which the exact sequence

$$0𝔇_{n1}\left(E\right)𝔇_n\left(E\right)\stackrel{𝜎}{}T_C^nEndE0$$

pairs with the exact sequence

$$0\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{^nEE}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}\stackrel{\sigma ^{}}{}\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{EE}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{EE}{^n\left(EE\right)}0$$

where

$$\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{^n\left(EE\right)}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}=\left(\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{^n}{^{n+1}}\right)EE.$$

So we have induced a perfect pairing

$$\frac{𝔇_n\left(E\right)}{𝔇_{n1}\left(E\right)}\left(\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{^n}{^{n+1}}EE\right)\omega .$$

Now the natural maps

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_n:H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(E\right)=H^0\left(EE\right)H^0\left(\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{EE}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}\right)$$

are the adjoints of the maps

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }^n:H^1\left(𝔇_n\left(E\right)\right)\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))=H^1\left(E\right)H^1\left(E\right)$$

and the induced maps

$$\mu _n:\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{n1}=H^0\left(\left(p_1\right)_{}^n\left(EE\right)\right)H^0\left(\left(p_1\right)_{}\frac{^n\left(EE\right)}{^{n+1}\left(EE\right)}\right)$$

are the adjoints of the maps

$$\mu ^n:H^1\left(T_C^nEndE\right)\frac{\mathrm{Hom}(H^0\left(E\right),H^1\left(E\right))}{image\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{n1}}.$$

Thus the vanishing of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }^n`$ for $`n1`$ implies the vanishing of the $`\mu _n`$ for $`n1`$. But this in turn implies that the maps

$$H^0\left(^{n+1}\left(EE\right)\right)H^0\left(^n\left(EE\right)\right)$$

are isomorphisms for all $`n1`$. Since

$$h^0\left(^n\left(EE\right)\right)=0$$

for large $`n`$ we conclude that

$$\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0=0.$$

But

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0=\mu _0.$$

## 7. Appendix: Mercat’s example

### 7.1. Necessity of Condition 2

Theorem 1.1, even injectivity on the symmetric summand, is definitely false without Condition 2. We are indebted to Vincent Mercat for pointing out a counterexample. Suppose $`g`$ is odd and $`\left(H^0\left(B\right)\right)`$ is a general (basepoint-free) $`g_{\frac{g+3}{2}}^1`$’s on a general curve $`C`$. Since $`C`$ is generic, the injectivity of the Petri map

$$H^0\left(B^2\right)H^0\left(\omega B^2\right)H^0\left(\omega \right)$$

and the injectivity of

$$Sym^2H^0\left(B\right)H^0\left(B^2\right)$$

imply that $`h^0\left(\omega B^2\right)=0`$. So

(43)
$$dimExt^1(B,\omega B^1)=4$$

so that, up to non-zero scalar, there is a unique non-trivial $`\epsilon Ext^1(B,\omega B^1)`$ such that the (symmetric) map

$$\epsilon :H^0\left(B\right)H^1(\omega B^1)$$

is zero. In fact $`\epsilon `$ is a hyperplane in $`H^0\left(B^2\right)`$ given by the image of the injective map

$$Sym^2H^0\left(B\right)H^0\left(B^2\right),$$

then $`\epsilon `$ gives an extension

(44)
$$0\omega B^1EB0$$

such that the induced map

$$H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(B\right)$$

is surjective. Thus $`E`$ is globally generated. By degree, every endomorphism of $`E`$ acts as multiplication by a scalar on $`\omega B^1`$ and it follows easily that

$$h^0\left(End^0E\right)=0,$$

that is, $`E`$ is simple. Also, since $`h^0\left(\omega B^1\right)=\frac{g1}{2}`$,

$$h^0\left(E\right)=\frac{g+3}{2}.$$

So, for large enough $`g`$,

$$dimSym^2H^0\left(E\right)>h^0\left(Sym^2E\right).$$

### 7.2. Geometry of the spectral curve in Mercat’s example

In the presentation

$$0FH^0\left(E\right)𝒪_C\stackrel{𝜀}{}E0$$

in Mercat’s example, the sections of $`E`$ coming from sections of $`\omega B^1`$ all have

$$2g2\frac{g+3}{2}=\frac{3g7}{2}$$

zeros on $`C`$. For

$$W=H^0\left(E\right)$$

the subspace

$$W^{}:=H^0\left(\omega B^1\right)H^0\left(E\right)$$

gives rise to an exact sequence

$$0F^{}W^{}𝒪_C\omega B^10$$

and so a commutative diagram

(45)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 0& & 0& & 0& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & B^{}& & \left(\frac{W}{W^{}}\right)^{}𝒪_C& & B& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & E^{}& & W^{}𝒪_C& & F^{}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & \omega ^1B& & \left(W^{}\right)^{}𝒪_C& & \left(F^{}\right)^{}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & 0& & \end{array}$$

with exact rows and columns. The sheaf of linear functionals on $`E`$ which vanish on $`\omega B^1`$ lie in the intersection of $`\left(\frac{W}{W^{}}\right)^{}𝒪_C`$ and $`E^{}`$ in $`W^{}𝒪_C`$. Thus, for the mapping

$`p`$ $`:`$ $`CG,`$
$`c`$ $``$ $`\left(\epsilon ^{}\left(E_c^{}\right)\right)`$
$`p\left(C\right)`$ lies in the Schubert cycle of lines incident to the line

$$l_0:=\left(\left(\frac{W}{W^{}}\right)^{}\right)\left(W^{}\right).$$

In fact, from $`\left(\text{45}\right)`$ it is easy to see that the $`g_{\frac{g+3}{2}}^1`$ on $`C`$ is given by assigning to each point $`xl_0`$ the divisor of points $`cC`$ such that $`x\left(E_c^{}\right)`$.

Projection with center $`l_0`$ maps

$$\stackrel{~}{C}\left(W^{}\right)$$

$`21`$ to the embedding

$$C\left(\left(W^{}\right)^{}\right)$$

induced by the bundle inclusion

$$\omega ^1B\left(W^{}\right)^{}𝒪_C,$$

that is, by the sections of the line bundle $`\omega B^1`$. Also, via intersection, the line $`l_0`$ gives a section

$$S:=\left(B^{}\right)$$

of the bundle

$$\pi :\left(E^{}\right)C$$

so that $`\left(\text{44}\right)`$ is obtained by applying

$$\pi _{}(𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}\left(1\right))$$

to the sequence

$$0𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}\left(S\right)𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}𝒪_S0.$$

We next choose a general

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }Hom^0(E^{},E)$$

with spectral double cover

$$\stackrel{~}{C}\left(E^{}\right)C.$$

For the line bundle

$$L=𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}\left(1\right)|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}$$

and involution

$$\iota :\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C},$$

we have

(46)
$$\pi _{}\left(\iota ^{}L\right)=\pi _{}L.$$

The inclusion

$$\omega B^1\pi _{}L$$

induces a non-trivial map

(47)
$$\pi ^{}\left(\omega B^1\right)L$$

so that

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{}\left(\omega B^1\right)𝒪\left(\stackrel{~}{D}_0\right)`$
$`\iota ^{}L`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{}\left(\omega B^1\right)𝒪\left(\iota ^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_0\right)`$
for some effective divisor $`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ with

