format: text

text:
# Stability of Ge-related point defects and complexes in Ge-doped SiO2

## Abstract

We analyze Ge-related defects in Ge-doped SiO2 using first-principles density functional techniques. Ge is incorporated at the level of $``$1 mol % and above. The growth conditions of Ge:SiO2 naturally set up oxygen deficiency, with vacancy concentration increasing by a factor 105 over undoped SiO2, and O vacancies binding strongly to Ge impurities. All the centers considered exhibit potentially EPR-active states, candidates for the identification of the Ge($`n`$) centers. Substitutional Ge produces an apparent gap shrinking via its extrinsic levels.

Silicon dioxide, besides its role in silicon-based microelectronics, is the central material of fiber optics technology. Germanium doping of silicon dioxide is a key to a number of technologically relevant applications, as e.g. low-loss and modulated-refraction fibers. Ge can be introduced in SiO2 in concentrations in the 1–10 % range . As is generally true of defects in solids, the identification and characterization of Ge-related defect centers in SiO2 is a difficult task, and far from completion despite intense recent investigation. This is the case, for instance, for the understanding of oxygen-deficient Ge-related centers and the so called Ge($`n`$) \[$`n`$=0,1,2,3\] centers, for which rather disparate models have been proposed. First-principles defects theory  can play a key role in this context, predicting the stability regimes and concentrations of Ge and related defects in SiO2, and their extrinsic electronic levels and potential magnetically active states. Recently, for example, these techniques were used to pinpoint the correlation of the E center in SiO2 with the singly-charged O vacancy  and the role of hydrogen in determining the leakage current across thin silica layers .

Using a similar methodology, here we study the energetics, extrinsic levels, and solubility of Ge in SiO2. We predict experimental signatures of a selection of Ge-related defects, including Ge-oxygen vacancy complexes in various stable and metastable configurations and charge states. We demonstrate that oxygen off-stoichiometry occurs naturally in Ge-doped SiO2, and specifically that oxygen deficiency (i.e. O vacancy formation) occurs preferentially near substitutional GeSi sites. The electronic structure of GeSi may explain the observed effective reduction of the gap in Ge-doped silica . Single and paired substitutional Ge and their complexes with an O vacancy are all found to have accessible paramagnetic states: GeSi, and the GeSi-GeSi or GeSi-VO-GeSi complexes, are candidates, respectively, for the Ge(1) and Ge(2) electron-capturing centers; two metastable E-like Ge-related centers correlate with the Ge(3) hole center.

Our method can be summarized as follows. The equilibrium concentration of a defect D$`=\mathrm{N}_s\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{form}}/\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{g})`$ is determined by the growth temperature Tg, the number Ns of available sites, and the formation free energy Fform=Eform–T Sform. The latter depends  on the chemical potentials of atoms added or removed, on the defect charge state, i.e. the charge released to or captured from the electrons reservoir made up by the whole crystal. Given the formation energies of the relevant defects, the concentrations and the electron chemical potential $`\mu _e`$ are determined self-consistently to satisfy charge neutrality, as detailed in . A specific defect configuration or charge state is predicted to exist if its formation energy is lower than that of all other defect states for some value of $`\mu _e`$, or when a sufficiently high energy barrier prevents its disappearance. The formation energy for a defect in charge state $`Q`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{form}}^Q=\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{def}}^Q+Q\mu _e+\mathrm{M}(Q)\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{Si}}\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{Ge}}\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{O}\mu _\mathrm{O},`$ (1)
where E$`{}_{}{}^{Q}{}_{\mathrm{def}}{}^{}`$ is the total energy of the defected system in charge state $`Q`$, $`\mu _e`$ the electron chemical potential (equaling the Fermi level EF in our T=0 calculations), and M$`(Q)`$ a defect- and charge state-dependent multipole correction. The $`\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{Si}}`$, $`\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{Ge}}`$ and $`\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{O}`$ atoms considered in the modeling of a specified defect, possess the chemical potentials $`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$, discussed further below.

Energies and forces are calculated from first-principles within density-functional theory in the local approximation, using the ultrasoft pseudopotential plane-wave method as implemented in the VASP code . An isolated defect is simulated in periodic boundary conditions via repeated tetragonal 71– and 72–atom supercells of crystalline $`\alpha `$-quartz SiO2 having the (theoretical) linear dimensions 18.49, 16.02, and 20.44 atomic units. Atomic geometries are optimized for all $`Q`$s (which are modeled by removing or adding electrons as appropriate, the added charge being compensated by a uniform background) until all residual force components in the system are below 0.01 eV/Å. No symmetry restriction is imposed. A (222) Monkhorst-Pack mesh is used  for k-space summation (4 points in the supercell Brillouin zone). Total energy differences of different charge states define ionization energies, i.e. the energy needed to promote e.g. an electron from the valence band into an empty acceptor level. Formation entropies are beyond the scope of the methods used here; plausible estimates are used when needed.

To determine the formation energy of Ge and related defects, we must discuss the thermodynamical growth conditions of Ge-doped SiO2. The chemical potentials fall within a range determined by the energy $`\mu ^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ of the condensed phase of each atom (“bulk” oxygen is assumed to be the oxygen molecule), and the calculated formation enthalpies $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{SiO}_2}`$=–11.31 eV of SiO2 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{GeO}_2}`$=–8.80 eV of GeO2, the most stable compounds liable to form out of O, Si, and Ge. The following conditions apply:

$`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{SiO}_2}`$ $``$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}^{\mathrm{bulk}},`$ (2)
$`\mu _\mathrm{O}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+0.5\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{SiO}_2}`$ $``$ $`\mu _\mathrm{O}\mu _\mathrm{O}^{\mathrm{bulk}},`$ (3)
$`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}+2\mu _\mathrm{O}=\mu _{\mathrm{SiO}_2},`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}+2\mu _\mathrm{O}\mu _{\mathrm{GeO}_2}`$ (4)
The relevant extremal conditions are then

1. O-rich, Si- and Ge–lean : $`\mu _\mathrm{O}=\mu _\mathrm{O}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}=\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{SiO}_2}`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}=\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{GeO}_2}`$;
2. Ge- and Si-rich, O-lean : $`\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}=\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}=\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{O}=\mu _\mathrm{O}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+0.5\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{SiO}_2}`$;
3. Ge-rich, O-lean with respect to GeO2, and Si intermediate : $`\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}=\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}=\mu _{\mathrm{Si}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{SiO}_2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{GeO}_2})`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{O}=\mu _\mathrm{O}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+0.5\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{GeO}_2}`$.

These three cases are indicated in Fig. 1, which depicts the solubility region of Ge in SiO2 in the {$`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$,$`\mu _{\mathrm{Ge}}`$} plane.

To substitute as much Si as possible with Ge, one should work in comparatively Ge-rich and Si-lean conditions. Case 3 above, the most favorable in this respect, demands at the same time that O be lean with respect to GeO2 formation. As a consequence, the material will contain both a high Ge concentration, and a large amount of oxygen deficient centers (as shown below, these tend to localize near Ge atoms). The minimum formation energy of GeSi, 0.88 eV, is obtained indeed in case 3 above. The ensuing solubility of Ge at a tipical growth temperature Tg=1700 K (which we assume throughout) is 0.2 mol %. This encouragingly high value falls well within the experimental range assuming a plausible formation entropy of 3–4 kB.

Fig.2 shows the formation energies in various charge states, as a function of the Fermi level and for the growth conditions discussed above, of all the centers considered here, and discussed in turn below: substitutional GeSi, the oxygen vacancy VO adjacent to GeSi, the GeSi-GeSi pair (substituting the central Si of two neighboring tetrahedra), the GeSi-VO-GeSi complex (the oxygen bridging the Ge-Ge pair is missing). The dotted vertical line marks the Fermi level as calculated in the presence of all the various defects, namely EF = Ev \+ 4.65 eV at room temperature. We assumed a gap of 9 eV, and the band edge effective masses $`m_v`$10 $`m_e`$ and $`m_c`$0.3 $`m_e`$ as estimated in Ref. . Indeed, all the defects considered are in their neutral state at room temperature.

