format: text

text:
# Penrose Limits of Orbifolds and Orientifolds

## 1 Introduction

Plane wave backgrounds with parallel rays (pp-waves) are known to be exact string solutions , . Such backgrounds have reconsidered recently ,, since they share the similar properties with flat and $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ spaces (e.g. maximal supersymmetry). The pp-wave background we will discuss can be considered as the Penrose limit  of $`AdS`$ spaces ,,,,. The limit is particular and amounts in boosting around maximal cycles in $`S^q`$ and then flatten the resulting background by taking the standard large radius limit of both $`AdS_p`$ and $`S^q`$. This limit has also a well defined action on the superalgebras of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$. The latter are members of infinite sequence of superalgebras usually denoted by $`OSp(N|M)`$ and $`SU(N|M)`$ (There is also the isolated $`F(4)`$ superalgebra corresponding to $`AdS_6`$) . The superalgebras of the limiting pp-wave backgrounds of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ can be constructed by contraction of the of $`OSp(N|M)`$ or $`SU(N|M)`$. An explicit demonstration of this has been carried out in  for the $`SU(2,2|4)`$ superalgebra.

The same limits can also be considered in 11D $`AdS_{4,7}\times S^{7,4}`$ M-theory backgrounds. Here, the resulting pp-wave has been constructed in the past  and has recently be recovered . An interesting aspects of all these constructions is that the Penrose limit preserves all supersymmetries of the original background. Thus, the resulting pp-waves are maximally supersymmetric. The fact that maximally supersymmetric space-times have played a central role in understanding string and M-theory explains in part the recent interest in these pp-wave backgrounds. Additional support for studying them, came from the recent proposal of Berestein, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN)  that the string spectrum on a pp-wave background arises from the large $`N`$ limit of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory in 4d. This has been demonstrated by summing a subset of planar diagrams and it is a very interesting extension of the original AdS/CFT correspondence as it involves massive string modes. The large $`N`$ limit that has been employed is not just large ’t Hooft coupling $`g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{}`$ but also fixed $`g_{eff}^2=g_{YM}^2N/J^2`$ ($`J`$ is a global charge). Then, correlation functions for operators of scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are calculated in large ’t Hooft coupling, fixed $`g_{eff}`$ and finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$.

Here, we consider various orbifolds of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ and their pp-wave limit. As these orbifolds have less supersymmetry, the corresponding pp-waves will also have less supersymmerties provided that the singularities are not washed out in the limit. The spectrum on these backgrounds should then arise from the corresponding SCFTs in the BMN limit. The same can be done for $`AdS`$ orientifolds and we present the pp-wave limits of the near horizon of D3-branes on O3-plane as well as in F-theory (at constant coupling) ,, .

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we describe the Penrose limits of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ backgrounds which occur in string and M-theory. In section 3 we construct various orbifolds of the backgrounds presented in the previous section and we discuss their possible desingularizations. In section 4, we present the pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ orientifold. Finally, in appendix A we give the embedding of the D-dimensional pp-wave in flat $`M^{2,D1}`$ space, while in appendix B we describe the ALE space $`^3/_3`$ we used as an example in section 3.

## 2 Penrose limit of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$

$`AdS`$ spaces arise in many instances in string and M-theory. In fact, supersymmetric $`AdS_p`$ backgrounds are possible, according to , for $`p=2,3,4,5,6,7`$. They appear as vacuum of 10 and 11 dimensional supergravity as well as the near horizon limit of D-brane and M-brane configurations (See  for a review). Keeping the discussion as general as possible, let us recall the Penrose limit of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$, consider first in . The metric of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ is

$`ds^2=R_A^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p2}^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2\right)+R_S^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{q2}^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2\right),`$ (1)
where $`R_A,R_S`$ are the radius of $`AdS_p`$ and $`S^q`$, respectively. We will consider the limiting geometry seen by a fast moving observer in the $`\psi `$ direction at $`\rho =0,\theta =0`$. For this, we introduce the coordinates

$`x^+={\displaystyle \frac{t+\alpha \psi }{2}},x^{}=R_A^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t\alpha \psi }{2}}\right),x=R_A\rho ,y=R_S\theta ,\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{R_S}{R_A}}`$ (2)
in the metric (1) and then take the limit $`R_{A,S}\mathrm{}`$, keeping $`\alpha `$ finite. The resulting space-time is non singular and its metric is

$`ds_P^2=4dx^+dx^{}(x^2+\alpha ^2y^2)dx^+{}_{}{}^{2}+dx^2+x^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p2}^2+dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{q2}^2.`$ (3)
Next, we will examine each possible $`AdS`$-geometries appear in string and M-theory (except the $`AdS_2`$ and $`AdS_6`$ cases).

### 2.1 $`AdS_3\times S^3`$

This background appears in the near horizon geometry of the D1/D5 system . The 10D geometry is $`AdS_3\times S^3\times M^4`$ and the D5-branes are wrapped on $`M^4`$. In order that supersymmetry is preserved, $`M^4`$ is either $`T^4`$ or $`K^3`$ for 8 or 4 surviving supersymetries. Omitting the irrelevant for the discussion $`M^4`$ factor, the bosonic symmetry of this background is $`SO(2,2)\times SO(4)`$ which is the bosonic part of the 2D SCFT living in the boundary of $`AdS_3`$ . The metric is

$`ds^2=R_A^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\varphi ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2\right)+R_S^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\chi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2\right),`$ (4)
with $`R_A=R_S`$. Defining the coordinates as in (2) and taking the $`R_A\mathrm{}`$ limit, we end up with the pp-wave

$`ds_P^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(x^2+y^2)dx^+{}_{}{}^{2}+dx^2+x^2d\varphi ^2+dy^2+y^2d\chi ^2`$
$`H_{+34}=H_{+56}=2\mu ,`$ (5)
where $`H`$ is the RR three-form of the D1/D5 system. It is evident that the pp-wave front $`x^+=`$const. is flat 4D Euclidean space.

### 2.2 $`AdS_5\times S^5`$

The $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background is by far the most celebrated one. It is realized as the near horizon limit of $`N`$ coincident D3-branes and it is maximally supersymmetric (32 supersymmetries). $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ with $`N`$ units of five-form flux is conjectured to be the supergravity dual of $`SU(N)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory at large $`N`$ . The bosonic symmetry of the background is $`SO(4,2)\times SO(6)`$. The $`SO(4,2)`$ part is realized as the conformal symmetry of the $`SU(N)`$ $`𝒩`$ gauge theory while $`SO(6)`$ is the R-symmetry. Starting form the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ metric

$`ds^2=R^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2\right),`$ (6)
the geometry seen by a fast moving observer in the $`\psi `$ direction sitting at $`\rho =0,\theta =0`$ can be obtained, according to eq.(2), by introducing the coordinates

$`x^+={\displaystyle \frac{t+\psi }{2}},x^{}=R^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t\psi }{2}}\right),x=R\rho ,y=R\theta ,`$ (7)
and then take the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. The resulting non-singular space-time metric and the surviving RR self-dual five-form are 111This is exactly the metric on the group manifold of the 10D Heisenberg group . It is a generalization of the Nappi-Witten background  with RR fields instead of NS/NS antisymmetric 2-form. It can also be considered as a particular contruction of a WZW model .

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{r}^2dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{r}^2,`$
$`F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=4\mu `$ (8)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}^2=\stackrel{}{x}^2+\stackrel{}{y}^2`$. Clearly, the wave front is flat 8D Euclidean space. The type IIB superstring in the above background has been argued to be exactly solvable, described by free massive fields , , .

### 2.3 $`AdS_4\times S^7`$

This geometry appears in the near horizon of $`N`$ coincident M2-branes in M-theory. It is the supergravity dual of $`𝒩=8`$ 3D SCFT living on the M2 worldvolume. The bosonic symmetry of the supergravity background is $`SO(3,2)\times SO(8)`$. As usual, the $`SO(3,2)`$ is identified with the conformal symmetry of the boundary SCFT while the $`SO(8)`$ part is the R-symmetry group. Starting form the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ metric

$`ds^2=R_A^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2\right)+R_S^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2\right),`$ (9)
where $`R_S=2R_A`$, the Penrose limit is obtained by defining

$`x^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(t+2\psi \right),x^{}={\displaystyle \frac{R_A^2}{2}}\left(t2\psi \right),x=R_A\rho ,y=2R_A\theta ,`$ (10)
and letting $`R_A\mathrm{}`$. The resulting space-time metric and 4-form are

$`ds_P^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}y^2)dx^+{}_{}{}^{2}+dx^2+x^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,`$
$`F_4=3\mu dx^+dx^1dx^2dx^3`$ (11)
so that the near horizon of M2-branes has been turned into pp-waves with flat wave fronts.

### 2.4 $`AdS_7\times S^4`$

Similarly to the above, this geometry is realized in the near horizon limit of $`N`$ coincident M5 branes in M-theory. They describe the supergravity duals of large $`N`$ 6D SCFT. The bosonic symmetry of this background is $`SO(6,2)\times SO(5)`$ which is the bosonic part of the 6D SCFT. The metric of $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ is

$`ds^2=R_A^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2\right)+R_S^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2\right).`$ (12)
Here, $`R_A=2R_S`$ and the limit $`R_A\mathrm{}`$ after the transformation

$`x^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(t+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}\right),x^{}={\displaystyle \frac{R_A^2}{2}}\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}\right),x=R_A\rho ,y={\displaystyle \frac{R_A}{2}}\theta ,`$ (13)
leads to the pp-wave background and 4-form

$`ds_P^2=4dx^+dx^{}(x^2+4y^2)dx^+{}_{}{}^{2}+dx^2+x^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2+dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,`$
$`F_4=6\mu dx^+dy^1dy^2dy^3.`$ (14)
In fact, the pp-wave limits of both $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ and $`AdS^7\times S^4`$ in Eqs.(11) and (14), respectively, are the same (as can be seen by the transformation $`xy,x^+x^+/2`$) and the two maximally supersymmetric backgrounds (9) and (12) have the unique maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background (11) (or (14)) found in .

## 3 Penrose limits of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ orbifolds

Branes can be put at conifold , ,  or orbifold singularities , , . The near horizon limit of such configurations lead to either singular or non-singular spaces. Here we will examine orbifolds of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ and we will find their pp-wave limit. The corresponding limit at the conifold has been studied in , , . The type of orbifold theories we will consider are such that they lead to singularities on the wave front of the pp-wave. Some of these singularities may be resolved to a smooth Ricci flat space (leading not to flat wave fronts but rather to Ricci flat ones) and some not. We will discuss each case of $`AdS`$ background separately.

