text:
# K{^∗}(892)⁰ Production in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions at √𝑠_{𝑁𝑁}= 130 GeV

## 1 Introduction

The main motivation for studying heavy-ion collisions at high energy is to investigate the properties of the strongly interacting matter at high densities and temperatures. In particular, the masses and widths of hadrons are expected to change in hadronic or nuclear matter compared to their vacuum values. Various theoretical models predict modification of hadron masses and widths in a dense and hot medium . In this context, the measurement of the properties of mesons whose lifetimes are of the order of the lifetime of the dense matter may be sensitive to the properties of the strongly interacting matter in which they are produced. For example, model calculations show that the K∗0/K ratio is sensitive to the mass modification of particles in-medium and the dynamic evolution of the source .

Due to the re-scattering of the daughter particles, the resonances that decay into strongly interacting hadrons before thermal freeze-out may not be reconstructed. However, resonances with higher transverse momentum (p$`_\text{T}`$) may decay outside the system. As a consequence, the measurement of the yields and the p$`_\text{T}`$ distributions of resonances can provide information on the time between chemical and kinetic freeze-out of the system. In addition, we may be able to distinguish between a sudden freeze-out  or a smooth hadronic expansion  from a detailed comparison between the yield and the p$`_\text{T}`$ distribution of resonances and stable hadrons.

On the other hand, due to the large population of $`\pi `$’s and K’s  after chemical freeze-out, when the inelastic interactions are too infrequent to change the particle species and the total number of particles, the elastic interactions $`\pi `$K $``$ K∗0 $`\pi `$K increase the K∗0 population compensating for the K∗0 resonances that decay before thermal freeze-out and may not be reconstructed.

Even though the hadronic decay modes for vector mesons are dominant, only the leptonic decay modes have been studied extensively mainly due to the large background from other produced hadrons and the broad mass width. However, Monte Carlo calculations have shown that the mixed-event technique  should allow a statistical measurement of both K$`{}_{}{}^{}(892)_{}^{0}`$ and $`\overline{\text{K}}^{}(892)^0`$ at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) energies because the significance of the signal increases with the square root of the number of events.

Preliminary results from the first measurement of such short-lived resonance (c$`\tau `$ = 4 fm) via its hadronic decay channel in Au-Au relativistic heavy-ion collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$= 130 GeV using the STAR (Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC) detector at RHIC are presented. The ratios K∗0/h-, K∗0/K and $`\varphi `$/K∗0 are obtained and compared to the measurements in e+e-, pp and $`\overline{\text{p}}`$p at various energies.

## 2 Data Analysis

The main STAR detector consists of a large Time Projection Chamber (TPC)  placed inside a uniform solenoidal magnetic field that provides the measurement of charged particles. A scintillating Central Trigger Barrel (CTB) that surrounds the TPC is used as part of the centrality trigger by measuring the charged particle multiplicity. Two hadronic calorimeters (ZDCs) located upstream along the beam axis intercept spectator neutrons from the collision and provide the minimum bias trigger. The anti-correlation between the CTB and the ZDCs is used to trigger on the event centrality.

In the summer of 2000, the first collisions between Au nuclei at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$= 130 GeV took place at RHIC. During this period, the solenoidal magnet operated with a magnetic field of 0.25 T. About 440K central and 230K minimum bias events that survive the cuts mentioned below are used in this analysis. Central events correspond to 14$`\%`$ of the hadronic cross-section. For this analysis, only events with a vertex located within $`\pm `$95 cm of the center of the TPC along the beam direction are selected, and this assures uniform acceptance. The identification of the daughter particles from the K∗0 decay is obtained by the energy loss (dE/dx) in the gas of the TPC. The tracks are required to cross the entire active area of the detector, to satisfy a minimum number of points on the track cut, to point to the event vertex within a certain accuracy and to have a transverse momentum between 0.2 GeV/c and 2.0 GeV/c.

The decay channels K$`{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^{}\text{K}^+`$ and $`\overline{\text{K}}^0\pi ^+\text{K}^{}`$, each with a branching ratio of 2/3, are selected for the measurements. Due to limited statistics, the term K∗0 in this analysis refers to the average of K∗0 and $`\overline{\text{K}^0}`$ unless specified. The invariant mass of every opposite sign K$`\pi `$ pair is calculated for each event. The resulting invariant mass distribution consists of the resonance signal and the combinatorial background. The shape of the uncorrelated combinatorial background is determined using the mixed-event technique . Events are mixed for this background calculation if their centrality triggers are similar and their primary vertex locations are within 20 cm in the beam direction, which minimizes possible fluctuations and distortions in the uncorrelated background.

## 3 Results

The invariant mass distributions from same-event K$`\pi `$ pairs and from mixed-event pairs are shown in the upper panel of Fig 1 for the 14$`\%`$ most central events. There are more than 14 $`\times `$ 109 pairs of selected kaons and pions from these central events. The signal to background ratio is about 1/1000 for central and 1/200 for minimum bias events, which is significantly lower than 1/4 for pp at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 63 GeV . The lower panel of Fig 1 depicts the K$`\pi `$ invariant mass distribution after mixed-event background subtraction for the 14$`\%`$ most central hadronic interactions, where a 15 standard deviation ($`\sigma `$) of the K∗0 signal above the background fluctuation is observed.

The mixed-event technique  describes the shape of the uncorrelated background distribution; therefore, only the signal and the correlated background are present in the distribution after background subtraction. In the case of the K$`\pi `$ system, besides the K$`{}_{}{}^{}(892)_{}^{0}`$ resonance, there is the K$`\pi `$ and S-wave correlation , which is not a resonance, and a long list of higher resonant states. All these contribute to the K$`\pi `$ correlation. In addition, particle misidentification of the decay products of $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta `$’ and K$`{}_{S}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ produce correlations in the same-event distribution that are not present in the mixed-event distribution used to estimate the background. Studies using the HIJING model and an invariant mass distribution produced from like-sign K$`\pi `$ pairs from the data are consistent with the conclusion that the general features of the residual combinatorial background in the K$`\pi `$ invariant mass distribution after mixed-event background subtraction come from the correlations mentioned. Since a quantitative description requires the accurate knowledge of particle production and phase space distributions that are not yet measured at RHIC energies, the residual background was fit by both a linear and an exponential function. Separately, the differences between the results obtained from the two functions was about 20$`\%`$. These differences are included in estimating the systematical uncertainties.

In order to obtain the mT \- m0 spectra, the K∗0 signal is fit to a Breit-Wigner resonant function and corrected for detector acceptance and efficiency. The acceptance and reconstruction efficiency is determined by embedding simulated tracks into real events at the raw data level, reconstructing the full events and comparing the simulated input to the reconstructed output. The acceptance and efficiency factor, $`ϵ`$, depends on the event centrality, the transverse momentum and the rapidity of the parent and daughter particles. $`ϵ`$ varies from under 15$`\%`$ for p$`{}_{T}{}^{}0`$ GeV/c to about 35$`\%`$ for p$`{}_{T}{}^{}2.0`$ GeV/c.

The d2N/(2$`\pi `$m$`_\text{T}`$dm$`_\text{T}`$dy) distribution as a function of m$`_\text{T}`$ \- m0 for central interactions at mid-rapidity ($`|y|<`$ 0.5) is shown in Fig 2. An exponential fit is used to extract the K∗0 yield per unit of rapidity around mid-rapidity and the inverse slope (T). We obtain dN/dy = 10.0 $`\pm `$ 0.8 (stat) and T = 0.41 $`\pm `$ 0.02 (stat) GeV. The K∗0 and $`\overline{\text{K}}^0`$ invariant mass distributions integrated in p$`_\text{T}`$ are fit separately to a Breit-Wigner resonant function and a linear residual background. The ratio $`\overline{\text{K}}^0`$/K∗0 = 0.92 $`\pm `$ 0.14 (stat) is obtained for central collisions. Therefore, the average value between K∗0 and $`\overline{\text{K}^0}`$ should well represent the K$`{}_{}{}^{}(892)_{}^{0}`$ production within our statistics. The systematical uncertainty in dN/dy is estimated to be 25$`\%`$ due to both detector effects and the uncertainty in the background determination. By varying the analysis cuts and studying the detector effects, the systematical uncertainty in the inverse slope is estimated to be 10$`\%`$. Due to limited statistics in the minimum bias data set, we assume that the K∗0 m$`_\text{T}`$ distribution for both central and minimum bias events have the same shape, and in this way we can estimate the K∗0 yield. The result is dN/dy = 4.5 $`\pm `$ 0.7 (stat) $`\pm `$ 1.4 (sys). The difference between  and the results presented here is that we are able to measure the slope of 410 $`\pm `$ 20 (stat) MeV instead of an assumed 300 MeV slope, and we use a linear function to describe the background instead of an exponential function. Each of these lowers the yield by about 20$`\%`$.