GeSi is neutral over most of the Fermi level range, and captures electrons in strong $`n`$type conditions. Structurally, neutral GeSi is relatively trivial, with Ge-O bonds (unsurprisingly slightly longer, 1.67 and 1.68 Å, than the bulk Si-O bonds of 1.58 and 1.59 Å) and the other structural parameters (Ge-Si distance : 3.09 Å, O–Ge–O angle : 109, and Ge–O–Si angle : 142) being characteristic of an isotropically expanded but otherwise regular tetrahedron. The charge state $`Q=`$–1, one of the models proposed  for the paramagnetic Ge(1) center, is not stable in the as-grown material, but it may be observed in $`n`$-type or electron-irradiated material. Upon electron capture, the Ge substitutional moves off-center causing an orthorombic distortion with two short and two long Ge-O bonds (differing by $``$ 0.2 Å), in good agreement with the report of Ref..

The properties of GeSi also match the main Ge-related optical signature in highly doped samples, namely the apparent reduction of the absorption gap to about 7 eV . Indeed, our calculated concentration and electronic structure predict an absorption into the GeSi extrinsic level starting around 6.5-6.8 eV with an effective final density of states (DOS) of about $`10^{20}`$ cm-3. Assuming an impurity band width of 1 eV, likely to occur at such high Ge concentrations, it appears that the valence-to-GeSi extrinsic state is as relevant as the fundamental interband transition, even accounting for reduced oscillator strength, since the effective conduction band DOS of SiO2 is in fact about 1$`\times `$1019 cm-3 at room temperature. In summary, the large absorption red shift in Ge:SiO2 is impurity-related, as opposed to a standard alloying effect; a simple Si1-xGexO2 alloying picture would predict (the gap of GeO2 being 5.6 eV) a shift of less than 0.1 eV instead of the observed $`2`$ eV at the typical Ge concentration $`x0.02`$. The behavior just discussed is similar to the impurity-level (or -band) effects observed e.g. in InGaAsN at low N concentration .

We now turn to VO-Ge centers. The isolated oxygen vacancy at the chemical potentials giving maximum Ge incorporation, has a formation energy of 3.31 eV, i.e. 0.4 eV less than in pure SiO2 in stoichiometric conditions. At Tg=1700 K, this implies a concentration increase of a mere factor of 10. A vacancy in the same simulation cell, but as far as possible from GeSi (about 7 Å away) has the same formation energy, i.e. it is effectively decoupled from the Ge substitution. However, when the vacancy and GeSi are first neighbors, the formation energy drops to 2.0 eV (Fig. 2), implying a large attraction for vacancies towards GeSi centers. Now this reduced formation energy implies that the concentrations of Ge-coupled vacancies is about 104 that of distant vacancies, and 105 that of those in pure SiO2, in quantitative agreement with the observed ratio . Therefore the growth conditions of Ge-doped SiO2 naturally produce an off-stoichiometry of oxygen: Ge-doped SiO2 contains of the order of 105 more “simple” oxygen deficient centers than pure SiO2 does. In addition this oxygen deficiency is Ge-biased: almost all of the vacancies are localized near GeSi sites, due to the attractive GeSi-vacancy effective interaction, and to a lesser extent to the different solubility limits provided by GeO2 and SiO2. This applies also, as discussed further below, to the vacancy bridging a pair of Si-substituting Ge.

The ground state of the Ge-neighboring vacancy VO–GeSi is neutral and unpuckered – i.e. the cations neighboring the vacancy remain near the vacant site, and do not undergo distortions of the type involved in the E center . It captures electrons only for extreme $`n`$ conditions. The unpuckered +1 charge state is never thermodynamically stable, which rules out, e.g., the possibility of associating this defect to the Ge(0) or Ge(1) centers . Instead, similarly to the undoped case , V$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{\mathrm{O}}{}^{}`$ becomes a metastable ground state in a puckered configuration (lower than the unpuckered one by 0.15 eV) if the Fermi level is below about 1.6 eV . Thereby, it may be a candidate for the Ge(3) center . The E-like off-site puckering involves the Si atom adjacent to the vacancy, since the puckering of Ge (on the correct side of the vacancy ) costs 1.3 eV more than that of Si. Consequently, the GeSi is left with an EPR-detectable unpaired electron, in agreement with the fact that the EPR lines of Ge(3) show the characteristic signatures of hyperfine interaction with 73Ge.

Given the larger amount of vacancies and their preference for the vicinities of Ge, and accounting for the 73Ge and 29Si isotopic abundances of $``$8% and 4%, the concentration of Si-Ge E measured by EPR should be a factor of 104 that of E in SiO2. Observed values  are in a range upwards of 102. In agreement with the observed axial simmetry of Ge(3), the bond lengths between the EPR-active Ge and the three first-neighbor oxygens are about the same. Also, the fact that the puckered configuration is lower in energy than the unpuckered one agrees with the observation of Ge(3) defects even in non irradiated samples .

As mentioned, the thermodynamical stability of Si-Ge E is possible only at rather extreme $`p`$ conditions ($`\mu _e`$1.6 eV), not realized in as-grown material. This center should therefore be observed only upon (radiation-induced or electrical) hole injection. In as-grown material, it may still be possible that, after its excitation to the positive state by e.g. an optical excitation, the return of Ge-Si E to the neutral (and thence to the unpuckered) state is slowed down due to selection rules and/or disorder, neither of which have been considered here.

So far we identified possible candidates for the Ge(1) electron-capturing and Ge(3) E-like centers. We now move on to Ge-pair defects, consisting of two corner-sharing Ge-centered tetrahedra. In the neutral state, the tetrahedra exhibit Ge-O bonds and angles close to those of the isolated GeSi in their neutral state.

As seen in Fig. 2, the formation energy of two Ge impurities at neighboring substitutional sites is almost exactly twice that of isolated GeSi; therefore, there is neither a driving force for, nor an energetic hindrance against, the clustering of GeSi. Kinetics, and hence thermal and growth history will play the deciding role. Once more, the $`Q`$=–1 charge state is not a ground state of the defect in as-grown material, but it may be observed in $`n`$-doped irradiated material, and thereby become a candidate for the Ge(2) paramagnetic center, as suggested in Ref. .

Finally we consider the formation of VO between the two Ge atoms: it costs 0.15 eV less than between a Ge and a Si (Fig. 2), because of the previously discussed natural tendency of the two Ge to host off-stoichiometry of oxygen nearby them; this gives a concentration of a further factor of 3 higher than for the Ge-neighboring vacancy. In this case, the negative charging level is just slightly ($``$ 0.1 eV) above the Fermi level so that, given the uncertainties on the energy levels, it may well turn out to be already occupied in weakly, unintentionally $`n`$type as-grown material, or will readily become occupied in moderately $`n`$doped or irradiated material. Thus Ge-VO-Ge stands out as well as a candidate for the Ge(2) paramagnetic center.

Once more, the unpuckered +1 vacancy is not a stable ground state; its E$`{}_{}{}^{}`$like puckered-Ge configuration becomes metastable below $`\mu _e`$=1.5 eV . As the metastable energy minimum is found to be 0.45 eV higher than the undistorted one, the EPR-active Ge-pair E–like configuration is far less frequent than the Si-Ge one ($``$10-7 at room temperature, although it is possible that, as for the standard E, a confinement barrier exists prolonging its existence). This suggests that the proposed  attribution of the Ge(3) center to this complex is unlikely to be correct.