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`det\pi _{}L=\omega B^2𝒪\left(\pi _{}\stackrel{~}{D}_0\right)`$
$`𝒪\left(\pi _{}\stackrel{~}{D}_0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`B^2.`$
In fact, since

$`𝒪_{\left(W^{}\right)}\left(1\right)|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{}\left(\omega B^1\right)𝒪\left(\stackrel{~}{D}_0\right)`$
$`𝒪_{\left(\left(W^{}\right)^{}\right)}\left(1\right)|_C`$ $`=`$ $`\omega B^1`$
the support of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_0`$ must equal the intersection of $`\epsilon ^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}\right)`$ with the center $`l_0`$ of the projection

$$\left(W^{}\right)\left(\left(W^{}\right)^{}\right).$$

Now suppose, in Mercat’s example,

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\stackrel{~}{Q}$$

for some quadric

$$QSym^2\left(H^0\left(E\right)\right).$$

For example, suppose that

$$Sym^2H^0\left(𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}\left(1\right)\right)=Sym^2H^0\left(E\right)H^0\left(Sym^2E\right)=H^0\left(𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}\left(2\right)\right)$$

is surjective. Since

$$\epsilon ^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}\right)=Q\epsilon ^{}\left(E^{}\right),$$

and the $`g_{\frac{g+3}{2}}^1`$ on $`C`$ is given by assigning to each point $`xl_0`$ the divisor of points $`cC`$ such that $`x\left(E_c^{}\right)`$, we conclude that

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_0=\stackrel{~}{D}_1+\stackrel{~}{D}_2,$$

where the divisors

$$\pi _{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1,\pi _{}\stackrel{~}{D}_2g_{\frac{g+3}{2}}^1$$

are those parametrized by the two points of

$$l_0Q.$$

Then

$$H^0\left(𝒪_{\left(E^{}\right)}\left(2\right)\right)H^0\left(𝒪_S\left(2\right)\right)=H^0\left(B^2\right)$$

is not surjective since it has image $`Sym^2H^0\left(B\right)H^0\left(B^2\right)`$.

By §1.3.2 of \[B, B\] Condition 2 is equivalent to the condition

$$h^0\left(\pi ^{}\omega 𝒪\left(\iota ^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_0\stackrel{~}{D}_0\right)\right)=0.$$

It follows from the main theorem of this paper that Condition 2 must fail for Mercat’s example. It would be reassuring to have an independent proof of this fact, but the authors have not found an independent method for deciding whether or not Condition 2 holds in the case of Mercat’s example.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The large $`N`$-limit of superconformal field theories have dual descriptions in terms of weakly coupled supergravities . Generalizations to non-conformal cases were also studied . There is an extensive list of references regarding the flows of $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory under the perturbations of either masses or vev’s for bilinear operators . With the twisted gauge field theories  available, it is possible to find new examples of AdS/CFT where only a part of the maximal supersymmetries is preserved . This allows us to investigate supergravity duals of partially twisted gauge field theories. Therefore, wrapped fivebranes and D3-branes on holomorphic curves were studied in . Similarly, fivebranes  and D3-branes  wrapped on associative three-cycles were considered. These studies have been extended to M-fivebranes wrapping Kähler 4-cycles, special Lagrangian 3, 4 and 5-cycles, co-associative 4-cycles and Cayley 4-cycles . In this paper, we concentrate on the D4-D8 system, which was studied in depth from the gauge theory side in ref.  and from the gravity/CFT viewpoint in refs. . We will wrap D4-branes of a D4-D8 system on two and three-cycles. We will also study solutions corresponding to smeared NS-fivebranes wrapped on two-cycles. We first find solutions of six-dimensional Romans’ gauged supergravity  and up-lift them to massive type IIA string theory. Other constructions in massive type IIA supergravity can be found in ref. , where some intersecting-brane configurations of D0-branes, D8-branes and a string were studied. Then, we analyze their dual twisted field theories and study the flows from $`AdS_6`$-type regions to the $`AdS_{6p}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ solutions, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ is the $`p`$-dimensional curved manifold. In the present case we consider $`p=2`$ and 3.

The Romans’ theories we are interested in are the $`SU(2)`$ gauged $`𝒩=4`$ supergravities in six dimensions. There are four different theories depending upon the values of the $`SU(2)`$ coupling constant $`g`$ and the mass parameter $`m`$ of the two-form field $`B`$. One of these theories has two anti-de Sitter vacua, one of them breaking all the supersymmetry and the other one preserving all of it. The latter theory, with a ground state with unbroken $`F(4)`$ supersymmetry, is the six-dimensional supergravity predicted in . In this paper, we will consider this case.

We start out to find solutions of six-dimensional gauged supergravity with vanishing $`B`$-fields, using a hyperbolic metric ansatz of the type $`AdS_4\times H_2`$ (and also a spherical one, for $`AdS_4\times S^2`$). We find a fixed-point solution in the massive case, whereas for massless field configurations we find a general solution. The latter has “bad” type singularities: in order to resolve the singularities we look for solutions with additional degrees of freedom in a similar way to ref. . This leads us to look for non-Abelian solutions. Another possible way to resolve singularities is to find a black hole solution where the singularity is covered by a horizon . The aim of this paper is to find the above mentioned gravity solutions, perform the up-lifting of them to ten dimensions and, to study their dual (twisted) gauge field theories. Massive type IIA supergravity is an interesting theory which seems to be the most suitable arena for realizing de Sitter compactifications or Randall-Sundrum models  on manifolds with boundary. Therefore, the study of the systems like the ones we deal with here could give some ideas on general structures.

Since in order to study the flow between a higher dimensional theory and the resulting lower dimensional one it is necessary to compactify some of the directions on a curved manifold, spinors have to be defined on non-flat spaces. Therefore, this requires to deal with a twisted gauge field theory living in such a manifold. Thus, in order to consider the dual field theories corresponding to certain supergravity solutions in curved spaces, one has to study a twisted version of the corresponding supersymmetric theory. This new picture emerges from the impossibility in defining covariantly constant spinors in the aforementioned manifolds. Then, it is necessary to introduce a new term coming from the gauging of the normal bundle to the brane world-volume with the spin connection.

We consider spacetimes with geometries given by $`AdS_4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ and $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$, such that their UV limit is an $`AdS_6`$-type spacetime. These lead to twisted field theories since we assume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$’s are curved manifolds. The decoupling limit is taken in such a way that it preserves the volume of the compact manifold. Then, the twisted field theory on the brane world-volume will be $`R^{1,4p}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$, for D4-branes wrapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$. The field theory in this decoupling limit will not be sensitive to the global geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$, remaining its effect local and determining the twisted field theory . For energies much lower than the radius of the compact manifold the theory will be a 3 (or 2) dimensional field theory, respectively.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review the basic formalism and set-up of the six-dimensional Romans’ theories. Section 3 is devoted to the study of the gravity duals of superconformal field theories in 3 and 5 dimensions. We focus on a non-Abelian solution, which will be up-lifted to massive type IIA string theory. It can be interpreted as a D4-D8 system where the D4-brane is wrapped on 2- and 3-cycles. Section 4 begins with the up-lifting for the massless case to type IIA theory (even when expected this is another new result of this work). Then, we study the corresponding twisted gauge field theories. We discuss the relation between our solutions and the previous ones , regarding the structure of their actions in the string frame. Finally, we present our conclusions.

