text:
# A Laplace ladder of discrete Laplace equations

## 1 Notation

Value of functions of continuous variables we denote by $`f(u,v)`$ i.e. $`f:^2(u,v)f(u,v)`$ while functions of discrete variables by $`f(m_1,m_2)`$ i.e. $`f:^2(m_1,m_2)f(m_1,m_2)`$. Partial derivatives are denoted by comma e.g. $`f,_{uv}(u,v):=\frac{^2f}{uv}(u,v)`$. Shift operators are denoted by subscripts in brackets e.g. $`f(m_1,m_2)_{(1)}:=f(m_1+1,m_2)`$, $`f(m_1,m_2)_{(2)}:=f(m_1,m_2+1)`$, $`f(m_1,m_2)_{(12)}:=f(m_1+1,m_2+1)`$, $`f(m_1,m_2)_{(1)}:=f(m_11,m_2)`$ etc. We omit arguments when operators indicate what kind of functions (of discrete or continuous variables) we deal with. Difference operators are denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_if:=f_{(i)}f`$. The diamond operator we define as follows $`\mathrm{}f:=\frac{f_{(12)}f}{f_{(1)}f_{(2)}}`$.

## 2 Introduction

The Laplace equation

$$\begin{array}{c}L\psi (u,v)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is a differential operator

$$\begin{array}{c}L=\frac{^2}{uv}A(u,v)\frac{}{u}B(u,v)\frac{}{v}C(u,v),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
is often regarded as a master equation of theory of $`S`$-integrable systems. One can justify this point of view indicating on either the existence of large class of Darboux-type transformations introduced by Jonas  and Eisenhart  (called fundamental transformation or Darboux-type transformation for multicomponent KP hierarchies) that acts on solution spaces of set of the Laplace equations and give rise Darboux-Bäcklund transformations for the Darboux equations or modern approach of $`\overline{}`$-dressing method  that was applied to Darboux equations by Zakharov and Manakov.

Both $`\overline{}`$-dressing method and, what more important for us, discrete version of fundamental transformation acting on solution spaces of discrete counterparts of the Laplace equations

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi (m_1,m_2)=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
$$\begin{array}{c}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}𝒜(m_1,m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(m_1,m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}𝒞(m_1,m_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
was applied to discrete analogues of Darboux equations . Moreover a theory of reductions of the discrete fundamental transformation is being developed .

On the other hand Athorne  indicated that a symmetry of a Laplace ladder of Laplace equations impose constraints on the operators $`L`$ of equations of the ladder. In particular the cases when Laplace ladder contains a Moutard equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi ,_{uv}=f(u,v)\psi \hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
and Goursat equation

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi ,_{uv}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{log}\lambda (u,v)),_v\psi ,_u+\lambda (u,v)\psi \hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
which is related to

$$\begin{array}{c}\vartheta _{xy}=2\sqrt{\lambda (x,y)\vartheta _x\vartheta _y}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
were discussed. There exist Darboux type transformations that leave the form of Moutard equation  and Goursat equation  unchanged.

We start from the basic facts from the theory of discrete Laplace equation (the invariant description and $`T`$-equivalence are introduced in section 3). Next we introduce two operations acting on invariants of discrete Laplace equation: Laplace transformations (following the papers  we recall Laplace sequence of discrete Laplace equations ) in section 4 and an adjoint operation in section 5. On combining the notions of Laplace sequence and adjoint operation we introduce in section 6 Laplace ladder of discrete Laplace equations. The Laplace ladder turns out to be a proper object to discuss an old and a new discrete Moutard type equation that respectively appear first in the papers  and  (see section 7) and the discrete Goursat equation  as well (see section 8).

## 3 Discrete Laplace equation. $`T`$-equivalence.

A differential operator (1) does not change its form under the transformation

$$\begin{array}{c}L\stackrel{~}{L}=\frac{1}{g}Lg\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`g`$ denotes an operator of multiplying by a scalar function $`g=g(u,v)0`$. The above transformation is usually called gauge transformation. We say that two Laplace equations $`L\psi (u,v)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}\psi (u,v)=0`$ are equivalent, iff there exists a function $`g`$ such that operators $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`L`$ are related by $`(\text{8})`$ (Relation: {two Laplace equation $`L\psi (u,v)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}\psi (u,v)=0`$ are in the relation iff there exist a gauge transformation $`(\text{8})`$} is equivalence relation). The following functions (Laplace invariants) are invariant with respect to the gauge transformation

$$\begin{array}{c}h=ABA,_u+C,k=ABB,_v+C.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
If the invariants of the operators $`L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ are equal ($`k=\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and $`h=\stackrel{~}{h}`$) then there exist a gauge transformation that transforms $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ into $`L`$. Ordered pair of invariants $`(h,k)`$ labels the equivalence classes of equations (1). We refer to Athorne paper  for further information concerning the continuous case.

The discrete Laplace equation (3) can be written in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _{(12)}\alpha \psi _{(1)}\beta \psi _{(2)}\gamma \psi =0\end{array}$$
(10)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha :=𝒜+1\beta :=+1\gamma :=𝒞𝒜1\end{array}$$
(11)
By analogy to the continuous case we introduce invariants

$$\begin{array}{c}\kappa :=\frac{\beta \alpha _{(2)}}{\gamma _{(2)}},n:=\frac{\alpha \beta _{(1)}}{\gamma _{(1)}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
with respect to a discrete gauge transformations $`\frac{1}{g_{(12)}}g`$, which is the discrete counterpart of the gauge transformation (8) and where $`g`$ denotes operator of multiplication by function $`g=g(m_1,m_2)0`$. We shall call the invariants basic invariants. They are basic in the sense that if two operators $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ have equal basic invariants ($`(n,\kappa )=(\stackrel{~}{n},\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$) then they can be related by a gauge.

For our convenience (section 7) we introduce also derivative invariants which do not poses the basic property. Secondary invariants of the first kind are defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒦:=\kappa \kappa _{(1)}:=nn_{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Secondary invariants of the first kind are defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐊:=\frac{n_{(2)}}{\kappa }𝐇:=\frac{\kappa _{(1)}}{n}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
We denote equivalence classes of the discrete Laplace equations by $`(n,\kappa )`$.

If the basic invariants of two discrete Laplace operators $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are related as follows

$$\kappa =T\stackrel{~}{\kappa },n=T\stackrel{~}{n},$$

where $`T`$ denotes a shift operator (i.e. $`Tf(m_1,m_2)=f(m_1+k,m_2+l)`$ where $`k`$ and $`l`$) then we shall say that equations are $`T`$-equivalent and we denote the enlarged equivalence classes by $`T(n,\kappa )`$. $`T`$-equivalence plays important role in our considerations.

## 4 Laplace transformations and Laplace sequence

In order to solve a discrete Laplace equation (3) we can try to factorize the discrete Laplace operator (4). There are only two ways we can do it

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)})(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}𝒜_{(1)})\psi 𝔥\psi =0,`$ (15)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}𝒜)(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}_{(2)})\psi 𝔨\psi =0,`$ (16)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔥=𝒞𝒜+𝒜_{(1)}(+1)=\gamma +\alpha _{(1)}\beta ,\hfill \\ 𝔨=𝒞+_{(2)}(𝒜+1)=\gamma +\beta _{(2)}\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
If one of the functions $`𝔥`$ or $`𝔨`$ is equal to zero we succeed in factorization (and we can solve equation by quadratures). If not we can introduce functions

$`\psi ^{}:=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}𝒜_{(1)})\psi `$ (18)
$`\psi ^{}:=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}_{(2)})\psi `$ (19)
equations (15) and (16) can be written in the form

$`\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝔥}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\psi ^{}\psi ^{})`$ (20)
$`\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝔨}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\psi ^{}𝒜\psi ^{})`$ (21)
If we eliminate from equations (1819) the function $`\psi `$ using (2021) then we obtain that functions $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ satisfy equations

$`\psi _{(12)}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{𝔥_{(2)}}{𝔥}}\alpha _{(1)}\psi _{(1)}^{}+\beta _{(2)}\psi _{(2)}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝔥_{(2)}}{𝔥}}\gamma \psi ^{}`$ (22)
$`\psi _{(12)}^{}=\alpha _{(1)}\psi _{(1)}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝔨_{(1)}}{𝔨}}\beta _{(2)}\psi _{(2)}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝔨_{(1)}}{𝔨}}\gamma \psi ^{}`$ (23)
and invariants of these equations are connected with invariants of the equation (10) via

$$\begin{array}{cc}n^{}=\frac{n_{(1)}n_{(2)}}{\kappa }\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1+n)_{(1)}}\hfill & \kappa _{(1)}^{}=n_{(2)}\hfill \\ n_{(2)}^{}=\kappa _{(1)}\hfill & \kappa ^{}=\frac{\kappa _{(2)}\kappa _{(1)}}{n}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1+\kappa )_{(2)}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
$$\begin{array}{cc}𝐇^{}=\left(𝐇\mathrm{}(1+n)\right)_{(1)}\hfill & 𝐊_{(1)}^{}=\left(𝐊_{(1)}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1+n)}\right)_{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝐇_{(2)}^{}=\left(𝐇_{(2)}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1+\kappa )}\right)_{(1)}\hfill & 𝐊^{}=\left(𝐊\mathrm{}(1+\kappa )\right)_{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
One can easily show, that

$$(n^{},\kappa ^{})=(n^{},\kappa ^{})=(n,\kappa )$$

so Laplace transformations for the discrete Laplace equations i.e. maps $`(n,\kappa )(n^{},\kappa ^{})`$ and $`(n,\kappa )(n^{},\kappa ^{})`$ are mutually inverse. By analogy to continuous case we call the sequence of the equations

$$\mathrm{},(n^{},\kappa ^{}),(n^{},\kappa ^{}),(n,\kappa ),(n^{},\kappa ^{}),(n^{},\kappa ^{}),\mathrm{}$$
(26)
Laplace sequence of discrete Laplace equations. Three comments are in order. Firstly, Laplace transformation are well defined on the $`T`$-equivalence classes. Secondly equation

$$n_{(1)}^{}n_{(2)}^{}=nn_{(12)}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+n}$$

where the Laplace transformation $``$ ($``$) are treated as increment (decrement) in third discrete variable is nothing but a form of Hirota equation . Finally if we introduce $`𝒳:=\frac{\psi ^{}}{b}`$ and $`𝒴:=\frac{\psi }{a}`$ where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are a solutions of $`b_{(1)}=\beta b`$ $`a_{(2)}=\alpha _{(1)}a`$ then equations (18) and (20) take form

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}𝒴=𝒬𝒳\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}𝒳=𝒫𝒴\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where

$$𝒫=\frac{a𝔥}{b_{(1)}}𝒬=\frac{b}{a_{(2)}}$$
(28)
and equations (22) and (10) in the new gauge are

$`𝒴_{(12)}=𝒴_{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_{(1)}}{𝒬}}𝒴_{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_{(1)}}{𝒬}}𝒴`$ (29)
$`𝒳_{(12)}={\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_{(2)}}{𝒫}}𝒳_{(1)}+𝒳_{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_{(2)}}{𝒫}}𝒳`$ (30)
where

$$=1𝒫𝒬.$$

## 5 Fundamental transformation and adjoint

Fundamental transformation that maps from solution space of equation (1) has two functional parameters . The first one is a solution of equation (1) and the second one is a solution of adjoint of equation (1)

$$\psi ^{},_{uv}+\left(A\psi ^{}\right),_u+\left(B\psi ^{}\right),_vC\psi ^{}=0.$$
(31)
Our aim is to introduce the discrete adjoint of equation (10). To do it we shall suitable rewrite fundamental transformation  for the single discrete Laplace equation (1).