In summary, we have shown that thermodynamical growth conditions of Ge-doped SiO2 naturally produce off-stoichiometry of oxygen, and that oxygen deficient centers form preferentially near Ge impurities. We find that energetics is neutral as to clustering of substitutional Ge, so that kinetics will be important. The calculated concentration (in agreement with experiment) and electronic structure of GeSi show a large density of states starting at 6.5-6.8 eV which may explain the apparent gap reduction to about 7 eV in absorption. Our results contribute to the identification of the Ge(1), Ge(2), and Ge(3) centers. Ge(1) and Ge(2) are electron-capturing paramagnetic centers; the former is probably related to the singly negative states of GeSi; the latter may be associated with the singly-negative GeSi-GeSi or GeSi-VO-GeSi complexes. Ge(3) may instead be attributed to the Ge-Si E-like center. Hyperfine-parameter calculations are underway to pinpoint these attributions. In any case, these centers should be preferentially observed in $`n`$-doped or irradiated material.

Work supported in part by the Parallel Supercomputing Initiative of INFM, and the European Union within the INVEST project.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It was believed for a long time that the four dimensional large $`N`$ gauge theory have a string theory description , though the strings live in more than four dimensions . The well-known example of this correspondence is $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM theory in four dimensions whose string theory dual is ten dimensional superstring theory known as type II B . By now we know a large class of examples in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence (see  for a review) which relates field theories without gravity to superstring (string) theories on certain curved background. This correspondence naturally arises when considering Dp-branes in a limit where the worldvolume field theory decouples from the bulk gravity.

This correspondence has been generalized for the cases where the field theory is non-local, e.g. for non-commutative field theories. From string theory side, these theories can be obtained on the D-brane worldvolume in the presence of a non-zero B field . With $`N`$ coinciding Dp-branes in the presence of a non-zero B field the worldvolume theory is deformed to a $`U(N)`$ noncommutative SYM theory .

As in the case with $`B=0`$, there exists a limit where the bulk gravity decouples from the worldvolume noncommutative field theory  and a correspondence between string theory on curved background with B field and noncommutative field theory is expected. Actually this issue has been investigated during last three years in several papers including -.

Turning on a B field on the D-brane worldvolume can be viewed, via AdS/CFT correspondence, as a perturbation of the worldvolume field theory by an operator of dimension 6. For example in the D3-brane case, from the four dimensional superconformal Yang-Mills theory point of view the bosonic part of the dimension 6 operator is given by

$$𝒪_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \delta }F^{\delta \rho }F_{\rho \nu }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \delta }F_{\rho \delta }+2F_{\mu \rho }\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}_\nu \varphi ^i^\rho \varphi ^i\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}_\rho \varphi ^i^\rho \varphi ^i\right),$$
(1)
where $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is the SYM coupling, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the $`U(N)`$ field strength and $`\varphi ^i,i=1,\mathrm{},6`$ are the adjoint scalars. This deformed theory by the operator $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }`$ can be extended to a complete theory with a simple description which is noncommutative SYM theory.

On the other hand we could deform the theory by an other operator. In particular one can consider an operator with dimension 5 whose bosonic part is given by

$$𝒪_\mu ^{ij}=\frac{i}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\varphi ^{[i}D^\nu \varphi ^{j]}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}D_\mu \varphi ^{[k}\varphi ^i\varphi ^{j]}\right),$$
(2)
where $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to gauge field $`A_\mu `$ of field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`[\mathrm{}]`$ is complete antisymmertization.

The deformed theory by this vector operator can be considered as low energy limit of “dipole theory” which is a non-local field theory such that some fields of the theory have dipoles with constant length. Such a theory was discussed in  in the context of T-duality in noncommutative geometry. In fact the T-duality of the gauge theory on a noncommutative torus can be extended to include fields with twist boundary condition.

From string theory point of view this non-local theory can be obtained from worldvolume theory of a D-brane in the presence of non-zero B field with one leg along the brane worldvolume and the other along the transverse directions to the brane. This brane configuration was studied in  where the twisted compactification was introduced. This twisted compactification leads us to introduce a new type of star product between the fields at the level of effective field theory. This is the aim of this article to study the dipole field theory using gravity via AdS/CFT correspondence.

The plan of this paper is a following: In section 2 we will review the dipole field theory. In section 3 we shall construct the supergravity solutions corresponding to the D-branes in the presence of non-zero B field with one leg along the brane worldvolume and the other transverse to it. We will show that for this Dp-brane system the worldvolume theory decouples from the gravity for $`p5`$. In section 4 we will use these supergravity solutions to study dipole field theories via AdS/CFT correspondence. In section 5 we shall consider the type II NS5-branes in the presence of RR field with one leg along the transverse directions of the branes and the others along the NS5-branes worldvolume. We then proceed to study M5-brane in the presence of C field with two legs along the M5-brane worldvolume and the other transverse to the brane. These solutions could provide new deformations of little string theory and (2,0) theory. In section 6 we shall compute the Wilson loops in the dipole gauge theory using the dual gravity description. The section 7 is devoted to conclusions and comments.

## 2 Dipole field theory

Dipole field theory can be thought as a generalization of ordinary field theory on a commutative space which is non-local theory and breaks Lorantz invariance. In order to turn the ordinary theory to non-local dipole theory one assigns, to every fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$, a constant dipole vector with dipole length $`L_a`$ and define the dipole star product as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_b(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x\frac{L_b}{2})\mathrm{\Phi }_b(x+\frac{L_a}{2}).$$
(3)
This product is associative if the vector assignment is additive, that is, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ has dipole vector $`L_a+L_b`$. Moreover, demanding $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ to be real fixes the dipole length of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a^{}`$ to be minus of that of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$. As a result, the gauge field has zero dipole length.

In order to write an action for a dipole theory it is enough to replace the product of fields in the commutative action with the dipole star product. We note, however, that one should insert the proper dipole length for all fields. In particular, any term in the proposed action should have total zero dipole length .

Since the gauge field has zero dipole length we cannot have nontrivial pure supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. At least one needs to have a hyper-multiplet. In this case while the vector-multiplet has zero dipole length, the hyper-multiplet could have a non-zero dipole. Therefore the maximal possible supersymmetric noncommutative dipole theories, in dimensions less than seven, have 8 supercharges. In 6-dimensions it is $`𝒩=1`$ SYM theory coupled to a hyper-multiplet and in 4-dimensions it is $`𝒩=2`$ coupled to an adjoint hyper-multiplet, and etc. In fact, these are the theories one can get from string theory.

In the next section we are present the supergravity solution of D-brane in type II string theories in the presence of a non-zero B field with one leg along the worldvolume. These solutions would provide a string theory realization of dipole theories. Although in general such a configuration will break the supersymmetry completely, we shall consider the cases which have maximal supersymmetry that are theories with 8 supercharges.

## 3 The Supergravity solution

In order to find supergravity solutions corresponding to the dipole field theories in various dimensions we start from type II string theories on a space that is $`R^{9,1}`$ modded out by the isometry

$$𝒰:(x_0,\mathrm{},x_p,\{x_a\}_{a=p+1}^9)(x_0,\mathrm{},x_p+2\pi \beta _p,\{\underset{b=p+1}{\overset{9}{}}O_{ab}x_b\}_{a=p+1}^9).$$
(4)
Here $`OSO(9p)`$ is an orthogonal matrix. Actually this is the generalization of $`p=3`$ case considered in . The explicit from of $`O`$ is given by $`O=e^{\frac{2\pi i\beta _pM}{\alpha ^{}}}`$ where $`M`$ is a finite matrix of the Lie algebra $`so(9p)`$ with dimension of length.

Now we want to probe these backgrounds with a system of $`N`$ D(p-1)-branes with worldvolume directions $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{p1})`$ and taking $`\beta _p0`$ limit. When $`M=0`$ we can perform T-duality finding normal Dp-brane. On the other hand for the case of $`M0`$ performing T-duality will end up with a Dp-brane whose low energy effective theory is going to be a dipole theory .