## 2 The Romans’ theories in 6 dimensions

In this section we review the six-dimensional gauged $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity constructed by Romans , whose conventions we follow. The theory consists of a graviton $`e_\mu ^\alpha `$, three $`SU(2)`$ gauge potentials $`A_\mu ^I`$, an Abelian potential $`𝒜_\mu `$, a two-index tensor gauge field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, a scalar $`\varphi `$, four gravitinos $`\psi _{\mu i}`$ and four gauginos $`\chi _\mu `$. The bosonic Lagrangian is

$`e^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu \varphi )(_\mu \varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }(^{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }+F^{I\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }G_{\mu \nu \rho }G^{\mu \nu \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g^2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }+4gm\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }m^2\mathrm{e}^{3\sqrt{2}\varphi })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}e\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \kappa }B_{\mu \nu }(_{\rho \sigma }_{\tau \kappa }+mB_{\rho \sigma }_{\tau \kappa }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m^2B_{\rho \sigma }B_{\tau \kappa }+F_{\rho \sigma }^IF_{\tau \kappa }^I),`$
where $`e`$ is the determinant of the vielbein, $`g`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ coupling constant, $`m`$ is the mass parameter associated with the two-index tensor field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \kappa }`$ is a Levi-Civita tensor density. The Abelian field strength $`_{\mu \nu }`$, the non-Abelian one $`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$, the three-form $`G_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ and the field $`_{\mu \nu }`$ are given by

$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu ,`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ $``$ $`_\mu A_\nu ^I_\nu A_\mu ^I+gϵ^{IJK}A_\mu ^JA_\nu ^K,`$
$`G_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`3_{[\mu }B_{\nu \rho ]},`$
$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`_{\mu \nu }+mB_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
respectively. The supersymmetry transformations for the gauginos and gravitinos are

$`\delta \chi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \varphi +A\gamma _7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }\gamma _7\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }G_{\mu \nu \rho }\right)ϵ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(\widehat{H}_{\mu \nu })_i^jϵ_j,`$ (3)
$`\delta \psi _{\mu i}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(_\mu +T\gamma _\mu \gamma _7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }\gamma _7\gamma ^{\nu \rho \sigma }G_{\nu \rho \sigma }\gamma _\mu \right)ϵ_i`$ (4)
$`+\left(gA_\mu ^I(T^I)_i^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}(\gamma _\mu ^{\nu \rho }6\delta _\mu ^\nu \gamma ^\rho )(\widehat{H}_{\nu \rho })_i^j\right)ϵ_j,`$
where $`A`$, $`T`$, and $`\widehat{H}`$ are defined as follows

$`A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}(g\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}3m\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}),T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}}(ge^{\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}+m\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}),`$ (5)
$`(\widehat{H}_{\mu \nu })_i^j`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{\mu \nu }\delta _i^j+\gamma _7F_{\mu \nu }^I(T^I)_i^j\right).`$ (6)
The gauge-covariant derivative $`𝒟_\mu `$ acting on the Killing spinor is

$$𝒟_\mu ϵ_i=_\mu ϵ_i+gA_\mu ^I(T^I)_i^jϵ_j,$$
(7)
with

$$_\mu ϵ_i(_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\alpha \beta })ϵ_i,$$
(8)
where $`\omega _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the spin connection. Indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are tangent space (or flat) indices, while $`\mu ,\nu `$ are spacetime (or curved) indices. The $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}}`$ are the six-dimensional Dirac matrices,

$$\gamma _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=\frac{1}{n!}\gamma _{[\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\alpha _n]},n=1,\mathrm{},6.$$

The equations of motion of the Lagrangian (1) are

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_{\mu \nu }(g^2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }+4gm\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }m^2\mathrm{e}^{3\sqrt{2}\varphi })`$ (9)
$`+\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }(G_\mu ^{\rho \sigma }G_{\nu \rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_{\mu \nu }G^{\rho \sigma \tau }G_{\rho \sigma \tau })`$
$`2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }(_\mu ^\rho _{\nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_{\mu \nu }_{\rho \sigma }^{\rho \sigma })`$
$`2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }(F_\mu ^{I\rho }F_{\nu \rho }^I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }^IF^{I\rho \sigma }),`$
$`\mathrm{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}(g^2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }4mg\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }+3m^2\mathrm{e}^{3\sqrt{2}\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }`$ (10)
$`\times G^{\mu \nu \rho }G_{\mu \nu \rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }(^{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }+F^{I\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^I),`$
$`𝒟_\nu (\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }^{\nu \mu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \kappa }_{\nu \rho }G_{\sigma \tau \kappa },`$ (11)
$`𝒟_\nu (\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }F^{I\nu \mu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}e\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \kappa }F_{\nu \rho }^IG_{\sigma \tau \kappa },`$ (12)
$`𝒟_\rho (\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }G^{\rho \mu \nu })`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \kappa }(_{\rho \sigma }_{\tau \kappa }+F_{\rho \sigma }^IF_{\tau \kappa }^I).`$ (13)
Depending upon the values of the gauge coupling and mass parameter, there are five distinct theories: $`𝒩=4^+`$ (for $`g>0,m>0`$), $`𝒩=4^{}`$ (for $`g<0,m>0`$), $`𝒩=4^g`$ (for $`g>0,m=0`$), $`𝒩=4^m`$ (for $`g=0,m>0`$), and $`𝒩=4^0`$ (for $`g=0,m=0`$). The $`𝒩=4^g`$ theory coincides with a theory  obtained by dimensional reduction of gauged $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity in seven dimensions, followed by truncation. It was pointed out in  that there is a dual version of the $`𝒩=4^g`$ theory, which has a similar field content but cannot be obtained from the $`𝒩=4^g`$ theory by a field redefinition. The $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field is replaced by a new tensor field $`A_{\mu \nu }`$, whose field strength is $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^I`$. In absence of the Abelian field strength, the bosonic Lagrangian of the dual $`𝒩=\stackrel{~}{4}^g`$ theory is

$$\stackrel{~}{e}^1\stackrel{~}{}=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{R}+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^I\stackrel{~}{F}^{I\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu \rho }+\frac{1}{8}\stackrel{~}{g}^2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }},$$
(14)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho }3\left(_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho ]}F_{[\mu \nu }^IA_{\rho ]}^I\frac{1}{3}gϵ^{IJK}A_\mu ^IA_\nu ^JA_\rho ^K\right).$$
(15)
The Lagrangian (14) can be obtained from the Lagrangian (1) by formally writing $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho }=\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}e\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau \kappa }G^{\sigma \tau \kappa }.$$
(16)
Since the Lagrangian (14) differs from $`𝒩=4^g`$ theory only by a sign of dilaton coupling to three-form field, in the absence of the three-form field $`𝒩=4^g`$ and $`𝒩=\stackrel{~}{4}^g`$ are identical. Furthermore, the Eq. (16) tells us that any solution of $`𝒩=4^g`$ theory with the two-form fields not being excited, which is also a solution of $`𝒩=\stackrel{~}{4}^g`$ theory, can be up-lifted into higher dimensional theory. We will consider the ten-dimensional interpretation of $`𝒩=4^g`$ theory in section 4.