### 3.1 $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ orbifolds

This background may be embedded in 8D space-time $`M^{2,6}`$ with metric (in an obvious complex notation)

$`ds_8^2=|dZ_0|^2+|dZ_1|+|dZ_2|^2+|dZ_3|^2,`$ (15)
as the hypersurface

$`|Z_0|^2|Z_1|^2=R^2,|Z_2|^2+|Z_3|^2=R^2.`$ (16)
The parametrization

$`Z_0=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho e^{it}Z_1=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho e^{i\varphi },Z_2=R\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\psi }Z_3=R\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\chi },`$ (17)
leads directly to the metric (4). Many orbifolds of the hypersurface (16) may be taken. For example, we may consider the $`_k`$ action

$$Z_3e^{2\pi i/k}Z_3,$$

which has fixed points the cycle $`|Z_2|^2=R^2`$. The pp-wave limit is given again by eq.(5). The only difference is the periodicity of $`\chi `$ which instead being $`2\pi `$ is now $`2\pi /k`$. As a result, the wave front has been turned from $`^2`$ in the $`AdS_3\times S^3`$, to $`\times /_k`$ in the $`AdS_3\times S^3/_k`$ case. There exist a conical singularity (at $`y=0`$ in (5)) which, however, cannot be resolved. An example, where the singularity can be resolved is provided by the orbifold action

$`_k:Z_3e^{2\pi i/k}Z_3,Z_1e^{2\pi i/k}Z_1.`$ (18)
Here, the pp-wave limit is again given by the metric in (5), where now the periodicities of both $`\varphi ,\chi `$ are $`2\pi /k`$. (Orbifolds of the $`AdS`$ factor has been considered in AdS/CFT correspondence in , ). In fact, the action (18) identifies $`(\varphi ,\chi )(\varphi +2\pi /k,\chi +2\pi /k)`$. Thus, the wave front is $`^2/Z_k`$, which can be resolved by an ALE space.

Replacing $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by an ALE space is not the end of the story. We should also make sure that supergravity equations are satisfied. We will do this below for the general case by looking for background with metric and three-form RR field of the form

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}S(x^i)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_{ij}dx^idx^i,i,j=1,\mathrm{},4,`$
$`H_{+ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijmn}H_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{mn},`$ (19)
where $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric of a 4D-dimensional wave-front space $`K^4`$. The Ricci tensor is

$`R_{++}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^i_iS,R_{ij}=R_{ij}(g),`$ (20)
so that the Einstein equations

$`R_{MN}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(H_{MKL}H_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{KL}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H^2g_{MN}\right),`$ (21)
reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^i_iS={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H_{+mn}H_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{mn},`$
$`R_{ij}(g)=0.`$ (22)
In the Penrose limit of $`(AdS_3\times S^3)/_k`$ with $`_k`$ as in eq.(18), $`H_{MNP}`$ is given by eq.(5) so that

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2S(x)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_{ij}dx^idx^j,`$ (23)
where $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric of the ALE space. $`S`$ is determined by the equation

$`^i_iS=8.`$ (24)
In the case of an $`AdS_3\times S^3/_2`$ orbifold, the singular $`/_2`$ can be replaced by the Eguchi-Hanson gravitational instanton with metric

$`ds_{EH}^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1\frac{a^4}{r^4}}}+r^2(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2)+r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{r^4}}\right)\sigma _3^2.`$ (25)
The solution to eq.(24) for the EH metric then leads to the pp-wave limit of $`(AdS_3\times S^3)/_2`$

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2a^2}{r^2+a^2}}\right)))dx^+^2+ds_{EH}^2.`$ (26)
Clearly, at $`r\mathrm{}`$, the wave fronts of (26) become $`^2/_k`$ as it should. In the case of $`_kSU(2),(k>2)`$, $`^2/_k`$ should be replaced by the Gibbons-Hawking multi-center gravitational instanton with metric

$`ds_{GH}^2=V(d\tau +\stackrel{}{\omega }d\stackrel{}{x})^2+V^1d\stackrel{}{x}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (27)
where

$`V^1={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}_i|}},\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{\omega }=\stackrel{}{}V^1.`$ (28)
Then, the solution of eq.(24) will formally be given as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3x^{}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}||\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x}_i|}}.`$ (29)
It is clear, that other orbifolds $`(AdS_3\times S^3)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be considered, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2)`$ in order to preserve supersymmetry (such orbifolds preserve half the supersymmetry $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ preserves). Their pp-wave limits have then the singular wave fronts $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which can be made smooth by replacing them (after appropriate modification of the metric as shown above) by an ALE space. Such spaces may be called ALpp spaces as they are asymptotically (in the wave-front sense) locally pp-waves.

### 3.2 Orbifolds of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$

Similarly to $`AdS_3\times S^3`$, $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ can be embedded in 12D flat space-time $`M^{2,10}`$ with metric

$`ds_{12}^2=dX_0^2+dX_1^2+\mathrm{}+dX_{10}^2dX_{11}^2,`$ (30)
as the hypersurface

$`X_0^2X_1^2X_2^2X_3^2X_4^2+X_{11}^2=R^2,`$ (31)
$`|Z_1|^2+|Z_2|^2+|Z_3|^2=R^2,`$ (32)
where $`Z_1=X_5+iX_6,Z_2=X_7+iX_8,Z_3=X_9+iX_{10}`$. The parametrization of (31)

$`X_0=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}tX_{11}=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}t`$
$`X_a=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{\Omega }_a,(a=1,\mathrm{},4,{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_a^2=1),`$ (33)
with $`0\rho <\mathrm{}`$ and $`0t<2\pi `$ covers the whole of the (31) hyperboloid. Together with the angular coordinates $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$, which parametrize a unit $`S^3`$, are the global coordinates of the $`AdS_5`$. Similarly, the $`S^5`$ can be parametrized as

$`Z_1=R\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\psi },Z_2=R\mathrm{sin}\theta U_1,`$
$`Z_3=R\mathrm{sin}\theta U_2,|U_1|^2+|U_2|^2=1,`$ (34)
where $`0\theta <\pi /2`$, $`0\psi <2\pi `$ and the complex $`U_{1,2}`$ form a unit $`S^3`$. We may act now with a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the isometry group $`SO(6)SU(4)`$ of $`S^5`$. There are two distinct cases which preserve supersymmetry , . The first one is when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)SU(4)`$ and leads to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. The second case is when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2)SU(4)`$ with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. Both cases have the same Penrose limit. For concreteness, we will consider a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2)`$ acting on the coordinates $`Z_2,Z_3`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ action fixes the $`S^1`$ in $`S^5`$

$`|Z_1|^2=1Z_2=Z_3=0,`$ (35)
and thus $`S^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a singular orbifold. In the parametrization (34), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts freely on $`S^3`$ forming the space $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The latter degenerates at $`\theta =0`$ fixing the singular $`S^1`$ in eq.(35) with coordinate $`\psi `$. The Penrose limit (2) can now be taken leading to a pp-wave background

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{x}^2+\stackrel{}{y}^2)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+dy^2+y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2,`$
$`F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=4\mu ,`$ (36)
where $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$ is the metric on $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. There exists a singularity at $`y=0`$ and the Penrose limit of the $`AdS_5\times S_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ produces the singular wave fronts $`^2\times ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As orbifolding by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ breaks half the supersymmetries, the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ also breaks half, leading to 16 surviving supersymmetries. We may blow up the singularity at $`y=0`$ by replacing $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by an ALE space in such a way that the supergravity equations are still satisfied. Thus, we should look for background with metric and five-form RR field of the form

$`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}S(x^i)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_{ij}dx^idx^i,i,j=1,\mathrm{},8,`$
$`F_{+ijk\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}ϵ_{ijk\mathrm{}mnpq}F_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{mnpq},`$ (37)
where $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric of an 8D-dimensional wave-front $`K^8`$. The Einstein equations

$`R_{MN}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}F_{MKLPQ}F_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{KLPQ},`$ (38)
reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^i_iS={\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}F_{+mnpq}F_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{mnpq},`$
$`R_{ij}(g)=0.`$ (39)
In the Penrose limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`F_{MKLPQ}`$ is still given by eq.(8) so that

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{x}^2+S(y))dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+g_{\mu \nu }dy^\mu dy^\nu `$ (40)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric on the blow-up $`^2\times ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`S`$ satisfies again eq.(24).

We may also consider orbifold of the $`AdS_5`$ space , . For example, with $`\zeta _0=X_0+iX_{11},\zeta _1=X_1+iX_2,\zeta _2=x_3+iX_4`$, the $`AdS`$ hyperboloid (31) is written as

$`|\zeta _0|^2|\zeta _1|^2|\zeta _2|^2=R^2`$ (41)
The $`\zeta `$’s are expressed as

$`\zeta _0=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho e^{it},\zeta _1=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho V_1,\zeta _2=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho V_2,`$
$`|V_1|^2+|V_2|^2=1`$ (42)
where $`V_{1,2}`$ parametrize an $`S^3`$. We choose a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}SU(2)`$ which acts on $`\zeta _1,\zeta _2`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ acts freely on the $`S^3`$ of (42). The fixed point set of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ on $`AdS_5`$ is the singular $`S^1`$

$$|\zeta _0|^2=R^2,\zeta _1=\zeta _2=0$$

The Penrose limit can similarly be taken leading to the singular pp-wave background with wave front $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\times ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{x}^2+\stackrel{}{y}^2)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dx^2+x^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^{}_{}{}^{}2+dy^2+y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2,`$ (43)
$`F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=\mu ,`$ (44)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ are the metrics on $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, respectively. Again, the singularities may be blown up by replacing $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\times ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the two ALE spaces $`M^4\times N^4`$. Then, the desingularized Penrose limit of $`AdS_5/_k^{}\times S^5/_k`$ is

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\left(S(x)+T(y)\right)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+ds_M^2(x)+ds_N^2(y),`$ (45)
where $`ds_M^2(x)`$, $`ds_N^2(y)`$ are the metrics on $`M^4`$, $`N^4`$, respectively whereas $`S,T`$ satisfy

$`_{(M)}^2S=4,_{(N)}^2T=4.`$ (46)
It is also possible to consider more general orbifolds of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ geometry. For example consider $`(AdS_5\times S^5)/_k`$ defined by the $`_k`$ action

$`_k:Z_1e^{2i\pi /k}Z_1,Z_1e^{2i\pi /k}Z_1,\zeta _1e^{2i\pi a/k}\zeta _1,\zeta _2e^{2i\pi a/k}\zeta _2,`$ (47)
where $`a,k`$ relatively prime. Then, in the pp-wave limit, the singular wave fronts $`(^2\times ^2)/_k`$ are obtained, where $`_k`$ as above. It is known that the singularity in this case is terminal , . If $`a=1,k=2`$ we get 16 supersymmetries ($`𝒩=8`$) whereas if $`a=\pm 1,k>2`$ there exist only 12 surviving supersymmetries ($`𝒩=6`$). Finally, if $`a\pm 1`$, we end up with 8 supersymmetries ($`𝒩=4`$). Neither of these singularities have Calabi-Yau resolutions.