To find the explicit supergravity solution of Dp-brane describing the dipole theory via the Maldacena conjecture , we start with the following type II supergravity solution describing $`N`$ coincident extremal for $`D_p`$brane (in string frame)

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_p^2)+f^{\frac{1}{2}}(dx_{p+1}^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2),`$ (5)
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`g_s^2f^{\frac{3p}{2}},f=1+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^{p2}c_pNg_sl_s^{7p}}{r^{7p}}},C_{0,\mathrm{},p}=f^1,`$ (7)
where $`c_p=2^{72p}\pi ^{\frac{93p}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{7p}{2})`$.

The supergravity solution of a D(p-1)-brane smeared in $`x_p`$ direction can be obtained by wrapping the above supergravity solution on a circle along $`x_p`$ with radius $`\beta _p`$ and then T-dualizing in this direction. Using T-duality transformation , one finds

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p1}^2)+f^{\frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta _p^2}}d\widehat{x}_p^2+dx_{p+1}^2+\mathrm{}+dx_9^2),`$ (8)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\beta _p^2}}g_s^2f^{\frac{4p}{2}},`$ (10)
where $`\widehat{x}_p`$ is now dimensionless angular coordinate with period $`\widehat{x}_p\widehat{x}_p+2\pi `$.

By making use of the modded out isometry (4) we can add a twist to the transverse directions $`x_{p+1},\mathrm{},x_9`$ as we go around the circle $`x_p`$. Under the action of $`O`$ in (4) we have

$$\delta x_a=\underset{b=p+1}{\overset{9}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}x_bd\widehat{x}_p,a=p+1,\mathrm{},9,$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}`$ is an element of the Lie algebra $`so(9p)`$. As a result the metric (10) changes to

$$ds^2=f^{\frac{1}{2}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p1}^2)+f^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta _p^2}d\widehat{x}_p^2+\underset{a=p+1}{\overset{9}{}}(dx_a\underset{b=p+1}{\overset{9}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}x_bd\widehat{x}_p)^2\right).$$

Expanding this out, we get

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p1}^2)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta _p^2}}+X^T\mathrm{\Omega }^T\mathrm{\Omega }X)d\widehat{x}_p^2+dX^TdX2(dX^T\mathrm{\Omega }X)d\widehat{x}_p\right),`$ (14)
where $`X`$ is a vector formed by the transverse directions, i.e. $`X^T=(x_{p+1},\mathrm{},x_9)`$.

Finally, once again, we can apply T-duality on $`\widehat{x}_p`$ direction. Doing so, in the limit of $`\beta _p\mathrm{}`$ keeping $`\beta _p\mathrm{\Omega }=M`$ fixed and setting $`x_p=\beta _p\widehat{x}_p`$, one finds

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p1}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2dx_p^2}{\alpha ^2+r^2n^TM^TMn}}\right)`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`f^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(dr^2+r^2dn^Tdn{\displaystyle \frac{r^4(n^TM^Tdn)^2}{\alpha ^2+r^2n^TM^TMn}}\right),`$ (17)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2g_s^2f^{\frac{3p}{2}}}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+r^2n^TM^TMn}},`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=p+1}{\overset{9}{}}}B_{pa}dx_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2dn^TMn}{\alpha ^2+r^2n^TM^TMn}},`$ (21)
where $`n`$ is unit vector defined by $`X=rn`$ with $`|n|^2=1`$.

In general this background breaks the supersymmetry completely, though depending on the rank of matrix $`M`$ some supersymmetries are left. We will return to this point in the next section. Another problem one has to be considered is the stability of the solution. It is not obvious if the solutions we found are stable. Nevertheless taking matrix $`M`$ such that the solutions preserve some amount of supersymmetries, as we will do in the next section, would hopefully lead to stable solutions.

On the other hand, given a general supergravity solution of a system of branes, it is not clear whether the solution would give a well-defined description of some field theory. In fact, we must check and see whether there is a well-defined field theory on the brane worldvolume which decouples from bulk gravity. To see this, one might calculate scattering amplitude for gravitons . To do this, we can compute the gravitons absorption cross section. If there is a limit (decoupling limit) where the gravitons absorption cross section vanishes, we have a field theory which decouples from the gravity. Alternatively, one can evaluate the potential that the gravitons feel because of the brane. Having a decoupled theory can be seen from the shape of the potential in the decoupling limit. Actually, for those branes which their worldvolume decouple from gravity, the potential develops an infinite barrier separating the space into two parts: bulk and brane. In this case the bulk’s modes can not reach the brane because of this infinite barrier, and the same for brane’s modes. Therefore the theory decouples from the bulk. As an example, for D6-brane there is no such a barrier and therefore we expect not to have a 7-dimensional gauge theory living on its worldvolume. This is also the case even with a non-zero B field . In following we are going to compute the potential that the gravitons see because of the supergravity solution (21).

Let us perturb the metric of the background (21) by

$$g_{ij}=\overline{g}_{ij}+h_{ij}i,j=0,\mathrm{},9,$$
(22)
where by $`\overline{g}_{ij}`$ we denote the background metric (21) and $`h_{ij}`$ is the perturbation. We consider s-wave gravitons with momenta along the brane

$$h_{ij}=ϵ_{ij}h(r)e^{ik_\mu x^\mu },\mu =0,\mathrm{},p.$$
(23)
We choose the gauge $`h_{i\mu }k^\mu =0`$ that keeps transversal gravitons. We will also choose the garvitons with polarization along the brane, i.e. $`ϵ_{ab}=0`$ for $`a,b=p+1,\mathrm{},9`$. Let $`k_\mu =\omega \delta _{0,\mu }`$. The other possibilities do not change the physical results as far as the decoupling is concerned. Using the linearized equations of motion of type II supergravity we find following equation for transverse gravitons

$$_i\left(\sqrt{g}e^{2\varphi }g^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0$$
(24)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=h(r)e^{ik_\mu x^\mu }`$. From this equation one can read the potential by writing it in the form of a Schrödinger-like equation. In general it might be difficult to do this for most general form of supergravity solution (21). But we have done this for a particular form of matrix $`M`$ corresponding to the cases that preserve eight supercharges (see next section). In all cases the equation can be simplified and we get the following Schrödinger-like equation

$$_\rho ^2\psi (\rho )+V_p(\rho )\psi (\rho )=0,$$
(25)
where

$$V_p(\rho )=\left(1+\frac{c_pNg_s(\omega l_s)^{7p}}{\rho ^{7p}}\right)+\frac{(8p)(6p)}{4\rho ^2}$$
(26)
with $`\rho =\omega r`$.

This potential is the same as once found in  for the ordinary D-branes as well as branes in the presence of B field. Therefore we conclude that we have a decoupled dipole theory living on the worldvolume of Dp-brane for $`p5`$.

In next section we shall study the dipole field theory living on the worldvolume of D-branes in the presence of B field with one leg along the worldvolume and the other along the transverse directions to the brane using corresponding supergravity solution (21). We will only consider those configurations that preserve 8 supercharges. Because of the supersymmetry we expect that the solution to be stable.

## 4 Supergravity description of dipole gauge theory

In the previous section we have shown that the worldvolume theory on a system of Dp-brane in the presence of non-zero B field with one leg along the brane worldvolume decouples from the gravity for $`p5`$. Therefore this can provide a dual gravity description for dipole field theory  via AdS/CFT correspondence.