## 3 Duals of 5 and 3-dimensional SCFTs

In this section we study the gravity duals of superconformal field theories in five dimensions with 8 supercharges , which in the IR flow to superconformal field theories in three dimensions with 4 supercharges, which is $`𝒩=2`$ in three dimensions .

The spinors of $`SO(1,4)`$ are pseudoreal with four components. These theories in 5 dimensions are related by compactifications to $`𝒩=2`$ four-dimensional theories. They have an $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry of automorphism algebra which can be associated with the gauged symmetry in the gravitational set-up of . The vector multiplet in five dimensions has one real scalar component, a vector gauge field and a spinor, while the hypermultiplet has four real scalars and a fermion. This theory has a Coulomb branch when the real scalar has a vev, and a Higgs branch when the scalar in the hypermultiplet is excited. Our gravitational system can be understood as follows. Suppose that we start from type I theory on $`R^9\times S^1`$, and we consider N D5-branes, the gauge theory on the branes is $`𝒩=1`$ $`Sp(N)`$ gauge field theory with one hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric representation and 16 hypermultiplets in the fundamental. After T-dualizing on $`S^1`$ we arrive at a type I’ configuration on $`S^1/Z_2`$ with two O8 planes, N D4-branes and 16 D8-branes. The hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric representation is massless while the mass of the fundamental hypermultiplets is given by the relative position of the D8-branes with respect to the D4-brane. The theory on the D4-brane is $`Sp(N)`$ with one vector multiplet (whose scalar component describes the Coulomb branch $`R^+`$) and hypermultiplets whose first components describe the Higgs branch. The global symmetries of the theory are $`SU(2)_R\times SU(2)\times SO(2N_f)\times U(1)`$, being the first $`SU(2)`$ the R-symmetry (the supercharges and the scalars in the hypermultiplets are doublets under this group). The second one is associated with the hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric representation and the rest is associated with the hypermultiplets in the fundamental and instantons. When the D4-brane is in the origin of the Coulomb branch we have a fixed point and the global symmetry is enhanced to $`SU(2)\times E_{N_f+1}`$. The gravitational system is given by $`N_f`$ D8-branes situated on a $`O_8`$ plane, $`16N_f`$ D8-branes in another fixed plane and, a D4-brane which can move between them. The position of the D4-brane is parameterized by the scalar in the vector multiplet. If $`<\varphi >`$ is not zero we have a theory with a $`U(1)`$ symmetry with $`N_f`$ “electrons”, on the fixed planes, the theory recovers its $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry and it will have $`N_f`$ quarks.

The gravity theory is a fibration of $`AdS_6`$ over $`S^4`$, with isometries $`SO(2,5)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. The six-dimensional $`SU(2)`$ gauged supergravity has an $`AdS_6`$ vacuum solution. It can be up-lifted to massive IIA theory  leading to the configuration described above . In our case we will consider solutions of Romans’ theory which, when uplifted, will give ten dimensional configurations with $`N_f=0`$. These theories were very well studied in  in the context of algebraic geometry. There the authors studied the moduli spaces of type I’ string and Heterotic string. It will be interesting to understand the case of $`N_f0`$ and see whether there is a gravity solution dual to the theory with enhanced symmetry $`E_1^{}`$. It will be also useful to clarify the role of D0-branes in our gravity solutions. In principle they should correspond to excitations of the six-dimensional Abelian gauge field. We will not consider these fields here. We leave this for a future work.

In order to analyze the flow of the theory from five dimensions to a superconformal theory in three dimensions with four supercharges, we would like to consider a configuration where the geometry “loses” two dimensions at low energies. Therefore, the idea is the following: we start with a six-dimensional gauged supergravity theory having an $`AdS_6`$ vacuum and 8 preserved supercharges. This vacuum solution is dual to the five-dimensional SCFT mentioned above and its ten-dimensional interpretation is given by a D4-D8 system. When one moves to the IR of the gauge theory (flowing in the radial coordinate on the gravity dual) two of the dimensions of the theory become very small and no low energy massless modes are excited on this two-space. Therefore, effectively the gauge theory is three-dimensional. Besides, since the D4-brane is wrapped on a curved surface, we need to twist the theory. The effect of this twisting is the breaking of some supersymmetries, as it can be seen from the projections of the Killing vectors.

Under the group $`SO(1,4)\times SO(3)_R`$ the fields on the D4-brane transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. In the IR the metric is taken to have $`SO(1,2)\times SO(2)_D`$ symmetry. The twisting involve “mixing” the $`SO(2)`$ group of the metric with an $`SO(2)`$ included in $`SO(3)_R`$. This mixing is responsible for the breaking of some supersymmetries because the only spinors that can be defined on the curved manifold are those that have scalar properties on the curved part. In fact, it breaks $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries of the five-dimensional SCFT.

Below we construct a gravity dual to the five-dimensional SCFT theory by finding a solution of Romans’ theory with excited $`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ fields. Then, we find a fixed-point solution for the massive field configuration. We postpone the study of the massless case to the next section.

Let us consider the metric ansätze of the form

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2f}(dt^2dr^2dz^2dv^2)\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2h}}{y^2}(dx^2+dy^2),$$
(17)
$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2f}(dt^2dr^2dz^2dv^2)\mathrm{e}^{2h}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(18)
for $`AdS_4\times H_2`$ and $`AdS_4\times S^2`$, respectively. The only non-vanishing non-Abelian gauge potential components are taken to be

$$A_x^{(3)}=\frac{a}{y},A_\phi ^{(3)}=a\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(19)
in the hyperbolic and spherical cases, respectively. One can treat both cases together by introducing a parameter $`\lambda `$ that can take two values

$$\lambda =+1H_2,\lambda =1S^2.$$
(20)
We impose the following projections

$$\gamma _{45}(T^{(3)})_i^jϵ_j=\frac{\lambda }{2}ϵ_i,\gamma _2\gamma _7ϵ_i=ϵ_i.$$
(21)
A solution must satisfy the equations obtained by setting to zero the supersymmetry transformations for gauginos and gravitinos. After some algebra, they lead to

$$\phi ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^f}{4\sqrt{2}}[g\mathrm{e}^\phi 3m\mathrm{e}^{3\phi }+2a\lambda \mathrm{e}^{2h\phi }],$$
(22)
$$h^{}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^f}{4\sqrt{2}}[g\mathrm{e}^\phi m\mathrm{e}^{3\phi }+6a\lambda \mathrm{e}^{2h\phi }],$$
(23)
and

$$f^{}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^f}{4\sqrt{2}}[g\mathrm{e}^\phi +m\mathrm{e}^{3\phi }+2a\lambda \mathrm{e}^{2h\phi }],$$
(24)
where $`\phi \varphi /\sqrt{2}`$.

A fixed-point solution of these equations is given by

$`\mathrm{e}^{4\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{g}},`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2h}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{gm}{8}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\lambda }},`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{f(r)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{e}^\phi }{2\sqrt{2}}}r.`$ (25)
In fact, it only happens if $`\lambda a>0`$. This solution satisfies the second order equations derived from the starting six-dimensional Lagrangian.