The Penrose limits of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ orbifolds are by now more or less clear. Defining the pp-wave limit of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space by the hypersurface in $`M^{2,10}`$

$`X_{10}X_{11}=\left(X_0+X_9\right)^2,`$ (48)
$`X_{10}+X_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{8}}\left(X_1^2+X_2^2+\mathrm{}+X_8^2\right),`$ (49)
as discussed in the appendix, the orbifolds we have considered above are in fact orbifolds of $`^4`$ with coordinates $`Z_1,Z_2,\zeta _1,\zeta _2`$ defined above. We have only consider some special cases of such possible orbifolds. However, it is natural to assume that there exists a larger class of $`^4`$ orbifolds (containing the ones we have discussed above) which are wave fronts of Penrose limits of associated $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ orbifolds. By desingularizing the $`^4`$ orbifolds, we may obtain smooth pp-wave limits of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ orbifolds, where the locally flat wave fronts are replaced by Ricci-flat ones of appropriate holonomy in order supersymmetry to be preserved.

### 3.3 $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ orbifolds

As in the previous cases, $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ can be embedded in $`M^{2,11}`$ with metric

$`ds_{12}^2=dX_0^2+dX_1^2+\mathrm{}+dX_{10}^2+dX_{11}^2dX_{12}^2,`$ (50)
as the hypersurface

$`X_0^2X_1^2X_2^2X_3^2+X_{12}^2=R^2,`$ (51)
$`|Z_1|^2+|Z_2|^2+|Z_3|^2+|Z_4|^2=4R^2.`$ (52)
where $`Z_1=X_4+iX_5,Z_2=X_6+iX_7,Z_3=X_8+iX_9,Z_4=X_{10}+iX_{11}`$. The parametrization of (51)

$`X_0=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}t,X_{12}=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}t,`$
$`X_a=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{\Omega }_a,(a=1,\mathrm{},3,{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_a^2=1),`$ (53)
with $`0\rho <\mathrm{}`$ and $`0t<2\pi `$ covers the whole of the (51) hyperboloid. The angular coordinates $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$ parametrize a unit $`S^2`$ and together with $`\rho ,t`$ are the global coordinates of the $`AdS_4`$. Similarly, the $`S^7`$ in eq.(52) can be parametrized as

$`Z_1=R\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\psi },Z_a=R\mathrm{sin}\theta U_a,(a=1,2,3)`$
$`|U_1|^2+|U_2|^2+|U_3|^2=1`$ (54)
where $`0\theta <\pi /2`$, $`0\psi <2\pi `$ and the complex $`U_{1,2,3}`$ form a unit $`S^5`$.

We may now consider orbifolds $`AdS_4\times S^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(4)`$ as in . Such orbifolds acts freely on the $`S^5`$ of eq.(54) but not freely on $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ as the hypersurface $`\theta =0`$ is the fixed point set of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In order that supersymmetry is preserved, we should take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)SU(4)`$ (1/4 supersymmetry) or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2)`$ (1/2 supersymmetry). The pp-wave limit of the above orbifolds is the background (8) but now the $`S^5`$ metric $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$ is replaced with the metric on $`S^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus, the wave fronts are not any more $`^9`$ but $`^3\times ^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We may replace in this case the singular $`^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with an ALE space of $`SU(3)`$ holonomy (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$) getting a smooth pp-wave background. The metric is then

$`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2((\stackrel{}{x}^2+S(x^i))dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+g_{ij}dx^idx^i,i,j=1,\mathrm{},6,`$ (55)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is in $`^3`$, $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric on the ALE space and $`S(x^i)`$ satisfies

$`^i_iS=3`$ (56)
In the special case where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_3SU(3)`$, we may use the ALE space described in the appendix B. In this case, the desingularized pp-wave limit of $`AdS_4\times S^7/_3`$ turns out to be

$`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{24}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^4+r^42L^2r^2}{L^4+r^4+L^2r^2}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{4\sqrt{3}}}\{\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{2r+L}{2\sqrt{3}}})\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{2rL}{2\sqrt{3}}})\})dx^+^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+d\sigma ^2`$ (57)
where $`d\sigma ^2`$ is the metric (89). Clearly, at $`r\mathrm{}`$ we recover the $`^3\times ^3/_3`$ wave fronts.

### 3.4 $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ orbifolds

We may repeat the same procedure as above in the present case as well. We may embed this background in $`M^{2,11}`$ as before with the role of $`AdS_4`$ and $`S^7`$ interchanged. There exist only one orbifold of $`S^4`$ which preserves supersymmetry. It is the $`S^4/_2`$ where $`_2`$ acts on the $`S^2`$ with metric $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ in eq.(12). However, this orbifold is singular at $`y=0`$ and it cannot be resolved. Of course, one may consider orbifolds of the $`AdS_7`$ factor but we will not go into details as this case is similar to the ones already studied above. We should only mention that although $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ and $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ have the same Penrose limits, their orbifolds do not share the same property.

## 4 pp-waves from $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ orientifold

The $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ orientifold is the near horizon limit of D3-branes at orientifold planes. The study of D3 branes at orientifolds is similar to orbifolds (See for example ). The only difference is the twisted sector which is absent for orientifolds. We will first consider the near horizon of D3-branes on an O3-plane. As the O3-plane breaks the same supersymmetries with the D3, in the near horizon we will have again the maximum 32 unbroken supersymmetries. The near horizon geometry is actually $`AdS_5\times ^5`$ where $`^5=S^5/_2`$. The $`_2`$ acts by identifying opposite points on the $`S^5`$ so that there are no fixed points. As a string goes around a non contractible cycle, connecting opposite points in $`^5`$, it reverses its orientation which is a manifestation of the orientifold projection. There are two types of the orientifold projection. One leads to $`SO(2N)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ theory for $`N`$ D3-branes on the O3-plane, while the other leads to an $`USp(2N)`$ theory. These different sting theories are implemented in the $`AdS_5\times ^5`$ setup by turning on $`B_{NSNS}`$ 2-form (discrete torsion) in the non-trivial cohomology class $`H^3(^5,\stackrel{~}{})=_2`$ . The metric of the $`AdS_5\times ^5`$ geometry is

$`ds^2=R^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\stackrel{~}{\psi }^2\right)`$ (58)
where $`0\stackrel{~}{\psi }<\pi `$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$ is the metic on $`^3=S^3/_2`$. The Penrose limit is then

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{x}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{}{y}^2)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+dy^2+y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2.`$ (59)
It is clear that the wave fronts have an $`A_1`$ singularity and are $`^2\times ^2/_2`$. The singular $`^2/_2`$ can be replaced by the Eguchi-Hanson and following the discussion in section 2, the smooth pp-wave limit of $`AdS_5\times ^5`$ is

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{x}^2+r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ar}{a+r}}\right)))dx^+^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+ds_{EH}^2`$ (60)
where $`ds_{EH}^2`$ is the Eguchi-Hanson metric.

Next, we will consider the near horizon limit of $`N`$ D3-branes on an orientifold O7-plane. We will also put D7-branes sitting together with the D3’s so that the dilaton is constant and the low-energy theory is conformal ,,  . At generic point in the D7-brane moduli space, we have non-conformal field theories living on the D3-branes. There exist 7 different types of singularities which give rise to constant dilaton. These are the Argyres-Douglas points $`H_0,H_1`$ , and $`H_2`$ with $`A_0,A_1,`$ and $`A_2`$ gauge theories on the D7 and $`D_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ theories resulting from corresponding singularities in F-theory. Among these singularities, only the $`D_4`$ can occur for any value of the dilaton. All the others appear at fixed, order one, string coupling. The resulting field theory of coincident $`N`$ D3 and D7-branes at a $`D_4`$ singularity is $`𝒩=2`$ $`USp(2N)`$ SYM theory with a hypermultiplet in the anti-symmetric representation and four hypermultiplets in the fundamental. The $`_2`$ action has now fixed points on the $`S^5`$. In fact, the fixed point set (where both the O7 and the D7’s are) is $`AdS_5\times S^3`$. The supergravity description of D3-branes near D7-brane singularities has been described in  (for $`D_4,E_6,E_7,E_8`$) and the metric can be written as

$`R^2ds^2=d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\psi ^2+`$
$`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \left(d\omega ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\omega d\chi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\omega d\varphi ^2\right),`$ (61)
where $`0\theta <\pi /2`$ and $`\varphi `$ is periodic with period $`2\pi (1\alpha /2)`$. The values of $`\alpha `$ are $`\alpha =\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{3},1,\frac{4}{3},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{3}`$, for $`A_0,A_1,A_2,D_4,E_6,E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ . The B-fields have generally $`SL(2,)`$ monodromies around the $`\varphi `$-circle.

We may now consider the standard Penrose limit as in eq.(2). For this we may first replace $`\theta `$ with $`\theta \pi /2`$ and then take the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ after the transformation eq.(7). However, this limit leads to the background in eq.(8). Moreover, the monodromies of the B-fields are washed out. However, there exist another limit which preserves the singularities. Defining the coordinates

$`x^+={\displaystyle \frac{t+\psi }{2}},x^{}=R^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t\psi }{2}}\right),x=R\rho ,y=R\theta ,w=R\omega `$ (62)
and taking $`R\mathrm{}`$, we end up with the pp-wave limit of (61)

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(x^2+y^2+w^2)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+dx^2+x^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+`$
$`dy^2+y^2d\chi ^2+dw^2+w^2d\varphi ^2.`$ (63)
This can be written as

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\left(\stackrel{}{r}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|z|^{2\alpha }}{(1\frac{\alpha }{2})^2}}\right)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{r}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|dz|^2}{|z|^\alpha }}.`$ (64)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is in $`^6`$. Clearly then, the wave-front geometry is $`^3\times /_n`$ where $`n=2,3,4,6`$ for D3-branes near $`D_4,E_6,E_7`$ and $`E_8`$ singularities in F-theory.

## 5 Conclusions

We presented above various orbifolds of $`AdS_3\times S^3`$, $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`AdS_{4,7}\times S^{7,4}`$ as well as orientifolds of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. The limiting pp-waves are in general singular. Some of them can be desingularized by replacing their wave fronts (where the singularities are located) by Ricci flat spaces of appropriate holonomy in order to preserve supersymmetry. There exist two ways to view these orbifolds, either as the limiting spaces of $`AdS_p\times S^q/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ orbifolds, or as orbifolds of the pp-wave limit of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$. In the latter case, we recall from appendix A that, in general, a D-dimensional pp-wave background can be embedded in $`M^{2,D}`$ flat space-time as

$`X_DX_{D+1}=\left(X_0+X_{D1}\right)`$
$`X_D+X_{D+1}=S(X^i),i=1,\mathrm{},D2.`$ (65)
We may then consider a discrete action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(D2)`$ on the wave-front coordinates $`X^i`$. Depending on the geometry of the wave fronts, these orbifolds may or may not preserve supersymmetry. The orbifolds we have considered here are all supersymmetric.

## Appendix A Embedding the pp-waves in higher dimensions

$`AdS_5\times S^5`$ which can be embedded in the flat 12D space-time $`M^{2,10}`$ of $`(,+,+,\mathrm{}+,)`$ signature and metric

$`ds_{12}^2=dX_0^2+dX_1^2+\mathrm{}.+dX_{10}^2dX_{11}^2`$ (66)
Similarly, it is straightforward to show that the pp-wave background

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{r}^2dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{r}^2`$ (67)
can be embedded in $`M^{2,10}`$ as the hypersurface

$`X_{10}X_{11}=\left(X_0+X_9\right)^2,`$ (68)
$`X_{10}+X_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{8}}\left(X_1^2+X_2^2+\mathrm{}+X_8^2\right)`$ (69)
Parametrizing the above hypersurface by

$`X_1=x_1,X_2=x_2,\mathrm{}X_8=x_8,`$ (70)
$`X_0=\mu ^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+\mathrm{}+x_8^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{x^+}{4}}+x^{}+x^+,`$ (71)
$`X_9=\mu ^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+\mathrm{}+x_8^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{x^+}{4}}x^{}+x^+,`$ (72)
$`X_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{16}}(x_1^2+x_2^2+\mathrm{}+x_8^2)+2x^+{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (73)
$`X_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{16}}(x_1^2+x_2^2+\mathrm{}+x_8^2)2x^+{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (74)
leads to the pp wave metric (67).

More general, the D-dimensional pp-wave metric

$`ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}8S(x^i)dx_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{r}^2,i=1,\mathrm{},D2`$ (75)
can be embedded in the (D+2)-dimensional flat space time $`M^{2,D}`$ with metric

$`ds_{12}^2=dX_0^2+dX_1^2+\mathrm{}.+dX_D^2dX_{D+1}^2,`$ (76)
as

$`X_DX_{D+1}=\left(X_0+X_{D1}\right)^2,`$ (77)
$`X_D+X_{D+1}=S(X^i),`$ (78)
which can be parametrized as

$`X_1=x_1,X_2=x_2,\mathrm{}X_{D2}=x_{D2},`$ (79)
$`X_0=2Sx^++x^{}+x^+,X_{D1}=2Sx^+x^{}+x^+,`$ (80)
$`X_D={\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}+2x^+{}_{}{}^{2},X_{D+1}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}2x^+{}_{}{}^{2}.`$ (81)
Emmbeding of the pp-wave as intersection of quadratic surfaces in $`M^{2,D}`$ has been discussed in .

## Appendix B A desingularized $`^3/_3`$ space

We will describe the metric of a non-compact 6D space with holonomy $`SU(3)`$ which is asymptotically $`^3/_3`$. For this, we start by considering the five-dimensional sphere $`S^5`$, which is the surface

$$Z_1\overline{Z}_1+Z_2\overline{Z}_2+Z_3\overline{Z}_3=1,$$

embedded in $`^3`$. By expressing the $`Z`$’s as

$`Z_1={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\tau }}{(1+r^2)^{1/2}}},Z_2={\displaystyle \frac{re^{i(\tau +\frac{\chi +\phi }{2})}}{(1+r^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}},Z_3={\displaystyle \frac{re^{i(\tau +\frac{\chi \phi }{2})}}{(1+r^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}},`$ (82)
the metric of the $`S^5`$ turns out to be

$`ds^2(S^5)=d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2+(d\tau +A)^2,`$ (83)
where

$`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{(1+r^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{(1+r^2)}}\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{(1+r^2)^2}}\left(d\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi \right)^2,`$ (84)
$`A={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2(1+r^2)}}\left(d\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi \right).`$ (85)
The metric $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ is just the metric of $`^2`$ and eq.(84) makes manifest the Hopf-fibration of $`S^5`$, that is a $`U(1)`$ bundle over $`^2`$. We may search for $`SU(3)`$-holonomy manifolds by making the ansatz

$`d\sigma ^2=f(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2+r^2h(r)(d\tau +A)^2,`$ (86)
where $`r`$ is a radial coordinate and $`f(r),h(r)`$ are functions of $`r`$ which will be determined by demanding the manifold to be Ricci flat. Indeed, the Ricci-flatness condition for this geometry, turns out to be, for $`f=1/h`$, the single equation

$`r^2hh^{\prime \prime }+3rhh^{}+r^2h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4h^2=0.`$ (87)
The asymptotically locally flat solution of this equation is

$`h(r)=1{\displaystyle \frac{L^6}{r^6}}`$ (88)
and the metric is

$`d\sigma ^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1\frac{L^6}{r^6}}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2+r^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{L^6}{r^6}})(d\tau +A)^2.`$ (89)
It seems that a singularity exist at $`r=L`$, which as one suspects can be cured. At $`r=L`$ we get

$`ds^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(du^2+9u^2(d\tau +A)^2\right)+L^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_4^2`$ (90)
and there exist a conical singularity, which is removed if the periodicity of $`\tau `$ is not $`2\pi `$ as it seems from (82), but rather $`2\pi /3`$. As a result, although at $`r\mathrm{}`$ the space is flat, it is not globally flat in view of the $`\tau `$ periodicity. In fact it is an ALE space, asymptotically $`^3/_3`$. That it is of $`SU(3)`$ holonomy can also be proven without much effort.

Note Added During the completion of this work, we became aware of the works ,  and  where superstring on $`AdS_5\times S^5/_N`$ orbifolds are studied.

###### Acknowledgments.

This work is partially supported by the European RTN networks HPRN-CT-2000-00122 and HPRN-CT-2000-00131.


text:
# Optical and transport properties in doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet

## Abstract

Within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, the optical and transport properties of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet are studied based on the fermion-spin theory. It is shown that the optical and transport properties of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet are mainly governed by the holon scattering. The low energy peak in the optical conductivity is located at a finite energy, while the resistivity exhibits a crossover from the high temperature metallic-like behavior to the low temperature insulating-like behavior, which are consistent with the experiments.

The undoped cuprate superconductors are typical Mott insulators with the antiferromagnetic (AF) long-range-order (AFLRO) . A small amount of carrier doping to this Mott insulating state drives the metal-insulator transition and directly results in the superconducting transition at low temperatures for low carrier dopings. In the underdoped and optimally doped regimes, the normal state above superconducting transition temperature shows many unusual properties in the sense that they do not fit in the conventional Fermi-liquid theory, and these unusual normal state properties of the cuprate superconductors are closely related to the special microscopic conditions, i.e., Cu ions situated in a square-planar arrangement and bridged by oxygen ions, weak coupling between neighboring layers, and doping in such a way that the Fermi level lies near the middle of the Cu-O $`\sigma ^{}`$ bond . One common feature of these cuprate compounds is the square-planar Cu arrangement . It is believed that the two-dimensional (2D) anisotropy is prominent in the cuprate superconductors due to the layered perovskite structure, and strong quantum fluctuations with suppression of AFLRO are key aspects . However, it has been reported recently that some copper oxide materials, such as Sr14Cu24O41, do not contain CuO2 planes common to the cuprate superconductors but consist of two-leg Cu2O3 ladders and edge-sharing CuO2 chains . Moreover, the isovalent substitution of Ca for Sr increases the hole density on the ladders by a transfer of preexisting holes in the charge reservoir layers composed of CuO2 chains, and then the two-leg ladder copper oxide material Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 is superconductor under pressure . Moreover, the experimental data show that the normal state is far from the standard Fermi-liquid behavior . The neutron scattering and muon spin resonance measurements on the compound Sr14Cu24O41 indicate the system is the antiferromagnet with the short-range spin order , while the transport measurements on the material Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 show that the behavior of the temperature dependent resistivity is characterized by a crossover from the high temperature metallic-like to the low temperature insulating-like , which may be in common with these of the heavily underdoped cuprate superconducting materials . Further, it has been shown  from the experiments that the ratio of the interladder to in-ladder resistivities is $`R=\rho _a(T)/\rho _c(T)10`$, this large magnitude of the resistivity anisotropy reflects that the interladder mean free path is shorter than the interladder distance, and the carriers are tightly confined to the ladders, and also is the evidence of the incoherent transport in the interladder direction, therefore the common two-leg ladders in the ladder materials clearly dominate the most normal state properties. These ladder copper oxide materials also are natural extensions of the Cu-O chain compounds towards the CuO2 sheet structures. Other two-leg ladder compounds have also been found , such as experiments suggest the realization of the two-leg ladder spin-one-half antiferromagnet in (VO)2P2O7. On the theoretical hand, the two-leg ladder antiferromagnet may therefore be regarded as realizations of the unique, coherent resonating valence bond spin liquid, which may play a crucial role in the superconductivity of the cuprate superconductors as emphasized by Anderson . Therefore it is very important to investigate the normal state properties of the doped two-leg ladder system by a systematic approach since it may get deeper insights into the still not fully understood anomalous normal state of the cuprate superconductors.

Many researchers have argued successfully that the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, acting on the Hilbert space with no doubly occupied site, provides a consistent description of the physical properties of the doped antiferromagnet . Within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, the normal state properties of the cuprate superconductors have been studied , and the results show that the unusual normal state properties in the cuprate superconductors are caused by the strong electron correlation. Since the strong electron correlation is common for both cuprate superconductors and doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet, then the unconventional normal state properties in the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet may be similar to these in the cuprate superconductors. In this paper, we study the optical and transport properties of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. Our results show that the low energy peak in the optical conductivity is located at a finite energy ($`\omega 0.2t`$), while the resistivity exhibits a crossover from the high temperature metallic-like behavior to the low temperature insulating-like behavior.

The basic element of the two-leg ladder materials is the two-leg ladder, which is defined as two parallel chains of ions, with bonds among them such that the interchain coupling is comparable in strength to the couplings along the chains, while the coupling between the two chains that participates in this structure is through rungs . In this case, the $`t`$-$`J`$ model on the two-leg ladder is expressed as,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }a\sigma }{}}C_{ia\sigma }^{}C_{i+\widehat{\eta }a\sigma }t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}(C_{i1\sigma }^{}C_{i2\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{ia\sigma }{}}C_{ia\sigma }^{}C_{ia\sigma }+J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }a}{}}𝐒_{ia}𝐒_{i+\widehat{\eta }a}+J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐒_{i1}𝐒_{i2},`$ (2)
where $`\widehat{\eta }=\pm c_0`$, $`c_0`$ is the lattice constant of the two-leg ladder lattice, which is set as the unit hereafter, $`i`$ runs over all rungs, $`\sigma (=,)`$ and $`a(=1,2)`$ are spin and leg indices, respectively, $`C_{ia\sigma }^{}`$ ($`C_{ia\sigma }`$) are the electron creation (annihilation) operators, $`𝐒_{ia}=C_{ia}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }C_{ia}/2`$ are the spin operators with $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$ as the Pauli matrices, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. This $`t`$-$`J`$ model is supplemented by the on-site single occupancy local constraint $`_\sigma C_{ia\sigma }^{}C_{ia\sigma }1`$. The two-leg ladder with $`c`$ and $`a`$ axes parallel to ladders and rungs, respectively, is sketched in Fig. 1. In the materials of interest, the exchange coupling $`J_{}`$ along the legs is nearly the same as the exchange coupling $`J_{}`$ across a rung, and similarly the hopping $`t_{}`$ along the legs is close to the rung hopping strength $`t_{}`$, therefore, in the following discussions, we will work with the isotropic system, $`J_{}=J_{}=J`$, $`t_{}=t_{}=t`$.

In the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, the strong electron correlation is reflected by the local constraint. To incorporate this local constraint, the fermion-spin theory based on the charge-spin separation, $`C_{ia}=h_{ia}^{}S_{ia}^{}`$, $`C_{ia}=h_{ia}^{}S_{ia}^+`$, has been proposed , where the spinless fermion operator $`h_{ia}`$ keeps track of the charge (holon), while the pseudospin operator $`S_{ia}`$ keeps track of the spin (spinon), and then the local constraint can be treated properly in analytical calculations. Within this fermion-spin representation, the low-energy behavior of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model (1) can be rewritten as,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }a}{}}h_{i+\widehat{\eta }a}^{}h_{ia}(S_{ia}^+S_{i+\widehat{\eta }a}^{}+S_{ia}^{}S_{i+\widehat{\eta }a}^+)+t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(h_{i1}^{}h_{i2}+h_{i2}^{}h_{i1})(S_{i1}^+S_{i2}^{}+S_{i1}^{}S_{i2}^+)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{ia}{}}h_{ia}^{}h_{ia}+J_{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\widehat{\eta }a}{}}𝐒_{ia}𝐒_{i+\widehat{\eta }a}+J_{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐒_{i1}𝐒_{i2},`$ (4)
where $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}=J[(1\delta )^2\varphi _{}^2]`$, $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}=J[(1\delta )^2\varphi _{}^2]`$, the holon particle-hole order parameters $`\varphi _{}=h_{ia}^{}h_{i+\widehat{\eta }a}`$, $`\varphi _{}=h_{i1}^{}h_{i2}`$, $`\delta `$ is the hole doping concentration, and $`S_i^+`$ and $`S_i^{}`$ are the pseudospin raising and lowering operators, respectively. Since the local constraint has been treated properly in the framework of the fermion-spin theory, then the extra gauge degree of freedom related with the electron on-site local constraint under the charge-spin separation does not appear. In this case, the spin fluctuation couples only to spinons, while the charge fluctuation couples only to holons, but the strong correlation between holons and spinons is still considered through the holon’s order parameters entering the spinon’s propagator and the spinon’s order parameters entering the holon’s propagator, therefore both holons and spinons contribute to the charge dynamics. In this case, the optical and transport properties of the doped cupares have been discussed , and the results are consistent with the experiments . Following their discussions , the optical conductivity of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet can be expressed as,

$`\sigma _c(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(h)}(\omega )}{\omega }},`$ (5)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(h)}(\omega )`$ is the holon current-current correlation function, which are defined as, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(h)}(\tau \tau ^{})=T_\tau j^{(h)}(\tau )j^{(h)}(\tau ^{})`$, where $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are the imaginary times, and $`T_\tau `$ is the $`\tau `$ order operator. Within the $`t`$-$`J`$ Hamiltonian (2), the current densities of holons is obtained by the time derivation of the polarization operator using Heisenberg’s equation of motion as, $`j^{(h)}=2\chi _{}et_{ai\widehat{\eta }}\widehat{\eta }h_{ai+\widehat{\eta }}^{}h_{ai}+2\chi _{}et_i(R_{2i}R_{1i})(h_{2i}^{}h_{1i}h_{1i}^{}h_{2i})`$, where $`R_{1i}`$ and $`R_{2i}`$ are lattice sites of the leg $`1`$ and leg $`2`$, respectively, the spinon correlation functions $`\chi _{}=S_{ai}^+S_{ai+\widehat{\eta }}^{}`$, $`\chi _{}=S_{1i}^+S_{2i}^{}`$, and $`e`$ is the electronic charge, which is set as the unit hereafter. This holon current-current correlation function can be calculated in terms of the holon Green’s function $`g(k,\omega )`$. However, in the two-leg ladder system, because there are two coupled $`t`$-$`J`$ chains, then the energy spectrum has two branches. In this case, the one-particle holon Green’s function is the matrix, and can be expressed as $`g(ij,\tau \tau ^{})=g_L(ij,\tau \tau ^{})+\sigma _xg_T(ij,\tau \tau ^{})`$, where the longitudinal and transverse parts are defined as $`g_L(ij,\tau \tau ^{})=T_\tau h_{ai}(\tau )h_{aj}^{}(\tau ^{})`$ and $`g_T(ij,\tau \tau ^{})=T_\tau h_{ai}(\tau )h_{a^{}j}^{}(\tau ^{})`$ ($`aa^{}`$), respectively. Then after a straightforward calculation , we obtain the optical conductivity of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet as,

$`\sigma _c(\omega )=\sigma _c^{(L)}(\omega )+\sigma _c^{(T)}(\omega ),`$ (6)
with the longitudinal and transverse parts are given by,

$`\sigma _c^{(L)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`4t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(4\chi _{}^2\mathrm{sin}^2k+\chi _{}^2){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}A_L^{(h)}(k,\omega ^{}+\omega )A_L^{(h)}(k,\omega ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{n_F(\omega ^{}+\omega )n_F(\omega ^{})}{\omega }},`$ (8)
$`\sigma _c^{(T)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`4t^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(4\chi _{}^2\mathrm{sin}^2k\chi _{}^2){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}A_T^{(h)}(k,\omega ^{}+\omega )A_T^{(h)}(k,\omega ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{n_F(\omega ^{}+\omega )n_F(\omega ^{})}{\omega }},`$ (9)
respectively, where $`L`$ is the number of rungs, $`n_F(\omega )`$ is the fermion distribution function, and the longitudinal and transverse holon spectral function $`A_L^{(h)}(k,\omega )`$ and $`A_T^{(h)}(k,\omega )`$ are obtained as, $`A_L^{(h)}(k,\omega )=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}g_L(k,\omega )`$ and $`A_T^{(h)}(k,\omega )=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}g_T(k,\omega )`$, respectively, the full holon Green’s function $`g^1(k,\omega )=g^{(0)1}(k,\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(h)}(k,\omega )`$ with the longitudinal and transverse mean-field holon Green’s function $`g_L^{(0)}(k,\omega )=1/2_\nu 1/(\omega \xi _k^{(\nu )})`$ and $`g_T^{(0)}(k,\omega )=1/2_\nu (1)^{\nu +1}1/(\omega \xi _k^{(\nu )})`$, where $`\nu =1,2`$, while the longitudinal and transverse second-order holon self-energy from the spinon pair bubble are obtained by the loop expansion to the second-order  as,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{t}{N}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(k,p,q,\omega ),`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_T(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{t}{N}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{}}(1)^{\nu +\nu ^{}+\nu ^{\prime \prime }+1}\mathrm{\Xi }_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(k,p,q,\omega ),`$ (11)
respectively, with $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(k,p,q,\omega )`$ is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}(k,p,q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{B_{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}B_q^{(\nu )}}{32\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}\omega _q^{(\nu )}}}(2[\gamma _{q+p+k}+\gamma _{qk}]+[(1)^{\nu +\nu ^{\prime \prime }}+(1)^{\nu ^{}+\nu ^{\prime \prime }}])^2({\displaystyle \frac{F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(1)}(k,p,q)}{\omega +\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}\omega _q^{(\nu )}\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })}}}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(2)}(k,p,q)}{\omega \omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}+\omega _q^{(\nu )}\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(3)}(k,p,q)}{\omega +\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}+\omega _q^{(\nu )}\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(4)}(k,p,q)}{\omega \omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}\omega _q^{(\nu )}\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })}}}),`$ (13)
where $`\gamma _k=\mathrm{cos}k`$, $`\lambda =4J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`ϵ_{}=1+2t\varphi _{}/J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`ϵ_{}=1+4t\varphi _{}/J_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and

$`B_k^{(\nu )}`$ $`=`$ $`B_kJ_{\mathrm{eff}}[\chi _{}+2\chi _{}^z(1)^\nu ][ϵ_{}+(1)^\nu ],`$ (15)
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda [(2ϵ_{}\chi _{}^z+\chi _{})\gamma _k(ϵ_{}\chi _{}+2\chi _{}^z)],`$ (16)
$`F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(1)}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`n_F(\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })})[n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})]+n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})[1+n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})],`$ (17)
$`F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(2)}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`n_F(\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })})[n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})]+n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})[1+n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})],`$ (18)
$`F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(3)}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`n_F(\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })})[1+n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})+n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})]+n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})}),`$ (19)
$`F_{\nu \nu ^{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(4)}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`[1+n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})][1+n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})]n_F(\xi _{p+k}^{(\nu ^{\prime \prime })})[1+n_B(\omega _{q+p}^{(\nu ^{})})+n_B(\omega _q^{(\nu )})],`$ (20)
with $`n_B(\omega _k^{(\nu )})`$ is the boson distribution functions, the MF holon excitations $`\xi _k^{(\nu )}=4t\chi _{}\gamma _k+\mu +2\chi _{}t(1)^{\nu +1}`$, and the MF spinon excitations,

$`\omega _k^{(\nu )2}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ϵ_{}\lambda ^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _{}+ϵ_{}\chi _{}^z)\gamma _k^2ϵ_{}\lambda ^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{}\chi _{}+\chi _{}^z)+\alpha (C_{}^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\alpha )]\gamma _k`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ϵ_{}\lambda J_{\mathrm{eff}}(C_{}+ϵ_{}\chi _{})\gamma _k+\alpha \lambda J_{\mathrm{eff}}(1)^{\nu +1}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_{}\chi _{}+ϵ_{}\chi _{})+ϵ_{}ϵ_{}(\chi _{}^z+\chi _{}^z)]\gamma _k`$ (22)
$``$ $`\alpha ϵ_{}\lambda J_{\mathrm{eff}}(C_{}^z+\chi _{}^z)\gamma _k+\lambda ^2[\alpha (C_{}^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{}^2C_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(1\alpha )(1+ϵ_{}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ϵ_{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _{}+ϵ_{}\chi _{}^z)]`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`\alpha \lambda J_{\mathrm{eff}}[ϵ_{}ϵ_{}C_{}+2C_{}^z]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}J_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(ϵ_{}^2+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{}J_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(1)^{\nu +1}`$ (24)
$``$ $`\alpha \lambda J_{\mathrm{eff}}(1)^{\nu +1}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{}ϵ_{}\chi _{}+ϵ_{}(\chi _{}^z+C_{}^z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{}C_{}],`$ (25)
with the spinon correlation functions $`\chi _{}^z=S_{ai}^zS_{ai+\widehat{\eta }}^z`$, $`\chi _{}^z=S_{1i}^zS_{2i}^z`$, $`C_{}=(1/4)_{\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\eta ^{}}}S_{ai+\widehat{\eta }}^+S_{ai+\widehat{\eta ^{}}}^{}`$, and $`C_{}^z=(1/4)_{\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\eta ^{}}}S_{ai+\widehat{\eta }}^zS_{ai+\widehat{\eta ^{}}}^z`$, $`C_{}=(1/2)_{\widehat{\eta }}S_{2i}^+S_{1i+\widehat{\eta }}^{}`$, and $`C_{}^z=(1/2)_{\widehat{\eta }}S_{1i}^zS_{2i+\widehat{\eta }}^z`$. In order not to violate the sum rule of the correlation function $`S_{ai}^+S_{ai}^{}=1/2`$ in the case without AFLRO, the important decoupling parameter $`\alpha `$ has been introduced in the mean-field calculation, which can be regarded as the vertex correction . All the above mean-field order parameters have been determined by the self-consistent calculation .

Now we discuss the optical and transport properties of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet. The optical conductivity of the doped Mott insulator in principle consists of three different pieces: (1) the Drude absorption, (2) absorption across the Mott-Hubbard gap which rapidly decreases in intensity upon doping, and (3) an absorption continuum within the gap, which reflects the strong coupling between charge carriers and spin excitations. In Fig. 2, we plot the optical conductivity $`\sigma _c(\omega )`$ at doping (a) $`\delta =0.16`$ and (b) $`\delta =0.20`$ for parameter $`t/J=2.5`$ with temperature $`T=0`$ in comparison with the corresponding experimental data  taken on Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 (inset), where the hole density on the ladders in $`x=8`$ and $`x=11`$ is $`\delta =0.16`$ and $`\delta =0.20`$ per ladder Cu, respectively. From Fig. 2, we find the optical conductivity consists of two bands separated at $`\omega 0.5t`$, the higher-energy band, corresponding to the midinfrared band, shows a weak peak at $`\omega 0.8t`$, unlike a Drude peak which dominates in the conductivity spectrum of the doped cuprate superconductors, the lower-energy peak in the present ladder systems is located at a finite energy $`\omega 0.2t`$, while the extremely small continuum absorption is consistent with the notion of the charge-spin separation. These behaviors are in agreement with the experimental results of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet . In the above calculations, we also find that the optical conductivity $`\sigma _c(\omega )`$ of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet is essentially determined by its longitudinal part $`\sigma _c^{(L)}(\omega )`$, this is why in the present ladder systems the midinfrared band is much weaker than the low energy band, and conductivity spectrum appears to reflect the one-dimensional nature of the electronic state . This conductivity of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet has been discussed by Kim  based on a model of hole pairs forming a strongly correlated liquid, where quantum interference effects are handled using renormalization group methods, and then the main low-energy features of the experiments are reproduced. Our results in low-energy are also consistent with his results.

With the help of the optical conductivity (4), the resistivity can be obtained as $`\rho _c=1/lim_{\omega 0}\sigma _c(\omega )`$. The result of $`\rho _c`$ at doping $`\delta =0.16`$ (solid line) and $`\delta =0.20`$ (dashed line) for parameter $`t/J=2.5`$ is shown in Fig. 3 in comparison with the corresponding experimental results  taken on Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 (inset). Our results show that the behavior of the temperature dependence of $`\rho _c(T)`$ exhibits a crossover from the high temperature metallic-like to the low temperature insulating-like, but the metallic-like temperature dependence dominates over a wide temperature range, in agreement with the corresponding experimental data . The present result also indicates that the behaviors of $`\rho _c(T)`$ in the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet are very similar to these of the heavily underdoped cuprate superconducting materials  perhaps since both materials have almost same microscopic energy scales and owe to the common corner-sharing CuO4 networks.

In the above discussions, the central concern of the optical and transport properties in the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet is the quasi-one dimensionality of the electron state, then the optical and transport properties are mainly determined by the longitudinal charged holon fluctuation. Our present study also indicates that the observed crossovers of $`\rho _c`$ for the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet seems to be connected with the pseudogap in the charge holon excitations, which can be understood from the physical property of the holon density of states (DOS), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L(\omega )=1/N_kA_L^{(h)}(k,\omega )`$. This holon DOS has been calculated, and the result at doping $`\delta =0.16`$ for parameter $`t/J=2.5`$ with temperature $`T=0`$ is plotted in Fig. 4. We therefore find that the holon DOS consists of a U-shape pseudogap near the chemical potential $`\mu `$. For the better understanding of the property of this U-shape pseudogap, we plot the phase diagram $`T^{}\delta `$ at parameter $`t/J=2.5`$ in Fig. 5, where $`T^{}`$ marks the development of the pseudogap in the holon DOS. As seen from Fig. 5, this pseudogap is doping and temperature dependent, and grows monotonously as the doping $`\delta `$ decreases, and disappear in higher doping. Moreover, this pseudogap decreases with increasing temperatures, and vanishes at higher temperatures. Since the full holon Green’s function (then the holon spectral function and DOS) is obtained by considering the second-order correction due to the spinon pair bubble, then the holon pseudogap is closely related to the spinon fluctuation. This holon pseudogap would reduce the holon scattering and thus is responsible for the metallic to insulating crossover in the resistivity $`\rho _c`$. While in the region where the holon pseudogap closes at high temperatures, the charged holon scattering would give rise to the metallic temperature dependence of the resistivity.

In summary, we have studied the optical and transport properties of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet within the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. Our result shows the optical and transport properties of the doped two-leg ladder antiferromagnet are mainly governed by the charged holon scattering. The low energy peak in the optical conductivity is located at a finite energy, while the resistivity exhibits a crossover from the high temperature metallic-like behavior to the low temperature insulating-like behavior, in agreement with the experiments.

Finally, we emphasize that in the above discussions, only the results of the doped isotropic two-leg ladder system are presented. However, we  have also studied the physical properties of the anisotropic system, i.e., $`J_{}<J_{}`$ and $`t_{}<t_{}`$. In this case, the interference effects between two legs are decreased with decreasing the values of $`J_{}/J_{}`$ and $`t_{}/t_{}`$, this leads to that the low-energy peak of the conductivity is located at $`\omega 0`$ instead of a finite energy for the isotropic system. On the other hand, it has been shown that the interleg single-electron hopping changes the asymptotic behavior of the interleg spin-spin correlation functions, but their exponents are independent of the interleg coupling strength . We believe that the evolution of the incommensurate magnetic fluctuations with dopings in the doped square lattice antiferromagnet  will also occur in the doped two-leg antiferromagnet, and the related theoretical results will be presented elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Feng Yuan and Xianglin Ke for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars under Grant No. 10125415, the National Natural Science Foundation under Grant No. 10074007, 90103024, the Grant from Ministry of Education of China, and the National Science Council under Grant No. NSC 90-2816-M-032-0001-6.


text:
# Supergraph Techniques and Two-Loop Beta-Functions for Renormalizable and Non-Renormalizable Operators

## 1 Introduction

In order to compare experimental results with predictions from models beyond the Standard Model (SM), like unified theories, it is essential to evolve the parameters of the models from high to low energies. This is accomplished with the renormalization group equations (RGE’s) for the operators in the theory. Besides the renormalizable operators there can be higher dimensional, non-renormalizable operators if the theory is considered as effective.

In a previous study , we derived a general method for calculating $`\beta `$-functions from counterterms in MS-like renormalization schemes, which works for tensorial quantities. It is simplified considerably in supersymmetric (SUSY) theories, since due to the non-renormalization theorem  only wavefunction renormalization has to be considered for operators of the superpotential. However, in a component field description, no use can be made of the theorem with respect to gauge loop corrections since it is no longer manifest when a supergauge, as for example Wess-Zumino-gauge, has been fixed. The supergraph technique , on the other hand, allows to use the non-renormalization theorem, since SUSY is kept manifest. Moreover, it has the advantage that the number of independent diagrams is clearly reduced compared to the component field calculations.

We therefore present a method to calculate $`\beta `$-functions in supersymmetric theories for operators of the superpotential from wavefunction renormalization. These operators may be non-renormalizable since for the latter the non-renormalization theorem holds as well , and they do not affect the wavefunction renormalization constants in leading order in an effective field theory expansion. As an application, we consider the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) extended by singlet superfields, which contain right-handed neutrinos relevant for models of neutrino mass. We compute and specify the wavefunction renormalization constants. From these, the two loop RGE’s for the Yukawa couplings and for a possible mass matrix for the singlet neutrino superfields are obtained by the supergraph method. The technique can be used to compute the two loop RGE’s for every desired higher dimensional operator of the superpotential, since the non-renormalization theorem guarantees that no vertex corrections contribute. Furthermore, we consider the lowest dimensional neutrino mass operator. Its RGE is known at the one loop level for the SM , Two Higgs Doublet Models  and for the MSSM . With the supergraph method we calculate the two loop RGE for the neutrino mass operator from the MSSM wavefunction renormalization constants.

## 2 Review of the Supergraph Method

Consider a general supersymmetric gauge theory with a gauge part described by the usual Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4\theta {\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{}^{(i)}\left[\mathrm{exp}(2gV)\right]_{ij}{}_{}{}^{(j)}+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2\theta {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{S}{}}}W_\alpha ^nW^{n\alpha }+\text{h.c.}]`$ (1)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\theta 𝒲}+\text{h.c.}\right]+_{\mathrm{Ghost}}+_{\mathrm{Gauge}\mathrm{Fixing}}`$
where

$`W_\alpha ^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8g_n}}\overline{𝑫}^2\left[\mathrm{exp}(2g_nV^n)𝑫_\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2g_nV^n)\right],`$ (2a)
$`gV`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{S}{}}}g_nV^n\text{and}V^n={\displaystyle \underset{A=1}{\overset{dimG_n}{}}}V_n^A𝖳_n^A.`$ (2b)
The renormalizable part of the superpotential reads

$`𝒲_{\mathrm{ren}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _{(ijk)}{}_{}{}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{(k)}.`$ (3)
Possible mass terms are ignored for the present as they do not affect the $`\beta `$-functions of the model. The $`N`$ superfields (i) transform under the irreducible representations (irreps) $`R_1^{(i)}\times \mathrm{}\times R_S^{(i)}`$ of the gauge group $`G_1\mathrm{}G_S`$. $`\{(𝖳_n^A)_i^j\}_{A=1}^{dimG_n}`$ denote the generators of $`G_n`$. The indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ run over all irreps, families and the representation space.

### 2.1 Wavefunction Renormalization Constants

Due to the non-renormalization theorem, the RGE’s for operators of the superpotential are governed by the wavefunction renormalization constants for the superfields $`Z_{ij}=\mathrm{𝟙}_{ij}+\delta Z_{ij}`$ which relate the bare $`{}_{\mathrm{B}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(i)}`$ and the renormalized superfields,

$`{}_{\mathrm{B}}{}^{(i)}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}Z_{ij}^{\frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{(j)}.`$ (4)
Results are obtained with dimensional regularization via dimensional reduction . At the one loop level and in $`d=4ϵ`$ dimensions, $`\delta Z_{ij}`$ is given by

$`\delta Z_{ij}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _{ik\mathrm{}}^{}\lambda _{jk\mathrm{}}4{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{S}{}}}g_n^2c_2\left(R_n^{(i)}\right)\delta _{ij}\right].`$ (5)
In equation (5) and in the following, we use the group-theoretical constants

$`c_1(G)\delta ^{AB}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{C,D}{}}f^{ACD}f^B{}_{CD}{}^{},`$ (6a)
$`c_2(R)\delta _{ab}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}(𝖳^A𝖳^A)_{ab},`$ (6b)
$`\mathrm{}(R)\delta ^{AB}`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{Tr}(𝖳^A𝖳^B),`$ (6c)
with the matrix representations $`\{𝖳^A\}_{A=1}^{dimG}`$ of the generators of $`G`$ corresponding to the irrep $`R`$ and the structure constants $`f^A_{BC}`$. $`\mathrm{}(R)`$ is known as Dynkin index of the irrep $`R`$ and $`c_2(R)`$ as the quadratic Casimir. They are related by

$`c_2(R)={\displaystyle \frac{dimG}{dimR}}\mathrm{}(R),`$ (7)
with $`dimG`$ and $`dimR`$ being the dimension of the group $`G`$ and the irrep $`R`$, respectively. Often the generators of the irrep $`𝑵`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ are normalized such that $`\mathrm{}(𝑵)=\frac{1}{2}`$ holds. $`c_2`$ can then be obtained via $`c_2(𝑵)=\frac{N^21}{2N}`$ while for a $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ theory both $`\mathrm{}(R)`$ and $`c_2(R)`$ are replaced by $`q^2`$ where $`q`$ is the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ charge of . For any non-trivial irrep of $`\text{SU}(N)`$ the invariant $`c_1(𝑵)`$ is given by $`N`$.

On the two-loop level the renormalization group equations are determined from the formula

$`\delta Z_{ij}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2+ϵ}{(4\pi )^4ϵ^2}}[4{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=1}{\overset{S}{}}}g_n^2c_2\left(R_n^{(i)}\right)g_m^2c_2\left(R_m^{(j)}\right)\delta _{ij}`$ (8)
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{S}{}}}g_n^4c_2\left(R_n^{(i)}\right)\left(\overline{\mathrm{}}_n3c_1(G_n)\right)\delta _{ij}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{S}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}g_n^2\left(c_2\left(R_n^{(i)}\right)+2c_2\left(R_n^{(\mathrm{})}\right)\right)\lambda _{ik\mathrm{}}^{}\lambda _{jk\mathrm{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{},r,s,t=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _{ik\mathrm{}}^{}\lambda _{\mathrm{}st}\lambda _{rst}^{}\lambda _{jkr}].`$
Here $`\overline{\mathrm{}}_n`$ is defined by

$`\overline{\mathrm{}}_n:={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\left(R_n^{(i)}\right)}{dim\left(R_n^{(i)}\right)}}.`$ (9)
In addition to the superpotential of equation (3), higher dimensional operators may appear in the superpotential of an effective theory. These operators are generally suppressed by inverse powers of a large mass scale $`M_X`$. Though these operators are non-renormalizable by power counting, in the effective field theory approach one can renormalize the theory in an expansion in inverse powers of $`M_X`$. In the leading order of this expansion, the higher dimensional operators do not contribute to the wavefunction renormalization.

In supergraphs, we represent chiral superfields as straight double lines while vector-superfields are indicated by wiggly double lines,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& :& \text{},\hfill \\ \hfill V& :& \text{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The diagrams relevant for the calculation of the wavefunction renormalization constants for the matter superfield, equation (5) and (8), are shown in figure 1 and 2, respectively.

### 2.2 $`\beta `$-Functions from Wavefunction Renormalization Constants

To calculate $`\beta `$-functions from the wavefunction renormalization constants, it is convenient to subdivide the general indices $`\{i,j,\mathrm{}\}`$ into indices $`\{r,s,\mathrm{}\}`$ for the irreducible representations, $`\{f,g,\mathrm{}\}`$ for the particle families and $`\{a,b,\mathrm{}\}`$ for the representation space, i.e. $`i=(r,f,a)`$. The wavefunction renormalization constants $`Z_{ij}`$ are diagonal with respect to the representation and the representation space indices and are matrices in flavour-space. In the rest of the paper we will write $`Z_{ij}=Z_r`$ and suppress flavour and representation space indices.

Due to the non-renormalization theorem, in a supersymmetric theory a bare quantity $`Q_\mathrm{B}`$ of the superpotential and the corresponding renormalized one, $`Q`$, are related by

$`Q_\mathrm{B}=\left({\displaystyle \underset{rI}{}}Z_r^{n_r}\right)Q\mu ^{D_Qϵ}\left({\displaystyle \underset{sJ}{}}Z_s^{n_s}\right),`$ (10)
where matrix multiplication with respect to flavour indices is implicit and the sets of superfield indices $`I=\{1,\mathrm{}M\}`$ and $`J=\{M+1,\mathrm{}N\}`$ denote the wavefunction renormalization constants multiplied from the left and the right respectively. $`Q`$ may correspond to a renormalizable or non-renormalizable operator.

The wavefunction renormalization constants $`Z_r`$ can be expanded in $`ϵ`$,

$`Z_r=1+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{r,k}}{ϵ^k}}.`$ (11)
Following the steps of the derivation in , we find

$`\beta _Q`$ $`=`$ $`Q{\displaystyle \underset{sJ}{}}n_s\left[{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}D_{V_A}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}Z_{s,1}}{\mathrm{d}V_A}}|V_A\right]`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{rI}{}}n_r\left[{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}D_{V_A}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}Z_{r,1}}{\mathrm{d}V_A}}|V_A\right]Q,`$
where $`\{V_A\}`$ denotes the set of all variables of the theory including the variable $`Q`$ under consideration and $`\beta _Q`$ is the usual $`\beta `$-function, defined by

$`\beta _Q=\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}Q}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}.`$ (13)
Note that in equation (12), for complex quantities $`V_A`$ we have to treat the complex conjugates $`V_A^{}`$ as independent variables. We use the notation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}x}}|y:=\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}x}}y\hfill & \text{for scalars}x,y\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}x_n}}y_n\hfill & \text{for vectors}x=(x_m),y=(y_m)\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}x_{mn}}}y_{mn}\hfill & \text{for matrices}x=(x_{mn}),y=(y_{mn})\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{etc.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (18)
and $`D_{V_A}`$ is related to the mass dimension of $`V_A`$ as indicated in equation (10). Equation (12) allows to compute the $`\beta `$-functions directly from the wavefunction renormalization constants, calculated with the supergraph technique111 Another way of calculating superpotential $`\beta `$-functions is based on the superfield anomalous dimensions, which have been calculated to the 3-loop level in .. It has a form that can easily be used for computer algebra calculations.

## 3 Applications

### 3.1 Two-Loop $`\beta `$-Functions in the MSSM Extended by Singlet Superfields

We consider a supersymmetric model containing the same fields as the MSSM and additionally the singlet “neutrino” superfield which we will denote by . In order to obtain the $`\beta `$-functions for the Yukawa matrices and a mass matrix for the neutrino superfield, we will omit the soft SUSY breaking terms222The calculation of the RGE’s for the soft SUSY breaking operators can be found in ., since they do not affect the considered $`\beta `$-functions above the scale of the soft supersymmetry breaking mass terms. Threshold effects at low energy scales are e.g. discussed in .

Thus the Yukawa part of the superpotential is given by

$`𝒲_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_e)_{gf}e^{\mathrm{C}g}h_a^{(1)}\epsilon ^{ab}l_b^f+(Y_\nu )_{gf}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}g}h_{a}^{(2)}\epsilon ^{ab}l_b^f`$ (19)
$`+(Y_d)_{gf}d^{\mathrm{C}g}h_a^{(1)}\epsilon ^{ab}q_b^f+(Y_u)_{gf}u^{\mathrm{C}g}h_a^{(2)}(\epsilon ^T)^{ab}q_b^f.`$
The superfields $`e^\mathrm{C}`$, $`d^\mathrm{C}`$ and $`u^\mathrm{C}`$ contain the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$-singlet charged leptons, down-type quarks and up-type quarks, respectively, and $`q`$ contains the SU(2)L quark doublets. Their quantum numbers are specified in table LABEL:tab:QuantumNumbersOfNuMSSM. In addition we consider a mass term for the singlet neutrino superfield

$`𝒲_{\mathrm{Mass}}=\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}f}M_{fg}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}g},`$ (20)
that may be relevant for generating neutrino masses in the see-saw scenario.

The quantum numbers of the superfields are listed in table LABEL:tab:QuantumNumbersOfNuMSSM. Note that we use GUT charge normalization for the $`\mathrm{U}(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$ charge.

Using equation (5), this leads to the $`1/ϵ`$-coefficients of the wavefunction renormalization constants

$`(4\pi )^2Z_{h^{(1)},1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`6\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)+2\text{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e){\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^23g_2^2,`$ (21a)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{h^{(2)},1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`6\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+2\text{Tr}(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^23g_2^2,`$ (21b)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{q,1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_d^{}Y_d+2Y_u^{}Y_u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}g_1^23g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2,`$ (21c)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{d^\mathrm{C},1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4Y_d^{}Y_d^T{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}g_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2,`$ (21d)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{u^\mathrm{C},1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4Y_u^{}Y_u^T{\displaystyle \frac{16}{15}}g_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2,`$ (21e)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{l,1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_e^{}Y_e+2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^23g_2^2,`$ (21f)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{e^\mathrm{C},1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4Y_e^{}Y_e^T{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}g_1^2,`$ (21g)
$`(4\pi )^2Z_{{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}},1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T,`$ (21h)
where the $`Y`$’s as well as the last six $`Z`$-factors are of course matrices in flavour space. From the two-loop diagrams we get