Discrete fundamental transformation maps from the solution space of the equation (we choose for convenience the so called affine gauge i.e. $`𝒞=0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}x=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}x+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}x$$
(32)
to the solution space of the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}x^1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a^1}{a^1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}x^1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b^1}{b^1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}x^1$$
(33)
and is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(\frac{\vartheta ^{}}{\vartheta })}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(\frac{x^1\vartheta ^{}}{\vartheta })=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(\frac{1}{\vartheta })}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(\frac{x}{\vartheta })\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}(\frac{\vartheta ^{}}{\vartheta })}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}(\frac{x^1\vartheta ^{}}{\vartheta })=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}(\frac{1}{\vartheta })}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}(\frac{x}{\vartheta }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
The functional parameters of the transformation $`\vartheta `$ i $`\vartheta ^{}`$ are not arbitrary, namely the function $`\vartheta `$ is a solution of equation (32) i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\vartheta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\vartheta +\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\vartheta $$
(35)
while function $`\vartheta ^{}`$ we construct from $`\vartheta `$ and a solution $`\vartheta ^{}`$ of the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\vartheta ^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\left(\frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}\vartheta ^{}}{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\left(\frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}\vartheta ^{}}{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}}\right)=0$$
(36)
The way to obtain $`\vartheta ^{}`$ looks as follow: first we find auxiliary functions $`\lambda `$ i $`\chi `$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\lambda =\frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}\vartheta ^{}}{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}}\hfill & & \mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\lambda =\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\vartheta ^{}\frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}\vartheta ^{}}{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b}{b}}\hfill \\ & \chi =\lambda +\vartheta ^{}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(37)
and next function $`\vartheta ^{}`$ we are searching for

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\vartheta ^{}=\chi \mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\vartheta ,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\vartheta ^{}=\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\vartheta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
Conditions (35-38) assure us, that $`x^1`$ given by (34) satisfies (33). New functions $`a^1`$ and $`b^1`$ are related to old ones via

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}a^1}{a^1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}(a\chi \frac{\vartheta }{\vartheta ^{}}a)}{(a\chi \frac{\vartheta }{\vartheta ^{}}a)}\hfill & ,\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}b^1}{b^1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(b\lambda \frac{\vartheta }{\vartheta ^{}}b)}{(b\lambda \frac{\vartheta }{\vartheta ^{}}b)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
We say that equation (36) is adjoint of equation (35). Invariants $`n^{}`$, $`\kappa ^{}`$, $`𝐇^{}`$ and $`𝐊^{}`$ of equation (36) are conected with invariant $`n`$, $`\kappa `$, $`𝐇`$ and $`𝐊`$ of equation (35) in the following way

$$\begin{array}{c}n^{}=\kappa _{(1)}\kappa ^{}=n_{(2)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝐇^{}=𝐊_{(1)}𝐊^{}=𝐇_{(2)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
We say that equation $`^{}\psi ^{}=0`$ is adjoint of equation $`\psi =0`$ iff

$$\begin{array}{c}T(n^{},\kappa ^{})=T(\kappa _{(1)},n_{(2)}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
We observe that $`T(n,\kappa )^{}=T(n,\kappa )`$.

## 6 Laplace ladder

On superposing Laplace and adjoint transformations we get

$$\begin{array}{c}(n^{},\kappa ^{})=(\frac{n(1)n(2)}{\kappa }\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+n_{(1)}},n)_{(2)}\hfill \\ (n^{},\kappa ^{})=(\frac{n(1)n(2)}{\kappa }\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+n_{(1)}},n)_{(1)}\hfill \\ (n^{},\kappa ^{})=(\frac{\kappa (2)\kappa (1)}{n}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+\kappa _{(2)}},\kappa )_{(1)}\hfill \\ (n^{},\kappa ^{})=(\frac{\kappa (2)\kappa (1)}{n}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+\kappa _{(2)}},\kappa )_{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
It means that we have

$$\begin{array}{c}T(n^{},\kappa ^{})=T(n^{},\kappa ^{}),T(n^{},\kappa ^{})=T(n^{},\kappa ^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
We obtain a commuting diagram Laplace ladder of discrete Laplace equations

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{}& T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& & T(n,\kappa )& & T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& & T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& \mathrm{}\\ & |& & |& & |& & |& \\ \mathrm{}& T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& & T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& & T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& & T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

where the long arrows denote $``$ Laplace transformations while vertical lines (rungs of the ladder) the adjoint operation $``$.

## 7 Moutard subcase

A Laplace equation is called discrete Moutard equation iff its invariants are related by

$$𝐇=𝐊,$$
(45)
or equivalently $`=𝒦`$ or $`n_{(2)}n=\kappa _{(1)}\kappa `$. Every discrete Moutard equation can be transformed to equation

$$N_{(12)}+N=F(N_{(1)}+N_{(2)}),$$
(46)
by gauge transformation. The equation (46) together with the Darboux type transformation has been introduced by Nimmo and Schief .

From formulas (41) we get that an invariant characterization of the adjoint of discrete Moutard equation is

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐇_{(2)}^{}=𝐊_{(1)}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
So opposite to the continuous case the discrete Moutard equation is not self-adjoint. A Laplace equation is called adjoint discrete Moutard equation iff its invariants are related by (47). Every adjoint discrete Moutard equation can be transformed by a gauge transformation to equation

$$𝒩_{(12)}+𝒩=F_{(1)}𝒩_{(1)}+F_{(2)}𝒩_{(2)}.$$
(48)
If function $`N`$ satisfies a discrete Moutard equation (46) then function $`𝒩`$ given by

$$𝒩:=N_{(1)}+N_{(2)}$$
(49)
satisfies the adjoint discrete Moutard equation (48). Due to relationship (49) equation (48) ”inherit” integrable features from equation (46). In particular from the discrete Moutard transformation  we have

$$\begin{array}{c}(𝒩^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}}{\mathrm{\Theta }}+𝒩)_{(1)}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)})_{(1)}}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}}(𝒩^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(12)}}+𝒩)\hfill \\ (𝒩^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}}{\mathrm{\Theta }}𝒩)_{(2)}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)})_{(2)}}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}}(𝒩^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{(12)}}𝒩)\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is solution of discrete Moutard equation (46)

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{(12)}+\mathrm{\Theta }=F(\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}).$$

Further features of the equation (48) will be discussed in .

## 8 Goursat (symmetric) subcase

On demanding

$$\begin{array}{c}n^{}=\kappa \hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
or equivalently

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐇^{}=𝐊\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
the equations (10) and (22), which are equivalent respectively to equations (29) and (30), become the discrete Goursat equations. Invariant characterization of the discrete Goursat equations is

$$\begin{array}{c}(n_{(2)}^{})^2=\kappa ^{}\kappa _{(12)}^{}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+\kappa ^{}}\hfill \\ (\kappa _{(1)})^2=nn_{(12)}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{1+n}\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
In terms of functions given in (28) we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒫}{𝒬}=\frac{_{(2)}}{_{(1)}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
On introducing function $`\tau `$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\tau _{(12)}\tau }{\tau _{(1)}\tau _{(2)}}==1𝒫𝒬\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
and due to the fact that the equations (27) has the symmetry

$$\begin{array}{c}(𝒳,𝒴,𝒫,𝒬)(𝒳V(m_2),𝒴U(m_1),𝒫\frac{U(m_1)}{V(m_2)},𝒬\frac{V(m_2)}{U(m_1)})\hfill \end{array}$$

without lost of generality we can take

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫\tau _{(1)}=𝒬\tau _{(2)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
On defining

$$\begin{array}{c}x:=𝒳\sqrt{\frac{\tau }{\tau _{(2)}}},y:=𝒴\sqrt{\frac{\tau }{\tau _{(1)}}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
we get

$$\begin{array}{c}x_{(1)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{}}\left(x+𝒫\sqrt{\frac{\tau _{(1)}}{\tau _{(2)}}}y\right),y_{(2)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{}}\left(y+𝒬\sqrt{\frac{\tau _{(2)}}{\tau _{(1)}}}x\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
If functions $`x`$ and $`y`$ satisfy the above system then there exists a function $`\theta `$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}x^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\theta y^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\theta \hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
We also have

$$\begin{array}{c}1=𝒫^2\frac{\tau _{(1)}}{\tau _{(2)}}=𝒬^2\frac{\tau _{(2)}}{\tau _{(1)}}\hfill \end{array}$$

and therefore squared equations (58) (discrete analogue of (7)) take form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\theta =\frac{1}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\theta )\pm 2\sqrt{\frac{1}{^2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}\theta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(2)}\theta }$$
(60)
where $`\pm `$ is result of square rooting of (59). The equation (60) we shall call a nonlinear version of discrete Goursat equation.

In the case of Goursat reduction just as in the continuous case the ladder twist and fold to the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}T(n^{},\kappa ^{})& & & & & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ |& & |& & |& & |& & |& & \\ T(n,\kappa )& & & & & & & & & \mathrm{}& \end{array}$$

for in virtue of formulas (24), (40) and (51) we have $`(n^{},\kappa ^{})=(\kappa _{(1)}^{},n_{(2)}^{})=(n_{(2)},\kappa _{(2)})`$ and analogously $`(n^{},\kappa ^{})=(n_{(1)}^{},\kappa _{(1)}^{})`$ i.e.

$$\begin{array}{c}T(n^{},\kappa ^{})=T(n,\kappa ),T(n^{},\kappa ^{})=T(n^{},\kappa ^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

## 9 Conclusions

We have shown that the Moutard equation splits in the dicrete case into discrete Moutard equation and adjoint discrete Moutard equation. This structure should be taken into considerations, when a discretization of systems of a physical  and of geometrical  importance is discussed.

Acknowledgments

I thank the organizers of the Euro-conference NEEDS 2001 in Cambridge for invitation and support that enable me to attend the conference.


format: text

text:
# hep-ph/0203199 Baryon magnetic moments and sigma terms in lattice-regularized chiral perturbation theory

## I Introduction and discussion

Chiral perturbation theory (ChPT)chpt ; JM ; BKM  is a low momentum effective field theory for QCD written as an expansion in small momenta and quark masses, and it has become an invaluable tool for subatomic physics. With only the lightest octets of pseudoscalar mesons and spin-1/2 baryons, ChPT is order-by-order renormalizable and physical results are independent of whichever regularization prescription is chosen.

The addition of the lightest decuplet of spin-3/2 baryons introduces a new physical scale, the mass difference between decuplet and octet baryons, which does not vanish in the chiral limit (i.e. when quark masses vanish). However, this mass difference is similar in size to the pseudoscalar meson masses, so the strict chiral expansion can be generalized to a “small scale expansion” where power counting is now meaningful even if the decuplet baryons are present.JM ; HHK

Although physical results are independent of regularization scheme, sometimes one scheme is preferable over another such as when issues other than experimentally-observable quantities are of interest. For example, the convergence of the ChPT expression for an observable is often evaluated by comparing the relative sizes of the contributions that occur at successive orders in the expansion, even though these individual contributions are not physically observable. The work of Refs. DHB ; BBsigma  discusses this in some detail, and goes one step further by associating the renormalization scale with the physical scale of baryon substructure.

For another example of important non-observables, consider lattice QCD. Numerical simulations must be performed at nonzero lattice spacing, and computed results therefore differ from the desired continuum values. One might expect that the effective theory for a discretization of QCD is a discretization of ChPT, i.e. the most general effective theory, written in terms of hadronic degrees of freedom, that respects chiral symmetry and the other symmetries of discretized QCD and that exists in the same discretized spacetime. Our previous work, Ref. lchpt , provides one particular discretization of ChPT along with explicit calculations of differences between results in this theory and results in the continuum.

The present work is mainly intended to exemplify the technique of lattice regularization (with explicit decuplet fields), and to note some of its features. Within a chosen lattice ChPT, it is a simple matter to rigorously determine extrapolations in both quark mass and lattice spacing. Although less familiar than dimensional regularization, lattice regularization has the advantage that loops integrals can easily be performed numerically, since it is a 4-dimensional theory. The size of lattice spacing artifacts depends on the particular observable that is studied; at lattice spacings typical of lattice QCD simulations, we find that our lattice ChPT Lagrangian leads to noticeable discretization effects for the magnetic moments of octet baryons but negligible discretization effects for the sigma terms.