We can analyze the structure of the solutions of the system above near the UV of the theory ($`r=0`$). Indeed, we can see that an expansion leads to the following behavior for the different fields

$$f\mathrm{log}(r)+c_1r^2+\mathrm{},g\mathrm{log}(r)+c_2r^2+\mathrm{},\varphi c_3r^2+\mathrm{}$$
(26)
(where $`c_i`$’s are constants). The interpretation of these expansions  is that the scalar field $`\varphi `$ describes the coupling of the five-dimensional field theory to an operator of conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$ and mass squared $`m^2=6`$. The operator is not the highest component of its supermultiplet, thus it is a deformation that breaks some supersymmetry.

The ten-dimensional metric corresponding to the fixed-point solution described above is easily obtained by using the results of ,

$$X=\left(\frac{2m}{g}\right)^{1/4},\mathrm{\Delta }=gX\mathrm{cos}^2\chi +3mX^3\mathrm{sin}^2\chi ,$$
(27)
$`ds_{10}^2=(3mg^2)^{1/8}(\mathrm{sin}\chi )^{\frac{1}{12}}X^{1/8}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/8}\mathrm{e}^{2f_0}}{2r^2}}(dt^2+dr^2+dv^2+dz^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/8}}{\sqrt{g^3m}y^2}}(dx^2+dy^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/8}\sqrt{2mg^3}d\chi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{5/8}}{gX}}\mathrm{cos}^2\chi ((\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{y}})^2+\sigma _2^2+\sigma _3^2)].`$ (28)
The metric has symmetries of the form $`SO(2)\times SO(3)`$. The corresponding expression for the RR fields and the ten-dimensional dilaton can be read from  and we do not quote it here.

Although we could not find an exact solution, we can carry out a similar analysis to . Actually, the two cases $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ can be gathered again. Thus defining $`Fu^2e^{2\phi },ue^{2h(r)}`$ and using Eqs.(22), (23) we obtain the following differential equation

$$\frac{dF}{du}=\left(\frac{3gu^4mF^210a\lambda uF}{gu^4+mF^26a\lambda uF}\right)\frac{F}{u}.$$
(29)
For the case $`\lambda =+1`$ (hyperbolic plane), we can solve this equation in the approximations when $`u\mathrm{}`$ and $`u0`$. In fact, in the UV one has

$$Fu^2+\mathrm{},\mathrm{e}^{2\phi }1+\mathrm{},$$
(30)
and the metric results to be the $`AdS_6`$ limit of our original metric. In the IR we have

$$FF_0u^{5/3}+\mathrm{},e^{2\phi }F_0u^{1/3}+\mathrm{}$$
(31)
and the metric is

$$ds_6^2=\frac{1}{u^{1/3}}(dt^2dz^2dv^2)\frac{u}{y^2}(dx^2+dy^2)\frac{2}{9F_0au^{1/3}}du^2.$$
(32)
Figure 1: Orbits for the case $`AdS_4\times H_2`$. In the UV limit $`F`$ behaves as $`u^2`$ leading to an $`AdS_6`$-type region. On the other hand, it flows to “bad” singularities (BS) in the IR. We have used $`g=3m`$ with $`m=\sqrt{2}`$, and $`a=1`$.

When up-lifted the singularities turn out to be of the “bad”type. They correspond to the curves flowing to the origin of the plots in figure 1. On the other hand, in both cases of the hyperbolic plane and sphere there are other kinds of “bad” singularities that correspond to the orbits going like $`F\frac{1}{u}`$ as $`u`$ approaches to zero. Particularly, one can see this kind of behavior in figure 2. For the two-sphere we have the set of orbits depicted in figure 2.

This also constitutes a part of the IR behavior of the flow. As we can see in figures 1 and 2, there is a smooth solution interpolating between the UV and the IR limits of the system, thus realizing our initial set up. The fixed-point solution is out of the range of this plot.

Figure 2: We show the behavior of the orbits for the case $`S^2`$. Similar comments as in the previous case are also valid here. For small $`u`$-values we can see the region corresponding to $`F\frac{1}{u}`$.

In summary, we have found a fixed-point solution for the hyperbolic plane. In the UV both geometries flow to their corresponding asymptotic $`AdS_6`$. In the IR limit all the singularities in both geometries are of “bad” type according the criterion of ref. . Similar behaviour is expected for the sphere. Note that the solutions studied here only represent a special case of solutions that, in general, have the form of a Laurent series. The fact that these solutions have non-acceptable singularities can be easily seen from the construction of an effective potential corresponding to this effective four dimensional system, and following the analysis outlined by Gubser in ref.  one can see that these kinds of solutions will not be interpretable as the IR of a gauge theory. However, this does not exclude the possibility of finding a different solution that could have an interpretation as the transcendental solution found in ref. .

### 3.1 A non-Abelian solution in massive type IIA theory

In this section we describe a non-Abelian solution in the massive IIA theory. Therefore, we consider a gravity dual of a five-dimensional SCFT with 8 supercharges that flows through the dimensions to a two-dimensional (1,1) CFT with two supercharges at the IR. Its field content is given by a real scalar, a gauge field and the corresponding fermionic partner. The idea is to find a compactification from six-dimensional supergravity on $`AdS_3\times H_3`$. Under $`SO(1,4)\times SO(3)_R`$ the charges transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. After the twisting $`SO(1,4)\times SO(3)_RSO(1,1)\times SO(3)\times SO(3)_RSO(1,1)\times SO(3)_D`$ we are left with two supercharges which are scalars under the diagonal subgroup. $`SO(3)_D`$ results from the identification of the normal bundle of the D4-brane world-volume with the spin bundle of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$. They are the two “twisted” supercharges that survive the twisting process. The field content of the theory can be obtained along the same lines and the result is the one mentioned above.

We believe that this solution is the first example of a non-Abelian solution of massive type IIA theory. It is similar to the solution obtained in  for massive seven-dimensional gauged supergravity. In that case the solution up-lifts to M theory. Therefore, this suggests some connection between theories in the line of ref.  that merits further exploration.

Our configuration is

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2f}(dt^2dr^2du^2)\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2h}}{y^2}(dx^2+dz^2+dy^2),A_x^{(1)}=\frac{a}{y},A_z^{(3)}=\frac{b}{y},$$
(33)
we can also consider an $`AdS_3\times S^3`$, for $`\lambda =1`$. The projections (all the indexes are plane indexes) are given by

$$\gamma _{65}(T^{(3)})_i^jϵ_j=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_i,\gamma _{64}(T^{(2)})_i^jϵ_j=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_i,\gamma _{45}(T^{(1)})_i^jϵ_j=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_i,\gamma _7\gamma _2ϵ_i=ϵ_i,$$
(34)
we use $`\xi =e^{\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}`$. The BPS equations are

$$ab=\frac{1}{g},$$
(35)
$$h^{}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^f}{4\sqrt{2}}[g\xi +m\xi ^310\lambda a\xi ^1\mathrm{e}^{2h}],$$
(36)
$$\varphi ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^f}{4\sqrt{2}}[g\xi 3m\xi ^3+6\lambda a\xi ^1\mathrm{e}^{2h}],$$
(37)
$$f^{}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^f}{4\sqrt{2}}[g\xi +m\xi ^3+6\lambda a\xi ^1\mathrm{e}^{2h}].$$
(38)
A fixed-point solution is obtained and it reads as it follows