The K∗0/h- ratios measured for central and minimum bias events are compared to the measurements in pp  and e+e- . The h- yield corresponds to the corrected primary negatively charged hadrons at $`|\eta |<`$ 0.5 . At $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 130 GeV, K∗0/h- = 0.042 $`\pm `$ 0.004 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.01 (sys) for central collisions and K∗0/h- = 0.059 $`\pm `$ 0.008 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.019 (sys) for minimum bias events. These results are compared to K∗0/$`\pi `$ = 0.057 $`\pm `$ 0.012 measured in pp at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 63 GeV  and K∗0/$`\pi `$ = 0.044 $`\pm `$ 0.003 measured in e+e- at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 91 GeV . The error in the measurements in pp and e+e- corresponds to the quadratic sum of the systematical and statistical errors. Noting that about 80$`\%`$ of h- are pions at RHIC energies, we observe that the K∗0/h- ratio is comparable to the K∗0/$`\pi `$ ratios measured in pp and e+e-. We do not observe the enhancement in the K∗0 production observed for other strange particles as function of increasing energies and colliding systems .

Fig 3 shows the K∗0/K and $`\varphi `$/K∗0 ratios measured in different colliding systems at various energies. The K∗0/K ratio is interesting because K∗0 and K have similar quark content and differ mainly in mass and spin. Fig 3 shows that the ratio K∗0/K = 0.26 $`\pm `$ 0.03 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.07 (sys) measured in central Au-Au collisions at 130 GeV beam energy is compatible or even lower than the measurements in $`\overline{\text{p}}`$p, pp and e+e- at lower energies.

The $`\varphi `$/K∗0 ratio measures the strangeness suppression in near ideal conditions since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S = 1 with hidden strangeness in the $`\varphi `$, and there is only a small mass difference. Fig 3 shows an increase of the ratio $`\varphi `$/K∗0 = 0.49 $`\pm `$ 0.05 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.12 (sys) measured in central Au-Au collisions at 130 GeV beam energy  compared to the measurements in pp and e+e- at lower energies. However, this increase may not be solely related to strangeness suppression due to additional effects on short lived resonances in heavy-ion collisions. It is also interesting to note that the $`\varphi `$/K∗0 ratio already has a rising tendency as a function of beam energy in pp and e+e-.

Since the K∗0 lifetime is short (c$`\tau `$ = 4 fm) and comparable to the time scale of the evolution of the system in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, the K∗0 survival probability needs to be taken into account. This survival probability depends on the expansion time between chemical and thermal freeze-out, the source size and the K∗0 transverse momentum. Should the K∗0 decay between chemical and thermal freeze-out, the daughters from the decay may re-scatter and the K∗0 will not be reconstructed. On the other hand, chemical freeze-out is only truly defined for non-resonant long-lived particles. Elastic interactions such as $`\pi `$K $``$ K∗0 $`\pi `$K are still effective and regenerate the K∗0 until thermal freeze-out. Due to these additional effects on short lived resonances in heavy-ion collisions, the K∗0 measurement at RHIC may provide information on the expansion time between chemical and thermal freeze-out. However, final state interactions of the hadronic decay products destroy the early-time information carried by these decays. Assuming that the difference in the K∗0/K ratio measured in Au-Au collisions at RHIC and the ratios measured in pp and e+e- is due to the K∗0 survival probability, our measurement is consistent with an expansion time of only a few fm between chemical and thermal freeze-out (sudden freeze-out). In the scenario of a long expansion time between chemical and thermal freeze-out ($``$20 fm ) and without K∗0 regeneration, not only is the measured K∗0 production reduced but there is also a low p$`_\text{T}`$ depression. This results in a large effective inverse slope than would otherwise be expected. However, the measured K∗0 inverse slope is similar to the $`\varphi `$ inverse slope  and higher than that of kaons . Hence, our measurement at RHIC is consistent with either a sudden freeze-out with no K∗0 regeneration or a long expansion time scenario with significant K∗0 regeneration. In the statistical model, the measured K∗0 should be consistent with the condition at kinetic freeze-out instead of chemical freeze-out. The fact that the statistical model  reproduces our measurement is consistent with a short expansion time between chemical and thermal freeze-out, since the statistical model provides particle yields at chemical freeze-out.

## 4 Conclusions

Preliminary results on K$`{}_{}{}^{}(892)_{}^{0}`$ and $`\overline{\text{K}}^{}(892)^0`$ production measured at mid-rapidity by the STAR detector in $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$= 130 GeV Au-Au collisions at RHIC were presented. Despite the short lifetime (c$`\tau `$ = 4 fm), the data show significant K∗0 production. However, we do not observe an enhancement in the K∗0 production as observed for other strange particles for increasing energies and differing colliding systems. If the difference in the K∗0/K ratio measured in Au-Au collisions at RHIC and the ratios measured in pp and e+e- is due to the K∗0 survival probability, our measurement is consistent with a sudden freeze-out. Hence, the K∗0 production at RHIC rules out a long expansion time between chemical and thermal freeze-out unless there is K∗0 regeneration, due to elastic interactions after chemical freeze-out.

Finally, the study of resonances like the K∗0 may provide important information on the collision dynamics. The improvement of the uncertainties in the K∗0 and $`\varphi `$ measurements and the measurements of other resonances with different properties may help in understanding the development of the system after chemical freeze-out.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the RHIC Operations Group and the RHIC Computing Facility at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for their support. This work was supported by the Division of Nuclear Physics and the Division of High Energy Physics of the Office of Science of the U.S.Department of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung of Germany, the Institut National de la Physique Nucleaire et de la Physique des Particules of France, the United Kingdom Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil, and the Russian Ministry of Science and Technology.

## References


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Consider a $`1+1`$-dimensional quantum field theory which is integrable in the bulk. Demanding that this field theory remain integrable in the presence of a boundary places severe restrictions on the possible boundary interactions . Similarly, if a field theory has bulk supersymmetry, then demanding that supersymmetry be preserved in the presence of a boundary evidently also restricts the possible boundary interactions. These considerations immediately raise the question: to what extent can both integrability and supersymmetry be maintained in the presence of a boundary? We address this question here in the context of the tricritical Ising field theory  – i.e., the tricritical Ising conformal field theory (CFT)  perturbed by the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ operator . Several authors have already investigated this field theory in the presence of a boundary -. Although the question of whether supersymmetry can be maintained in the boundary theory was raised in the seminal work of Chim , it has not been addressed until now. 111An alternative field theory for perturbed tricritical Ising has been proposed , which we shall not discuss here.

We have recently investigated the issue of integrability and supersymmetry in the presence of a boundary for other models: the scaling supersymmetric Yang-Lee model , and the $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ sine-Gordon models . However, in contrast to those models whose particles have vertex-type scattering matrices, the tricritical Ising field theory contains kinks which have RSOS-type scattering matrices. Also, the tricritical Ising field theory is an example of a perturbed minimal model which, unlike the supersymmetric Yang-Lee model, is unitary.

To the above question, we find an affirmative answer: it is possible to maintain both supersymmetry and integrability in the boundary tricritical Ising field theory. Indeed, we find two sets of boundary conditions and corresponding boundary perturbations which are both supersymmetric and integrable. The first boundary condition involves a superposition of two pure “Cardy” boundary conditions . Hence, the corresponding field theory is in fact a “direct sum” of two non-supersymmetric theories studied in . We explicitly construct the conserved supersymmetry charge, and find that it contains a term proportional to the spin-reversal operator. The field theory corresponding to the second set of boundary conditions is a one-parameter deformation of another theory studied in .