It is important to interpret our numerical results appropriately. If one is interested in using a lattice chiral Lagrangian to rigorously determine the lattice spacing effects that are present in a specific lattice QCD simulation, then it will be important to use the chiral Lagrangian that properly corresponds to whatever lattice QCD action was employed. Rupak and ShoreshRandS  provide a list of five $`O(a)`$ terms that can appear in the meson chiral Lagrangian appropriate for a Wilson-type lattice QCD action. ($`a`$ denotes the lattice spacing.) Each of these terms is multiplied by its own parameter which depends on the particular lattice QCD action of interest. For example, all five of the coefficients can be made to vanish by using an “improved” lattice QCD action. A similar study could be performed for the baryon Lagrangian. Our present work does not refer to any specific lattice QCD data, and this leaves the parameters at $`O(a)`$ and beyond undetermined. These parameters get specified implicitly by our choice of a minimal Lagrangian where the only lattice spacing effects are contained within simple covariant derivatives and field representations. The numerical results for magnetic moments and sigma terms presented in this work are therefore simply examples of lattice spacing effects that arise from a Lagrangian which has not been specially improved in any way. The main point of our present work is to demonstrate the use of lattice regularization for chiral Lagrangian calculations, but we wish to emphasize that this regularization technique can certainly be applied to extensions of our minimal Lagrangian if one wishes to fix the lattice spacing parameters to a particular lattice QCD action.

In Sec. II of the present work, the Lagrangian of Ref. lchpt  is extended to include the decuplet of spin-3/2 baryons. Section III contains a discussion of the electromagnetic vertex: the non-renormalization of this vertex at vanishing momentum transfer is shown analytically, and the octet baryon magnetic moments are calculated as a function of lattice spacing. In Sec. IV, the $`KN`$ sigma terms of the nucleon’s scalar vertex are determined as a function of lattice spacing, with the necessary chiral counterterms determined from known baryon masses and the known $`\pi N`$ sigma term. The running of the $`\pi N`$ sigma term from $`q^2=0`$ to the Cheng-Dashen point is also determined as a function of lattice spacing.

## II A lattice chiral Lagrangian

The standard SU(3) chiral Lagrangian containing pseudoscalar mesons (M), spin-1/2 baryons (B) and spin-3/2 baryons (T) is

$$=_\mathrm{M}+_{\mathrm{MB}}+_{\mathrm{MT}}+_{\mathrm{MBT}}.$$
(1)
To expand in powers of external momenta, of meson masses and of the T-B mass difference (relative to the larger scales: baryon masses and the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 4\pi F_\pi `$), it is standard practice to write the Lagrangian in terms of heavy baryon fields, $`B_v(x)`$ and $`T_{v\mu }(x)`$, instead of the relativistic fields, $`B(x)`$ and $`T_\mu (x)`$. The transformation for the spin-1/2 field is

$$B_v(x)=\mathrm{exp}(im_{\mathrm{HB}}vx)\frac{1}{2}(1+v/)B(x),$$
(2)
with $`m_{\mathrm{HB}}`$ chosen near the average octet baryon mass. A similar transformation is used to define the decuplet fieldHHK . The expanded Lagrangian becomes

$$=_\mathrm{M}^{(2)}+_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(0)}+_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(1)}+_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(2)}+_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(3)}+_{\mathrm{MT}}^{(1)}+_{\mathrm{MBT}}^{(1)}+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where the omitted terms only contribute to octet baryon properties beyond third order. In Euclidean spacetime,

$`_\mathrm{M}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}_\mu U^{}_\mu U\chi ^{}U\chi U^{}\right),`$ (4)
$`_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_0m_{\mathrm{HB}})\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_vB_v\right),`$ (5)
$`_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_vv_\mu D_\mu B_v\right)+𝒟\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_vS_\mu \{u_\mu ,B_v\}\right)+\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_vS_\mu [u_\mu ,B_v]\right)\right],`$ (6)
$`_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_0}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_v(vDvDD^2)B_v\right)b_𝒟\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_v\{\chi _+,B_v\}\right)b_{}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_v[\chi _+,B_v]\right)`$ (7)
$`b_0\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_vB_v\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(\chi _+\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _D}{4m_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_v[S_\mu ,S_\nu ]\{\xi F_{\mu \nu }^L\xi ^{}+\xi ^{}F_{\mu \nu }^R\xi ,B_v\}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _F}{4m_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{B}_v[S_\mu ,S_\nu ][\xi F_{\mu \nu }^L\xi ^{}+\xi ^{}F_{\mu \nu }^R\xi ,B_v]\right)+\mathrm{},`$
$`_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ (8)
$`_{\mathrm{MT}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\left(\overline{T}_{v\mu }^{ijk}v_\nu D_\nu T_{v\mu }^{ijk}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\overline{T}_{v\mu }^{ijk}S_\nu u_\nu ^{kl}T_{v\mu }^{ijl}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\overline{T}_{v\mu }^{ijk}T_{v\mu }^{ijk},`$ (9)
$`_{\mathrm{MBT}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijklm}{}}ϵ_{ijk}\left(\overline{T}_{v\mu }^{klm}u_\mu ^{mj}B_v^{li}+\overline{B}_v^{il}u_\mu ^{jm}T_\mu ^{klm}\right),`$ (10)
where $`S_\mu =\frac{i}{2}\gamma _5_\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }v_\nu `$ is the Pauli-Lubanski spin vector, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the decuplet-octet mass difference, and we choose $`v_\mu =(0,0,0,1)`$ so that the covariant derivatives of Ref. lchpt  can be retained. The field strength tensors $`F_{\mu \nu }^L(x)`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^R(x)`$ correspond to external spin-1 fields. The superscripted indices in Eqs. (9) and (10) are flavour indices:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\pi ^{11}& \pi ^{12}& \pi ^{13}\\ \pi ^{21}& \pi ^{22}& \pi ^{23}\\ \pi ^{31}& \pi ^{32}& \pi ^{33}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\eta \end{array}\right),`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}B_v^{11}& B_v^{12}& B_v^{13}\\ B_v^{21}& B_v^{22}& B_v^{23}\\ B_v^{31}& B_v^{32}& B_v^{33}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_v^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_v& \mathrm{\Sigma }_v^+& p_v\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_v^{}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_v^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_v& n_v\\ \mathrm{\Xi }_v^{}& \mathrm{\Xi }_v^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_v\end{array}\right),`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}T_{v\mu }^{111}& T_{v\mu }^{112}& T_{v\mu }^{122}& T_{v\mu }^{222}\\ & T_{v\mu }^{113}& T_{v\mu }^{123}& T_{v\mu }^{223}\\ & & T_{v\mu }^{133}& T_{v\mu }^{233}\\ & & & T_{v\mu }^{333}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\mu }^{++}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\mu }^+& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\mu }^0& \mathrm{\Delta }_{v\mu }^{}\\ & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{v\mu }^+& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{v\mu }^0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{v\mu }^{}\\ & & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{v\mu }^0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{v\mu }^{}\\ & & & \mathrm{\Omega }_{v\mu }^{}\end{array}\right),`$
where $`T_{v\mu }^{ijk}`$ is understood to be completely symmetric in $`i,j,k`$. In the Lagrangian, the pseudoscalar mesons are represented nonlinearly,

$$U(x)=\xi ^2(x)=\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda ^a\pi ^a(x)/F),$$
(11)
where $`\lambda ^a`$ is a Gell-Mann matrix, and the current quark mass matrix, $``$, enters via

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`2B,`$ (12)
$`\chi _+`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{}\chi \xi ^{}+\xi \chi ^{}\xi .`$ (13)
So far the definitions of this section have been general, and have not assumed a spacetime lattice at all. We now consider the derivative structures in the Lagrangian, and it is here that the expressions become lattice dependent. As in Ref. lchpt , we choose an isotropic hypercubic lattice. Nearest neighbour sites are separated by a distance $`a`$, and $`a_\mu `$ will be used to denote a vector of length $`a`$ in the positive $`\mu `$ direction.

First, we recall the non-decuplet definitions from Ref. lchpt . Denoting the external spin-1 fields corresponding to $`F_{\mu \nu }^L(x)`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^R(x)`$ by $`L_\mu (x)`$ and $`R_\mu (x)`$ respectively, the derivatives that appear in the lowest-order meson Lagrangian, Eq. (4), are taken to be

$$_\mu ^{(+)}U(x)=\frac{1}{a}\left[R_\mu (x)U(x+a_\mu )L_\mu ^{}(x)U(x)\right],$$
(14)
and the meson derivative needed for the baryon Lagrangian is

$$u_\mu (x)=\frac{i}{2}\xi ^{}(x)_\mu ^{(\pm )}U(x)\xi ^{}(x)\frac{i}{2}\xi (x)_\mu ^{(\pm )}U^{}(x)\xi (x),$$
(15)
where

$$_\mu ^{(\pm )}U(x)=\frac{1}{2a}\left[R_\mu (x)U(x+a_\mu )L_\mu ^{}(x)R_\mu ^{}(x)U(xa_\mu )L_\mu (xa_\mu )\right].$$
(16)
The covariant derivative for the octet baryon field is

$`aD_4B_v(x)`$ $`=`$ $`B_v(x){\displaystyle \underset{X,Y=L,R}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^X(xa_4)B_v(xa_4)\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^Y(xa_4),`$ (17)
$`aD_jB_v(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{X,Y=L,R}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^X(x)B_v(x+a_j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^Y(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^X(xa_j)B_v(xa_j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^Y(xa_j)\right],`$
in the temporal and spatial directions respectively, where

$$2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^X(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi (x)L_\mu (x)\xi ^{}(x+a_\mu ),\hfill & \mathrm{for}X=L,\hfill \\ \xi ^{}(x)R_\mu (x)\xi (x+a_\mu ),\hfill & \mathrm{for}X=R.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
Not defined explicitly in Ref. lchpt  but required for the present work are the field strength tensors, which we discretize as follows so that the chiral transformation properties and the lattice symmetries are respected:

$`4ia^2F_{\mu \nu }^X(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4X_\mu (x)X_\nu (x+a_\mu )X_\mu ^{}(x+a_\nu )X_\nu ^{}(x)`$ (20)
$`X_\nu (x)X_\mu ^{}(xa_\mu +a_\nu )X_\nu ^{}(xa_\nu )X_\mu (xa_\mu )`$
$`X_\mu (xa_\mu )X_\nu ^{}(xa_\mu a_\nu )X_\mu ^{}(xa_\mu a_\nu )X_\nu (xa_\nu )`$
$`X_\nu ^{}(xa_\nu )X_\mu (xa_\nu )X_\nu (x+a_\mu a_\nu )X_\mu ^{}(x),`$
for $`X=L`$ and $`R`$. Finally, consider the covariant derivative of the decuplet field. Since we have chosen $`v_\mu =(0,0,0,1)`$, only the temporal derivative is needed and we define it to be

$`aD_4T_{v\mu }^{ijk}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{v\mu }^{ijk}(x){\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4il}^L(xa_4)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4il}^R(xa_4)\right]T_{v\mu }^{ljk}(xa_4)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4jl}^L(xa_4)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4jl}^R(xa_4)\right]T_{v\mu }^{ilk}(xa_4)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4kl}^L(xa_4)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{4kl}^R(xa_4)\right]T_{v\mu }^{ijl}(xa_4).`$
The chiral invariance of this Lagrangian can readily be verified by adding the chiral transformation of the decuplet field, $`T_{v\mu }^{ijk}o_{il}o_{jm}o_{kn}T_{v\mu }^{lmn}`$, to the set of chiral transformations given in Ref. lchpt .

When performing calculations, it is important to remember that the decuplet propagator must always be accompanied by the projector which eliminates spurious spin-1/2 components from the propagating field.HHK  For the present Lagangian, the product of propagator and projector is

$$\frac{P_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TT}}=\frac{ia(\delta _{\mu \nu }v_\mu v_\nu +\frac{4}{3}S_\mu S_\nu )}{\mathrm{sin}(ap_4)i[a\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{sin}^2(ap_4/2)]}.$$
(22)
## III Gauge invariance and octet baryon magnetic moments

To calculate the electromagnetic form factors of an octet baryon, one simply identifies the photon field, $`𝒜_\mu (x)`$, with the external spin-1 fields of Sec. II,

$$L_\mu (x)=R_\mu (x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[iaeQ𝒜_\mu (x)\right],$$
(23)
where $`Q=diag(2/3,1/3,1/3)`$.