$$\mathrm{e}^{2h}=\frac{\sqrt{g^3m}}{2\sqrt{6}},\xi =\left(\frac{3m}{2g}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(39)
This configuration can be uplifted to ten dimensions (massive IIA theory) using the results in

$$X=e^{\varphi /\sqrt{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }=gX\mathrm{cos}^2\chi +3mX^3\mathrm{sin}^2\chi ,$$
(40)
$`ds_{10}^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3mg^2}}\right)^{1/8}(\mathrm{sin}\chi )^{\frac{1}{12}}X^{1/8}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/8}}{2r^2}}(dt^2+dr^2+dv^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2h}}{2y^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/8}(dx^2+dz^2+dy^2)+g^2\xi \mathrm{\Delta }^{3/8}d\chi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{5/8}}{gX}}\mathrm{cos}^2\chi ((\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{y}})^2+\sigma _2^2+(\sigma _3{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{y}})^2)],`$ (41)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are the three left-invariant forms in the three-sphere. We can see that the metric has an $`SO(2)\times SO(3)`$ invariance.

Since we are not able to integrate the above BPS system, we will repeat the analysis of the singularities as we did in the previous section. Again, both cases (hyperbolic plane and sphere) are treated together by using the parameter $`\lambda =\pm 1`$. Proceeding as above we get the following first order differential equation

$$\frac{dF}{du}=\left(\frac{3gu^4mF^214a\lambda uF}{gu^4+mF^210a\lambda uF}\right)\frac{F}{u}.$$
(42)
When $`\lambda =+1`$ we solve this equation in two approximations, $`u\mathrm{}`$ and $`u0`$. The large-$`u`$ approximation leads to the corresponding asymptotic $`AdS_6`$ whereas the other case gives

$$FF_0\frac{1}{u}+\mathrm{},\mathrm{e}^{2\phi }\frac{F_0}{u^3}+\mathrm{},$$
(43)
$$F2\frac{a}{m}u+\mathrm{},e^{2\phi }\frac{2a}{mu}+\mathrm{}$$
(44)
$$FF_0u^{7/5}+\mathrm{},e^{2\phi }F_0u^{3/5}+\mathrm{}.$$
(45)
Note that all the singularities are of the “bad” type in the IR.

Figure 3: Behavior of the orbits for the non-Abelian massive case. The $`AdS_6`$-type region is at the UV, i.e., for large $`u`$ and $`F`$-values. In the IR it flows to “bad” singularities (BS). The cross indicates the fixed point-solution aforementioned. We again set $`g=3m`$, $`m=\sqrt{2}`$, and $`a=b=\lambda =1`$.

Here we should make a similar comment as the one in the previous section: Gubser’s criteria tells us to construct the effective potential of the three-dimensional gravity theory. With this potential we can see that the solutions in the form of a Laurent series showed above will not have an interpretation as the IR limit of a gauge theory.

## 4 The massless case

Consider six-dimensional gauged supergravity with the mass parameter taken to be zero ($`m=0`$). We would like to find a ten-dimensional Kaluza-Klein ansatz which allows us to perform the up-lifting of certain solutions of the six-dimensional Romans’ theory. In this section, we will show that the $`𝒩=\stackrel{~}{4}^g`$ theory can be embedded in type IIA theory.

Thus, we start with type IIA theory in ten dimensions and set the two- and three-form field strengths to zero. After the truncation the bosonic Lagrangian is

$$\widehat{}_{10}=\widehat{R}1\frac{1}{2}d\widehat{\varphi }d\widehat{\varphi }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\varphi }}\widehat{F}_{(4)}\widehat{F}_{(4)}.$$
(46)
The ten-dimensional equations of motion are

$`d\widehat{}d\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\varphi }}\widehat{}\widehat{F}_{(4)}\widehat{F}_{(4)},`$
$`d(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\varphi }}\widehat{}\widehat{F}_{(4)})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \widehat{\varphi }_\nu \widehat{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\varphi }}(\widehat{F}_{\mu \rho \sigma \tau }\widehat{F}_\nu ^{\rho \sigma \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}g_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{(4)}^2),`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (47)
Notice that the last equation is a constraint resulting from the fact that we set $`\widehat{F}_{(3)}=\widehat{}_{(2)}=0`$.

Reducing the theory on a circle, we get a nine-dimensional theory whose bosonic sector consists of a graviton, two scalars, a three-form field strength and a two-form field strength. One can consistently truncate this theory to a theory whose bosonic content includes a graviton, a scalar and a three-form field strength. The ansätze for the metric, scalar and three-form fields are

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{5}{8\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}d\overline{s}_9^2+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{35}{\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}dZ^2,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{14}}{8}}\overline{\varphi },`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{F}_{(3)}dZ.`$ (48)
The resulting nine-dimensional Lagrangian and its equations of motion are

$`\overline{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\overline{\varphi }d\overline{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}\overline{F}_{(3)}\overline{F}_{(3)},`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`d(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}\overline{}\overline{F}_{(3)}),`$
$`\mathrm{}\overline{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{14}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}\overline{F}_{(3)}^2,`$
$`\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \overline{\varphi }_\nu \overline{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}\left(\overline{F}_{\mu \rho \sigma }\overline{F}_\nu ^{\rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{21}}g_{\mu \nu }\overline{F}_{(3)}^2\right).`$ (49)
Now, we compactify the 9-dimensional theory on $`S^3`$ using the formulae in . The metric ansatz is

$$d\overline{s}_9^2=X^{3/14}ds_6^2+\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2}X^{2/7}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\sigma ^i\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(1)}^i)^2,$$
(50)
where $`\sigma ^i,i=1,2,3`$ are left-invariant 1-forms of $`SU(2)`$

$`\sigma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,`$
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,`$
$`\sigma ^3`$ $`=`$ $`d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi ,`$ (51)
and $`X=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$. The ansätze for three-form field, its Hodge dual and the scalar field are

$`\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{\frac{7}{2}}\overline{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`X,`$
$`\overline{F}_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}\stackrel{~}{h}^1\stackrel{~}{h}^2\stackrel{~}{h}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i\stackrel{~}{h}^i,`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4}{\sqrt{14}}\overline{\varphi }}\overline{}\overline{F}_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\stackrel{~}{g}^3}}X^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}\stackrel{~}{h}^1\stackrel{~}{h}^2\stackrel{~}{h}^3+2\stackrel{~}{g}X^{1/2}ϵ_{(6)}`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}ϵ_{ijk}X^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i\stackrel{~}{h}^j\stackrel{~}{h}^k,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}^i\sigma ^i\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{A}^i`$. Substituting these ansätze into the nine-dimensional equations of motion we get

$`d\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i,`$
$`d(X^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (53)
$`𝒟(X^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i)`$ $`=`$ $`X^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i,`$
$`d(X^1dX)`$ $`=`$ $`X^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}X^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i4\stackrel{~}{g}^2X^{1/2}ϵ_{(6)}.`$
The ansatz and the Lagrangian that produce Eq. (4) are