In Section 2, we briefly review the pertinent results from  on the bulk tricritical Ising field theory. We also introduce the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which – as already noted – plays an important role in the boundary theory. In Section 3, we recall  the conformal boundary conditions and corresponding conformal boundary states of the tricritical Ising CFT, and we argue that certain boundary states and combinations thereof have superconformal symmetry. Our main results are contained in Sections 4 and 5, where we study supersymmetric perturbations of these superconformal boundary conditions. In particular, we propose specific boundary perturbing operators and the corresponding conserved supersymmetry charges and boundary $`S`$ matrices. We conclude in Section 6 with a brief discussion of our results.

## 2 Bulk TIM

Zamolodchikov has described  the bulk massive integrable quantum field theory obtained as a perturbation of the tricritical Ising CFT by the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ operator. This model, to which we shall refer as the (bulk) tricritical Ising field theory, or simply (bulk) TIM, can be described by the “action”

$`A=A_{(4/5)}+\lambda {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{5})}(x,y),\lambda <0,`$ (2.1)
where $`A_{(4/5)}`$ is the action of the tricritical Ising CFT (i.e., the minimal unitary model $`(4/5)`$ with central charge $`c=\frac{7}{10}`$), and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{5})}`$ is the spinless $`(1,3)`$ primary field of this CFT with dimensions $`(\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{5})`$. The $`(4/5)`$ Kac table is given in Table 1.

Moreover, $`\lambda `$ is a bulk parameter with dimension length$`^{\frac{4}{5}}`$. Following , we restrict our attention to the case $`\lambda <0`$, for which there is a three-fold vacuum degeneracy, and the spectrum consists of massive kinks $`K_{a,b}(\theta )`$ that separate neighboring vacua, $`a,b\{1,0,1\}`$ with $`|ab|=1`$. Multi-kink states

$`|K_{a_1,b_1}(\theta _1)K_{a_2,b_2}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}`$ (2.2)
must obey the adjacency conditions $`b_1=a_2,`$ etc.

The two-kink $`S`$ matrix has four distinct amplitudes defined by

$`|K_{0,a}(\theta _1)K_{a,0}(\theta _2)_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`A_0(\theta _{12})|K_{0,a}(\theta _2)K_{a,0}(\theta _1)_{out}+A_1(\theta _{12})|K_{0,a}(\theta _2)K_{a,0}(\theta _1)_{out},`$
$`|K_{a,0}(\theta _1)K_{0,a}(\theta _2)_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(\theta _{12})|K_{a,0}(\theta _2)K_{0,a}(\theta _1)_{out},`$
$`|K_{a,0}(\theta _1)K_{0,a}(\theta _2)_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`B_1(\theta _{12})|K_{a,0}(\theta _2)K_{0,a}(\theta _1)_{out},`$ (2.3)
where $`\theta _{12}=\theta _1\theta _2`$, and $`a=\pm 1`$. These amplitudes are given by

$`A_0(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{4}}A(\theta ),A_1(\theta )=i\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{4}}A(\theta ),`$
$`B_0(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\theta i\pi )B(\theta ),B_1(\theta )=\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\theta +i\pi )B(\theta ),`$ (2.4)
where

$`A(\theta )=e^{\gamma \theta }S(\theta ),B(\theta )=\sqrt{2}e^{\gamma \theta }S(\theta ),`$ (2.5)
with $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{ln}2`$, and

$`S(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+k+\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+k\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})}}.`$ (2.6)
As remarked in , these amplitudes do not have poles in the physical strip, corresponding to the fact that there are no bulk bound states. Also, these amplitudes are essentially the Boltzmann weights of the critical Ising lattice model .

The tricritical Ising CFT contains a conserved supercurrent, and in fact has superconformal symmetry . The holomorphic component $`G(z)`$ of the supercurrent corresponds to the primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{2},0)}`$ with spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$; and similarly, the antiholomorphic component $`\overline{G}(z)`$ is the primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(0,\frac{3}{2})}`$ with spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$. Using the methods developed in , Zamolodchikov has shown that in the perturbed theory (2.1) the supercurrent remains conserved,

$`_{\overline{z}}G=_z\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},_z\overline{G}=_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (2.7)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=4\lambda \overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10})}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=4\lambda G_{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10})}`$. Hence, the model has fermionic integrals of motion $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ of spin $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, respectively,

$`Q={\displaystyle G𝑑z}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}d\overline{z},\overline{Q}={\displaystyle \overline{G}𝑑\overline{z}}+\mathrm{\Psi }dz,`$ (2.8)
that obey the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry algebra

$`Q^2=P,\overline{Q}^2=\overline{P},\{Q,\overline{Q}\}=2t,`$ (2.9)
where $`t`$ is the topological charge. The action of the supersymmetry charges on multi-kink states (both “in” and “out”) is given by

$`Q|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)K_{a_2,a_3}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N)={\displaystyle }_{j=1}^N\{\sqrt{m}\beta (a_j,a_{j+1})e^{\frac{\theta _j}{2}}`$ (2.10)
$`\times `$ $`|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}K_{a_{j1},a_j}(\theta _{j1})K_{a_j,a_{j+1}}(\theta _j)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N)\},`$
and

$`\overline{Q}|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)K_{a_2,a_3}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N)={\displaystyle }_{j=1}^N\{\sqrt{m}\overline{\beta }(a_j,a_{j+1})e^{\frac{\theta _j}{2}}`$ (2.11)
$`\times `$ $`|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}K_{a_{j1},a_j}(\theta _{j1})K_{a_j,a_{j+1}}(\theta _j)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N)\},`$
where

$`\beta (a,b)=i(a+ib),\overline{\beta }(a,b)=i(aib),`$ (2.12)
and $`m`$ is the kink mass. Moreover, the topological charge acts according to

$`t|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N)=(a_1^2a_{N+1}^2)|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N).`$ (2.13)
One can show that these charges commute with the above $`S`$ matrix. Indeed, this is how the $`S`$ matrix is determined in .

We now define the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the following action on multi-kink states (both “in” and “out”):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)K_{a_2,a_3}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N)`$ (2.14)
$`=|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)K_{a_2,a_3}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a_{N+1}}(\theta _N).`$
Evidently, the spin-reversal operator satisfies

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1,`$ (2.15)
and it commutes with the bulk $`S`$ matrix (2.3). Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ anticommutes with the supersymmetry charges,

$`\{\mathrm{\Gamma },Q\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma },\overline{Q}\}=0,`$ (2.16)
as follows from the fact $`\beta (a,b)=\beta (a,b)`$, and similarly for $`\overline{\beta }(a,b)`$. These properties suggest that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds in the (perturbed) CFT to the operator $`(1)^F`$, where $`F`$ is the Fermion-number operator.

## 3 Conformal boundary conditions

The Cardy states  for the tricritical Ising boundary CFT are given in terms of Ishibashi states  by

$`()`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{0}=C[(|0+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+\eta (|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}})+\sqrt[4]{2}|{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}+\sqrt[4]{2}|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}],`$
$`(0)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}=C[\eta ^2(|0+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\eta ^1(|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}})\sqrt[4]{2}\eta ^2|{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}+\sqrt[4]{2}\eta ^1|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}],`$
$`(0+)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}=C[\eta ^2(|0+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\eta ^1(|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}})+\sqrt[4]{2}\eta ^2|{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}\sqrt[4]{2}\eta ^1|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}],`$
$`(+)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}=C[(|0+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+\eta (|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}})\sqrt[4]{2}|{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}\sqrt[4]{2}|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}],`$
$`(0)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}}=\sqrt{2}C[(|0|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\eta (|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}})],`$
$`(d)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}}=\sqrt{2}C[\eta ^2(|0|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+\eta ^1(|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}})],`$ (3.1)
where

$`C=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{5}}{\sqrt{5}}}},\eta =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{5}}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{5}}}}.`$ (3.2)
In (3.1) are also given the corresponding conformal boundary conditions (CBC) which Chim has identified. Let us recall that, in the bulk, the three vacua $`1,0,+1`$ are degenerate. However, these vacua do not necessarily remain degenerate at the boundary. Indeed, for the boundary conditions $`(),(0),(+)`$, the order parameter is fixed at the boundary to the vacua $`1,0,+1`$, respectively. For the boundary condition $`(0)`$, the vacua $`1`$ and $`0`$ are degenerate at the boundary; hence, the order parameter at the boundary may be in either of these two vacua. Similarly, for the boundary condition $`(0+)`$, the $`0`$ and $`+1`$ vacua are degenerate at the boundary. Finally, for the boundary condition $`(d)`$, all three vacua $`1,0,+1`$ are degenerate at the boundary (as well as in the bulk); i.e., the order parameter at the boundary may be in any of the three vacua.

In the remainder of this Section, we argue that the boundary states corresponding to the conformal boundary conditions $`()\&(+)`$, $`(0)\&(0+)`$, $`(o)`$ and $`(d)`$ have superconformal symmetry. We observe that the boundary states corresponding to these conformal boundary conditions are given by

$`()\&(+)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{0}+|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}=2C(|0_++\eta |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_+),`$
$`(0)\&(0+)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}+|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}=2C(\eta ^2|0_+\eta ^1|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_+),`$
$`(o)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}}=\sqrt{2}C(|0_{}\eta |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_{}),`$
$`(d)`$ $`:`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}}=\sqrt{2}C(\eta ^2|0_{}+\eta ^1|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_{}),`$ (3.3)
where

$`|0_\pm =|0\pm |{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_\pm =|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}\pm |{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}.`$ (3.4)
Notice that the first two states in (3.3) are superpositions of “pure” Cardy states. 222For recent discussions of superpositions of Cardy states, see e.g. . Also, these states are related by duality . Indeed, under the duality transformation $`𝒟`$, the Ishibashi states $`|0`$ and $`|\frac{3}{5}`$ remain invariant, while the states $`|\frac{1}{10}`$ and $`|\frac{3}{2}`$ pick up a minus sign. (See Appendix A.) Thus,

$`𝒟|0_\pm =|0_{},𝒟|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_\pm =|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_{}.`$ (3.5)
It follows that

$`𝒟\left(|\stackrel{~}{0}+|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\right)=\sqrt{2}|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}},𝒟\left(|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}+|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}\right)=\sqrt{2}|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}}.`$ (3.6)
Let us briefly review some basic facts about superconformal field theory . The $`N=1`$ superconformal algebra is defined by the (anti) commutation relations

$`[L_m,L_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)L_{m+n}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}c(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[L_m,G_r]`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mr)G_{m+r},`$
$`\{G_r,G_s\}`$ $`=`$ $`2L_{r+s}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}c(r^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})\delta _{r+s,0},`$ (3.7)
where $`r,s𝖹`$ for the Ramond ($`R`$) sector and $`r,s𝖹+\frac{1}{2}`$ for the Neveu-Schwarz ($`NS`$) sector. The operators $`\overline{L}_n`$, $`\overline{G}_r`$ corresponding to the antiholomorphic components of the energy-momentum tensor and supercurrent obey similar relations. Highest weight irreducible representations of the holomorphic algebra are generated from highest weight states $`|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying

$`L_0|\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta },L_n|\mathrm{\Delta }=G_r|\mathrm{\Delta }=0,n>0,r>0.`$ (3.8)
The corresponding highest weight states of the antiholomorphic algebra are denoted by $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. The tricritical Ising model, which has $`c=\frac{7}{10}`$, can be regarded either as the conformal minimal model $`(4/5)`$ or the superconformal minimal model $`𝒮(3/5)`$.

Since the Ishibashi states $`|j`$ are annihilated by $`(L_n\overline{L}_n)`$, then so are the linear combinations (3.3). We wish to show that 333If $`G_r`$ and $`\overline{G}_r`$ are assumed to be operators in the “open” channel, then the rotation to the “closed” channel produces certain $`\pm i`$ factors. For convenience, we shall assume here instead that the operators $`G_r`$ and $`\overline{G}_r`$ obeying (3.7) are in the closed channel.

$`\left(G_r\overline{G}_r\right)\left(|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}+|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,\left(G_r\overline{G}_r\right)\left(|\stackrel{~}{0}+|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\right)=0,`$
$`\left(G_r+\overline{G}_r\right)|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\left(G_r+\overline{G}_r\right)|\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}}}=0,`$ (3.9)
for $`rZ+\frac{1}{2}`$. In view of (3.3), it suffices to show that the boundary states $`|0_\pm `$, $`|\frac{1}{10}_\pm `$ obey

$`(G_r\overline{G}_r)|0_\pm =0,(G_r\overline{G}_r)|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_\pm =0.`$ (3.10)
(This result is stated without proof in .) To this end, we observe that the vacuum state $`|0`$ of $`(4/5)`$ and $`𝒮(3/5)`$ is the same, since it is unique. Thus, it satisfies

$`L_n|0`$ $`=`$ $`0,n1,`$
$`G_r|0`$ $`=`$ $`0,r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (3.11)
The state $`|\frac{1}{10}`$, which is a highest weight in both $`(4/5)`$ and $`𝒮(3/5)`$, satisfies

$`G_r|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}=0,r>0.`$ (3.12)
The state $`|\frac{3}{2}`$, which is a highest weight in $`(4/5)`$, is a descendant in $`𝒮(3/5)`$,

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}}G_{\frac{3}{2}}|0,`$ (3.13)
where the coefficient is fixed by the normalization condition $`\frac{3}{2}|\frac{3}{2}=1`$. Similarly,

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}=\sqrt{5}G_{\frac{1}{2}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}.`$ (3.14)
With the help of the representation for the conformal Ishibashi states given in

$`|j`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L_1\overline{L}_1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}}+\mathrm{}\right)|j|\overline{j},j0,`$
$`|0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L_2\overline{L}_2}{c/2}}+\mathrm{}\right)|0|\overline{0},`$ (3.15)
one can proceed to verify (3.10). Indeed, for the case $`r=\frac{1}{2}`$,

$`(G_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}})|0_+=(G_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}})(|0|\overline{0}+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}`$ (3.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{7}}L_2|0\overline{L}_2|\overline{0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L_1|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{L}_1|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}+\mathrm{}).`$
The operator $`\left(G_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ annihilates the first term due to (3.11); and acting on the second term, this operator gives

$`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{L}_2|\overline{0},`$ (3.17)
as follows from (3.13), (3.7) and (3.11). There is an equal and opposite contribution from the action of $`G_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ on the third term in (3.16). The actions of $`\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ on the third term, and of $`\left(G_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ on the fourth term, produce contributions which presumably are cancelled by corresponding contributions from higher-order terms represented by ellipses in (3.16). Similarly,

$`(G_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}})|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}_+`$ $`=`$ $`\left(G_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\left(|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}+|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`G_{\frac{1}{2}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}\overline{G}_{\frac{1}{2}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}}+G_{\frac{1}{2}}|{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}}+\mathrm{}.`$
The first term vanishes due to (3.12). The second term is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}|\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}},`$ (3.19)
as follows from (3.14); and it is cancelled by the third term. Other values of $`r`$ can presumably be treated in a similar manner.

## 4 Boundary TIM: NS case

We shall consider supersymmetric perturbations of the tricritical Ising boundary CFT with two different (super)conformal boundary conditions. In this Section we consider the CBC $`(0)\&(0+)`$; and in Section 5 we consider the CBC $`(d)`$. We refer to these two cases as NS and R, respectively, since these are the sectors to which the corresponding boundary states belong.

### 4.1 Definition of the model as a perturbed CFT

We now consider the boundary tricritical Ising field theory, with the action 444This boundary action differs in two important respects from a similar one considered by Chim : (1) While he considers the CBC $`(0)`$ corresponding to a pure Cardy state, we consider the CBC $`(0)\&(0+)`$ corresponding to a superposition state. As we have already argued, the latter is supersymmetric, while the former is not. (2) Chim considers a single perturbing boundary operator ($`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}`$ in our notation), whereas we consider the difference of two such operators. The latter generates an RG boundary flow which is supersymmetric, while the former does not.

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`A_{(4/5)+(0)\&(0+)}+\lambda {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{5})}(x,y)`$ (4.1)
$``$ $`h{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\left(\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}(y)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}(y)\right),`$
where again we restrict to the case $`\lambda <0`$. We now explain each of the terms in turn.

The first term in (4.1) is the action for the tricritical Ising boundary CFT $`(4/5)`$ with the conformal boundary condition $`(0)\&(0+)`$. We have argued in the previous Section that the conformal boundary state corresponding to this CBC is annihilated not only by $`(L_n\overline{L}_n)`$, but also by $`(G_r\overline{G}_r)`$. Hence, it is in fact a superconformal boundary state. The corresponding boundary condition is superconformal,

$`\left(T(y+ix)\overline{T}(yix)\right)|_{x=0}=0,\left(G(y+ix)\overline{G}(yix)\right)|_{x=0}=0.`$ (4.2)
The second term in the action (4.1) is the bulk perturbation, which is the same as in the bulk action (2.1), except that the $`x`$ integral is now restricted to the half-line $`x0`$.

The last term in the action (4.1) is the boundary perturbation. It involves the boundary primary fields $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}`$ and $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}`$ with dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1,3)}=\frac{3}{5}`$ which act on $`(0)`$ and $`(0+)`$, respectively. 555In general, boundary operators $`\varphi _a`$ and $`\varphi _b`$ which act on conformal boundary conditions $`a`$ and $`b`$ commute; i.e., their operator product expansion with each other is zero. Such operators have recently been studied in . The reason for the relative minus sign between the two boundary primary fields will be given below, when we discuss boundary flows. Moreover, $`h`$ is a boundary parameter which has dimensions length$`^{\frac{2}{5}}`$.

Since the boundary perturbation has the same dimension ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1,3)}`$) as the bulk perturbation, the analysis of  suggests that this boundary perturbation is integrable. One can also use the arguments of  to infer that the boundary perturbation preserves supersymmetry. Indeed, consider the bulk conformal limit $`\lambda =0`$. In view of the boundary condition (4.2), by computing the operator product $`\left[G(y+ix)\overline{G}(yix)\right]\left(\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}(y^{})\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}(y^{})\right)`$, one can conclude to first order in perturbation theory that the quantity

$`\widehat{Q}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\left[G(x,y)+\overline{G}(x,y)\right]+\mathrm{\Theta }(y),`$ (4.3)
with $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y)h(12\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1,3)})\left(\varphi _{(\frac{1}{10}),(0)}(y)\varphi _{(\frac{1}{10}),(0+)}(y)\right)`$ is an integral of motion. It is plausible that, for the general massive case $`\lambda 0`$, this becomes

$`\widehat{Q}=Q+\overline{Q}+\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (4.4)
where $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ are given by (2.8) with the $`x`$ integrals restricted to the half-line.

Various arguments  support the following pattern of renormalization group boundary flows for the tricritical Ising boundary CFT:

$`(0)+\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}`$ $``$ $`(0),(0)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}(),`$ (4.5)
$`(0+)+\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}`$ $``$ $`(+),(0+)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}(0).`$ (4.6)
This would imply that the boundary perturbation in (4.1) generates the boundary flows

$`(0)\&(0+)`$ $``$ $`2(0)\text{for}h<0,`$
$`(0)\&(0+)`$ $``$ $`()\&(+)\text{for}h>0.`$ (4.7)
We have argued in Section 3 that both the pure Cardy state $`|\stackrel{~}{\frac{7}{16}}`$ which corresponds to the CBC $`(0)`$, and also the superposition state $`|\stackrel{~}{0}+|\stackrel{~}{\frac{3}{2}}`$ which corresponds to the CBC $`()\&(+)`$, are superconformal boundary states. Hence, the boundary flows (4.7) connect superconformal boundary conditions, and we refer to such flows as “supersymmetric flows.” Indeed, we arrived at the particular boundary perturbation in (4.1) (specifically, the relative minus sign between the boundary primary fields $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}`$ and $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}`$) by requiring that it produce this supersymmetric flow. Curiously, since the $`g`$ factors  satisfy the relations

$`g_{(0)}=g_{(0+)},g_{()}=g_{(+)},`$ (4.8)
the ratio $`g_{UV}/g_{IR}`$ of $`g`$ factors corresponding to the ultraviolet and infrared fixed points is the same for the non-supersymmetric flows (4.5),(4.6) and for the corresponding supersymmetric flows (4.7). That is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{(0)}}{g_{(0)}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{(0+)}}{g_{(0)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{(0)\&(0+)}}{g_{2(0)}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{(0)}}{g_{()}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{(0+)}}{g_{(+)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{(0)\&(0+)}}{g_{()\&(+)}}}.`$ (4.9)
It is important to notice that the boundary perturbation in (4.1) breaks spin-reversal symmetry. Indeed, under spin reversal, $`(0)(0+)`$. Hence, although the CBC $`(0)\&(0+)`$ remains invariant, the perturbation $`\left(\varphi _{(0)}\varphi _{(0+)}\right)`$ picks up a minus sign.

### 4.2 Boundary scattering theory

We now turn to the boundary scattering theory. Following Chim , we assume that the boundary can have (at most) three possible states, corresponding to the three different vacua. We therefore define the boundary operator $`B_a`$ with $`a\{1,0,1\}`$, in terms of which the possible boundary states are $`|B_a`$, with corresponding energies $`e_a`$. Multi-kink states have the form

$`|K_{a_1,a_2}(\theta _1)K_{a_2,a_3}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}K_{a_N,a}(\theta _N)B_a`$ (4.10)
We extend the action (2.10), (2.11) of the supercharges $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ on such states in the obvious way (namely, $`B_a`$ remains invariant); and we extend the action (2.14) of the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }B_a=B_a`$.

The kink boundary $`S`$ matrix has six amplitudes defined by

$`|K_{1,0}(\theta )B_0_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`R_+(\theta )|K_{1,0}(\theta )B_0_{out},`$
$`|K_{1,0}(\theta )B_0_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}(\theta )|K_{1,0}(\theta )B_0_{out},`$
$`|K_{0,1}(\theta )B_1_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`P_+(\theta )|K_{0,1}(\theta )B_1_{out}+V_+(\theta )|K_{0,1}(\theta )B_1_{out},`$
$`|K_{0,1}(\theta )B_1_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{}(\theta )|K_{0,1}(\theta )B_1_{out}+V_{}(\theta )|K_{0,1}(\theta )B_1_{out}.`$ (4.11)
The unitarity constraints are given by

$`R_+(\theta )R_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`P_+(\theta )V_+(\theta )+V_+(\theta )P_{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`P_+(\theta )P_+(\theta )+V_+(\theta )V_{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (4.12)
together with the equations obtained by interchanging $`+`$; and the cross-unitarity constraints  are given by

$`R_+({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`A_0(2\theta )R_+({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}+\theta )+A_1(2\theta )R_{}({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}+\theta ),`$
$`P_+({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(2\theta )P_+({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}+\theta ),`$
$`V_+({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`B_1(2\theta )V_+({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}+\theta ),`$ (4.13)
together with the equations obtained by interchanging $`+`$.

Motivated by the plausibility argument given above that the boundary TIM (4.1) has a conserved supersymmetry charge (4.4) and by the observation that the boundary perturbation breaks spin-reversal symmetry (see also , ), we consider the following operator

$`\widehat{Q}=Q+\overline{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\sqrt{m}}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (4.14)
where $`\alpha `$ is a parameter which is yet to be determined. Requiring that this operator commute with the boundary $`S`$ matrix (4.11) yields the following constraints on the amplitudes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_+(\theta )}{R_{}(\theta )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta }{2}}{1\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta }{2}}},`$
$`V_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}(\theta )V(\theta ),`$
$`V(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta }{2}}}\left(P_{}(\theta )P_+(\theta )\right).`$ (4.15)
These constraints are a special case of those obtained in  from the boundary Yang-Baxter equations.