From Eqs. (3-10), it is easy to see that the leading order contribution to an octet baryon’s electromagnetic vertex is contained within $`_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(1)}`$ and the next-to-leading order contribution within $`_{\mathrm{MB}}^{(2)}`$. The resulting matrix element is

$`B(p^{})\left|J_\mu ^{\mathrm{em}}\right|B(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ie\overline{B}_v(k^{})[v_\mu Q_B(1i\mathrm{sin}(ak_4^{})2\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ak_4^{}}{2}}\right))`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}}{am_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}[S_\mu ,S_\nu ]\mathrm{sin}(aq_\nu )(1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(aq_\mu )\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{aq_\mu }{2}}\right))]B_v(k),`$
where $`q=p^{}p`$ is the momentum transfer, $`Q_B`$ denotes the electric charge of the baryon, and $`\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ are the leading order expressions for the magnetic moments:

$`\mu _p^{\mathrm{LO}}=\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _D}{3}}+\mu _F,`$ (25)
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}^{\mathrm{LO}}=\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _D}{3}}\mu _F,`$ (26)
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}^{\mathrm{LO}}=\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _D}{3}},`$ (27)
$`\mu _n^{\mathrm{LO}}=\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _D}{3}},`$ (28)
$`\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _D}{\sqrt{3}}}.`$ (29)
Notice from Eq. (24) that the term containing $`Q_B`$ is purely temporal and the $`\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ term is purely spatial with our chosen frame, since $`v_\mu =(0,0,0,1)Sv=0`$.

Returning to the full Lagrangian of Eq. (3), one finds the corrections to the matrix element of Eq. (24) that are shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1. As will now be shown, evaluation of these diagrams leads to the renormalization of $`\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}`$, and to the non-renormalization of $`Q_B`$ as required by gauge invariance.

### III.1 The non-renormalization of electric charge

To verify the non-renormalization of $`Q_B`$, it is sufficient to work at vanishing momentum transfer. Also, the momentum of each external baryon is simply $`(0,0,0,m_B)`$ plus corrections which are of negligibly high order in the chiral expansion. For definiteness we will discuss the proton’s charge in this subsection; the extension to other octet baryons is straightforward.

In this limit, the contribution of the diagram in Fig. 1(a) to the matrix element in Eq. (24) with a $`\pi ^+`$ in the loop is

$`_{\pi ^+}^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iev_\mu }{2F^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2_\lambda [1\mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )]+a^2x_\pi ^2}}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ia^2ev_\mu }{4F^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dz{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[z\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x_\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iev_\mu }{4a^2F^2}}W_4(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$
where $`x_M`$ is related to the meson masslchpt

$$m_M=\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{arcsinh}\left(\frac{ax_M}{2}\right),$$
(31)
and $`W_4(ϵ^2)`$ is the integral transform of the fourth power of a Bessel functionlchpt ,

$$W_n(ϵ^2)_0^{\mathrm{}}dxI_0^n(x)\mathrm{exp}\left[x\left(n+\frac{ϵ^2}{2}\right)\right].$$
(32)
Summing over all internal mesons gives

$`^{(a)}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}_M^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iev_\mu }{4a^2F^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}+(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x_\pi ^2}{16}})W_4(a^2x_\pi ^2)+2(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x_K^2}{16}})W_4(a^2x_K^2)`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5a^2x_\eta ^2}{48}}W_4(a^2x_\eta ^2)].`$
Notice that this contribution is quadratically divergent as $`a0`$. Dimensional regularization does not show power divergences, and Fig. 1(a) vanishes exactly in that scheme.

Figure 1(b) is nonzero only if the loop meson is $`\pi ^\pm `$ or $`K^\pm `$. For the pion loop, the lattice regularized expression is

$`_{\pi ^+}^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iea^2v_\mu }{4F^2}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_4)}{\left[4+a^2x_\pi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )\right]^2}}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iev_\mu }{4a^2F^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dzI_0^3(z)I_0^{}(z)\mathrm{exp}\left[z\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x_\pi ^2}{2}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iev_\mu }{4a^2F^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x_\pi ^2}{8}}\right)W_4(a^2x_\pi ^2)\right].`$
Repeating this calculation for the kaon loop leads to

$$^{(b)}\underset{M}{}_M^{(b)}=\frac{iev_\mu }{4a^2F^2}\left[\frac{3}{4}\left(1+\frac{a^2x_\pi ^2}{8}\right)W_4(a^2x_\pi ^2)2\left(1+\frac{a^2x_K^2}{8}\right)W_4(a^2x_K^2)\right].$$
(35)
The only other contribution to the renormalization of $`Q_B`$ that is independent of the axial couplings ($`𝒟`$ and $``$) and the decuplet (with coupling $`𝒞`$) comes from the tadpole contribution to wavefunction renormalization. As discussed in Ref. lchpt , the lowest-order octet baryon two-point function is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BB}=m_{\mathrm{HB}}m_0\frac{i}{a}\underset{\mu }{}v_\mu \left[\mathrm{sin}(aq_\mu )2i\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{aq_\mu }{2}\right)\right].$$
(36)
The one-loop correction shown in Fig. 2(a) evaluates as follows:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{pp}^{(a)}=\left[\frac{i}{a}\left(\mathrm{sin}(ak_4)2i\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{ak_4}{2}\right)\right)+\frac{1}{a}\right]\frac{1}{\delta Z_p^{(a)}},$$
(37)
where the external proton momentum is $`m_0v+k`$ and

$$\delta Z_p^{(a)}=\frac{1}{3a^2F^2}\left[1\frac{9}{64}a^2x_\pi ^2W_4(a^2x_\pi ^2)\frac{9}{32}a^2x_K^2W_4(a^2x_K^2)\frac{5}{64}a^2x_\eta ^2W_4(a^2x_\eta ^2)\right].$$
(38)
This is precisely what was required to facilitate the expected non-renormalization, since Eqs. (33), (35) and (38) give

$$^{(a)}+^{(b)}+iev_\mu \delta Z_p^{(a)}=0.$$
(39)
Turning to the contributions that depend on $`𝒟`$ and $``$, one finds

$`_{\pi ^0}^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝒟+)^2G_0(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$ (40)
$`_{K^0}^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒟)^2G_0(a^2x_K^2),`$ (41)
$`_\eta ^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(𝒟3)^2G_0(a^2x_\eta ^2),`$ (42)
where

$$G_M(ϵ^2)=\frac{iea^2v_\mu }{4F^2}_{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{[\mathrm{cos}(aq_4)i\mathrm{sin}(aq_4)]_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_k)}{[4+ϵ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )][\mathrm{sin}(aq_4)iaM2i\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_4/2)]^2}.$$
(43)
The contribution of Fig. 1(d) with a charged pion in the loop is

$`_{\pi ^+}^{(d)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iea^2}{F^2}}(𝒟+)^2{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_\mu \mathrm{sin}(aq_4)_\rho S_\rho \mathrm{sin}(aq_\rho )_\sigma S_\sigma \mathrm{sin}(aq_\sigma )}{[\mathrm{sin}(aq_4)2i\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_4/2)][4+a^2x_\pi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )]}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iea^2v_\mu }{2F^2}}(𝒟+)^2\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}(a^2x_\pi ^2)}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(aq_4)_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_k)}{[\mathrm{sin}(aq_4)2i\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_4/2)][4+a^2x_\pi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )]}}`$
$`=`$ $`(𝒟+)^2G_0(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$
where we have used $`S_4=0`$ and $`S_1^2=S_2^2=S_3^2=1/4`$ as well as integration by parts. Similarly,

$$_{K^+}^{(d)}=\frac{2}{3}(𝒟^2+3^2)G_0(a^2x_K^2).$$
(45)
Next, consider the wave function renormalization of Fig. 2(b). For a $`\pi ^0`$ loop, the contribution to the two-point function is

$`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{pp}^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ia}{2F^2}}(𝒟+)^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{min}(\pi /a,\pi /a+k)}^{\mathrm{min}(\pi /a,\pi /ak)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}\times `$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_\rho S_\rho \mathrm{sin}(aq_\rho )_\sigma S_\sigma \mathrm{sin}(aq_\sigma )}{[\mathrm{sin}(aq_4+ak_4)2i\mathrm{sin}^2((aq_4+ak_4)/2)][4+a^2x_\pi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )]}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta Z_{p\pi ^0}^{(b)}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(ak_4)2i\mathrm{sin}^2(ak_4)a\delta X}{ia}}\right]`$
where the external baryon momentum is $`m_0v+k`$ and $`\delta X`$ produces a mass renormalization. The limits of integration have been chosen to ensure that the momentum of each internal propagator remains within the lattice’s Brillouin zone over the entire domain of $`q`$ integration.lchpt  As it happens, the $`k`$-dependences in the limits of integration do not affect wave function renormalization, and the result is

$$iev_\mu \delta Z_{p\pi ^0}^{(b)}=\frac{1}{2}(𝒟+)^2G_0(a^2x_\pi ^2),$$
(47)
which exactly cancels the $`\pi ^0`$ loop from Eq. (40). In the same way, replacing the $`\pi ^0`$ in $`\delta Z`$ by each of the other mesons serves to exactly cancel Eqs. (41), (42), (44) and (45).

Finally, the decuplet contributions of Figs. 1(e), 1(f) and 2(c) are found to cancel in essentially that same manner as did the octet contributions:

$`_{\pi ^+}^{(e)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}𝒞^2G_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$ (48)
$`ie\delta Z_{p\pi ^+}^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}𝒞^2G_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$ (49)
$`_{\pi ^0}^{(e)}=ie\delta Z_{p\pi ^0}^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}𝒞^2G_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$ (50)
$`_{K^0}^{(e)}=ie\delta Z_{K^0}^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}𝒞^2G_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_K^2),`$ (51)
$`_{\pi ^+}^{(f)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}𝒞^2G_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_\pi ^2),`$ (52)
$`_{K^+}^{(f)}=ie\delta Z_{pK^+}^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}𝒞^2G_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_K^2).`$ (53)
Thus, all corrections to the proton’s electric charge at first loop order in the chiral expansion sum to zero, and the non-renormalization of electric charge is confirmed.

### III.2 The octet baryon magnetic moments

The one-loop corrections to octet baryon magnetic moments come from Figs. 1(d) and 1(f). These diagrams were discussed in the previous subsection, but only for vanishing momentum transfer which is not sufficient to obtain magnetic moments.

It is convenient to choose the Breit frame where the incoming baryon has momentum $`m_0vq/2`$ and the outgoing baryon has momentum $`m_0v+q/2`$, and to choose the integration momentum to be the internal baryon’s momentum. This choice displays symmetries in the integrand that help to simplify the calculations. Notice that higher order corrections to the external baryon momenta have already been omitted, and that $`m_0`$ is equal to the physical mass in these loop diagrams since the difference is of higher chiral order.

The evaluation of Figs. 1(d) and 1(f) for arbitrary momentum transfer $`q`$ gives

$$^{(d)}+^{(f)}=\frac{2e}{am_N}\underset{\nu }{}[S_\mu ,S_\nu ]\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{aq_\nu }{2}\right)\delta F_2(q),$$
(54)
where $`\delta F_2`$ is the loop correction to the Pauli form factor. The magnetic moments are

$$\mu _B=\mu _B^{\mathrm{LO}}+\left[\delta F_2^{\mathrm{oct}}(0)\right]_B+\left[\delta F_2^{\mathrm{dec}}(0)\right]_B,$$
(55)
where the last two terms are from Figs. 1(d) and 1(f) respectively. Both of these terms rely on a single integral with $`\mu 4`$, $`\nu 4`$ and $`\mu \nu `$, namely

$$H_M(ϵ^2)=\frac{ia^3m_N}{2F^2}_{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_\mu )\mathrm{cos}(aq_\nu )}{\left[4+ϵ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )\right]^2\left[\mathrm{sin}(aq_4)iaM2i\mathrm{sin}^2(aq_4/2)\right]},$$
(56)
but with one key difference. For the decuplet diagram it is $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that enters, and the mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ensures that the integrand has no singularities on the domain of integration. In that case, a convenient form for numerical evaluation is

$$H_\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ^2)=\frac{a^3m_N}{4F^2}_{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(aq_\mu )\mathrm{cos}(aq_\nu )[1+a\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(aq_4)]}{\left[4+ϵ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )\right]\left[(1+a\mathrm{\Delta })(1\mathrm{cos}(aq_4))+a^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2/2\right]}.$$
(57)
For the octet diagram there is a singularity, and we must integrate around it according to the usual “$`+iϵ`$” prescription for field theory. Some details of this procedure in the context of lattice regularization can be found in the appendices of Ref. lchpt , so here we simply provide our final expression:

$`H_0(ϵ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^3m_N}{4F^2}}[{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(aq_\mu )\mathrm{cos}(aq_\nu )}{\left[4+ϵ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}(aq_\lambda )\right]}}`$ (58)
$`+{\displaystyle _{\pi /a}^{\pi /a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3q}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(aq_\mu )\mathrm{cos}(aq_\nu )}{\left[3+ϵ^2/2_{k=1}^3\mathrm{cos}(aq_k)\right]}}].`$
This too is easily evaluated numerically.