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}ds_6^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{8}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\sigma ^i\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(1)}^i)^2+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{5\sqrt{2}}{8}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}dZ^2,`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}\stackrel{~}{h}^1\stackrel{~}{h}^2\stackrel{~}{h}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{g}}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i\stackrel{~}{h}^i)dZ,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_6`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^i\stackrel{~}{F}^{i\mu \nu }+4\stackrel{~}{g}^2\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}^2,`$ (54)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(3)}=d\stackrel{~}{A}_{(2)}+\frac{1}{4}(\stackrel{~}{F}_{(2)}^i\stackrel{~}{A}_{(1)}^i\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{g}ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(1)}^i\stackrel{~}{A}_{(1)}^j\stackrel{~}{A}_{(1)}^k)`$. For an easy comparison with the Romans’ theory we make the following rescalings

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu },\stackrel{~}{g}\frac{1}{2}g,\stackrel{~}{A}^i\sqrt{2}A^i,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }2\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{F}_3F_3.$$
(55)
The Lagrangian and the ansatz in Eq.(54) now become

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\varphi }ds_6^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{4}\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\sigma ^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}gA_{(1)}^i\right)^2+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{5\sqrt{2}}{4}\varphi }dZ^2,`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(F_{(3)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}h^1h^2h^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}g}}F_{(2)}^ih^i\right)dZ,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi ,`$
$`e^1_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{i\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g^2\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi }F_3^2,`$ (56)
where $`h^i=\sigma ^i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gA^i`$. The Lagrangian in Eq. (56) is precisely the $`𝒩=\stackrel{~}{4}^g`$ Romans’ theory.

We can study a similar problem to the one in the previous section. One can write down a similar ansatz for the metric, i.e. a wrapped product of $`AdS_4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ is a an hyperbolic plane or a sphere, as before. The system of Eqs.(22)-(24) can be studied in the massless case, i.e. $`m=0`$, while $`g`$ and $`a`$ are non-vanishing quantities. We have the solution

$$f=\phi ,\phi =\frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}r+\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{log}(r),h=\frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}r+\frac{3}{8}\mathrm{log}(r).$$
(57)
Therefore, the six-dimensional metric is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{gr}{2\sqrt{2}}}}{r^{1/4}}[dt^2dr^2dz^2dv^2rd\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^2].$$
(58)
The metric has a singularity. One way to resolve it is to look for a solution that has more degrees of freedom excited such as a non-Abelian solution. Another way to have an acceptable gravity solution is to construct a black hole solution such that the singularity is hidden by the horizon . In the next section we will discuss a resolution of the singularity in the $`S^2`$ case, i.e., when the parameter $`\lambda =1`$ in Eqs.(22) to (24).

### 4.1 A non-Abelian solution

We would like to present a non-Abelian solution that resolves the “bad” singularity of the solution Eq.(58). This solution will be useful for the study of the gravity dual for the three-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory. Actually this solution, being related to the solution in reference  represents a smeared NS-fivebrane on $`S^2`$ after a T-duality. In the IR the theory living on the brane will be $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory in three dimensions plus Kaluza-Klein modes that do not decouple. The solution in the string frame is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2[dt^2dr^2d\stackrel{}{x}_2^2\mathrm{e}^{2h}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2d\phi ^2)],`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`w^{}\sigma ^2drd\theta +w^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta \sigma ^1drd\phi +(w^21)\sigma ^3\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi ,`$
$`\varphi _S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(r)}{R(r)}}\right),w(r)={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\mathrm{sinh}(r)}},w^{}={\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dr}},`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2h}`$ $`=`$ $`R(r)^2,R(r)=\sqrt{2r\mathrm{coth}(r)r^2/\mathrm{sinh}(r)^21}.`$ (59)
This is the same solution reported by Chamseddine and Volkov in .

The relations between the scalars and metric in Einstein frame and string frame are

$$\phi =\frac{1}{2}\varphi _S;g_{\mu \nu }(E)=\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _S}g_{\mu \nu }(S).$$

In Einstein frame the solution is

$$ds_E^2=2\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _S}(dt^2+dr^2+d\stackrel{}{x}_2^2)+\mathrm{e}^{2G(r)}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(60)
where the dilaton is given by

$`\varphi _S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(r)}{R(r)}}\right),`$
$`R(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2r\mathrm{coth}(r)w(r)^21},\mathrm{e}^{2G}=R(r)^2,w(r)={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\mathrm{sinh}(r)}}.`$ (61)
The field strength components are

$`F_{(2)}^1`$ $`=`$ $`w^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta drd\phi ,`$
$`F_{(2)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`w^{}drd\theta ,`$
$`F_{(2)}^3`$ $`=`$ $`(w^21)\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi .`$ (62)
Collecting all we have the following ten-dimensional solution:

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{8}\varphi }\left[dt^2+dr^2+d\stackrel{}{x}_2^2+\mathrm{e}^{2G}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\sigma ^i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}A_{(1)}^i)^2\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{5\sqrt{2}}{8}\varphi }dZ^2`$
$`\widehat{F}_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}h^1h^2h^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}g}}F_{(2)}^ih^i)dZ,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(r)}{R(r)}}\right).`$ (63)
A black hole solution in the massless theory

The solutions of the massless six-dimensional Romans’ theory, the string frame metric and 2-form ansatz are

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{r}}dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rf(r)}}dr^2R^2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\phi _1^2)dx^2dy^2,`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`h(r)drdt+{\displaystyle \frac{RQ_m}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\theta _1d\phi _1,`$ (64)
where $`f`$ and $`h`$ are functions of $`r`$ while $`\gamma `$ and $`Q_m`$ are constants.

The solution in the string frame is

$$h(r)=\frac{Q_e}{r^2},f(r)=M+\frac{2Q_e^2}{r}+\left(\frac{g^2}{2}+\frac{Q_m^2}{R^2}\right)r,\varphi (r)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(r).$$
(65)
Similar solutions were previously discussed in . Our solution has a different geometry and can carry both electric and magnetic charges.

One can up-lift the above solution to type IIA theory, and the results are

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^{1/8}\times `$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{\sqrt{r}}}dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}f(r)}}dr^2R^2\sqrt{r}(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\phi _1^2)\sqrt{r}(dx^2+dy^2)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{3/8}}{g^2}}\left[(\sigma ^1)^2+(\sigma ^2)^2+\left(\sigma ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{gQ_e}{\sqrt{2}r}}dt+{\displaystyle \frac{gRQ_m}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\phi _1\right)^2\right]+r^{5/8}dZ^2,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}(r),`$
$`\widehat{F}_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\sigma ^2\sigma ^2h^3dZ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}g}}F_2h^3dZ,`$
$`h^3`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{gQ_e}{\sqrt{2}r}}dt+{\displaystyle \frac{gRQ_m}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\phi _1.`$ (66)
For different values of the constants $`Q_e,Q_m,R,g`$ we will have either a horizon or a naked singularity. It should be instructive to compute the entropy and the Hawking temperature of this black holes and comparing with the M-theory black holes obtained in . Since the system analyzed in that reference is the same in string variables as the one we analyze here, it is expected that those results will be repeated. Indeed, the ten-dimensional interpretation suggested in  agrees with the one we have described above.