Our goal is to determine the boundary $`S`$ matrix for the perturbation of the CBC $`(0)\&(0+)`$. To this end, it is important to first recall  some results for the simpler (non-supersymmetric) case of the perturbation of the CBC $`(0)`$. For that case, the boundary can exist in either the states (vacua) $`1`$ or $`0`$. The energies $`e_1`$ and $`e_0`$ of these states depend on the value of the boundary parameter $`h`$: for $`h=0`$, the two energies are equal; while for nonzero $`h`$, the energies are no longer degenerate. Consider the situation (say, positive $`h`$) that $`e_1<e_0`$; that is, the state $`1`$ is the ground state of the boundary, and the state $`0`$ is an excited state of the boundary. Since the boundary cannot exist in the state $`+1`$, the amplitudes $`P_+(\theta )`$ and $`V_\pm (\theta )`$ vanish. 666Such amplitudes evidently violate the third unitarity constraint in (4.12). However, since the boundary cannot exist in the state $`+1`$, this constraint should not be imposed. The amplitude $`P_{}(\theta )`$ is given by $`P_{}(\theta )=P(\theta )`$, where

$`P(\theta )=P_\xi ^{CDD}(\theta )P_{min}(\theta ),`$ (4.16)
where $`P_{min}(\theta )`$ is the minimal solution of the equations

$`P_{min}(\theta )P_{min}(\theta )=1,P_{min}({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}\theta )=B_0(2\theta )P_{min}({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}+\theta ),`$ (4.17)
with no poles in the physical strip, and is given by

$`P_{min}(\theta )=e^{\gamma \theta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(k\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{4}\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})\mathrm{\Gamma }(k\frac{1}{4}\frac{\theta }{2\pi i})}}.`$ (4.18)
Moreover, $`P_\xi ^{CDD}(\theta )`$ is the CDD factor

$`P_\xi ^{CDD}(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi i\mathrm{sinh}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\xi +i\mathrm{sinh}\theta }},`$ (4.19)
which has a pole at $`\theta =i\xi `$. The parameter $`\xi `$ is related in some way to the boundary parameter $`h`$. The state $`0`$, which is an excited state of the boundary, can be regarded as a boundary bound state, which is associated with this pole when it lies in the physical strip $`0\xi \frac{\pi }{2}`$. The energies of the states $`1`$ and $`0`$ are related by

$`e_0=e_1+m\mathrm{cos}\xi .`$ (4.20)
In particular, $`h=0`$ corresponds to $`\xi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Using the boundary bound state bootstrap equations , one can determine  the amplitudes $`R_\pm (\theta )`$ ,

$`R_\pm (\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}\pm i\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})B(\theta i\xi )B(\theta +i\xi )P(\theta ).`$ (4.21)
For the opposite sign of $`h`$, the situation is reversed: $`e_0<e_1`$, and so the state $`0`$ is the ground state of the boundary, and the state $`1`$ is an excited state of the boundary. Chim has explained in detail how the above boundary $`S`$ matrix can give rise to the RG boundary flows in Eq. (4.5).

For the case of the perturbation of the CBC $`(0+)`$, the results are parallel: the boundary can exist in either the states $`0`$ or $`+1`$. Hence, the amplitudes $`P_{}(\theta )`$ and $`V_\pm (\theta )`$ vanish, $`P_+(\theta )=P(\theta )`$, and $`R_\pm (\theta )`$ is given by (4.21). The corresponding RG boundary flows are given in Eq. (4.6).

Finally, let us return to the case of the perturbation of the CBC $`(0)\&(0+)`$. Since the corresponding boundary state is a superposition of two “pure” boundary states, the vacua $`1`$ and $`+1`$ are not states of the same “irreducible” theory. Indeed, we have a “direct sum” of two “irreducible” theories: one theory with only boundary states $`1`$ and $`0`$, and another theory with only boundary states $`0`$ and $`+1`$. In particular, the unitarity, crossing and bootstrap constraints involving both $`1`$ and $`+1`$ boundary states should not be imposed. Thus, the boundary $`S`$ matrix is the “direct sum” of the boundary $`S`$ matrices given above for the perturbations of $`(0)`$ and $`(0+)`$. That is, we propose for the boundary TIM (4.1) the following boundary $`S`$ matrix:

$`P_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`P_{}(\theta )=P(\theta ),V_\pm (\theta )=0,`$
$`R_\pm (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}\pm i\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})B(\theta i\xi )B(\theta +i\xi )P(\theta ),`$ (4.22)
where $`P(\theta )`$ is given by (4.16). This set of amplitudes satisfies the supersymmetry constraints (4.15), with the parameter $`\alpha `$ which appears in the supersymmetry charge (4.14) given by

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\xi }{2}}}.`$ (4.23)
We expect that the corresponding RG boundary flows should be given by Eq. (4.7).

## 5 Boundary TIM: R case

We now wish to consider the perturbation of the tricritical Ising boundary CFT with the CBC $`(d)`$. We have argued in Section 3 that the corresponding boundary state has superconformal symmetry. Hence, this CBC is in fact superconformal,

$`\left(T(y+ix)\overline{T}(yix)\right)|_{x=0}=0,\left(G(y+ix)+\overline{G}(yix)\right)|_{x=0}=0.`$ (5.1)
Since the CBC $`(d)`$ is related to the CBC $`(0)\&(0+)`$ by a duality transformation (see Eq. (3.6)), we expect that the action should be given by the image of the action (4.1) under duality. The bulk perturbing operator is invariant under duality. (See Appendix A.) However, the individual conformal boundary conditions $`(0)`$ and $`(0+)`$ transform in a complicated manner under duality, so that only their sum transforms simply. Hence, the boundary perturbing operator $`𝒟\left(\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}(y)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}(y)\right)`$ is also complicated; in particular, it breaks spin-reversal symmetry, and is different from the operator $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(d)}(y)`$ considered in . The expected RG boundary flow is dual to (4.7), namely,

$`(d)`$ $``$ $`()\&(+)\text{for}h<0,`$
$`(d)`$ $``$ $`(0)\text{for}h>0.`$ (5.2)
By duality, we expect that the supersymmetry charge

$`\widehat{Q}=Q\overline{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\sqrt{m}}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (5.3)
should be conserved. This charge differs from the one considered previously (4.14) by the sign in front of $`\overline{Q}`$. Requiring that this operator commute with the boundary $`S`$ matrix (4.11) yields the following constraints on the amplitudes:

$`R_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}(\theta )R(\theta ),`$
$`P_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`P_{}(\theta )P(\theta ),`$
$`P(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta }{2}}}\left(V_{}(\theta )V_+(\theta )\right).`$ (5.4)
These constraints are also a special case of those obtained in  from the boundary Yang-Baxter equations.

We now proceed to determine the boundary $`S`$ matrix. For $`h=0`$, all three vacua are degenerate at the boundary, $`e_1=e_0=e_1`$. We assume that for positive $`h`$, $`e_0<e_1=e_{+1}`$; that is, the state $`0`$ is the ground state of the boundary, and the states $`1`$ and $`+1`$ are degenerate excited states. We further assume that these excited states can be regarded as boundary bound states associated with a pole of $`R_\pm (\theta )`$ at $`\theta =i\xi `$ which lies in the physical strip. The energies of the three states are therefore related by

$`e_{\pm 1}=e_0+m\mathrm{cos}\xi ,`$ (5.5)
implying that $`h=0`$ corresponds to $`\xi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Moreover, for $`\theta i\xi `$,

$`R_\pm (\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{g_{0\pm }g_{\pm 0}}{\theta i\xi }}`$ (5.6)
where $`g_{\pm 0}`$ and $`g_{0\pm }`$ are particle-boundary coupling constants . From the constraint $`R_+(\theta )=R_{}(\theta )R(\theta )`$ in Eq. (5.4), it follows that

$`r{\displaystyle \frac{g_0}{g_{0+}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{+0}}{g_0}}.`$ (5.7)
The boundary bound state bootstrap equations imply that

$`P(\theta )=\left[A_0(\theta i\xi )A_0(\theta +i\xi )+A_1(\theta i\xi )A_1(\theta +i\xi )\right]R(\theta )`$ (5.8)
and

$`V_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`r\left[A_0(\theta i\xi )A_1(\theta +i\xi )+A_1(\theta i\xi )A_0(\theta +i\xi )\right]R(\theta )`$
$`V_{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[A_0(\theta i\xi )A_1(\theta +i\xi )+A_1(\theta i\xi )A_0(\theta +i\xi )\right]R(\theta ).`$ (5.9)
Apart from the factors of $`r`$ in $`V_\pm (\theta )`$, these results coincide with those obtained in . It follows that

$`R(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\gamma \theta }P_\xi ^{CDD}(\theta )P_{min}(\theta ),`$
$`P(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}A(\theta i\xi )A(\theta +i\xi )R(\theta ),`$
$`V_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`ir\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}A(\theta i\xi )A(\theta +i\xi )R(\theta ),`$
$`V_{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}A(\theta i\xi )A(\theta +i\xi )R(\theta ).`$ (5.10)
This set of amplitudes satisfies the supersymmetry constraints (5.4), with the parameter $`\alpha `$ given by

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1r^2}{2r\mathrm{cos}\frac{\xi }{2}}}.`$ (5.11)
For the opposite sign of $`h`$, the situation is reversed: $`e_1=e_{+1}<e_0`$, and so the ground state of the boundary is two-fold degenerate, consisting of the vacua $`1`$ and $`+1`$, and the vacuum $`0`$ is an excited state. Indeed, the above boundary $`S`$ matrix seems to be consistent with the boundary flows proposed in Eq. (5.2).

We have seen that the parameter $`r`$ is not determined by the constraints of $`S`$-matrix theory (unitarity, crossing, etc.), integrability, or supersymmetry. It is clear that for $`h=0`$, the action has spin-reversal symmetry (i.e., it commutes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), which implies $`V_+=V_{}`$. That is, $`r=1`$ for $`h=0`$ (i.e., for $`\xi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$). However, this constraint is rather mild, as it can be satisfied in infinitely many ways, e.g. $`r=\mathrm{sin}\xi `$. We expect that through a more detailed analysis of the boundary perturbation it should be possible to completely determine $`r`$, as well as $`\xi `$, in terms of $`h`$. However, we shall not pursue this problem here.

Finally, it should be noted that the parameter $`r`$ can be set to unity by an appropriate gauge transformation  of the kink operators,

$`K_{0,1}(\theta )e^{i\phi }K_{0,1}(\theta ),K_{0,1}(\theta )e^{i\phi }K_{0,1}(\theta ),`$ (5.12)
which transforms the amplitudes $`V_\pm (\theta )`$ as

$`V_+(\theta )e^{2i\phi }V_+(\theta ),V_{}(\theta )e^{2i\phi }V_{}(\theta ),`$ (5.13)
and leaves the other amplitudes unchanged. Ghoshal and Zamolodchikov have argued that performing a gauge transformation corresponds to adding a total derivative term to the boundary action density. Thus, setting $`r1`$ corresponds to adding a total derivative term to the boundary action which restores spin-reversal symmetry, in which case the supersymmetry charge (5.3) reduces to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, since $`\alpha 0`$ (5.11). It is this limiting case which was considered in .

## 6 Discussion

We have seen that it is possible to maintain both supersymmetry and integrability in the boundary tricritical Ising model. The NS case (Section 4) corresponds to a “direct sum” of two non-supersymmetric theories studied in . The R case (Section 5) corresponds to a one-parameter ($`r`$) deformation of another theory studied in . For both cases, the conserved supersymmetry charges (4.14), (5.3) are linear combinations of $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ and the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For the other boundary supersymmetric integrable models which we have studied , the conserved supersymmetry charges have a similar structure. We expect that the phenomenon of forming superconformal boundary states from superpositions of pure Cardy states, which we have witnessed in the tricritical Ising model, may occur in other boundary supersymmetric models as well.

An important check on the picture presented here would be to verify directly using the TBA that the proposed boundary $`S`$ matrices (4.22), (5.10) describe the corresponding proposed boundary flows (4.7), (5.2) . This work is now in progress . It would also be interesting to clarify the relation between the operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the perturbed CFT expression (4.4) for the conserved supersymmetry charge, and the operator $`(1)^F`$, to which the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ seems to correspond.

Our results should help to precisely determine the boundary $`S`$ matrix for the solitons of the boundary $`N=1`$ supersymmetric sine-Gordon model. Indeed, this model is known to have supersymmetry, and the breather boundary $`S`$ matrix has also been proposed . However, the soliton boundary $`S`$ matrix , which contains as one of its factors the tricritical Ising model boundary $`S`$ matrix, has not yet been completely determined.

We expect that “higher” perturbed boundary minimal models should have generalizations of the boundary supersymmetry which we have considered here. For instance, the self-dual perturbation of the tricritical 3-state Potts model ($`(6/7)`$) has  bulk spin $`1/3`$ integrals of motion, certain combinations of which (plus boundary terms) should be conserved in the corresponding integrable boundary theory. In general, perturbed minimal models have bulk quantum group symmetries, which can survive in the presence of a boundary. It would be very interesting to work out the corresponding conserved charges, boundary $`S`$ matrices and boundary flows.

## Acknowledgments

I am indebted to C. Ahn, J. Cardy, P. Dorey, K. Graham, R. Tateo and A.B. Zamolodchikov for valuable discussions. I am also grateful for the hospitality extended to me at IPAM in UCLA and at the University of Durham, where some of this work was done. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants PHY-9870101 and PHY-0098088.

## Appendix A Duality

The operator product algebra of the tricritical Ising CFT has a discrete Kramers-Wannier-like symmetry known as duality . We list here the duality transformation properties of some of the primary fields. The following primary fields are invariant under duality:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(0,0)}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(0,0)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{5})}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{3}{5})},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{1}{10},\frac{3}{5})}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{1}{10},\frac{3}{5})},\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{2},0)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{2},0)}.`$ (A.1)
The following primary fields pick up a minus sign under duality:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10})}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10})},\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{1}{10})}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{5},\frac{1}{10})},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2})}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2})},\mathrm{\Phi }_{(0,\frac{3}{2})}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(0,\frac{3}{2})}.`$ (A.2)
The following primary fields pick up a factor of $`G_0`$ under duality:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{80},\frac{3}{80})}G_0\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{3}{80},\frac{3}{80})},\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{7}{16},\frac{7}{16})}G_0\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\frac{7}{16},\frac{7}{16})}.`$ (A.3)
Note added:

It was pointed out in  that the bulk $`S`$ matrix (2.4) should be rescaled by a minus sign. (See also the correction of the scalar factor (2.6).) Moreover, it was pointed out in  that the amplitude $`P(\theta )`$ (4.16) should be rescaled by the factor $`i\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{i\pi }{4}\frac{\theta }{2})`$, in order that it have a simple (rather than double) pole at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{2}`$ for $`\xi =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Similarly, the amplitudes (5.10) should also be rescaled by this factor. I am grateful to L. Chim for bringing  to my attention.

ERRATUM to “Supersymmetry in the boundary tricritical Ising field theory”

Section 4: NS case

We argued in  that the supersymmetric perturbation of the “superposition” of Cardy conformal boundary conditions $`(0)\&(0+)`$ is given by the boundary operator $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}(y)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}(y)`$, i.e., with a relative minus sign. (See Eq. (4.1).) The argument is based on the results (see, e.g., ) for the “pure” boundary flows summarized in Eqs. (4.5), (4.6). However, Graham has argued  that the signs of the perturbing operators in (4.6) should be reversed; i.e., the boundary flows are given by

$`(0)+\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}`$ $``$ $`(0),(0)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}(),`$ (1)
$`(0+)\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}`$ $``$ $`(+),(0+)+\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5})}(0).`$ (2)
Therefore, in order to obtain the supersymmetric flows (4.7) of the superposition of conformal boundary conditions $`(0)\&(0+)`$, the perturbing boundary operator should instead be

$`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0)}(y)+\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(0+)}(y),`$ (3)
i.e., with a relative plus sign. It follows that the boundary perturbation is even under spin reversal, instead of odd. (The arguments given in  that the perturbation is integrable and supersymmetric (4.3), (4.4) also hold if the relative sign is plus.)

We also argued in  that the boundary $`S`$ matrix for the NS case, corresponding (e.g., for boundary parameter $`h>0`$) to the boundary flow $`(0)\&(0+)()\&(+)`$, should be given by the “direct sum” of boundary $`S`$ matrices corresponding to the two pure boundary flows $`(0)()`$ and $`(0+)(+)`$, which were found by Chim . However, the explicit expression for the boundary $`S`$ matrix which we proposed there cannot be strictly correct, since it is not consistent with the boundary bound-state bootstrap equations . 111We were aware of this difficulty, and we suggested in  that this constraint should not be imposed. The new boundary $`S`$ matrix which we propose here does not involve such unphysical assumptions. Moreover, it does not have spin-reversal symmetry.

In order to formulate the “direct sum” of two boundary $`S`$ matrices, we consider two “copies” of the boundary states. Hence, instead of the boundary operator $`B_a`$ which has a single index $`a\{1,0,1\}`$ (corresponding to the three possible vacua or “spins”), we now have the boundary operator $`B_{(a,ϵ)}`$ where $`a\{1,0,1\}`$ and $`ϵ\{1,1\}`$. Boundary scattering is described by the boundary $`S`$ matrix $`R\begin{array}{c}(c,ϵ^{})\hfill \\ a\hfill \\ (b,ϵ)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )`$, which is defined by

$`|K_{a,b}(\theta )B_{(b,ϵ)}_{in}={\displaystyle \underset{c,ϵ^{}}{}}R\begin{array}{c}(c,ϵ^{})\hfill \\ a\hfill \\ (b,ϵ)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )|K_{a,c}(\theta )B_{(c,ϵ^{})}_{out}.`$ (7)
In particular, for the boundary flow $`(0)\&(0+)()\&(+)`$, we assume that the boundary can exist only in the following four states, labeled by $`(a,ϵ)`$: the two degenerate ground states $`(1,1),(1,1)`$ and the two degenerate excited states $`(0,1),(0,1)`$. Moreover, we propose that the boundary $`S`$ matrix has the following nonvanishing amplitudes

$`R\begin{array}{c}(1,1)\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ (1,1)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )=R\begin{array}{c}(1,1)\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ (1,1)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`P(\theta ),`$ (14)
$`R\begin{array}{c}(0,1)\hfill \\ 1\hfill \\ (0,1)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )=R\begin{array}{c}(0,1)\hfill \\ 1\hfill \\ (0,1)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R_+(\theta ),`$ (21)
$`R\begin{array}{c}(0,1)\hfill \\ 1\hfill \\ (0,1)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )=R\begin{array}{c}(0,1)\hfill \\ 1\hfill \\ (0,1)\hfill \end{array}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}(\theta ),`$ (28)
where $`P(\theta )`$ is given by Eqs. (4.16)-(4.19) in ; and $`R_\pm (\theta )`$ are given by (4.21) when the boundary parameter $`\xi `$ is in the range $`0<\xi <\frac{\pi }{2}`$ (in which case the simple pole of the amplitude $`P(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =i\xi `$ corresponds to a boundary bound state), and are otherwise zero. The amplitudes with $`ϵ=1`$ correspond to the boundary flow $`(0)()`$; while the amplitudes with $`ϵ=1`$ correspond to the boundary flow $`(0+)(+)`$. One can verify that this boundary $`S`$ matrix satisfies the boundary Yang-Baxter equation, boundary unitarity, boundary cross-unitarity, as well as the boundary bound-state bootstrap equations.

We now argue that this boundary $`S`$ matrix has both supersymmetry and spin-reversal symmetry. To this end, we assume that the supersymmetry operators $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ and the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ have the following action on the boundary operators for the ground states:

$`QB_{(\pm 1,\pm 1)}=0=\overline{Q}B_{(\pm 1,\pm 1)},\mathrm{\Gamma }B_{(\pm 1,\pm 1)}=B_{(1,1)}.`$ (29)
Following Bajnok et al. , we determine the action of these operators on the boundary operators for the excited states by using a bootstrap construction for the latter, namely,

$`B_{(0,1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_0}}K_{0,1}(i\xi )B_{(1,1)},`$ (30)
where $`g_0`$ are particle-boundary coupling constants. Indeed, it follows that

$`QB_{(0,1)}=\pm \sqrt{m}e^{\frac{i\xi }{2}}B_{(0,1)},\overline{Q}B_{(0,1)}=\pm \sqrt{m}e^{\frac{i\xi }{2}}B_{(0,1)},`$ (31)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }B_{(0,1)}=rB_{(0,1)},\mathrm{\Gamma }B_{(0,1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}B_{(0,1)},`$ (32)
where $`r=g_{+0}/g_0`$. One can now verify that both $`Q+\overline{Q}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ commute with the boundary $`S`$ matrix (28). These properties are consistent with those of the boundary perturbation (3). In particular, the operator

$`\widehat{Q}=Q+\overline{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\sqrt{m}}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (33)
(see (4.14) in ) commutes with the boundary $`S`$ matrix for any value of $`\alpha `$. (Hence, the restriction (4.23) is not necessary.) Following the arguments of , the value of $`\alpha `$ is related to the energy of the ground state, $`E_0=2m/\alpha ^2`$.

Section 5: R case

For the R case, the boundary perturbing operator is the dual of the operator (3), which is given by $`\varphi _{(\frac{3}{5}),(d)}(y)`$. This operator is even under spin-reversal. Precisely this case was considered by Chim . The corresponding boundary flows are given by (5.2).

For the boundary flow $`(d)(0)`$, the boundary has ground state $`0`$, and degenerate excited states $`\pm 1`$. As in , we assume that the supersymmetry operators $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ and the spin-reversal operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ act on the boundary operator for the ground state as follows,

$`QB_0=0=\overline{Q}B_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }B_0=B_0.`$ (34)
However, following Bajnok et al. , let us now use a bootstrap construction for the boundary operators for the excited states

$`B_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_0}}K_{1,0}(i\xi )B_0`$ (35)
to determine how the symmetry operators act on them:

$`QB_1`$ $`=`$ $`ir\sqrt{m}e^{\frac{i\xi }{2}}B_1,QB_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}\sqrt{m}e^{\frac{i\xi }{2}}B_1,`$
$`\overline{Q}B_1`$ $`=`$ $`ir\sqrt{m}e^{\frac{i\xi }{2}}B_1,\overline{Q}B_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}\sqrt{m}e^{\frac{i\xi }{2}}B_1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }B_1`$ $`=`$ $`rB_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }B_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}B_1,`$ (36)
where $`r=g_0/g_{0+}`$. (In contrast, we assumed in  that $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ annihilate all the boundary operators $`B_a`$.) Demanding that both $`Q\overline{Q}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ commute with the boundary $`S`$ matrix now leads to the following constraints on the amplitudes:

$`R_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`R_{}(\theta )R(\theta ),`$
$`P_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`P_{}(\theta )P(\theta ),`$
$`rV_{}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}V_+(\theta ),P(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{ir\mathrm{cos}\frac{\xi }{2}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta }{2}}}V_{}(\theta ).`$ (37)
Comparing with Eq. (5.4) in , we see that the first two lines are the same, but the third line is different. The boundary $`S`$ matrix (5.10) satisfies all of these constraints. In particular, the operator (5.3)

$`\widehat{Q}=Q\overline{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\sqrt{m}}{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (38)
commutes with the boundary $`S`$ matrix for any value of $`\alpha `$. (Hence, the restriction (5.11) is not necessary.) Following the arguments of , the value of $`\alpha `$ is related to the energy of the ground state, $`E_0=2m/\alpha ^2`$.

I am grateful to C. Ahn, L. Chim and K. Graham for their valuable comments. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-0098088.