Our final expression for the octet baryon magnetic moments is

$$\mu _B=c_1^B\mu _D+c_2^B\mu _F+c_3^BH_0(a^2x_\pi ^2)+c_4^BH_0(a^2x_K^2)+c_5^BH_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_\pi ^2)+c_6^BH_\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2x_K^2),$$
(59)
where the coefficients are listed in Table 1. $`H_M`$ diverges as $`a0`$, but the offending terms can be absorbed into renormalized definitions of $`\mu _D`$ and $`\mu _F`$. The result is identical to that obtained from dimensional regularization. However lattice regularization also allows us to compute at nonzero $`a`$, and it is interesting to consider lattice spacings that are typical of lattice QCD simulations.

Using the experimental values of $`\mu _p`$ and $`\mu _n`$ to fix the parameters $`\mu _D`$ and $`\mu _F`$, the other seven magnetic moments become predictions of the theory, and are plotted as a function of the lattice cutoff $`\pi /a`$ in Fig. 3. The plot assumes standard experimental values for the coefficients appearing within loops: $`𝒟=0.75`$, $`=0.50`$, and $`𝒞=1.5`$. These values could be varied within experimental uncertainties, but such details do not significantly affect our present interest: the size of discretization effects.

As seen in Fig. 3, each magnetic moment smoothly approaches the corresponding dimensional regularized result at $`\pi /a\mathrm{}`$. These limiting values are given in Table 2. The agreement with experiment is not particularly impressive at this chiral order, as has been known for some timeJLMS . The situation is dramatically improved at next chiral orderPRM ; KM  or by the methods of Refs. DHB ; BBsigma . At present, we focus on the discretization effects rather than a precise comparison to experiment.

For $`\pi /a=6`$ GeV, Table 2 shows that the relative sizes of discretization effects vary from a few percent to a factor of 2 or more, depending on which magnetic moment is chosen. The large variation is somewhat misleading: the absolute discretizations are quite comparable for all magnetic moments, as is evident from Fig. 3. However, even $`O(10\%30\%)`$ discretization uncertainties are significant in this context, since chiral corrections are typically of this order too. If ChPT is being employed as a way to determine chiral effects in lattice QCD, then these discretization effects must be considered. Notice that $`\pi /a=6`$ GeV corresponds to a lattice spacing of 0.1 fm, which is typical of modern lattice QCD simulations.

## IV The $`\pi N`$ and $`KN`$ sigma terms

Sigma terms are the scalar form factors of a baryon multiplied by the quark mass,

$`\sigma _{\pi N}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{m}N(p^{})\left|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right|N(p),`$ (60)
$`\sigma _{KN}^{(1)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{m}+m_s)N(p^{})\left|\overline{u}u+\overline{s}s\right|N(p),`$ (61)
$`\sigma _{KN}^{(2)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{m}+m_s)N(p^{})\left|\overline{u}u+2\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s\right|N(p),`$ (62)
where $`\widehat{m}=(m_u+m_d)/2`$. The sigma terms vanish in the chiral limit and are therefore useful in discussions of chiral symmetry and its breaking. Furthermore, they offer a probe of the nucleon’s strangeness content,

$$y\frac{2N(p)\left|\overline{s}s\right|N(p)}{N(p)\left|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d\right|N(p)}=\left(\frac{\widehat{m}}{\widehat{m}+m_s}\right)\left(\frac{3\sigma _{KN}^{(1)}(0)+\sigma _{KN}^{(2)}(0)}{\sigma _{\pi N}(0)}\right)1,$$
(63)
and this quantity continues to be of great interest to many researchers. (See Ref. BBsigma  and references therein.)

The lattice-regularized Lagrangian leads to

$`\sigma _{\pi N}`$ $`=`$ $`x_\pi ^2(2b_0+b_D+b_F)+x_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}a_j^\varphi K_j(\varphi ,\varphi ),`$ (64)
$`\sigma _{KN}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2x_K^2(b_0+b_D)+x_K^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}b_j^\varphi K_j(\varphi ,\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{x_K^2}{12}}(𝒟^22𝒟3^2)K_1(\pi ,\eta )`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_K^2}{6}}K_2(\pi ,\eta ),`$
$`\sigma _{KN}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2x_K^2(b_0b_F)+x_K^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\varphi }{}}c_j^\varphi K_j(\varphi ,\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{x_K^2}{4}}(𝒟^22𝒟3^2)K_1(\pi ,\eta )`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x_K^2}{2}}K_2(\pi ,\eta ),`$
where the integrals are

$`K_1(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4\theta }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k}{[4+a^2x_{\varphi _1}^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda ][4+a^2x_{\varphi _2}^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda ]}}`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3\theta }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k}{[3+a^2x_{\varphi _1}^2/2_{k=1}^3\mathrm{cos}\theta _k][3+a^2x_{\varphi _2}^2/2_{k=1}^3\mathrm{cos}\theta _k]}},`$
$`K_2(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4\theta }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _4)}{[4+a^2x_{\varphi _1}^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda ][4+a^2x_{\varphi _2}^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda ]}},`$ (68)
$`K_3(\varphi ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞^2}{12aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4\theta }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+a\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _4)_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k}{[4+a^2x_\varphi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda ]^2[(1+a\mathrm{\Delta })(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _4)+a^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2/2]}},`$
and their coefficients are defined in Table 3.

Following Ref. lchpt , the octet baryon masses and $`\sigma _{\pi N}(0)`$ are constrained to their physical values at all lattice spacings. These five observables are functions of five parameters: $`m_0`$, $`b_0`$, $`b_𝒟`$, $`b_{}`$ and $`𝒟`$. The other axial coupling is $`1.267𝒟`$. With these parameters fixed, predictions are obtained for the $`KN`$ sigma terms as shown in Fig. 4. Notice that the $`KN`$ sigma terms approach their continuum values very quickly: at $`\pi /a=1`$ GeV the difference is $`O(20\%)`$ and at $`\pi /a=6`$ GeV the difference is $`O(1\%)`$.

The momentum dependences of the scalar form factors are parameter-free, so all lattice spacing effects are exclusively from loop diagrams. For definiteness, consider the running of the $`\pi N`$ sigma term to the Cheng-Dashen point, $`q^2=2m_\pi ^2`$ in Euclidean notation. This is obtained from the scalar vertex with incoming momentum $`q=iQ/a`$ where $`Q(0,0,\sqrt{2}ax_\pi ,0)`$. Numerical results can be obtained directly from the integral expression,

$$\sigma _{\pi N}(2x_\pi ^2)\sigma _{\pi N}(0)=x_\pi ^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{\varphi }{}a_j^\varphi \left[\stackrel{~}{K}_j(\varphi )K_j(\varphi ,\varphi )\right],$$
(70)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_1(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4\theta }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^3[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k\mathrm{cosh}^2Q_k+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}^2Q_k]}{[(4+a^2x_\varphi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda \mathrm{cosh}Q_k)^2+(_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}Q_k)^2]}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3\theta }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^3[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k\mathrm{cosh}^2Q_k+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}^2Q_k]}{[(3+a^2x_\varphi ^2/2_{k=1}^3\mathrm{cos}\theta _k\mathrm{cosh}Q_k)^2+(_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}Q_k)^2]}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{K}_2(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4\theta }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _4)}{[(4+a^2x_\varphi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda \mathrm{cosh}Q_k)^2+(_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}Q_k)^2]}},`$ (72)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}_3(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞^2}{12aF^2}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4\theta }{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^3[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k\mathrm{cosh}^2Q_k+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}^2Q_k]}{[(4+a^2x_\varphi ^2/2_\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta _\lambda \mathrm{cosh}Q_\lambda )^2+(_{k=1}^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _k\mathrm{sinh}Q_k)^2]}}`$ (73)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(1+a\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _4)}{(1+a\mathrm{\Delta })(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _4)+a^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2/2}},`$
and the results are plotted in Fig. 5. In this case, lattice spacing effects are at the few percent level for $`\pi /a=6`$ GeV.

## Acknowledgments

P.O. is grateful to Wolfram Weise and the T-39 theory group at Technische Universität München for their support and hospitality during the early stages of this work. The work was also supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of the dynamics of M-theory on $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds has been receiving much attention recently. It provides a framework for the analysis of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric systems in four dimensions. When the $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds are smooth and large the low energy physics can be described by a Kaluza-Klein reduction of eleven-dimensional supergravity (see e.g. ). These cases are the less interesting ones since at low energy we find neither non-abelian gauge symmetry nor chiral matter. For these we have to consider singular $`G_2`$ manifolds.

Recently, there has been a significant progress in understanding the dynamics of M-theory on singular $`G_2`$ manifolds -. For instance, appropriate singular quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$, the spin bundle over $`𝐒^3`$, yield $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills (SYM) theory with an $`ADE`$ gauge group . It has been shown that M-theory on these backgrounds reproduces the vacuum structure of the field theory. It was demonstrated in , when studying the duality proposed in , that a singular quotient of $`S(𝐒^3)`$ can be interpolated smoothly to a non-singular quotient of $`S(𝐒^3)`$ using a $`G_2`$ flop. For other work on various aspects of $`G_2`$ holonomy compactifications and branes, see -.

The dynamics of M-theory on $`S(𝐒^3)`$ and its quotients was discussed in detail in . It was shown that the moduli space of the theory is given by a complex one-dimensional manifold that interpolates between three different $`S(𝐒^3)`$ smoothly. They also confirmed the result of  by showing that the moduli space of M-theory interpolates smoothly between a singular quotient of $`S(𝐒^3)`$ that yields pure SYM at low energy and a non-singular quotient of $`S(𝐒^3)`$.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the results of  to more general quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$. We will mainly analyse a “double” quotient, where the quotient group is a subgroup of the isometry of $`S(𝐒^3)`$. We will study the moduli space of M-theory on the quotient and show that the moduli space interpolates smoothly between three different types of classical geometries. These three geometries yield different low energy dynamics. Thus, the result can be viewed as another example of a $`G_2`$ flop. We will also compute the exact superpotentials of M-theory on the quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$, and comment on the membrane instanton physics. An interesting feature of the models that we study is the possibility of turning on Wilson lines that break gauge symmetry (see also ). We will discuss some of the implications.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review the geometry of $`S(𝐒^3)`$ and its quotients. In section 3 we will construct the complex curve that describes the moduli space of M-theory on a double quotient. We will show that the curve interpolates smoothly between three different classical geometries, and suggest a new $`G_2`$ flop. In section 4 we compute exact superpotentials of M-theory on quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$, and discuss some implications to the membrane instanton physics. In section 5 we will make some comments on M-theory on the double quotient with Wilson lines. Section 6 is devoted to a discussion of open problems.

## 2 The spin bundle $`S(𝐒^3)`$

The seven-dimensional spin bundle $`S(𝐒^3)`$ is asymptotic at infinity to a cone over the six-dimensional space $`Y=𝐒^3\times 𝐒^3=SU(2)^3/SU(2)`$. The Einstein metric on $`Y`$ can be constructed as follows . Let $`(g_1,g_2,g_3)SU(2)^3`$ be a group element, and impose the equivalence relation

$$(g_1,g_2,g_3)(g_1h,g_2h,g_3h),hSU(2).$$
(2.1)
Define $`a=g_2g_3^1,b=g_3g_1^1,c=g_1g_2^1`$ ($`abc=1`$). The Einstein metric on $`Y`$ is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^2=da^2+db^2+dc^2,$$
(2.2)
where $`da^2=\mathrm{tr}(a^1da)^2`$ etc.