A solution with excited B-fields

Here we consider the six-dimensional Romans’ theory with the mass parameter and all the fields except the scalar and the three-form field set to zero. In addition, we take $`G_3`$ to be a constant. The geometry of the $`AdS_3\times R^3`$ spacetime is given by

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2f}(dt^2dr^2dz^2)\mathrm{e}^{2h}(dx^2+dy^2+dv^2).$$
(67)
Let us consider a spinor satisfying the following constraints

$$\gamma _2\gamma _7ϵ_i=ϵ_i\gamma _{456}ϵ_i=ϵ_i,$$
(68)
and

$$G_{xyv}=G.$$
(69)
From the vanishing of the supersymmetric variation of gravitinos and gauginos we obtain two independent equations

$`h^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^f\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{e}^\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{3h+2\phi }\right),`$ (70)
$`f^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^f\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{e}^\phi {\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{3h+2\phi }\right),`$ (71)
$`\phi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`h^{}.`$ (72)
A fixed-point solution can be easily obtained

$$\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}}=\frac{g\mathrm{e}^{3h}}{2\sqrt{2}G}.$$
(73)
The values of $`h(r)`$ remain undetermined since the equations for $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`h^{}`$ are proportional to each other. In this case, $`f(r)`$ is given by

$$f(r)=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{g^2\mathrm{e}^{3h}r}{8G}\right),$$
(74)
therefore the metric is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\left(\frac{g^2\mathrm{e}^{3h}r}{8G}\right)^2}(dt^2dr^2dz^2)\mathrm{e}^{2h}(dx^2+dy^2+dv^2).$$
(75)
Equation (72) implies that $`\phi =h`$, where for simplicity we omit integration constants. The system of equations above can be solved leading to

$$f(h)=h+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{e}^{4h}+\frac{G}{2}\right).$$
(76)
Next, if we make the change of the integration variable $`rh`$, such that

$$\mathrm{e}^fdr=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{5h}}{(\frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{e}^{4h})+\frac{G}{2}}dh,$$
(77)
in terms of $`h`$ the metric reads

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{10h}}{\left(\frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{e}^{4h}+\frac{G}{2}\right)^2}dh^2+\mathrm{e}^{2h}\left(\frac{g}{4\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{e}^{4h}+\frac{G}{2}\right)(dt^2dz^2)\mathrm{e}^{2h}(dx^2+dy^2+dv^2).$$
(78)
Using Eq.(16) we can write down the field strength of the dual theory as follows

$$F_{trz}=G\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi +3f3h}.$$
(79)
The ten-dimensional solution is

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{2}\varphi /4}ds_6^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{e}^{3\sqrt{2}\varphi /4}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2d\phi ^2+(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi )^2)+\mathrm{e}^{5\sqrt{2}\varphi /4}dz_1^2,`$
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`G\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}\varphi +3f3h}dtdrdzdz_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi d\theta d\phi dz_1,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi .`$ (80)
The metric has a form of a warped product of a six-dimensional space, a three sphere and a single coordinate. We also note that the $`G_3`$ field does not play a similar role to the previous cases. In fact, there is no twisting in this case, since the space is not curved. One can view this solution as a NS-fivebrane of type IIB after wrapping one of the directions on a circle. It would be interesting to find an example in which the twisting on the curved manifold is performed by a $`B_2`$ field.

## 5 Discussion

Here we would like to start with some comments about the solutions presented in sections 3 and 4. The solutions in section 3 are very similar to those obtained in  for supergravities in seven dimensions. This may not be a coincidence since in the string frame both supergravities (one in seven dimensions and the other in six dimensions) have very similar structure. Furthermore, their supersymmetric transformations also look similar. This indicates that lower-dimensional supergravities are in some sense related to each other. This relation may be better understood in the light of the up-lifted solutions in ten or eleven dimensions since the up-lifted solutions could be related by the known dualities.

In section 4 we constructed a non-Abelian solution that, as we noted, is identical to the solution obtained in  and interpreted in  as a wrapped NS-fivebrane. In that case it was a gravity dual of a theory that is very similar to $`𝒩=1`$ SYM. In our case, we can interpret the massless solution as the same NS-fivebrane with one direction compactified. Therefore, the number of supercharges remains the same and the world-volume theory is three-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ SYM theory, as pointed out before. The identity of the string frame action in six dimensions (with $`m=0`$) and the action in seven dimensions (with topological mass equal to zero) reveals that we are dealing with the same system. We can extend this and try to look at the same issue in five dimensions. In fact, a similar situation occurs there too. One of the solutions presented in  can be related to the NS-fivebrane solution. In that paper, another solution with electric fields is shown. It would be interesting to understand this electromagnetic solution in the context of string theory.

We have analyzed the singularity structure of the equations representing D4-branes (of a D4-D8 system) wrapping two- and three-cycles. Because it was not possible for us to find exact solutions we turned to approximations inspired by ref. . Thus, we could find some solutions in Laurent series. We argued that they were non-acceptable as the IR limit of a gauge theory. Expanding the solutions around $`r=0`$ we have identified the twisted theories on the brane-worldvolume and also found the operator inserted in the UV of the gauge theory, deforming it and breaking some supersymmetries. It is desirable to determine the precise form of the three (two) dimensional effective action of the SCFT that results after wrapping the brane on the two- and three-cycles.

It would be very nice to find new solutions where more fields are excited. For example solutions with the Abelian gauge field turned on could be interesting since it seems that they will involve a non-trivial $`B_2`$ field. It should also be useful to find solutions where the twisting is realized by a $`B_p`$ potential form (with $`p>1`$). The relevance of this type of solutions for non-commutative theories is evident. In this paper we found a solution in section 4 that has only $`B_2`$ fields excited. However, it does not represent a twisted theory since the brane is not wrapped on a curved manifold. Moreover, its ten-dimensional interpretation shows that we are dealing with a smeared NS-fivebrane.

The work of this paper together with the cases of M5, D3 and M2 branes constitute the cases that complete the flows between $`AdS`$-like spacetimes in the UV and the IR limit of gauge theories in lower dimensions. Finally, it would be interesting to study systems with compactifications like the ones discussed here but in the context of $`F(4)\times G`$ supergravity constructed in . For that, it will be necessary to find a prescription for up-lifting this supergravity to ten dimensions. The analysis of those theories should give place to theories with enhanced $`E_{Nf+1}`$ symmetry, and it should be very interesting to understand the relation between moduli spaces of Type I’ and Heterotic strings from a gravitational point of view.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Freddy A. Cachazo, José Edelstein, Jerome P. Gauntlett, Kentaro Hori, Andreas Karch, Nakwoo Kim, Ian I. Kogan, Juan Maldacena, Christopher N. Pope, Arta Sadrzadeh, Le G.Q. Thong and Cumrun Vafa for helpful discussions. The work of C.N. is supported by Fundación Antorchas of Argentina. The work of I.Y.P. is supported by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG03-95ER40917. The work of M.S. is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement $`\mathrm{\#}`$DF-FC02-94ER40818, CONICET of Argentina, Fundación Antorchas of Argentina and The British Council. M.S. also acknowledges the kind hospitality of the Theoretical Physics of University of Oxford where part of this work was carried out.