The decoupling limit is defined as a limit in which $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and keeping the following quantities fixed

$$u=\frac{r}{l_s^2},\overline{g}_s=g_sl_s^{p3}.$$
(27)
In this limit the supergravity solution (21) reads

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}})^{\frac{(7p)}{2}}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_p^2}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}}\right)`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}})^{\frac{7p}{2}}\left(du^2+u^2dn^Tdn{\displaystyle \frac{u^4(n^TM^Tdn)^2}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}}\right),`$ (30)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{R}{u})^{(7p)(3p)/2}}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}},`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=p+1}{\overset{9}{}}}B_{pa}dn_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2dn^TMn}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}},`$ (34)
with

$$(R)^{7p}=2^{72p}\pi ^{(93p)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{7p}{2})g_{YM}^2N,g_{YM}^2=(2\pi )^{p2}\overline{g}_s.$$
(35)
The effective dimensionless coupling constant in the corresponding dipole field theory can be defined as following

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2Nu^{p3}.$$
(36)
For the cases we will be considering the scalar curvature of the metric in eq. (34) has the behavior

$$l_s^2\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{eff}}}.$$
(37)
Thus the perturbative calculation in dipole field theory can be trusted when $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$, while when $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ the supergravity description is valid. We note also that the expression for dilaton in (34) can be recast to

$$e^\varphi =\frac{1}{N}\frac{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(7p)/4}}{(1+u^2n^TM^TMn)^{1/2}}.$$
(38)
Keeping $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`u^2n^TM^TMn`$ fixed we see from (38) that $`e^\varphi 1/N`$. Therefore the string loop expansion corresponds to $`1/N`$ expansion of dipole gauge theory. Note also that in the supergravity description of dipole field theory $`u^2n^TM^TMn`$ plays the role of dipole deformation. At IR limit where $`u^2n^TM^TMn1`$ the dipole effects are small and the effective description of the worldvolume theory is in terms of a ordinary field theory. In this regime the supergravity solutions (34) reduce to the low energy background considered in .

When the rank of $`M`$ is less than maximal, which of course the case we are interested in, the quadratic form $`n^TM^TMn`$ has a locus of zeroes . Form the supergravity solution (34) we see that locally on the zero locus, solution is the same as ordinary Dp-brane background .

The case of $`p=3`$ has been studied in . Here, we will first review the D3-brane case and then we shall study the other branes.

### 4.1 D3-brane

The theory on the worldvolume of the $`N`$ coincident ordinary D3-brane is $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM theory. The $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory in four dimensions has 6 real scalars in the representation 6 of $`R`$-symmetry group $`SU(4)`$ and 4 Weyl fermions in the representation 4 of $`SU(4)`$. To construct the dipole theory we use the $`R`$-symmetry charges to determine the dipole vectors of the various fields. For simplicity we assume that all dipoles are along $`3^{rd}`$ direction. The dipole moment can be given by vector $`V^3su(4)`$. Denoting the matrix representation of $`V^3`$ by $`U`$ for representation 4 and by $`M`$ for representation 6, the dipole vectors of fermions and scalars are given by eigenvalues of $`U`$ and $`M`$, respectively .

In general the number of supersymmetries that are preserved by dipole theory is determined by the rank of $`U`$. It is completely broken for $`U`$ of rank 4. For $`U`$ with rank three, it has one zero eigenvalue and the theory has $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. For $`U`$ of rank 2 there are two zero eigenvalues and the theory has $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry.

Being a matrix in the representation 4 of $`su(4)`$ the eigenvalues of $`U`$ can be given by $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ and $`\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3`$. Therefore the most general form of matrix $`M`$ can be cast to the following form

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \alpha _1+\alpha _2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \alpha _1\alpha _2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \alpha _1+\alpha _3& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha _1\alpha _3& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha _2+\alpha _3\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha _2\alpha _3& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
This form of matrix $`M`$ breaks all supersymmetries. On the other hand for $`\alpha _1=0`$ we left with 4 supercharges. For $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=0`$ we find a configuration with 8 supercharges. Setting $`\alpha _3=L`$, the matrix $`M`$ reads

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& L& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& L& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& L\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& L& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(40)
According to the definition of $`M`$ , we have four real scalars with dipole lengths $`\pm 2\pi L`$ and two Weyl fermions with dipole lengths $`\pm \pi L`$. These are content of an $`𝒩=2`$ hyper-multiplet. The fields in the $`𝒩=2`$ vector-multiplet have no dipole and this is the reason why we have 8 supercharges.

Plugging the above form of $`M`$ into (34), one finds

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}})^2\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_3^2}{1+u^2L^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}}\right)`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}})^2\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2u^4L^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _2{\displaystyle \frac{(a_3d\theta _3+a_4d\theta _4+a_5d\theta _5)^2}{1+u^2L^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}}\right),`$ (43)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_s^2}{1+u^2L^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}},`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=3}{\overset{5}{}}}B_{3\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}{1+u^2L^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2}}(a_3d\theta _3+a_4d\theta _4+a_5d\theta _5),`$ (47)
where $`\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _5`$ are the angular coordinates parameterizing sphere $`S^5`$ transverse to the D3-brane, and

$$a_3=\mathrm{cos}\theta _4,a_4=\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _4,a_5=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _4.$$
(48)
The locus of zeros is given by equation $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2=0`$ where the gravity solution is the same as the case without B field. The phase structure of this theory was studied in .

### 4.2 D5-brane

As we showed in the previous section, since D6-brane does not decouple from the gravity, the next example we are going to consider is D5-brane. The low energy effective theory on the worldvolume of the ordinary D5-brane is 6-dimensional gauge theory with 16 supercharges. It has $`SO(4)`$ $`R`$-symmetry. One can use $`R`$-symmetry charges to make a dipole theory out of the ordinary one. In order to have a 6-dimensional supersymmetric dipole theory we need to separate the $`𝒩=2`$ vector-multiplet to an $`𝒩=1`$ vector-multiplet plus a hyper-multiplet. Now we can assign to the fields in the hyper-multiplet a dipole vector and therefore we get $`𝒩=1`$ 6-dimensional supersymmetric dipole gauge theory. The dipole vectors of the scalars in the hyper-multiplet can be obtained from the eigenvalues of matrix $`M`$ which can be cast to the following form

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& L& 0& 0\\ L& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& L\\ 0& 0& L& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(49)
Plugging the above matrix in (34) we get

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_5^2}{1+u^2L^2}}\right)`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^4L^2}{1+u^2L^2}}(a_1d\theta _1+a_2d\theta _2+a_3d\theta _3)^2\right),`$ (52)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^2}{1+u^2L^2}},`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}B_{5\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L}{1+u^2L^2}}(a_1d\theta _1+a_2d\theta _2+a_3d\theta _3),`$ (56)
where $`\theta _i`$’s are angular coordinates parameterizing sphere $`S^3`$ transverse to the brane, and

$$a_1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,a_2=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2,a_3=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2.$$
(57)
To study the phase structure of the D5-brane theory, we realize that there are three energy scales which involved. The first one is the energy scale in which the dipole effects become important, that is $`u1/L`$. The second one is the energy in which the curvature is of order one $`u1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}`$ and finally the dilaton is of order one while the dipole effects are negligible at $`u\sqrt{N/\overline{g}_s}`$. Using these information we recognize three different phase structures for the theory as following:

1. Suppose $`\sqrt{N/\overline{g}_s}1/L`$. At extreme IR regime the theory can be described by perturbative SYM theory. As we increase the energy at the scale $`u1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}`$ the curvature is of order one and then we have to change our description. For $`1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}u\sqrt{N/\overline{g}_s}`$ the good description is given by gravity solution of D5-brane. For the energy of order $`\sqrt{N/\overline{g}_s}`$ the dilation is of order one, thus by passing this energy we need to change our gravity description using S-duality. Therefore for $`u\sqrt{N/\overline{g}_s}`$ NS5-brane description is valid. As we keep increasing the energy the effects of B field become important, and eventually at UV we will have a theory which could be considered as a new deformation of little string theory. We will return to this solution in the next section.
2. When $`1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}1/L\sqrt{N/\overline{g}_s}`$. The IR regime is again described by perturbative SYM theory. For $`1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}u1/L`$ the curvature and dilation are small. Moreover the effects of B field are still negligible. So, the theory can be described by gravity solution of ordinary D5-brane. As we pass the scale $`1/L`$ the effects of B field become important. From the gravity solution (56) we see that the dilation remains small all the time and therefore the good description is given by gravity solution of D5-brane in the presence of B field (56).
3. For the case of $`1/L1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}`$, the extreme IR regime is described by perturbative SYM theory. At the scale of $`1/L`$ the curvature is still large but the dipole effects become important and thus the good description in region $`1/Lu1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}`$ is given by perturbative dipole gauge theory. By passing the energy scale $`1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}`$ the curvatures becomes small while the effects of B field are important. Therefore for energy $`u1/\sqrt{\overline{g}_sN}`$ the good description is given by gravity solution of D5-brane in the presence of B field (56).

A new feature of 6-dimensional dipole field theory is that there is a regime in which we have perturbative dipole gauge theory description. We note that this is not the case when we have noncommutative brane . The reason is that in the noncommutative case the scale in which the effects of noncommutativity are important is written in terms of $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and it is not possible to have $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ while the noncommutative effects remain important. In other words, in the phase diagram we do not have a range of energy where the perturbative noncommutative gauge theory is valid .

### 4.3 D4-brane

Having the supergravity solution for D5-brane with 8 supercharges, we can easily find a solution for D4-brane which preserves 8 supercharges as well. Here the matrix $`M`$ representing the dipoles can be written as

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& L& 0& 0\\ 0& L& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& L\\ 0& 0& 0& L& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(58)
Plugging this matrix into the supergravity solution (34), one finds

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}})^{3/2}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_4^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}\right)`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}})^{3/2}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^4L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_2d\theta _2+a_3d\theta _3+a_4d\theta _4)^2\right),`$ (61)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^{3/2}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}},`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=2}{\overset{4}{}}}B_{4\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_2d\theta _2+a_3d\theta _3+a_4d\theta _4),`$ (65)
where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _4`$ are angular coordinates parameterizing the sphere $`S^4`$ transverse to the brane, and

$$a_2=\mathrm{cos}\theta _3,a_3=\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3,a_4=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3.$$
(66)
Moreover the effective dipole vector is defined by $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}=L\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$. As we see there are a locus of zeros given by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$ in which the effective dipole is zero. We note that the effective dipole vector seen from supergravity is smaller than the naively expected dipole vector $`L`$. This can be interpreted as due to strong interactions. This is very similar to what we have in the noncommutative gauge theory case .

The three energy scales that involved in parameterizing the phase diagram of the theory are as following. At $`u1/\overline{g}_sN`$ the curvature is of order one. The dipole effects become important at scale $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, while the dipole effects are negligible the dilaton is of order one at $`uN^{1/3}/\overline{g}_s`$. The same as D5-brane case we distinguish three different phase structures of the theory as following:

1. When $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}N^{1/3}/\overline{g}_s`$ the theory at IR limit is described by perturbative 5-dimensional SYM theory. In flow from low energy to high energy we need to change our description from perturbative SYM theory to gravity description at energy $`u1/\overline{g}_sN`$ where the curvature becomes small. In fact the good description of the theory in energy range $`1/\overline{g}_sNuN^{1/3}/\overline{g}_s`$ is given by gravity solution of D4-brane. As we pass energy $`uN^{1/3}/\overline{g}_s`$ the dilaton gets large and we have to lift the theory to eleven dimensional SUGRA and the uplifted D4-brane solution is a good description. Eventually at the scale $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the B field effects become important. Because of these effects the dilaton becomes small at $`u\overline{g}_s^3/NL_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$ and therefore the good description at UV will be given by the supergravity solution of D4-brane in the presence of B field with one leg along the worldvolume and the other transverse to it.
2. For the case of $`1/\overline{g}_sN1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}N^{1/3}/\overline{g}_s`$ the IR limit is described by perturbative 5-dimensional SYM theory. As we increase the energy we have to change our description from perturbative SYM theory to the gravity description at scale $`u1N^{1/3}/\overline{g}_s`$. At scale $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the B field effects become important while the dilaton remains small all the time. As a result the good description at UV is given by type IIA supergravity solution of D4-brane in the presence of B field with one leg along the brane and the other transverse to it.
3. For $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}1/\overline{g}_sN`$ at extreme IR limit the perturbative SYM theory is valid. As we increase the energy at scale $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the good description is given by perturbaive dipole gauge theory. This description is valid till we reach the energy $`u1/\overline{g}_sN`$ where the curvature is of order one and we have to change our description from perturbative dipole gauge theory to gravity solution of D4-brane in the presence of B field. Since the dilation remains small all the time this is also the valid description at UV limit.

Again, in comparison with noncommutative field theory we see that for dipole field theory there is a range of energy in which the good description is given by perturbative dipole gauge theory.

### 4.4 D2-brane

One can generalize the previous solutions to the supergravity solution of D2-brane in the presence of B field with one leg along the worldvolume that preserves 8 supercharges. The solution is

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}})^{5/2}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}\right)`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}})^{5/2}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_6^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^4L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_{\theta _4}d\theta _4+a_{\theta _5}d\theta _5+a_{\theta _6}d\theta _6)^2\right),`$ (69)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{R}{u}\right)^{5/2}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}},`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=4}{\overset{6}{}}}B_{2\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_4d\theta _4+a_5d\theta _5+a_6d\theta _6),`$ (73)
where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _6`$ are angular coordinates parameterizing the sphere $`S^6`$ transverse to the brane, and

$$a_4=\mathrm{cos}\theta _5,a_5=\mathrm{sin}\theta _4\mathrm{cos}\theta _4\mathrm{sin}\theta _5,a_6=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _5.$$
(74)
The effective dipole vector is defined by $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}=L\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3`$. The dipole vector could be zero as locus where $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3`$ vanishes. In this locus the gravity solution is locally the same as ordinary D-brane solution .

The three scales which play role in studying of the phase structure of D2-brane are as following. The curvature is of order one at $`u\overline{g}_sN`$. The dipole effects are negligible below the energy of order $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and for the case where the dipole effects are negligible the dilaton is of order one at $`u\overline{g}_s/N^{1/5}`$. Using these information, one can proceed to analyze the phase structure of the theory.

1. When $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}\overline{g}_sN`$ the good description at UV is given by perturbative 3 dimensional dipole gauge theory with 8 supercharges. In flow from high energy to low energy the dipole effects become negligible at $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and therefore at energy range $`\overline{g}_sNu1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the good description is given by perturbative SYM theory where we have supersymmetry enhancement. At energy scale $`u\overline{g}_sN`$ the curvature is of order one and we need to change our description from perturbative SYM theory to gravity solution of D2-brane. The gravity solution of D2-brane is a good description till we reach scale $`u\overline{g}_s/N^{1/5}`$ where the dilaton grows and we need to lift the theory to eleven dimensional SUGRA and thus the good description is given by uplifted D2-brane. Finally at IR regime the theory flows to a fixed point which is given by $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT in three dimensions.
2. When $`\overline{g}_s/N^{1/5}1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}\overline{g}_sN`$ the theory is described by perturbative 3-dimensional supersymmetric dipole gauge theory for energy above $`\overline{g}_sN`$. At this energy the curvature is of order one and therefore we have to change our description at this scale. In fact the good description of theory is given in terms of supergravity solution of D2-brane in the presence of B field in energy range $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}u\overline{g}_sN`$ while below the scale $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the B field effects are negligible and the theory is described by D2-branes solution. At energy $`u\overline{g}_s/N^{1/5}`$ the dilaton is of order one and thus below this energy the uplifted D2-brane solution is a good description. Eventually the theory reach its fixed point at IR where the good description is given by $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT in three dimensions.
3. In the case of $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}\overline{g}_s/N^{1/5}`$ the UV regime is described by perturbative supersymmetric dipole gauge theory. As we decrees the energy the effective dimensionless gauge coupling grows at $`\overline{g}_sN`$ where we have to change our description to the gravity description. The theory is described by supergravity solution of D2-brane in the presence of B field until we reach the energy scale $`u\overline{g}_s^{5/9}N^{1/9}/L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{4/9}`$ where the dilaton start growing and the good description will be given by uplifted D2-brane in the presence of C field. The dipole effects become negligible at $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and finally the IR limit is described by the fixed point of the theory which is $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT in three dimensions.

### 4.5 D1-brane

Using the same method as before the supergravity solution of D1-brane in the presence of a B field with one leg along brane and the other transverse to it which preserves 8 supercharges can be read from (34), that is

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}})^3\left(dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}\right)`$ (75)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}})^3\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^4L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_5d\theta _5+a_6d\theta _6+a_7d\theta _7)^2\right),`$ (77)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{R}{u}\right)^6}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}},`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=5}{\overset{7}{}}}B_{1\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_5d\theta _5+a_6d\theta _6+a_7d\theta _7),`$ (81)
where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _7`$ are angular coordinates parameterizing the sphere $`S^7`$ transverse to the brane, and

$$a_5=\mathrm{cos}\theta _6,a_6=\mathrm{sin}\theta _5\mathrm{cos}\theta _5\mathrm{sin}\theta _6,a_7=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _5\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _6.$$
(82)
The effective dipole vector is defined by $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}=L\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _4`$. The dipole vector could be zero in locus where $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _4`$ vanishes. In this locus the gravity solution is locally the same as ordinary D-brane solution .

As it can be seen from the supergravity solution (81) the curvature is of order one at $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$. The dipole effects are important at the scale $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. While the dipole effects are negligible the dilaton is of one at $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}`$. These are the scales that involved in phase structure of D1-brane. By making use of these information we can work out the phase structure of the theory as following.

1. For the case of $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}g_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$ the good description at UV is given by perturbative (1+1)-dimensional supersymmetric dipole gauge theory. As we flow from high energy to low energy the dipole effects become negligible at $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In fact for $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the SYM theory in (1+1)-dimensional can be trusted. As we approach the low energy the type IIB supergravity solution (81) can be trusted in the region $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}ug_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$. In the region $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}`$ the dilaton is large and we need the S-dual picture. Using S-duality the solution (81) maps to the fundamental string solution. In IR limit the string coupling vanishes while the curvature in the new string unit behaves as $`l_s^2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2/u^2`$. This means that the supergravity description of fundamental string breaks down for small $`u`$ and in fact the IR limit is a trivial orbifold $`(R^{8N}/S_N)`$ conformal field theory .
2. When $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}g_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$ the perturbative (1+1)-dimensional dipole gauge theory is valid for $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$. While for for $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}ug_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$ the curvature and dilaton are small and the supergarvity solution of D1-brane with B field is a good description. For $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the gravity is still a good description but the B field effects are negligible. For the energy $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}`$ the situation is the same as previous case.
3. When $`1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}g_{\mathrm{YM}}N^{1/6}`$ we can trust perturbative (1+1)-dimensional dipole gauge theory for $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$. In the region of $`(g_{\mathrm{YM}}^6N)^{1/8}/L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{1/4}u_{\mathrm{YM}}\sqrt{N}`$ the curvature is small and dilaton is small too and the good description is given by supergravity solution (81). For the energy of $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}^6N)^{1/8}/L_{\mathrm{eff}}^{1/4}`$ the dilaton is large while the B field effects are important and therefore we need to use the S-dual picture which maps the solution (81) to the supergravity solution of fundamental string in the presence of RR 2-form with one leg along the string and the other transverse to it. The B field effects becomes negligible for $`u1/L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ where the gravity solution of fundamental string is valid. Eventually for $`ug_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ the supergravity description of fundamental string breaks down and in fact the IR limit is a trivial orbifold $`(R^{8N}/S_N)`$ conformal field theory.

## 5 Fivebranes

In this section we shall discuss possible dipole deformation of NS5-branes and M5-branes worldvolume theories.

### 5.1 NS5-brane

Now we want to study the theory on the type II NS5-branes in the presence of different RR fields with one leg along the transverse direction to the NS5-branes and the others along the worldvolume. The supergravity solution of NS5-branes in the presence of RR $`(6p)`$-form, for $`p=0,\mathrm{},4`$, with one leg along the transverse directions and $`(5p)`$ legs along the NS5-branes worldvolume is given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+u^2n^TM^TMn)^{1/2}[{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}}dx_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{j=p+1}^5dx_j^2}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}}`$ (83)
$`+`$ $`g_s^2l_s^4f(du^2+u^2dn^Tdn{\displaystyle \frac{u^4(n^TM^Tdn)^2}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}})],`$ (85)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_s^2(1+u^2n^TM^TMn)^{(p2)/2}f,`$ (87)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=6}{\overset{9}{}}}C_{(p+1)\mathrm{}5a}dx_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2dn^TMn}{1+u^2n^TM^TMn}},`$ (89)
where $`dx_0^2=dt^2`$, $`C_{(p+1)\mathrm{}5a}`$ is $`(6p)`$-form and $`f=1+c_5N/g_s^2l_s^2u^2`$. The energy coordinat $`u`$ is related to the radial coordinat $`r`$ by $`u=r/g_sl_s^2`$. A way to find these solutions is to start with type IIB D5-branes in the presence of B field with one leg along the worldvolume. Then using S-duality we can find the supergravity solution of type IIB NS5-branes in the presence of RR 2-form with one leg along the worldvolume. Other solutions can be obtained by T-duality. Under S-duality we have

$$l_s^2g_sl_s^2,g_s\frac{1}{g_s}.$$
(90)
Therefore the decoupling limit of above supergravity solutions can be defined as the limit $`g_s0`$, keeping the following quantities fixed

$$u=\frac{r}{g_sl_s^2},l_s=\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(91)
In this limit, setting $`M`$ as (49), the above supergravity solution becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+u^2L^2)^{1/2}[{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}}dx_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{j=p+1}^5dx_j^2}{1+u^2L^2}}`$ (92)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nl_s^2}{u^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3{\displaystyle \frac{u^4L^2}{1+u^2L^2}}(a_1d\theta _1+a_3d\theta _1+a_3d\theta _3)^2)],`$ (94)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{l_s^2u^2}}(1+u^2L^2)^{(p2)/2},`$ (96)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=6}{\overset{9}{}}}C_{(p+1)\mathrm{}5\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L}{1+u^2L^2}}(a_1d\theta _1+a_3d\theta _1+a_3d\theta _3),`$ (98)
where $`a_i`$’s are defined the same as (57). This solution can be thought as a new deformation of little string theory. The curvature of the metric is given by

$$l_s^2\frac{1}{N}\frac{1}{(1+u^2L^2)^{1/2}}.$$
(99)
Therefore for large $`N`$ the curvature is small and one can trust the supergravity description. For $`uL1`$ the gravity approximation can be trusted for finite $`N`$.

As an application let us to calculate the absorption cross section of polarized gravitons. In general one can show that in these backgrounds the scattering potential for a graviton polarized along the brane directions is

$$V(\rho )=1+(\frac{3}{4}N\omega ^2l_s^2)\frac{1}{\rho ^2},$$
(100)
where $`\rho =r\omega `$ and $`\omega `$ is the energy of incoming waves. Therefore we see that after the decoupling limit the absorption cross section can be nonzero only for waves with energy $`\omega ^2`$ larger than $`\frac{1}{Nl_s^2}`$. Essentially the same effect appears in the little string theory and one can see that the theory has a mass gap of order $`M_{\mathrm{gap}}^2\frac{1}{Nl_s^2}`$  which is exactly the same as little string theory. In other words, the mass gap of the theory is independent of the dipole vector. The mass gap in deformed little string theory has been also studied in .

### 5.2 M5-branes

To find an eleven dimensional supergravity solution corresponding to the M5-branes in the presence of a C field with two legs along the worldvolume and one leg transverse to it, we can start from $`D_4`$ brane solution and then lifting it to 11-dimensional supergravity and sending the radius of $`11th`$ direction to infinity, $`R_{11}\mathrm{}`$. In this limit setting $`R_{11}M=\overline{M}`$, one finds :

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l_p^6}}n^T\overline{M}^T\overline{M}n)^{1/3}[f^{1/3}(dt^2+\mathrm{}+dx_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_4^2+dx_5^2}{1+\frac{r^2}{l_p^6}n^T\overline{M}^T\overline{M}n}})`$ (101)
$`+`$ $`f^{2/3}(dr^2+r^2dn^Tdn{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{r^4}{l_p^6}(n^T\overline{M}dn)^2}{1+\frac{r^2}{l_p^6}n^T\overline{M}^T\overline{M}n}})],`$ (103)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=2}{\overset{4}{}}}C_{45a}dx^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{r^2}{l_p^6}dn^T\overline{M}n}{1+\frac{r^2}{l_p^6}n^T\overline{M}^T\overline{M}n}},`$ (105)
where

$$f=1+\frac{\pi Nl_p^3}{r^3}.$$
(106)
The decoupling limit of the theory is defined as a limit where $`l_p0`$ keeping $`u=\frac{r}{l_p^3}`$ fixed. In this limit, setting $`\overline{M}`$ as

$$\overline{M}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \overline{L}& 0& 0\\ 0& \overline{L}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \overline{L}\\ 0& 0& 0& \overline{L}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(107)
the above supergravity solution reads

$`l_s^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)^{1/2}[{\displaystyle \frac{u}{(\pi N)^{1/3}}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dx_4^2+dx_5^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}})`$ (108)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N)^{2/3}}{u^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^4L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_2d\theta _2+a_3d\theta _3+a_4d\theta _4)^2)],`$ (110)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=2}{\overset{4}{}}}C_{45\theta _a}d\theta _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}(a_2d\theta _2+a_3d\theta _3+a_4d\theta _4),`$ (112)
where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _4`$ are angular coordinates parameterizing the sphere $`S^4`$ transverse to the brane and $`a_i`$’s are given by (66). The effective “discpole” is also defined by $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}=\overline{L}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$ where $`L`$ has dimension of $`(\mathrm{length})^2`$.

The curvature of the metric in (112) is

$$l_p^2\frac{1}{N^{2/3}}\frac{1}{(1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)^{1/3}}.$$
(113)
Thus we can trust the supergravity solution for large $`N`$. This solution can provide a dual description of a deformation of (2,0) theory. The dipole deformation of (2,0) has also considered in  as “discpole theory”.

## 6 Wilson loop

In this section we use dual gravity description of dipole gauge theory to compute Wilson loop for different brane theories. According to the AdS/CFT correspondence the Wilson loop of the gauge theory can be computed in dual string theory description by evaluating the partition function of string whose worldsheet is bounded by the loop . In the supergravity approximation the dominant contribution comes from the minimal two dimensional surface bounded by the loop. The expectation value of Wilson loop is

$$W(C)e^S,$$
(114)
where S is string action evaluated on the minimal surface bounded by loop C.

Now we would like to compute the Wilson loop in the dipole gauge theories living on the worldvolume of Dp-brane using supergravity solution (34). The string action is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi l_s^2}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \sqrt{det\left(G_{\mu \nu }_iX^\mu _jX^\nu \right)}.$$
(115)
We parametrized the string configuration by $`\tau =t,\sigma =u`$ and $`x_p=x(u)`$. In this parameterization, using the supergravity solution (34), the string action (115) reads

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑t𝑑u\sqrt{1+\frac{(u/R)^{7p}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}(_ux)^2},$$
(116)
where $`L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=n^TM^TMn`$ is effective dipole vector. First of all from this equation we find that despite the theory is non-local, the end points of string can be fixed at large $`u`$. We note that in the noncommutative gauge theory where we have a non-zero B field with both legs along the brane worldvolume we have problem for fixing the end points , though we could fix it using moving frame .

The action (116) is minimized when

$$\frac{(u/R)^{7p}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\frac{_ux}{\left(1+\frac{(u/R)^{7p}}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}(_ux)^2\right)^{1/2}}=\mathrm{constant}=\left(\frac{(u_0/R)^{7p}}{1+u_0^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(117)
where $`u_0`$ is the point where $`_ux|_{u_0}\mathrm{}`$. This equation can be solved for $`_ux`$, that is

$$_ux=\frac{\left(\frac{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{(u/R)^{7p}}\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{u}{u_0}\right)^{7p}\frac{1+u_0^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}1}}.$$
(118)
Hence

$$x(u)=_{u_0}^u𝑑u\frac{\left(\frac{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{(u/R)^{7p}}\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{u}{u_0}\right)^{7p}\frac{1+u_0^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+u^2L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}1}}.$$
(119)
The $`Q\overline{Q}`$ separation is defined by

$$\frac{l}{2}:=x(u\mathrm{})=\frac{R^{(7p)/2}}{u_0^{(5p)/2}}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{(1+y^2\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)^{1/2}}{y^{(7p)/2}\sqrt{y^{7p}\frac{1+\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+y^2\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}1}}.$$
(120)
Here $`\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}=u_0L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Using (116) we can calculate the energy of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system as following

$$E=\frac{u_0}{\pi }[_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y(\frac{\left(y^{7p}\frac{1+\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+y^2\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{y^{7p}\frac{1+\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{1+y^2\overline{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}1}}1)1].$$
(121)
Here we subtracted the infinity coming from mass of the W-boson which corresponds to string stretching all the way to $`u=\mathrm{}`$.

When the distance between quark and anti-quark is much bigger than their dipole size, the energy is given by

$$E\left(\frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N}{l^2}\right)^{1/(5p)}\left(1+c_0L_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\left(\frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N}{l^2}\right)^{2/(5p)}+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(122)
where $`c_0`$ is a numerical constant. The first term in the above expression is what we have in the ordinary gauge theory  and the second term can be interpreted as the dipole-dipole interaction333The Wilson loop of the dipole gauge theory has been also considered by M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari ..

## 7 Conclusion

In this paper we have studied the Dp-branes supergravity solution in the presence of non-zero B field with one one leg along the worldvolume and the other transverse to it. We have shown that for $`p5`$ the theory one the brane decouples form the gravity, therefore the supergravity solution provides a dual description of worldvolume theory which is noncommutative dipole gauge theory. This supergravity solution, in general, breaks the supersymmetry. Nevertheless one can consider the case in which we left with some supersymmetries. In this paper we only considered those brane solutions which preserve 8 supercharges. Having a general gravity solution it is not clear if the solution is stable. Nevertheless since we are considering those brane systems which are supersymmetric the solutions we found are stable.

We also studied the type II NS5-branes in the presence of non-zero RR field with one leg along the transverse direction to the NS5-branes and the others along their worldvolume. These solutions can be thought as a deformation of little string field theory. These theories also exhibit the same mass gap as little string theory.

We have also studied the M5-brane in the presence of a C field with two legs along the worldvolume and one leg along the transverse directions. Up on compactification on a circle we will find the 10-dimensional supergravity solution studied in this paper. We note, however, that there is an other solution which we have not considered in this paper. This solution can be found by compactifying the M5-brane solution (112) on a worldvolume direction in which the C field is not defined. In the type IIA limit this corresponds to a D4-brane solution in the presence of RR 3-form with two legs along the worldvolume and one leg transverse to it. There are also other interesting solutions both in type II string theories and M-theory where one leg of B field or C field is along the time direction. We will back to these questions in our incoming paper .

We have also computed the Wilson loop of the dipole gauge theory using dual gravity description. We saw that despite the fact that the theory is non-local we can fix the end points of strings at large $`u`$. Note that this is not the case for noncommutative field theory. Therefore we might conclude that the dipole gauge theory is a non-local deformation of ordinary gauge theory which could be much more simpler than the non-local deformation obtained by making the space to be noncommutative, i.e. noncommutative gauge theory.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H. Arfaei and M. R. Garousi for discussions and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari for comments and discussions.