The metric on $`Y`$ admits the isometry group $`SU(2)_u\times SU(2)_v\times SU(2)_w`$:

$$g_1ug_1,g_2vg_2,g_3wg_3,$$
(2.3)
or equivalently

$$avaw^1,bwbu^1,cucv^1.$$
(2.4)
In addition, the metric admits the triality symmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ generated by

$`\alpha :(a,b,c)(c^1,b^1,a^1),`$
$`\beta :(a,b,c)(b,c,a).`$ (2.5)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ acts on $`(g_1,g_2,g_3)`$ by permutations.

We can extend the cone on $`Y`$ to the interior and obtain a seven-dimensional $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold. In fact one obtains three different $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds which differ by the $`𝐙_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ symmetry group. They are:

$`X_1,X_1^{}:ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1(r_0/r)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{72}}(1(r_0/r)^3)(2dc^2da^2+2db^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{24}}da^2,`$
$`X_2,X_2^{}:ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1(r_0/r)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{72}}(1(r_0/r)^3)(2da^2db^2+2dc^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{24}}db^2,`$
$`X_3,X_3^{}:ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1(r_0/r)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{72}}(1(r_0/r)^3)(2db^2dc^2+2da^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{24}}dc^2.`$ (2.6)
Here $`r_0`$ is a constant which corresponds to the size of the base $`𝐒^3`$.

The $`𝐙_2`$ isometry groups of $`X_i`$, $`𝐙_2^{(i)}`$, act as

$`𝐙_2^{(1)}:(a,b,c)(a^1,c^1,b^1),`$
$`𝐙_2^{(2)}:(a,b,c)(c^1,b^1,a^1),`$
$`𝐙_2^{(3)}:(a,b,c)(b^1,a^1,c^1).`$ (2.7)
Note that $`SU(2)_u\times SU(2)_v\times SU(2)_w`$ is also the isometry group of $`X_i`$.

It is useful to rewrite these metrics in the form of

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{1(r_0/r)^3}+\frac{r^2}{9}\left(1(r_0/r)^3\right)\left(\sigma ^a\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }^a\right)^2+\frac{r^2}{12}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^a\right)^2.$$
(2.8)
Here $`\sigma ^a,a=1,2,3,`$ are the left-invariant one-forms on $`𝐒^3`$ in an $`𝐑^4`$ fibration, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ the left-invariant one-forms on the base $`𝐒^3`$.

It admits the isometry

$$SU(2)_L\times \stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L\times SU(2)_R^{diag},$$
(2.9)
where $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L\times \stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_R`$ are the isometry groups for the fiber $`𝐒^3`$ and the base $`𝐒^3`$, respectively. Here $`SU(2)_R^{diag}`$ is the diagonal subgroup of $`SU(2)_R\times \stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_R`$. The associative three-form of this $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{r_0^3}{72}ϵ_{abc}\mathrm{\Sigma }^a\mathrm{\Sigma }^b\mathrm{\Sigma }^c+d\left(\frac{r^3r_0^3}{9}\mathrm{\Sigma }^a\sigma ^a\right).$$
(2.10)
This is invariant under the isometry group (2.9). Therefore, any quotient of (2.8) by a finite subgroup of the isometry group (2.9) preserves the $`G_2`$ structure.

We write the left-invariant one-forms in the form

$$\sigma ^a=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tr}(T^ag^1dg),\mathrm{\Sigma }^a=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tr}(T^a\stackrel{~}{g}^1d\stackrel{~}{g}),$$
(2.11)
with $`g,\stackrel{~}{g}`$ being the $`SU(2)`$ group elements of the fiber and base $`𝐒^3`$, respectively. $`T^a`$ are $`SU(2)`$ generators with the normalization $`\mathrm{tr}(T^aT^b)=2\delta ^{ab}`$. We can label $`X_i,X_i^{}`$ as

* $`X_1`$:

$$g=b^1,\stackrel{~}{g}=a,$$
(2.12)
$$SU(2)_L=SU(2)_u,\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L=SU(2)_v,SU(2)_R^{diag}=SU(2)_w.$$
(2.13)
* $`X_1^{}`$:

$$g=c,\stackrel{~}{g}=a^1,$$
(2.14)
$$SU(2)_L=SU(2)_u,\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L=SU(2)_w,SU(2)_R^{diag}=SU(2)_v.$$
(2.15)
* $`X_2`$:

$$g=a,\stackrel{~}{g}=b^1,$$
(2.16)
$$SU(2)_L=SU(2)_v,\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L=SU(2)_u,SU(2)_R^{diag}=SU(2)_w.$$
(2.17)
* $`X_2^{}`$:

$$g=c^1,\stackrel{~}{g}=b,$$
(2.18)
$$SU(2)_L=SU(2)_v,\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L=SU(2)_w,SU(2)_R^{diag}=SU(2)_u.$$
(2.19)
* $`X_3`$:

$$g=a^1,\stackrel{~}{g}=c,$$
(2.20)
$$SU(2)_L=SU(2)_w,\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L=SU(2)_u,SU(2)_R^{diag}=SU(2)_v.$$
(2.21)
* $`X_3^{}`$:

$$g=b,\stackrel{~}{g}=c^1,$$
(2.22)
$$SU(2)_L=SU(2)_w,\stackrel{~}{SU(2)}_L=SU(2)_v,SU(2)_R^{diag}=SU(2)_u.$$
(2.23)

Consider next the homology three-cycles of these $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds. Following , let $`\widehat{D}_iSU(2)^3`$ be the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ copy of $`SU(2)`$ given by $`(g_i,g_{i+1},g_{i+2})=(g,1,1)`$, where the index $`i`$ is defined mod $`3`$. In $`Y=SU(2)^3/SU(2)`$, the $`\widehat{D}_i`$ project to three-cycles $`D_i`$. Since $`b_2(Y)=2`$, $`D_i`$ are not independent and obey the relation

$$D_1+D_2+D_3=0.$$
(2.24)
The triality $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ acts on the $`D_i`$ by permutations. In terms of $`a,b,c`$, the $`D_i`$ are given by

$`D_1:a=1=bc,`$
$`D_2:b=1=ca,`$
$`D_3:c=1=ab.`$ (2.25)
It was argued in  that one obtains different $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds depending on which three-cycle is “filled in”. As an example, consider $`X_1`$ which is defined by filling in $`D_1`$, that is, $`D_1`$ is identified with the fiber $`𝐒^3`$. Indeed, it follows from $`a=1=bc`$ and (2.12) that $`\sigma ^a0`$ while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ vanish. The base $`𝐒^3`$ should correspond to the three-cycle of $`b=1`$, namely $`D_2`$ because $`\sigma ^a=0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^a0`$. In general we get

$$\begin{array}{cccc}X_1:\hfill & (b^1,a;D_2)\hfill & X_1^{}:\hfill & (c,a^1;D_3)\hfill \\ X_2:\hfill & (a,b^1;D_1)\hfill & X_2^{}:\hfill & (c^1,b;D_3)\hfill \\ X_3:\hfill & (a^1,c;D_1)\hfill & X_3^{}:\hfill & (b,c^1;D_2),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.26)
where we label $`g`$,$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`Q`$ the associative three-cycle (base). Recall that each $`𝐙_2`$ acts by a parity transformation of $`X_i`$.

### 2.1 Quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$

We have seen that any quotient of these $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds by a finite subgroup of the isometry preserves the $`G_2`$ structure. However, the triality $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ of the base $`Y`$ is broken by the quotient. As an example, consider a quotient by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1SU(2)_u`$. We impose the equivalence relation

$$bb\gamma _1^1,c\gamma _1c,$$
(2.27)
with $`\gamma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. We will refer to this as a single quotient. The quotient leaves unbroken only the subgroup $`𝐙_2^{(1)}`$. As noted in , this symmetry plays an important role in determining the curve describing the moduli space. We will mainly discuss the double quotient by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1SU(2)_u,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2SU(2)_v.$$
(2.28)
The equivalence relation to be imposed is

$$a\gamma _2a,bb\gamma _1^1,c\gamma _1c\gamma _2^1.$$
(2.29)
It follows that $`Y_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$, the quotient of $`Y`$, preserves none of the triality symmetry.

Let us consider the double quotient of $`S(𝐒^3)`$ in detail. We first discuss the homology of the base $`Y_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$. To this end, we start from the three-cycles $`D_i`$ in $`Y`$ and see how the quotient acts on them. $`D_3`$ projects to a cycle $`D_3^{}=𝐒^3`$. On the other hand, $`D_i,i=1,2`$ project to $`N_i`$-fold covers of $`D_i^{}=𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ with $`N_i`$ the order of the finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. These cycles obey the relation

$$N_1D_1^{}+N_2D_2^{}+D_3^{}=0.$$
(2.30)
Let us now discuss the topological structure of the double quotient of $`S(𝐒^3)`$. For instance, the quotient of $`X_1:(b^1,a;D_2)`$ is topologically

$$X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2.$$
(2.31)
It follows from (2.29) that the base manifold is homologous to $`D_2^{}`$. The topologies of the quotients are summarized by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2:\hfill & (b^1,a;D_2^{})\hfill \\ X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2:\hfill & (c,a^1;\frac{D_3^{}}{N_2})\hfill \\ X_{2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1:\hfill & (a,b^1;D_1^{})\hfill \\ X_{2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1:\hfill & (c^1,b;\frac{D_3^{}}{N_1})\hfill \\ X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4\times 𝐒^3/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2):\hfill & (a^1,c;\frac{D_1^{}}{N_2})\hfill \\ X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}=𝐑^4\times 𝐒^3/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2):\hfill & (b,c^1;\frac{D_2^{}}{N_1}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.32)
Recall that $`X_{i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ and $`X_{i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}`$ can be obtained by filling in $`D_i^{}`$ of $`Y_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$. For instance, $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ has the associative three-cycle $`Q=D_2^{}`$. One finds from (2.30) that the $`Q`$ is homologous to $`D_3^{}/N_2`$, which is the associative three-cycle of $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}`$.

## 3 M-theory on double quotients

In this section we construct the curve describing the moduli space of M-theory on the double quotients defined by (2.29).

Let $`𝒩_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ be the space of parameters of M-theory on the double quotients. Denote by $`P_i𝒩_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ the points that correspond to the large volume limit of $`X_{i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2},X_{i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{}`$. The local coordinates of $`𝒩_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ near these points are

$`\eta _1=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{3N_1}}f_3+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{3N_1}}f_1+i\alpha _1^{}\right),`$
$`\eta _2=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{3N_2}}f_1+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{3N_2}}f_2+i\alpha _2^{}\right),`$
$`\eta _3=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{3}}f_2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{3}}f_3+i\alpha _3^{}\right),`$ (3.1)
with

$$\alpha _i^{}=_{D_i^{}}C.$$
(3.2)
Here $`k`$ is a constant that can be determined using an instanton correction.

At $`P_i`$, we have

$`(f_i,f_{i+1},f_{i1})=\rho (2,1,1),\rho \mathrm{},`$ (3.3)
and thus

$$\eta _i=e^{i\alpha _i^{}},\eta _{i+1}=0,\eta _{i1}=\mathrm{}.$$
(3.4)
In order to determine the orders of the pole and zero we will use the membrane instanton corrections(for a discussion on membrane instantons, see e.g. ). One-instanton action is given by

$$u=\mathrm{exp}\left(V(Q)+i_QC\right),$$
(3.5)
where $`Q`$ is an associative three-cycle and $`V(Q)`$ is its volume.