$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{h^{(1)},1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`9\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{}Y_dY_d^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_uY_d^{}Y_dY_u^{})`$ (22a)
$`3\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{}Y_eY_e^{})\text{Tr}(Y_eY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_e^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)+16g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{100}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{10}}g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}g_2^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{h^{(2)},1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`3\text{Tr}(Y_uY_d^{}Y_dY_u^{})9\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{}Y_uY_u^{})`$ (22b)
$`\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_e^{}Y_eY_\nu ^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+16g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{100}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{10}}g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}g_2^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{q,1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_d^{}Y_dY_d^{}Y_d2Y_u^{}Y_uY_u^{}Y_u`$ (22c)
$`3Y_d^{}Y_d\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})3Y_u^{}Y_u\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`Y_d^{}Y_d\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})Y_u^{}Y_u\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2Y_d^{}Y_d+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2Y_u^{}Y_u`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{199}{900}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}g_2^4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{45}}g_1^2g_3^2+8g_2^2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}g_3^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{d^\mathrm{C},1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_d^{}Y_d^TY_d^{}Y_d^T2Y_d^{}Y_u^TY_u^{}Y_d^T`$ (22d)
$`6Y_d^{}Y_d^T\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})2Y_d^{}Y_d^T\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2Y_d^{}Y_d^T+6g_2^2Y_d^{}Y_d^T`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{202}{225}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{45}}g_1^2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}g_3^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{u^\mathrm{C},1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_u^{}Y_d^TY_d^{}Y_u^T2Y_u^{}Y_u^TY_u^{}Y_u^T`$ (22e)
$`2Y_u^{}Y_u^T\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})6Y_u^{}Y_u^T\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2Y_u^{}Y_u^T+6g_2^2Y_u^{}Y_u^T`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{856}{225}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{128}{45}}g_1^2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}g_3^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{l,1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_e^{}Y_eY_e^{}Y_e2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu `$ (22f)
$`3Y_e^{}Y_e\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})Y_e^{}Y_e\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`3Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu \text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu \text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_e^{}Y_e+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{100}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{10}}g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}g_2^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{e^\mathrm{C},1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_e^{}Y_e^TY_e^{}Y_e^T2Y_e^{}Y_\nu ^TY_\nu ^{}Y_e^T`$ (22g)
$`6Y_e^{}Y_e^T\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})2Y_e^{}Y_e^T\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_e^{}Y_e^T+6g_2^2Y_e^{}Y_e^T+{\displaystyle \frac{234}{25}}g_1^4,`$
$`(4\pi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}},1}^{(2)}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_\nu ^{}Y_e^TY_e^{}Y_\nu ^T2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^TY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T`$ (22h)
$`6Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T+6g_2^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T,`$
respectively. From these, the two-loop Yukawa RGE’s are derived,

$$\mu \frac{\mathrm{d}Y_x}{\mathrm{d}\mu }=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\beta _{Y_x}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{(4\pi )^4}\beta _{Y_x}^{(2)},$$
(23)
where $`x\{d,u,e,\nu \}`$. Using equation (12), the one-loop contributions to the $`\beta `$-functions are given by

$`\beta _{Y_d}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_d\{3Y_d^{}Y_d+Y_u^{}Y_u+3\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)+\text{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)`$ (24a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{15}}g_1^23g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2\},`$
$`\beta _{Y_u}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_u\{Y_d^{}Y_d+3Y_u^{}Y_u+\text{Tr}(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )+3\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)`$ (24b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}}g_1^23g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2\}`$
$`\beta _{Y_e}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_e\{3Y_e^{}Y_e+Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu +3\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)+\text{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)`$ (24c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^23g_2^2\},`$
$`\beta _{Y_\nu }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_\nu \{Y_e^{}Y_e+3Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu +3\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+\text{Tr}(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )`$ (24d)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^23g_2^2\},`$
and the two-loop contributions are

$`\beta _{Y_d}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_d\{4Y_d^{}Y_dY_d^{}Y_d2Y_u^{}Y_uY_d^{}Y_d2Y_u^{}Y_uY_u^{}Y_u`$ (25a)
$`9\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{}Y_dY_d^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_dY_u^{}Y_uY_d^{})`$
$`3\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{}Y_eY_e^{})\text{Tr}(Y_eY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_e^{})`$
$`9Y_d^{}Y_d\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})3Y_d^{}Y_d\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`Y_u^{}Y_u\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})3Y_u^{}Y_u\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`+6g_2^2Y_d^{}Y_d+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2Y_d^{}Y_d+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2Y_u^{}Y_u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)+16g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{287}{90}}g_1^4+g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}g_1^2g_3^2+8g_2^2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}g_3^4\},`$
$`\beta _{Y_u}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_u\{2Y_d^{}Y_dY_d^{}Y_d2Y_d^{}Y_dY_u^{}Y_u4Y_u^{}Y_uY_u^{}Y_u`$ (25b)
$`3Y_d^{}Y_d\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})Y_d^{}Y_d\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`9Y_u^{}Y_u\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})3Y_u^{}Y_u\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`3\text{Tr}(Y_uY_d^{}Y_dY_u^{})9\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{}Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_e^{}Y_eY_\nu ^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2Y_d^{}Y_d+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2Y_u^{}Y_u+6g_2^2Y_u^{}Y_u`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+16g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+{\displaystyle \frac{2743}{450}}g_1^4`$
$`+g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4+{\displaystyle \frac{136}{45}}g_1^2g_3^2+8g_2^2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}g_3^4\},`$
$`\beta _{Y_e}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_e\{4Y_e^{}Y_eY_e^{}Y_e2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_e^{}Y_e2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu `$ (25c)
$`9Y_e^{}Y_e\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})3Y_e^{}Y_e\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu \text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})3Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu \text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`9\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{}Y_dY_d^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_dY_u^{}Y_uY_d^{})`$
$`3\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{}Y_eY_e^{})\text{Tr}(Y_eY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_e^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)`$
$`+6g_2^2Y_e^{}Y_e{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)+16g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{2}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4\},`$
$`\beta _{Y_\nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_\nu \{2Y_e^{}Y_eY_e^{}Y_e2Y_e^{}Y_eY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu 4Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu `$ (25d)
$`3Y_e^{}Y_e\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})Y_e^{}Y_e\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})`$
$`3Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu \text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})9Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu \text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_e^{}Y_eY_\nu ^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )`$
$`3\text{Tr}(Y_uY_d^{}Y_dY_u^{})9\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{}Y_uY_u^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_e^{}Y_e+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu +6g_2^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+16g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{50}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4\}.`$
Note that the two-loop MSSM RGE’s for $`Y_d`$, $`Y_u`$ and $`Y_e`$ are easily obtained by setting $`Y_\nu =0`$. The effort is clearly reduced compared to component field calculations .

### 3.2 Two-Loop $`\beta `$-Function for the Effective Neutrino Mass Operator

We now apply our method to calculate the $`\beta `$-function for the lowest dimensional effective neutrino mass operator, which is contained in the $`F`$-term of the superpotential

$`𝒲_\kappa ^{\mathrm{MSSM}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\kappa _{gf}l_c^g\epsilon ^{cd}h_d^{(2)}l_b^f\epsilon ^{ba}h_a^{(2)}+\text{h.c.}.`$ (26)
It can e.g. be obtained by integrating out the singlet superfield of the model described in section 3.1 at leading order in the effective theory. The $`\beta `$-function can easily be computed using our method. Substituting $`D_{g_i}=D_{Y_x}=\frac{1}{2}`$ with $`i\{1,2,3\}`$ and $`x\{u,d,e\}`$, we get from equation (12)

$`\beta _\kappa =Z_{h^{(2)},1}\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_{l,1}^T\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa Z_{l,1}.`$ (27)
We can thus write the $`\beta `$-function for $`\kappa `$ in the form

$`\beta _\kappa =X^T\kappa +\kappa X+\alpha \kappa ,`$ (28)
where the complete flavour diagonal part is contained in $`\alpha `$. We further split $`X=X^{(1)}+X^{(2)}`$ and $`\alpha =\alpha ^{(1)}+\alpha ^{(2)}`$ into their one loop and two loop part. Plugging in the wavefunction renormalization constants of equation (21b) and (21f) and setting $`Y_\nu =0`$, our method reproduces the one loop results of

$`(4\pi )^2X^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_e^{}Y_e,`$ (29a)
$`(4\pi )^2\alpha ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^26g_2^2+6\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u).`$ (29b)
Note that for $`\mathrm{U}(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$, we use GUT charge normalization as specified in table LABEL:tab:QuantumNumbersOfNuMSSM. At two-loop, with the wavefunction renormalization constants given in equations (22b) and (22f), we obtain

$`(4\pi )^4X^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_e^{}Y_eY_e^{}Y_e`$ (30)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_eY_e^{})3\text{Tr}(Y_dY_d^{})\right)Y_e^{}Y_e`$
and

$`(4\pi )^4\alpha ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`6\text{Tr}(Y_uY_d^{}Y_dY_u^{})18\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{}Y_uY_u^{})`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}g_1^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+32g_3^2\text{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{25}}g_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{5}}g_1^2g_2^2+15g_2^4.`$
### 3.3 Two-Loop $`\beta `$-Function for the Mass of the Singlet Superfield

From the wavefunction renormalization constants of the MSSM extended by singlet superfields given in section 3.1, the $`\beta `$-function for the bilinear coupling of equation (20) can easily be computed using the formula of equation (12). At one-loop, we find

$`(4\pi )^2\beta _M^{(1)}=2MY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T+2Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}M`$ (32)
and the two-loop part of the $`\beta `$-function is given by

$`(4\pi )^4\beta _M^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`M[2Y_\nu ^{}Y_e^TY_e^{}Y_\nu ^T2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^TY_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T`$ (33)
$`6Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T+6g_2^2Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu ^T]`$
$`+[2Y_\nu Y_e^{}Y_eY_\nu ^{}2Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}`$
$`6Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}\text{Tr}(Y_uY_u^{})2Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}\text{Tr}(Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}+6g_2^2Y_\nu Y_\nu ^{}]M.`$
In typical models of neutrino masses based on the see-saw mechanism, the effective neutrino mass operator of equation (26) is obtained by integrating out the singlet superfields, which leads to the relation $`\kappa =2Y_\nu ^TM^1Y_\nu `$. The $`\beta `$-function for $`M`$, together with the $`\beta `$-function for $`Y_\nu `$ of equation (24d), is therefore required to evolve the neutrino mass matrix from the GUT scale to the scale of the largest eigenvalue of $`M`$, if the singlets have a direct mass term.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

We have presented a general method to calculate two loop $`\beta `$-functions for renormalizable and non-renormalizable operators of the superpotential using superfield techniques. This method is very useful for model building since it provides a construction kit which allows to calculate the $`\beta `$-functions in a given supersymmetric GUT model with little effort. We have applied this method to calculate the two-loop beta functions for the lowest-dimensional effective neutrino mass operator in the MSSM and for the the Yukawa couplings and the mass matrix in the MSSM extended by singlet chiral superfields. We have computed and specified the wavefunction renormalization constants in the latter model, from which, using our method, the two loop RGE’s for every, even higher dimensional, operator of the superpotential can directly be computed. A classification of several higher-dimensional operators for generating neutrino Majorana masses is e.g. given in . Many of them can be generalized for supersymmetric models. Their $`\beta `$-functions can easily be obtained with our method. The two loop $`\beta `$-function for the lowest-dimensional effective neutrino mass operator is required to increase the accuracy of many studies based on the one loop RGE , e.g. . This accuracy may be needed for the neutrino sector since due to the absence of hadronic uncertainties, high precision measurements of the neutrino parameters may be achieved in future experiments.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Drees and M. Lindner for useful discussions and M. Schmidt for pointing out an error in some two-loop beta-functions. This work was supported by the “Sonderforschungsbereich 375 für Astro-Teilchenphysik der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft”. M. R. was partly supported by the “Promotionsstipendium des Freistaats Bayern”.