Consider the different points:

* $`P_1`$: $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$. A non-trivial $`C`$-field that breaks the gauge symmetry can be turned on along an ALE fibration by applying fiberwise the duality between M-theory on K$`3`$ and heterotic string on $`T^3`$. In this case, we have

$$_{D_1^{}}C=\frac{2\pi \mu _1}{t_1}.$$
(3.6)
Note that this corresponds to a triple in the heterotic string dual . Thus we find

$$\eta _1=e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1}.$$
(3.7)
By comparing $`\eta _2,\eta _3`$ to $`u`$ with $`Q=D_2^{}=\frac{1}{N_2}D_3^{}`$, we find

$$\eta _2u^{+1},\eta _3u^{N_2},$$
(3.8)
where we used $`D_1^{}=0`$, which holds since this cycle is filled in. We now recall the ansatz of  that an M2-brane wrapping an associative three-cycle with $`C=2\pi \mu /t`$ is a SYM instanton of $`K_tG_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with instanton number $`t`$. Here $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`ADE`$ group corresponding to the finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`t`$ is a positive integer that divides some of the Dynkin indices $`k_i`$ of $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`K_t`$ is a subgroup of $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is left unbroken by the $`C`$-field, and defined by Dynkin indices whose elements consist of a set of integer $`k_i/t`$. Then a good local coordinate around $`P_1`$ should be taken to be $`u^{1/t_1h_{t_1}}`$ which is equal to the gaugino bilinear condensate of SYM with the gauge group $`K_{t_1}`$. Here $`h_{t_1}`$ is the dual Coxeter number of $`K_{t_1}`$. Therefore, we find that $`\eta _2`$ at $`P_1`$ has zeros of order $`t_1h_{t_1}`$ and $`\eta _3`$ has poles of order $`N_2t_1h_{t_1}`$.
* $`P_2`$: As in the case of $`P_1`$, one can turn on a $`C`$-field on $`D_2^{}`$ so that

$$\eta _2=e^{2\pi i\mu _2/t_2}.$$
(3.9)
$`\eta _3`$ has zeros of order $`N_1t_2h_{t_2}`$, and $`\eta _1`$ has poles of order $`t_2h_{t_2}`$ since $`Q=D_1^{}=\frac{1}{N_1}D_3^{}`$.
* $`P_3`$:

$$\eta _3=1,\eta _1\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{D_1^{}}C\right),\eta _2\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{D_2^{}}C\right).$$
(3.10)
Since the associative three-cycle is given by $`Q=D_1^{}/N_2=D_2^{}/N_1`$, we find that

$$\eta _1=0^{N_2},\eta _2=\mathrm{}^{N_1}.$$
(3.11)

To summarize, the behaviour of $`\eta _i`$ at the points $`P_i`$ is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & P_1^{t_1,\mu _1}& P_2^{t_2,\mu _2}& P_3\\ & & & \\ \eta _1& e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1}& \mathrm{}^{t_2h_{t_2}}& 0^{N_2}\\ & & & \\ \eta _2& 0^{t_1h_{t_1}}& e^{2\pi i\mu _2/t_2}& \mathrm{}^{N_1}\\ & & & \\ \eta _3& \mathrm{}^{N_2t_1h_{t_1}}& 0^{N_1t_2h_{t_2}}& 1\end{array}$$
(3.12)
### 3.1 The M-theory curve

Now we are ready to construct the curve describing the moduli space. One finds from the table (3.12) that $`\eta _i`$ have the same order of zeros and poles. Thus, $`\eta _i`$ can be regarded as meromorphic functions on a sphere. Let $`z`$ be the coordinate of this sphere. $`\eta _i`$ take the form

$`\eta _1=c_1{\displaystyle \frac{(z\gamma )^{N_2}}{_{t_2,\mu _2}(z\beta _{t_2,\mu _2})^{t_2h_{t_2}}}},`$ (3.13)
$`\eta _2=c_2{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}(z\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1})^{t_1h_{t_1}}}{(z\gamma )^{N_1}}},`$ (3.14)
$`\eta _3=c_3{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{t_2,\mu _2}{}(z\beta _{t_2,\mu _2})^{N_1t_2h_{t_2}}}{_{t_1,\mu _1}(z\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1})^{N_2t_1h_{t_1}}}},`$ (3.15)
where $`P_1^{t_1,\mu _1},P_2^{t_2,\mu _2},P_3`$ are mapped to the points $`z=\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1},\beta _{t_2,\mu _2},\gamma `$, respectively. In addition we have to impose the relations

$`e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1}\gamma )^{N_2}}{_{t_2,\mu _2}(\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1}\beta _{t_2,\mu _2})^{t_2h_{t_2}}}},`$
$`e^{2\pi i\mu _2/t_2}`$ $`=`$ $`c_2{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}(\beta _{t_2.\mu _2}\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1})^{t_1h_{t_1}}}{(\beta _{t_2,\mu _2}\gamma )^{N_1}}},`$
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`c_3{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{t_2,\mu _2}{}(\gamma \beta _{t_2.\mu _2})^{N_1t_2h_{t_2}}}{_{t_1,\mu _1}(\gamma \alpha _{t_1,\mu _{t_1}})^{N_2t_1h_{t_1}}}}.`$ (3.16)
From these one can see that

$$c_1^{N_1}c_2^{N_2}c_3=(1)^{N_1N_2},$$
(3.17)
where we used the formula $`_{t,\mu }th_t=N`$, with $`N`$ being the order of the finite group. It thus follows that

$$\eta _1^{N_1}\eta _2^{N_2}\eta _3=(1)^{N_1N_2}.$$
(3.18)
From this and (3.1), one finds that

$$N_1\alpha _1^{}+N_2\alpha _2^{}+\alpha _3^{}=N_1N_2\pi \mathrm{mod}2\pi .$$
(3.19)
As in , we should be able to reproduce this relation using an anomaly argument. We will leave this as an open problem.

The existence of the curve shows that the moduli space of the double quotients interpolates smoothly between the three different classical geometries $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$. We can express the curve in terms of $`\eta _i`$ by eliminating $`z`$. For simplicity, consider the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=𝐙_{N_1},\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=𝐙_{N_2}`$. Then it is easy to verify that

$$\eta _2=\eta _1^{N_1/N_2}\left(\eta _1^{1/N_2}e^{2\pi ik_2/N_2}\right)^{N_1},$$
(3.20)
with $`k_2=0,1,\mathrm{},N_21`$. This can be rewritten in the form

$$\eta _1=\left(1e^{2\pi ik_1/N_1}\eta _2^{1/N_1}\right)^{N_2},$$
(3.21)
with $`k_1=0,1,\mathrm{},N_11`$. It is important to notice that the form of these curves is unique for any $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,c_i`$ that obey (3.16).

### 3.2 The gauge theory

Consider now the low energy physics of M-theory on $`X_{i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ (2.32). Consider $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The singularity of $`𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ yields $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory with the gauge group $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$, where $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$ is the $`ADE`$ group that corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. The gauge bosons in four dimensions arise from integrating the $`C`$ field and wrapping M2-branes on the shrinking two-spheres of $`𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. We need to interpret the low-energy physics of the second quotient $`𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. A natural interpretation is that this quotient corresponds to the confining phase of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM with the gauge group $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$. As argued in , an M2-brane wrapping a non-trivial one-cycle in $`𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ can be regarded as a QCD string of SYM. The domain wall that separates two distinct vacua is realized by an M5-brane wrapping the three-cycle $`𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Since we get a product of two $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theories in different phases, we can deduce that in this scenario the dynamical scales of the two theories obey $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

The low-energy physics of M-theory on $`X_{2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\times 𝐒^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the same with interchanging $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$.

Consider now $`X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4\times 𝐒^3/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$. This quotient space is not singular and admits no normalizable zero modes. Thus, the low-energy physics of M-theory on $`X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ is interpreted as the confining phase of $`G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\times G_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$ SYM theory. One support for this comes from the fact that, say for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=𝐙_{N_1},\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=𝐙_{N_2}`$

$$\pi _1(X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2})=\pi _1(X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}^{})=𝐙_{N_1}\times 𝐙_{N_2}.$$
(3.22)
An M2-brane wrapping non-trivial one-cycles is a QCD string whose end point is a static quark that belongs to $`(𝐍_1,𝐍_2)`$ of $`SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)`$.

The curve (3.20) and (3.21) exhibit spontaneous breaking of the discrete quantum $`R`$-symmetry of SYM. For instance, consider $`\eta _1e^{2\pi i}\eta _1`$ in (3.20). A curve of label $`k_2`$ gets mapped to one with $`k_2+1`$. From (2.32), the phase of $`\eta _1`$ is identified with a vacuum angle of $`SU(N_2)`$ SYM. Thus, the transformation $`\eta _1e^{2\pi i}\eta _1`$ corresponds to a shift of the vacuum angle by $`2\pi `$. From field theory viewpoint, this shift amounts to a change of the phase factor of a gaugino bilinear condensate, in agreement with our interpretation of the curve. We see that for each $`k_2=0,1,\mathrm{},N_21`$, (3.20) describes a branch of the parameter space $`𝒩_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ that interpolates between the UV and the confining phase of $`SU(N_2)`$ SYM with a gaugino bilinear condensate labelled by $`k_2`$. Similarly, the curve (3.21) exhibits spontaneous breaking of discrete $`𝐙_{N_1}`$ symmetry of $`SU(N_1)`$ SYM.

Finally, note that since the different phases are smoothly interpolated, it may be regarded as a support of the picture of low energy dynamics of SYM: mass gap, confinement and chiral symmetry breaking .

## 4 Superpotentials and membrane instantons

In this section we will compute the $`𝒩=1`$ superpotentials of M-theory on the $`G_2`$ holonomy quotients, and comment on membrane instantons.

### 4.1 Single quotient

We start with the single quotient with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=1`$. The M-theory curve reads

$$\eta _2=\eta _1^{N_1}\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}\left(\eta _1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\mu _1/t_1)\right)^{t_1h_{t_1}},\eta _3=\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}\left(1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\mu _1/t_1)\eta _1\right)^{t_1h_{t_1}},$$
(4.1)
and the structure of zeros and poles is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & P_1^{t_1,\mu _1}& P_2& P_3\\ & & & \\ \eta _1& e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & \\ \eta _2& 0^{t_1h_{t_1}}& 1& \mathrm{}^{N_1}\\ & & & \\ \eta _3& \mathrm{}^{t_1h_{t_1}}& 0^{N_1}& 1\end{array}$$
(4.2)
$`\eta _i`$ are meromorphic functions on a sphere. Let $`z`$ be the coordinate of this sphere. We map the points $`P_2,P_3`$ to $`z=\omega ,\omega ^2`$ respectively, with $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/3}`$. $`\eta _1`$ can be written in the form

$$\eta _1=\omega \frac{z\omega ^2}{z\omega }.$$
(4.3)
In this parametrization the point $`P_1^{t_1,\mu _1}`$ corresponds to

$$z=\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1}=\omega \frac{e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1}+\omega ^2}{e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1}+\omega }=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi \mu _1}{t_1}+\frac{\pi }{3}\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi \mu _1}{t_1}\frac{\pi }{3}\right)}.$$
(4.4)
It follows from (4.1) that

$`\eta _2=c^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}(z\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1})^{t_1h_{t_1}}}{(z\omega ^2)^{N_1}}},`$
$`\eta _3=c^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{(z\omega )^{N_1}}{_{t_1,\mu _1}(z\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1})^{t_1h_{t_1}}}},`$ (4.5)
where

$$c^{}=\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}(1+\omega ^1e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1})^{t_1h_{t_1}},c^{\prime \prime }=\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}(\omega +e^{2\pi i\mu _1/t_1})^{t_1h_{t_1}}.$$
(4.6)
Note that the single quotient preserves the subgroup $`𝐙_2^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ that acts on $`\eta _i`$ as

$$𝐙_2^{(1)}:(\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3)(\eta _1^1,\eta _3^1,\eta _2^1),$$
(4.7)
which is equal to the action $`z1/z`$.

Consider now the superpotential. The quantum corrections to the superpotential come from instantons that have two fermionic zero modes. They correspond to euclidean membranes wrapping associative three-cycles. These contributions should vanish at $`P_i`$ since $`P_i`$ correspond to the large volume (classical gauge theory) limit. Thus, we conclude that $`W`$ is proportional to

$$f(z)(z\omega )(z\omega ^2)\underset{t_1,\mu _1}{}(z\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1}).$$
(4.8)
We assume that $`W`$ has no other zeros. Consider, for instance, the behavior near the point $`P_1`$. We write

$$z\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1}+\stackrel{~}{u},$$
(4.9)
with $`\stackrel{~}{u}=u^{1/t_1h_{t_1}}`$ being a good local coordinate around $`P_1^{t_1,\mu _1}`$.

The superpotential $`W`$ behaves as

$$W\stackrel{~}{u},$$
(4.10)
which is consistent with the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ has been identified with a gaugino bilinear condensate of SYM with gauge group $`K_{t_1}`$. So the above result is in accord with a field theoretic result.

Since $`W(z)`$ is a meromorphic function on the sphere, $`W(z)`$ has the same order of zeros and poles. Thus, it takes the form

$$W(z)=ic\frac{f(z)}{g(z)},$$
(4.11)
where $`g(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`l2+_{t_1,\mu _1}1`$, and $`c`$ is a constant.

In order to determine $`g(z)`$, we recall that the single quotient preserves the discrete symmetry $`𝐙_2^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ that acts on the superpotential as $`R`$-symmetry

$$W(1/z)=W(z).$$
(4.12)
Using the relation

$$\underset{\mu _1}{}\alpha _{t_1,\mu _1}=1\mathrm{for}t_1=2,3,4,5,$$
(4.13)
we find that

$$f(1/z)=z^lf(z).$$
(4.14)
Thus, $`g`$ obeys

$$g(1/z)=z^lg(z).$$
(4.15)
When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=𝐙_{N_1}`$, $`W`$ takes the form

$$W(z)=ic\frac{z^31}{z^3+\xi z^2+\xi z+1}.$$
(4.16)
Here $`\xi `$ is a constant and $`\xi (N_1=1)=0`$ in order to be consistent with . We can rewrite the superpotential in terms of the couplings $`\eta _i`$, with manifest $`𝐙_2^{(1)}`$ symmetry

$$W=ic(\omega \omega ^1)\frac{\eta _1+\eta _2^{1/N_1}+\eta _3^{1/N_1}+\eta _1^1+\eta _2^{1/N_1}+\eta _3^{1/N_1}}{(12\xi )\left(\eta _1\eta _1^1\right)+(1+\xi )\left(\eta _2^{1/N_1}+\eta _3^{1/N_1}\eta _2^{1/N_1}\eta _3^{1/N_1}\right)}.$$
(4.17)
Let us study now the membrane instanton corrections to $`\eta _i`$, where we consider the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=𝐙_{N_1}`$. We have

$$\frac{z^31}{z^3+\xi z^2+\xi z+1}=u,$$
(4.18)
with $`u`$ an instanton factor.

Let $`z_1(u),z_2(u),z_3(u)`$ be the solutions to this equation such that $`z_i(u=0)=\omega ^{i+2}`$. $`u`$ in $`z_1`$ comes from a fractional M2 instanton of instanton number $`1/N_1`$. On the other hand, $`u`$ in $`z_2,z_3`$ is due to an ordinary M2 instanton wrapping the associative three cycle $`𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_1}`$. By plugging the solutions into (4.3) and (4.5), the coupling constants $`\eta _i`$ can be written in terms of an power expansion in $`u`$. The instanton contributions to $`\eta _1`$ around $`P_1`$ take the form

$`\eta _1(z=z_1(u))=1{\displaystyle \frac{2i(\xi +1)}{3\sqrt{3}}}u{\displaystyle \frac{2(\xi +1)^2}{27}}u^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (4.19)
M2 instanton contributions to $`\eta _2`$ take the form

$$\eta _2(z=z_2(u))=1+\frac{N_1i(\xi 2)}{3\sqrt{3}}u\frac{N_1\left((\xi 2)N_13\xi \right)(\xi 2)}{54}u^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(4.20)
### 4.2 Double quotient

Consider the double quotient and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=𝐙_{N_1},\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=𝐙_{N_2}`$. We have

$$\eta _1=c_1\frac{(z\gamma )^{N_2}}{(z\beta )^{N_2}},\eta _2=c_2\frac{(z\alpha )^{N_1}}{(z\gamma )^{N_1}},\eta _3=c_3\frac{(z\beta )^{N_1N_2}}{(z\alpha )^{N_1N_2}}.$$
(4.21)
For simplicity, we take

$$\alpha =1,\beta =\omega ,\gamma =\omega ^2.$$
(4.22)
As in the case of the single quotient, the superpotential must vanish at $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$. It is a meromorphic function on the sphere and therefore the order of its poles is three. Thus, it takes the form

$$W=ic\frac{z^31}{z^3+\xi _1z^2+\xi _2z+\xi _3}.$$
(4.23)
Note that the double quotient breaks $`𝐙_2^{(1)}`$. As a check, consider the behavior around $`P_1`$ by setting

$$z1+u.$$
(4.24)
The superpotential is given by

$$Wu.$$
(4.25)
Since $`u\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^3`$, this can be identified with the superpotential of $`SU(N_1)`$ SYM. Indeed, it is consistent that no dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^3`$ appears, since we are working in the regime $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

## 5 Double quotients with Wilson lines

In this section we will make some comments and present some questions on Wilson lines and the M-theory moduli space. We start with M-theory on the singular $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=𝐑^4/𝐙_{N_1}\times 𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$. The low energy dynamics is described by a seven-dimensional $`SU(N_1)`$ SYM compactified on $`Q=𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$. As usual, supersymmetry is preserved by a twist, namely the identification of spin connections $`w_{SO(3)_R}=w_{SO(3)_Q}`$. The bosonic matter content of the resulting theory is found to be

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& SO(1,3)& SO(3)\\ A& \mathrm{𝟒}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \varphi & \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟑}\end{array}`$ (5.4)
$`\varphi `$ is a complex scalar which belongs to the adjoint representation of $`SU(N_1)`$. Now we turn on Wilson lines for $`\varphi `$ along a one-cycle $`\gamma `$ of $`𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$

$$g_\gamma =\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}i_\gamma \varphi =\mathrm{diag}(I_{n_1},e^{2\pi i/N_2}I_{n_2},\mathrm{},e^{2\pi i(k1)/N_2}I_{n_k}),kN_2,$$
(5.5)
with $`_in_i=N_1`$ (see also ). $`g_\gamma `$ is an $`N_1`$-dimensional reducible representation of $`𝐙_{N_2}`$. Recall that the Cartan part of $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$\varphi ^a=_{\beta _a}C,a=1,2,\mathrm{},N_11.$$
(5.6)
Here $`\beta _a`$ are collapsing two-cycles in $`𝐑^4/𝐙_{N_1}`$. Thus, the Wilson lines are given by integrating the $`C`$-field on three-cycles $`C_a=\beta _a\times \gamma `$.

The Wilson line breaks the gauge group $`SU(N_1)`$ to $`_iSU(n_i)`$. The mass of the W-bosons is of order $`r_0^1`$, where $`r_0`$ is the size of the one-cycle in $`𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$. Alternatively, the seven-dimensional SYM has the interaction term

$$d^7x\mathrm{tr}[\varphi ,A]^2,$$
(5.7)
which gives mass to $`A`$. Since we are working in the low energy regime $`Er_0^1`$, the massive modes may be neglected and the gauge theories decouple from one another. In the context of M-theory, this Higgs mechanism can be interpreted as follows. The gauge bosons of $`SU(N_1)`$ come from M2-branes wrapping collapsing cycles $`\beta `$ in $`𝐑^4/𝐙_{N_1}`$. The Wilson lines turn on a $`C`$ field, which gives mass to some of the wrapped membranes. Consequently we have $`_iSU(n_i)`$ symmetry rather than $`SU(N_1)`$.

Consider now $`X_{2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ and $`X_{3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ without turning on Wilson lines. As we have seen, these two geometries can be interpolated smoothly. It is unlikely that we interpolate between them and $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ with Wilson lines. A natural guess is that with a Wilson line we get a new branch of the moduli space that is disconnected with the branch without Wilson lines, and we view the Wilson lines as discrete moduli. If such a branch exists, it is interesting to know whether there is a $`G_2`$ flop that interpolates $`X_{1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ with Wilson lines smoothly to a $`G_2`$ manifold that describes the vacuum structure of $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(n_i)`$ SYM. For the latter, the geometry should possess no $`ADE`$ singularity because of a mass gap of SYM. It should also account for the Witten index of $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(n_i)`$ SYM together with that of $`𝒩=1SU(N_2)`$ SYM

$$\mathrm{tr}(1)^F=N_2n_i.$$
(5.8)
A candidate geometry is $`X=𝐑^4\times \{𝐒^3/(𝐙_{n_1}\times 𝐙_{N_2})\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}𝐒^3/(𝐙_{n_k}\times 𝐙_{N_2})\}`$, namely a “multi-center” $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold such that around each center it looks like $`𝐑^4\times 𝐒^3/(𝐙_{n_i}\times 𝐙_{N_2})`$. $`𝐙_{N_2}`$ acts diagonally. The number of discrete vacua can be seen by looking at a fractional change of $`C`$-field fluxes on associative three-cycles under a shift of the vacuum angle $`\theta `$ of SYM. Indeed, one finds that

$$_{𝐙_{n_i}𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}}C_{𝐙_{n_i}𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}}C+\frac{2\pi }{n_i}.$$
(5.9)
under the shift of the vacuum angle of $`𝒩=1SU(n_i)`$ SYM by $`2\pi `$. We also find that $`\pi _1(X)=𝐙_{N_2}\times 𝐙_{n_1}\times 𝐙_{n_2}\times \mathrm{}`$. This is consistent with the interpretation that an M$`2`$-brane wrapping non-trivial one-cycles of $`X`$ is a QCD string whose end point belongs to $`(𝐍_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐧_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐧_\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{})`$ of $`SU(N_2)\times SU(n_i)`$. Note also that KK reduction of this geometry along the Hopf fibers of $`𝐙_{n_i}𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$, yields a generalized conifold  that takes the form of multi small resolved conifolds with RR-fluxes on the Hopf bases $`𝐒^2/𝐙_{N_2}`$. The mirror of this CY is reminiscent of a setup studied in  in the context of SYM with a product group via a geometric transition.

## 6 Discussion

In the paper we extended results of  to more general quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$, and in particular the “double” quotient, where the quotient group is a subgroup of the isometry of $`S(𝐒^3)`$. We analysed the moduli space of M-theory on the quotient and show that the moduli space interpolates smoothly between three different types of classical geometries. These three geometries correspond to different low energy dynamics. We computed the exact superpotentials of M-theory on the quotients of $`S(𝐒^3)`$, and discussed the membrane instanton physics. We commented on turning on Wilson lines and breaking of the gauge symmetry and discussed some of the implications.

There are several issues that deserve further study. One is to derive equation (3.19) by an anomaly analysis. Another issue is to understand in the context of M-theory dynamics the singularities of the superpotentials computed in section 4. It would also be interesting to know the precise relation between the complexified gauge coupling of SYM $`\tau `$ and $`\eta _i`$, $`\tau =\tau (\eta _i)`$. Once given, the analysis of section 4 will provide us with information about nonperturbative corrections to the $`𝒩=1`$ SYM coupling.

Finally, the structure of the moduli space of M-theory on the $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds with Wilson lines is still largely unclear and deserves further study. From the discussion of the previous section, one may deduce a duality of superstrings, which is an extension of . The KK reduction of $`𝐑^4/𝐙_{N_1}\times 𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$ along an $`𝐒^1`$ in the ALE fibration leads to $`N_1`$ D6 branes wrapping $`𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$ of a deformed conifold. On the other hand, from KK reduction of $`X=𝐑^4\times \{𝐒^3/(𝐙_{n_1}\times 𝐙_{N_2})\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}𝐒^3/(𝐙_{n_k}\times 𝐙_{N_2})\}`$, along the Hopf fibers of $`𝐙_{n_i}𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$, one obtains superstring theory on the resultant CY. We may conjecture that both are dual to each other. One can try to verify the duality in the context of topological strings . The superstring theory with the D$`6`$ branes wrapping the three-cycle of a deformed conifold reduces to a topological open string that is given by $`SU(N_1)`$ Chern-Simons theory on $`𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$ with Wilson lines. It would be nice to see if this theory is dual to a topological closed string on the CY:

| $`𝐑^4/𝐙_{N_1}\times 𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$ | $`\stackrel{\mathrm{G}_2\mathrm{flop}}{}`$ | $`X`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| with Wilson lines |  |  |
| $``$ |  | $``$ |
| $`N_1`$ D$`6`$ branes | $`\stackrel{\mathrm{dual}}{}`$ | superstring on CY |
| wrapping a three-cycle of a deformed conifold |  |  |
| with Wilson lines |  |  |
| $``$ |  | $``$ |
| topological open string | $`\stackrel{\mathrm{dual}}{}`$ | topological closed string on CY |
| $`SU(N_1)`$ CS on $`𝐒^3/𝐙_{N_2}`$ |  |  |
| with Wilson lines |  |  |

## Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation.