format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Assuming that neutrinos have a small mass and mix is by far the simplest solution to the two well established Solar  and Atmospheric  Neutrino Puzzles and the more controversial LSND Anomaly . It is, however, well known that in order to solve all three problems at once, one is required to add new light degrees of freedom to the Standard Model (SM), usually sterile neutrinos. The reason for this is the fact that the Solar Neutrino Puzzle (SNP) requires a neutrino mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^4`$ eV2, the Atmospheric Neutrino Puzzle (ANP) requires $`10^3\mathrm{eV}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^2`$ eV2, and the LSND Anomaly (LA) requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^1`$ eV2. With three neutrino mass eigenstates, one can only obtain two independent mass-squared differences.

It has recently been pointed out that there is another way to address all neutrino puzzles with only three neutrino species: CPT violation . It is easy to note that, while the SNP involves neutrinos, the LA points to evidence for oscillation only in antineutrinos,***Originally, the LA manifested itself also in the neutrino channel. This effect, however, has disappeared after more data was analyzed . meaning that if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s were different in the neutrino and antineutrino sectors, the three problems could be solved without the addition of light degrees of freedom to the SM. Furthermore, CPT violation in the neutrino sector have also been evoked as a possible solution to inconsistencies in the neutrino data from SN1987A .

CPT is the only global space-time symmetry of the SM. Unlike its “broken siblings” (C, P, T, CP, CT, PT), however, CPT invariance is not an accidental/optional symmetry of a quantum field theoretical system. CPT invariance is a consequence of the fact that all microscopic phenomena observed to date can be perfectly described by a Lorentz invariant, local Quantum Field Theory . CPT violation implies, necessarily, violation of Lorentz invariance and/or Locality (and, perhaps, a formalism different from Quantum Field Theory…). It has recently been stressed  that allowing particle and antiparticles to have different masses seems to imply that both Lorentz invariance and Locality are violated.There is a controversy related to whether Lorentz invariance is violated under these circumstances. I thank Gabriela Barenboim for pointing this out.

CPT violating effects can be mimicked by neutrino interactions with a CPT violating medium. Indeed, neutrinos and antineutrinos acquired different effective masses while propagating in the presence of matter, such that large matter induced CPT violating effects can be potentially observed in future neutrino experiments. The authors of  have mentioned that one may be able to parameterize the CPT violating effects by assuming the existence of a CPT violating Ether, which modifies the oscillation probabilities of neutrinos and antineutrinos in distinct ways. Certain advantages come out of such a parameterization: the theory remains local (only Lorentz Invariance is violated), and all well known quantum field theoretical techniques can be safely used to explore other consequences of the postulated CPT violation – CPT violating effects are parametrized by an effective Lagrangian.

I argue, by performing a two-flavor analysis, that the neutrino puzzles and the LA probably cannot be solved in a satisfactory way by assuming the existence of a “CPT violating Ether.” The “Ether” is properly defined in Sec. 2. Furthermore, it turns out that the current neutrino data already may set very strong limits on particular CPT violating operators , while potentially stronger limits may be imposed by future neutrino experiments, such as KamLAND  and Borexino .

In Sec. 2, the CPT violating formalism is introduced and motivated. In Sec. 3, I discuss what are the requirements for solving the SNP and the LA within the formalism introduced in Sec. 2, and show why it does not work properly, at least in a two-flavor analysis. I comment briefly on whether one should expect a three-flavor analysis to be more successful. Sec. 4 contains a summary of the results and some discussions, including current and future constraints on CPT violation.

## 2 On the Formalism

For simplicity, I’ll assume that the neutrinos are Majorana particles, and describe it using two-component Weyl spinors. This being the case, after electroweak symmetry breaking,

$$=i\overline{\chi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \chi \frac{m}{2}\chi \chi \frac{m^{}}{2}\overline{\chi }\overline{\chi }+_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(2.1)
where $`\chi `$ is a two-component (left-handed) Weyl field, $`\overline{\chi }(\chi )^{}`$, $`\overline{\sigma }^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, and $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ contains all the interaction terms.§§§It is worthwhile to comment in passing that already at this level it is possible to break CPT by saying that there are two masses $`m\overline{m}`$. This would, however, imply in a non Hermitian Hamiltonian for the neutrino–antineutrino system.

In the spirit of , we assume that possible CPT violating effects are a consequence of unknown ultraviolet physics, and that they are small (as required by experiments). This allows one to write CPT violating effective operators, which are proportional to some order parameter (v.e.v) and suppressed by powers of the new physics scale. This formalism is particularly useful if Lorentz invariance (and CPT) is spontaneously broken . As has been argued in , this implies that the Lagrangian is still invariant under “observer Lorentz transformations,” and only “particle Lorentz invariance” is violated. I refer readers to  for more detailed discussions. Therefore,

$$_{\mathrm{CPTV}}=\lambda T\frac{𝒪_n}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n3)}}=A_\mu \overline{\chi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu \chi \underset{n=4}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda T\frac{𝒪_n}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n3)}},$$
(2.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the new physics scale, $`\lambda `$ are dimensionless coupling constants, $`T`$ is the CPT violating order parameter and $`𝒪_n`$ are operators composed of the SM fields with mass dimension $`n`$, such that $`T𝒪_n`$ is a Lorentz invariant operator of mass dimension $`n+1`$. The lowest dimensional CPT violating operator comes at $`n=3`$ , and is parametrized as $`A_\mu \overline{\chi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu \chi `$, where $`A_\mu `$ is a constant, real four-vector with mass dimension 1. Note that there are no other $`n=3`$ CPT violating terms. Hence forth, we ignore all other terms, which are suppressed by powers of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and work with the Lagrangian

$$=i\overline{\chi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \chi \frac{m}{2}\chi \chi A_\mu \overline{\chi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu \chi \frac{m^{}}{2}\overline{\chi }\overline{\chi }+_{\mathrm{int}}.$$
(2.3)
$`A_\mu `$ can be interpreted in a variety of ways. For example, it looks like a background, classical “electromagnetic” field. In the case of neutrinos, it proves useful to interpret it as a “matter potential.” This is because, in the case of electron neutrinos propagating in the presence of, say, nonrelativistic electrons, one obtains exactly $`A_\mu \overline{\chi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu \chi `$, with $`A_\mu =(\sqrt{2}G_FN_e,0,0,0)`$, where $`N_e`$ is the electron number density.

From Eq. (2.3), one obtains the modified Dirac equations

$`(i_\mu A_\mu )[\overline{\sigma }^\mu ]^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\chi _\alpha m^{}\overline{\chi }^{\dot{\alpha }}=0,`$
$`(i_\mu +A_\mu )[\sigma ^\mu ]_{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\overline{\chi }^{\dot{\alpha }}m\chi _\alpha =0,`$ (2.4)
where $`\alpha ,\dot{\alpha }=1,2`$ are spinor indices, and $`\sigma =(1,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. From Eqs. (2.4), one can calculate the dispersion relation for both the neutrino (positive energy state) and the antineutrino (negative energy state). The general expression is rather cumbersome (it turn out to be a forth order polynomial dispersion relation) and can be found, for example, in .

It is convenient to choose $`A_\mu =(V,0,0,0)`$Henceforth, I assume that $`A_\mu `$ is time-like. and consider the limit $`V,|m|E,|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ (this is the limit I’ll be strictly interested in, as will become clear in the next section) such that see  for a discussion on the validity of Eq. (2.5.

$$E|\stackrel{}{p}|+\frac{m^2}{|2\stackrel{}{p}|}\pm V,$$
(2.5)
where the plus sign applies for the neutrino and the minus sign for the antineutrino. The opposite sign for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos is easy to understand if one looks at $`A_\mu `$ as a background classical vector field – particle and antiparticle have opposite charge. As one can readily notice, $`V`$ can be interpreted as a “potential energy” and will be referred to henceforth as an “Ether-potential.” Eq. (2.5) has also been derived by several authors in the case of neutrinos propagating in several media . In the case of ordinary matter effects, $`V`$ is sometimes related to an “effective mass.” We comment on this interpretation in the next section, and argue that it can be rather misleading.

## 3 Addressing the Solar Puzzle plus the LSND Anomaly

The LA can be interpreted as a measurement of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$-conversion with $`P_{\mu e}0.2\%`$. The neutrino energies explored range (roughly) from 30 MeV to 55 MeV, and the neutrino travel distance is $`L=30`$ m. An interpretation in terms of two-flavor neutrino oscillations indicates, after including constraints from other experiments, that $`0.1\mathrm{eV}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ eV2, while $`10^3\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^2`$ .

The SNP is best interpreted by $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$-conversion, with $`P_{ee}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$. The neutrino energies explored range (roughly) from 0.1 MeV to 10 MeV, and the neutrino travel distance is (of course) one astronomical unit, and there is information regarding the survival probability as a function of neutrino energy. Most importantly, the presence of matter inside the Sun and the Earth affects the oscillation pattern significantly. An interpretation in terms of two-flavor neutrino oscillations indicates, after including constraints from other experiments, that $`10^9\mathrm{eV}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^3`$ eV2, while $`0.1\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$***The small mixing angle solution to the SNP is currently excluded at the 95% confidence level. .

The question one would like to address is whether the presence of the Lorentz-invariant violating operators described in the previous section can solve both the LA and the SNP. I will restrict the discussion to two-flavor oscillations. This simplifying assumption will render the discussion more clear, and can easily be extended to the three neutrino case. Note that the two-flavor case does fit trivially into a three flavor framework if one chooses the Ether-potentials to act only on the “1–2” system, and that there is no $`\nu _e`$ on the “3” mass eigenstate. The differential equation that will lead to the oscillations in the presence of an electron number density $`N_e`$ can be written as (assuming that the neutrino energy is much larger than its mass and dropping terms proportional to the identity matrix)

$$i\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}L}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _x\end{array}\right)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E_\nu }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}^2\theta \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}V& V_{ex}/2\\ V_{ex}^{}/2& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}G_FN_e& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _x\end{array}\right),$$
(3.1)
where $`V_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\alpha ,\beta =e,x`$ are the Ether-potentials (as defined in the previous section), $`\nu _x`$ is a linear combination of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, and $`VV_{ee}V_{xx}`$. The equation for antineutrinos is identical to Eq. (3.1) with $`V_{\alpha \beta }V_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`N_eN_e`$. For fixed $`V,V_{ex}`$ the entire solar neutrino parameter space is spanned by assuming $`0\theta \pi `$ after one defines the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ . However, since we will be trying to determine $`V,V_{ex}`$ from neutrino data, their sign can be adjusted such that $`0\theta \pi /2`$, as customary.The “dark side” $`\pi /4\theta \pi /2`$ cannot be ignored due to standard matter effects .

In the absence of matter effects, the oscillation probability is (these have already been presented in )

$$P_{ex}=P_{xe}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}L\right)$$
(3.2)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta +V_{ex})^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta V)^2},`$ (3.3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta V,`$ (3.4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta +V_{ex},`$ (3.5)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/2E_\nu `$. $`V_{ex}`$ is assumed real henceforth.

For solar neutrinos, we will concentrate on solutions where the adiabatic condition for propagation inside the Sun holds (this will always be the case here, as will be argued later), such that, for a neutrino produced close to the Sun’s core,

$`P_{ee}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _M\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}},`$ (3.6)
$`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _M={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta (\sqrt{2}G_FN_e^0+V)}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta +V_{ex})^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta V\sqrt{2}G_FN_e^0)^2}}},`$ (3.7)
with $`N_e^0`$ the electron number density in the Sun’s core, which translates into $`\sqrt{2}G_FN_e^06\times 10^6`$ eV$`{}_{}{}^{2}/`$MeV.

The next step is to search for $`V,V_{ex},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\theta `$ such that both the LA and SNP are solved, and such that other experimental results are not contradicted.

First, I address the case $`V_{ex}=0`$. The LA requires $`P_{\overline{x}\overline{e}}0.5\%`$, assuming that $`P_{\overline{\mu }\overline{e}}=0.5P_{\overline{x}\overline{e}}`$, such that the atmospheric neutrino puzzle is solved by maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations (the factor of 0.5 will play no role in the following discussions). Using Eq. (3.2) for antineutrinos,

$$P_{\overline{x}\overline{e}}\left(2.54\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{1\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{MeV}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \frac{L}{1\mathrm{m}}\right)^2,$$
(3.8)
as long as $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1/30`$ m.The notation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ will be used to represent the antineutrino quantities, where $`V,V_{ex}`$ are replaced by $`V,V_{ex}`$ respectively. Without any loss of generality, this will be considered as a constraint, since the case $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}1/30`$ contradicts the Karmen data  and will not provide a realistic solution to the LA. Solving the LA implies, therefore, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta 8\times 10^4`$ eV2/MeV for LSND-like energies $`E_\nu `$(30–55) MeV. This in turn implies, for solar neutrinos, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}3\times 10^3`$ eV2/MeV (remember the largest solar neutrino energy is three times smaller than the smallest LSND energy), such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\sqrt{2}G_FN_e`$. Therefore, matter effects inside the Sun will be very weak, and the best hope for solving the SNP will be to obtain a very large effective mixing angle. This also explains why the adiabatic approximation works very well.

In order to obtain $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ one can choose $`V\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$, such that there is an MSW-like resonance at a typical solar neutrino energy $`E_\nu =E^{}`$ between 0–10 MeV. In more detail

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\left[1+\left(\frac{\delta E}{E^{}\mathrm{tan}2\theta }\right)^2\right]^1,$$
(3.9)
where $`\delta EE_\nu E^{}`$ and $`E^{}`$ is the resonant solar neutrino energy. The energy dependence of the solar neutrino data requires, very generously, that, for $`\delta EE^{}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.6`$.§§§Under these circumstances, $`P_{ee}`$ is constrained to be between 0.5 and 0.7 for the entire solar neutrino energy range. This provides a rather poor fit to the data, but is the best one can hope to achieve. This translates into $`\mathrm{tan}^22\theta >3/2`$. It turns out that the CHOOZ bound  on $`P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}`$ forbids such a choice.

At CHOOZ, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}3\times 10^3`$ eV2/MeV (remember that typical reactor antineutrino energies are of the order of typical solar neutrinos energies), such that $`1P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}1/2\mathrm{sin}^22\overline{\theta }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at the CHOOZ experiment ($`L_{\mathrm{CHOOZ}}1000`$ m). Assuming that there is a resonance in the solar neutrino sector at some $`E_\nu =E^{}`$,

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\overline{\theta }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}^22\theta }{\mathrm{tan}^22\theta +(1+E_{\overline{\nu }}/E^{})^2},$$
(3.10)
and the bound $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}<0.1`$ from CHOOZ translates into $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta <4/9`$, in disagreement with the requirements from the the SNP discussed above.

Next, consider $`V=0`$ but $`V_{ex}0`$. As before, the LA will constrain $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\theta }_{\mathrm{eff}})^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta V_{ex})^2(8\times 10^4)^2\mathrm{eV}^4/\mathrm{MeV}^2`$. In the case $`|V_{ex}|<\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$, the survival probability will be very similar to the case of no Lorentz invariance violation ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{solar}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LSND}}`$), and is therefore uninteresting.

The opposite hypothesis, $`|V_{ex}|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ for typical LSND energies invites further investigation. In this case, the LA implies $`|V_{ex}|8\times 10^4`$ eV2/MeV. If $`|V_{ex}|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ also for typical solar neutrino energies, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ for solar neutrinos, which provides a reasonable solution to the SNP. This possibility is, unfortunately, immediately killed by the CHOOZ bound, since $`\mathrm{sin}^22\overline{\theta }_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ for typical reactor antineutrino energies.

Another possibility, which can be quickly discarded, is the case $`V_{ex}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta =0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ very small for typical solar neutrino energies, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\sqrt{2}G_FN_e^0`$. In this case, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}V_{ex}`$ is large, such that the CHOOZ bound would be grossly violated, namely, $`1P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}1/2`$ at CHOOZ.

Finally, there is the possibility of evoking an “antiresonance” at CHOOZ, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta V_{ex}=0`$ for some reactor antineutrino energies $`E_{\overline{\nu }}=\overline{E}^{}`$. In this case, one may hope to obtain maximal effective mixing in the neutrino sector and solve the SNP. In more detail

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\overline{\theta }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{(\delta E/\overline{E}^{})^2}{(\delta E/\overline{E}^{})^2+\mathrm{cotan}^22\theta },$$
(3.11)
where $`\delta EE_{\overline{\nu }}\overline{E}^{}`$. Note that away from $`\overline{E}^{}`$, the CHOOZ bound still presents a limit for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. For example, requiring $`1P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}<0.5`$ for $`\delta E/\overline{E}^{}=1/2`$ implies $`\mathrm{tan}^22\theta <4/9`$.

Under these circumstances, the solar effective angle is

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{(1+E_\nu /\overline{E}^{})^2}{(1+E_\nu /\overline{E}^{})^2+\mathrm{cotan}^22\theta },$$
(3.12)
which, in the limit $`E_\nu \overline{E}^{}`$ implies $`P_{ee}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.85`$, in disagreement with the solar data.

It worthwhile to comment at this point that it should not come as a surprise that no remotely appropriate fit to all neutrino data can be obtained with either $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta ,`$ and $`V`$, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta ,`$ and $`V_{ex}`$ as free parameters: the fit is severely over constrained. It remains, however, to check whether the addition of a fourth free parameter can help significantly. There is some room for optimism, since nonzero $`V`$ and $`V_{ex}`$ seem to play significantly different roles in the previous discussions. For example, one may envision a large $`V_{ex}`$ which can take care of the CHOOZ bound, combined with a small enough $`\theta `$ and a large enough $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to solve the LA. The SNP may be solved by appropriately choosing $`V`$ in order to enforce a large effective solar mixing angle, and so on.

An optimal solution was numerically searched by performing a “straw-man fit” to the CHOOZ, solar and LSND data. Explicitly, this was done by requiring that $`P_{ee}=0.4\pm 0.1`$ in ten 1 MeV-wide solar neutrino energy bins (from 0 to 10 MeV), $`1P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}=0\pm 0.04`$ in seven 1 MeV-wide reactor antineutrino energy (from 2 to 9 MeV) bins at CHOOZ, and $`P_{\overline{\mu }\overline{e}}=0.25\%\pm 0.08\%`$ in five 5 MeV-wide antineutrino energy bins at LSND (from 30 to 55 MeV). A more detailed fit is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it should be noted that the constraints imposed here are rather mild, such that a realistic fit will probably yield more severe constraints on a Lorentz-invariant violating solution to both the SNP and LA. The oscillation probabilities obtained at the solar, reactor, and LSND (anti)neutrino energy ranges are depicted in Fig. 1, for one “best fit point:” $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=0.01`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta =0.6`$, $`V=0.001`$ eV2/MeV, and $`V_{ex}=0.001`$ eV2/MeV. Other points which also provide a reasonable fit are very similar, and characterized by $`0.0007\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}V_{ex}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.0012`$, $`0.0001\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}V\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.001`$, $`0.5\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.7`$, $`0.005\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.015`$ eV2.

A few comments are in order. First of all, the result obtained is not altogether inconsistent with the data. As a matter of fact, the result obtained is in good agreement with the reactor constraints, and the LSND data. The Karmen constraints are easily satisfied, given that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{eff}1/L`$ at both LSND and Karmen, such that oscillation effects at the Karmen site are suppressed with respect to effects at the LSND experiment by $`(30/18)^2`$. (remember that $`P_{\overline{\mu }\overline{e}}0.5\times P_{\overline{x}\overline{e}}`$). The biggest concern rests in the solution to the SNP. The fact that $`P_{ee}>0.5`$ in the entire energy range (the reason for this, namely the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\sqrt{2}G_FN_e^0`$ has already been addressed in detail), implies that a good fit to the solar data cannot be obtained. For example, the SNO and SuperKamiokande data alone rule out this model at more than the two sigma level.See  for a detailed discussion. The best possible fit (already excluded at more than the 2 sigma level) would be obtained if the Standard Solar Model prediction for the 8B solar neutrino flux  was off by a factor of 2. Nonetheless, the energy dependency of $`P_{ee}`$ obtained for the Lorentz-invariant violating model considered here is not too different from that obtained for regular two-neutrino oscillations and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2>\mathrm{few}\times 10^4`$ eV2.

Next, I address the atmospheric neutrino data. For atmospheric (anti)neutrinos, which travel at least 10 km before reaching the, say, SuperKamiokande detector, $`L1/\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{eff}},1/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ assuming that the values of the four parameters $`\theta ,\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,V,V_{ex}`$ provide a proper fit to the SNP and the LA. This means that $`P_{ee}11/2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Furthermore, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{atm}}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^5\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{MeV}V,V_{ex}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}(V_{ex})^2/((V_{ex})^2+(V)^2)`$. Given the range of parameters delimited above, one obtains

$$0.75\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}P_{ee}P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5,$$
(3.13)
for all $`E_\nu `$ and all $`L`$. Such a possibility is certainly not a good fit to the atmospheric neutrino data, which clearly prefers $`P_{ee}P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}1`$. In order to be able to make a definitive statement, however, a full three neutrino analysis of the atmospheric data including the Ether-potentials is required. Nonetheless, there is a hint that the Lorentz-invariant violating hypothesis discussed here is strongly disfavored if one considers the current constraint on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ from the ANP . A realistic analysis may provide even stronger constraints, given that the value of $`P_{ee},P_{\overline{e}\overline{e}}`$ above are energy independent, and should also modify the measured $`\nu _\mu `$-flux distributions significantly (given that $`1P_{ee}0.5P_{\mu e}`$).

Finally, the most stringent constraints come from old $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ searches .I thank Alessandro Strumia for pointing this out. The fact that severe constraints should be obtained from these experiments was first alluded to in . Similar to atmospheric neutrinos, the neutrinos in these experiments are high energy and the baseline is long, such that $`0.25\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}P_{xe}P_{\overline{x}\overline{e}}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$. The result of , namely $`P_{\overline{\mu }\overline{e}}<6.5\times 10^3`$, is in gross disagreement with the “best fit” expectations quoted above.

In summary, it is fair to say that the presence of Ether-potentials (as defined in the previous section) cannot accommodate the current neutrino data, at least when only the $`\nu _e\nu _x`$-sector is affected ($`\nu _x`$ is a linear combination of $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$). While a good fit to the LA and the reactor data can be obtained, only a marginal solution to the SNP exists, and there are further constraints from the atmospheric data and older searches for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ oscillations. However, the fact that one cannot fit all the data should not come as a surprise. The most important reason for this expectation is that the Lorentz-invariant violating term serve as an effective potential, and not an effective mass. This implies that a) the standard $`L/E`$ behavior of the survival probabilities will be severely modified, b) the effective mixing angle will vary substantially with energy and c) standard matter effects are altered. Indeed, the fact that the SNP and the LA can be marginally reconciled without violating the CHOOZ bound may come as a bigger surprise (at least to me)!

An important question is whether a full three neutrino fit could be more successful. Such a fit would contain eleven free parameters (two mass-squared differences, three mixing angles, one complex Dirac phase and five Ether-potentials) and is certainly beyond the scope of this discussion. While there are enough new free parameters (which should render performing such a fit very challenging), it is worthwhile to comment that many features of the atmospheric data, such as the peculiar $`L/E`$ of the $`\nu _\mu `$ flux should prove to be a serious challenge to the oscillations in the presence of the Lorentz-invariance violating operators considered here, indicating that such a fit will encounter challenges which are not too dissimilar from the ones faced here. I believe that obtaining a successful fit to all the data with a three-neutrino is rather improbable, but, perhaps, not impossible.

## 4 Summary and Discussions

CPT violation implies, necessarily, violation of Lorentz invariance and/or Locality. Under certain circumstances, CPT violation requires a reinterpretation of the Quantum Field Theoretical formalism which is used to describe, extremely successfully, all short distance physics to date.

It has been pointed out that if the neutrinos and antineutrinos had different masses (CPT violation), all neutrino puzzles could be solved without the addition of extra light degrees of freedom to the standard model. This hypothesis seems to violate both Lorentz invariance and Locality, and renders a Quantum Field theoretical description of the neutrinos (including loop-effects, time-evolution, etc) rather cumbersome.

Here, I have considered a formalism for CPT violation  which can be treated self consistently within Quantum Field Theory (it look like “standard” effective field theory) by adding a few effective Lorentz invariant-violating operator (Ether-potentials). It turns out, however, that one cannot obtain a set of parameters which will satisfy the solar neutrino data, the atmospheric neutrino data, the LSND data, and the reactor data at the same time, at least within a two-flavor analysis. I tried to argued that, contrary to previous claims , one should at least suspect that the existence of Ether-potentials is insufficient to accommodate all the neutrino data. The most interesting feature discussed here is, perhaps, the fact that a good fit can almost be obtained if both diagonal and, more importantly, off-diagonal Ether-potentials are present. One of the big barriers one is forced to face is the fact that, for solar neutrinos, the electron neutrino survival probability is always greater than one half, in contradiction with the current solar neutrino data (e.g., SuperKamiokande and SNO). If it turns out that the solar data definitively requires $`P_{ee}<0.5`$ (at a very high confidence level) for a finite energy range, the “Ether solution” would be unambiguously ruled out. This may very well be achieve after the new SNO results on the neutral current cross-section and the day-night effect are released.

Constraints on $`V`$ and $`V_{ex}`$ (as defined in the previous section) are, of course, possible to obtain outside the realm of neutrino oscillations. The authors of  already point out that, through loops, one can severely constraint $`V_{ee}`$.\**\**\** considers a “seesaw”-like origin for the neutrino masses and the CPT violating operators, such that some “translation” to the formalism used here is required in order to read off the bound on $`V_{ee}`$. Since oscillation signatures only depend on $`V_{ee}V_{\mu \mu }`$, this strong bound is irrelevant if one allows $`V_{ee}V_{\mu \mu }`$. On the other hand, if the Ether-potentials were to be written in $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ invariant forms, very severe tree-level constraints from the charged lepton sector would probably render the model useless as far as neutrino oscillation phenomenology is concerned.

Constraints on the off-diagonal $`V_{ex}`$ and on the second generation $`V_{\mu \mu }`$ are expected to be much weaker, and the best constraints will come from the neutrino oscillations experiments themselves. For example, from the discussions in the previous section, the LA already constraints $`|V|,|V_{ex}|\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^3\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{MeV}=10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Future neutrino experiments including KamLAND ( for a detailed discussion), Borexino and long baseline neutrino experiments (for a detailed discussion, see ) can push the bounds on $`V_{\alpha \beta }`$ by many orders of magnitude. For example, if it turns out that strong solar matter effects are required to solve the SNP, one would be force to constraint $`|V|,|V_{ex}|\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^5\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{MeV}=10^{20}`$ GeV, while if Borexino observes seasonal variations, their data will be consistent with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/2E_\nu \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^9\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{MeV}=10^{24}`$ GeV , implying $`|V|,|V_{ex}|\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{24}`$ GeV.

It is important to note that other Lorentz invariant violating effects which differ from the ones considered here also lead to modified neutrino oscillation probability.††††††It is possible to obtain, for example, a neutrino oscillation phase proportional to $`L\times E`$  instead of the mass induced $`L/E`$ behavior or the $`L`$ behavior discussed here. For a constraints imposed on such terms by the atmospheric neutrino data see . The results presented here apply only to the scenario when only the Ether-potentials are added to the Standard Model, and it is certainly not clear whether a complicated combination of several different effects will not lead to a better fit to the data. It does seem, in my opinion, unlikely.

## Note Added

After the completion of this work, new data was presented by the SNO collaboration. It strengthens significantly the statement that $`P_{ee}<0.5`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos (at more than the three sigma level) and renders the possibility of obtaining a good fit with the Ether-potentials attempted here virtually impossible, as hinted to in Sec. 4. The SMA solution to the solar neutrino puzzle, which was ignored in the discussions contained here, is ruled out by the current solar data at around the five sigma level.

## Acknowledgements

I am happy to thank Gabriela Barenboim, John Beacom, and Boris Kayser for suggestions and comments on the manuscript. I also thank Alessandro Strumia for very useful comments. This work was supported by Fermilab, which is operated by the URA under DOE contract No. DE-AC02-76CH03000.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years there has been a great burst of research and interest in $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang-Mills (SYM) theory. Much of the interest is due to the fact that this theory has a string theory dual via the AdS/CFT correspondence (see ). $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM appears in this context as a low-energy effective description of $`N`$ coincident D3-branes. By looking at D3-branes at an orbifold point one can obtain  effective descriptions in terms of conformal field theories with less supersymmetries ($`𝒩=2`$, $`𝒩=1`$, and perhaps also $`𝒩=0`$). It is interesting to look at exactly marginal deformations of such theories. In the AdS/CFT  correspondence such deformations on the field theory side correspond to moduli of the string theory. For instance , in the $`𝒩=2`$ $`_k`$ orbifold theory there are $`k`$ exactly marginal deformations which preserve the $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY. These deformations correspond to the string coupling and ALE blow-up modes on the string theory side.

In this work we investigate marginal deformations, which preserve at least $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM and its orbifold $`𝒩=2`$ and $`𝒩=1`$ descendants. There are two known exactly marginal deformations of this type for $`𝒩=4`$ SYM (see  and references therein)333Marginal deformations of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM were also discussed in , and we show that these (and the gauge coupling) are the only exactly marginal supersymmetric deformations of this theory. The planar diagram contribution in the orbifold theories is the same as in the $`𝒩=4`$ theory , so in the large $`N`$ limit many correlation functions in these theories coincide up to some gauge coupling rescaling. Thus, one could expect that the orbifold theories possess similar exactly marginal deformations. We will show that this is actually the case even without going to the large $`N`$ limit, and we find additional exactly marginal operators from the twisted sectors. In some cases we find that the dimension of the space of exactly marginal deformations at low orders in perturbation theory is smaller than the general analysis implies. For $`SU(N=3)`$ gauge groups more deformations are possible, and we find a much larger number of exactly marginal deformations.

One motivation for studying such families of conformal theories is that they can then be used as a starting point for renormalization group (RG) flows by turning on additional relevant operators. For instance, one might hope that by starting from a theory obtained by an exactly marginal deformation of $`𝒩=2`$ orbifold theories, one could flow to duality cascades of the type considered in 444O.A. would like to thank I. Klebanov and J. Polchinski for discussions on this issue., for which a direct field theory definition is not known. Unfortunately, we do not find any deformations which are useful for this.

The reason that we constrain ourselves to working with supersymmetric field theories is the existence of relations between $`\beta `$-functions in these theories, due to non-renormalization theorems. The $`\beta `$-functions in supersymmetric field theories can be expressed in terms of the anomalous dimensions, $`\gamma `$. For the superpotential couplings this is a consequence of the superpotential non-renormalization theorem, and for the gauge coupling it is the NSVZ $`\beta `$-function . For a superpotential $`W=\frac{1}{6}Y^{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ the beta function is given by

$$\beta _{Y^{ijk}}=Y^{p(ij}\gamma _p^{k)}=Y^{ijp}\gamma _p^k+(ki)+(kj),$$
(1)
and the NSVZ $`\beta `$-function for the gauge coupling is555Here $`Q`$ is the one loop gauge $`\beta `$-function, $`C(R)_j^i=(R_AR_A)_j^i`$ where $`R_A`$ is the representation of the matter chiral superfields, $`r=\delta _{AA}`$, and $`C_1\delta _{AB}=f_{ACD}f_{BCD}`$. :

$$\beta _g=\frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{Q2r^1\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma C(R)\right]}{12C_1g^2(16\pi ^2)^1}\right].$$
(2)
The strategy of our search for exactly marginal deformations is the following. We first make a generic computation of the expected dimension of the space of exactly marginal deformations by using the relations between the $`\beta `$-functions and the anomalous dimensions above, as in  and references therein. Then we check in perturbation theory whether these deformations actually appear, and whether their form agrees with the general analysis.

In the next section we study exactly marginal deformations of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory. In section 3 we describe the orbifold procedure and study the exactly marginal deformations of the orbifold theories. The $`𝒩=2`$ case is studied in detail in §3.1.2. Details of other cases may be found in .

## 2 $`𝒩=4`$ Super-Yang-Mills Theory

Four dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM theory appears as a low energy description of the physics on $`N`$ coincident D3-branes in type IIB superstring theory. In $`𝒩=1`$ superspace notation the matter content is three chiral superfields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Besides changing the gauge coupling, the only classically marginal deformations (for $`N>2`$) preserving $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY are superpotentials of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda \sqrt{2}}{3!}}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i[\mathrm{\Phi }^j,\mathrm{\Phi }^k]),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ijk}}{3!}}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\{\mathrm{\Phi }^j,\mathrm{\Phi }^k\}).`$ (3)
Traces are taken in the fundamental representation of the gauge group. In the $`𝒩=4`$ theory the $`\lambda `$ coupling is equal to the gauge coupling and all $`h_{ijk}`$ vanish.

From (1),(2) we obtain:

$`\beta _g,\beta _\lambda \mathrm{Tr}(\gamma ),`$
$`\beta _{h_{ijk}}h_{p(ij}\gamma _{k)}^p.`$ (4)
If we turn on only $`\lambda `$, $`h_{111}=h_{222}=h_{333}`$ and $`h_{123}`$, then $`\beta _{h_{ijk}}Tr\gamma `$ as well, and thus the single equation $`\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma )=0`$ is enough to ensure conformal invariance. We get one equation for four coupling constants, so we expect a three dimensional manifold of fixed points . We will see that these are the only exactly marginal supersymmetric deformations in this theory (up to the global $`SU(3)`$ symmetry we have between the three $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$).

The one-loop calculation of the beta functions and the anomalous dimensions gives666Here $`C_2\delta _{ab}\mathrm{Tr}(T_aT_b)`$ where $`T_a`$ are $`SU(N)`$ generators in the fundamental representation, and $`a,b`$ is an adjoint representation index.:

$`\gamma _{bj}^{(1)ai}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left\{2C_1(\lambda ^2g^2)\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^24}{N}}C_2^3h_{ij}^{(2)}\right\}\delta _{ab},`$
$`\beta _\lambda ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}}\left\{6C_1(\lambda ^2g^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{N^24}{N}}C_2^3\mathrm{Tr}(h^{(2)})\right\},`$ (5)
$`\beta _{h_{ijk}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left\{6C_1(\lambda ^2g^2)h_{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^24}{N}}C_2^3h_{ijk}^{(3)}\right\},`$
where we defined:

$`h_{ijk}^{(3)}`$ $``$ $`h_{plm}^{}(h_{ijp}h_{klm}+h_{kjp}h_{ilm}+h_{ikp}h_{jlm})`$
$`h_{ij}^{(2)}`$ $``$ $`h_{ilm}h_{jlm}^{}.`$ (6)
The equations simplify if we rescale the coupling constants:

$$g\frac{\sqrt{C_1}}{4\pi }g,\lambda \frac{\sqrt{C_1}}{4\pi }\lambda \text{and}h_{ijk}\frac{\sqrt{C_2^3}}{4\pi }\sqrt{\frac{N^24}{N}}h_{ijk}.$$
(7)
The $`\beta `$-functions become:

$$\beta _g=\frac{2g^3}{12g^2}\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma ),\beta _\lambda =\lambda \mathrm{Tr}(\gamma ).$$
(8)
Here the trace is taken only over the $`SU(3)`$ indices and not over gauge indices.

From these $`\beta `$-functions we can obtain a differential equation:

$$\frac{1}{2g^3}dg+\frac{1}{g}dg=\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }.$$
(9)
This can be easily solved to give:

$$\frac{\lambda }{\lambda _0}=\frac{ge^{\frac{1}{4g^2}}}{g_0e^{\frac{1}{4g_0^2}}}.$$
(10)
This result means that the RG flow lines in the $`\lambda g`$ plane are exactly known (to the extent that we can count on the NSVZ $`\beta `$-function). It is easy to convince oneself that there is no line with both couplings going to zero in the UV, except the trivial case when one of the couplings is constantly zero. This implies that there is no choice of coupling constants for which this theory is asymptotically free.

In order to have a fixed point we have to satisfy $`\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma )=0`$, which implies at one loop that:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(h^{(2)})=6(\lambda ^2g^2),$$
(11)
and we can substitute this into $`\beta _{h_{ijk}}`$ to get another condition:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(h^{(2)})h_{ijk}=h_{ijk}^{(3)}.$$
(12)
By multiplying (12) on both sides by $`h_{ijk}^{}`$ we get:

$`3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}((h^{(2)})^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{Tr}(h^{(2)}))^2,`$ (13)
which implies $`h_{ij}^{(2)}=\alpha ^2\delta _{ij}`$, and then $`\gamma `$ is proportional to the identity matrix. One can show that this implies that we turn on only the $`\lambda `$, $`h_{111}=h_{222}=h_{333}`$ and $`h_{123}`$ couplings (or their $`SU(3)`$ rotations), and that $`\alpha ^2=\frac{1}{3}_{i,j,k}|h_{ijk}|^2`$.

The fixed points we found are IR stable fixed points, since we have:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma )=3(2(\lambda ^2g^2)+\alpha ^2),$$
(14)
and the condition for a fixed point is $`\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma )=0`$. From the $`\beta `$-functions we calculated we see that if we increase one of the couplings $`\lambda `$ or $`h_{ijk}`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma )`$ becomes positive thus decreasing these couplings and increasing the gauge coupling in IR, till we get again zero. A similar behavior arises if we decrease the couplings. Thus, we conclude that in the weak coupling limit all fixed points that exist imply diagonal $`\gamma `$ and are IR stable.

The general analysis above implies that the three dimensional surface of fixed points should persist also at strong coupling. The gravitational dual of these exactly marginal deformations will be discussed in  (it was also discussed in ).

## 3 Orbifold Theories

It is possible to reduce the number of supersymmetries of the $`d=4`$ $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, which we discussed in the previous section, via the orbifolding procedure, by looking at the theories arising from D3-branes at orbifold singularities .

We will look at $`N`$ coincident D3-branes at the $`_k`$ orbifold singularity of a $`^3/_k`$ space. Denoting the $`^3`$ coordinates transverse to the D3-branes by $`Z^l`$, the orbifold group acts on them as

$`Z^l\omega ^{a_l}Z^l,`$ (15)
where $`\omega e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k}}`$ and $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ is a triple of integers777The vector $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ has to satisfy $`_ia_i=0`$ (mod $`k`$) in order that the orbifold action will be part of $`SU(3)`$ and not $`U(3)`$, which is the condition for preserving supersymmetry. If we choose all the components to be non zero we have $`_kSU(3)`$ thus leaving us with one supersymmetry. If we choose one of the components zero then we can have $`\stackrel{}{a}=(n,0,n)`$ (mod $`k`$). This case is equivalent to the $`(1,0,1)`$ case, and in this case $`_kSU(2)`$ and we have $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. So there is only one choice giving an $`𝒩=2`$ theory here. If two components of $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ vanish the remaining one must also vanish, giving the $`𝒩=4`$ case. .

To see how the orbifold acts on the D-branes we put $`kN`$ D3-branes on the covering space and group them in $`N`$ sets of $`k`$ branes. We put each set of D-branes in the regular representation of $`_k`$, which is the direct sum of $`k`$ one dimensional irreducible representations parameterized by the integer $`n`$, given by $`\omega ^n`$ (with $`\omega `$ defined above). We denote each brane by a pair of indices, $`i=0,\mathrm{},N1`$ and $`I=0,\mathrm{},k1`$.

The bosonic fields on the D3-branes are a gauge field and three complex scalars $`Q_i`$, sitting in chiral multiplets, whose eigenvalues label the $`Z^i`$ positions of the branes. The projection on the gauge fields is given by (we write the adjoint fields in double index notation, with the upper index in the fundamental representation and the lower in the anti-fundamental):

$`A_{J,j}^{I,i}=\omega ^{IJ}A_{J,j}^{I,i},`$ (16)
and the projection on the chiral multiplets (which are related to the 6 transverse directions) is:

$`(Q_l)_{J,j}^{I,i}=\omega ^{IJ+a_l}(Q_l)_{J,j}^{I,i}.`$ (17)
This projection comes from acting on the Chan-Paton indices as well as on the space-time index.

The gauge fields which survive the projection are $`A_{J,j}^{I,i}`$ where both indices lie in the same irreducible representation of $`_k`$, $`I=J`$, giving a total of $`k`$ copies of $`U(N)`$ 888We will treat the gauge groups as $`SU(N)`$ rather than $`U(N)`$ from here on, since one $`U(1)`$ factor is decoupled and the others are free in the IR.. The matter content of the theory consists of chiral superfields in the following representations:

$`_{I=0}^{k1}(1,1\mathrm{}1,N_{(I)},1\mathrm{}1,\overline{N}_{(I+a_1)},1\mathrm{}.1,1),`$
$`_{I=0}^{k1}(1,1\mathrm{}1,N_{(I)},1\mathrm{}1,\overline{N}_{(I+a_2)},1\mathrm{}.1,1),`$
$`_{I=0}^{k1}(1,1\mathrm{}1,N_{(I)},1\mathrm{}1,\overline{N}_{(I+a_3)},1\mathrm{}.1,1),`$ (18)
where $`N_{(I)}`$ labels the $`I`$’th $`SU(N)`$ factor, except when $`a_I=0`$ in which case we get a chiral superfield in the adjoint of $`U(N)^k`$. We will denote these fields by $`Q_l^I`$ where $`I(0,\mathrm{},k1)`$, $`l(1,2,3)`$. The index $`I`$ denotes the index of the $`SU(N)`$ group of which the field is in the fundamental (or adjoint) representation.

The matter content of this theory can be summarized in a “quiver” diagram, where vertices represent the gauge groups, and oriented lines represent chiral multiplets in the fundamental of the group to which they point and the antifundamental of the second group.

In this paper we won’t be interested in particular in the superpotential coming from the orbifold theory, but rather in the most general superpotential with this matter content which is classically marginal. Generally, the only possible marginal superpotential999In the quiver diagram, the possible superpotentials (for $`SU(N>3)`$) correspond to oriented triangles. is of the form:

$`W=h_{lmn}^I\mathrm{Tr}(Q_l^IQ_m^{I+a_l}Q_n^{I+a_l+a_m}),`$ (19)
with $`a_l+a_m+a_n=0(\mathrm{mod}k)`$. The definition of the couplings $`h_{lmn}^I`$ in this way is redundant, since

$`h_{lmn}^I=h_{mnl}^{I+a_l}=h_{nlm}^{I+a_l+a_m}.`$ (20)
Obviously, for a general choice of $`k`$ and of $`\stackrel{}{a}`$, the only possibility is to take $`(l,m,n)`$ to be some permutation of $`(1,2,3)`$. In some special cases additional superpotentials are possible. For $`N>3`$ these cases are :

* $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY

+ general $`k`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(a,a,2a)`$,
    + $`k=3k^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(a,\frac{k}{3}a,\frac{k}{3})`$,
    + $`k=3k^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(\frac{k}{3},\frac{k}{3},\frac{k}{3})`$,
    + $`k=6k^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(\frac{k}{6},\frac{k}{6},\frac{2k}{3})`$.
* $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY

+ $`k=3`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,0)`$.

When $`a_1,a_2`$ and $`k`$ have a common divisor $`J`$ larger than one, then the theory splits into $`J`$ copies of the $`_{\frac{k}{J}}`$, $`\frac{1}{J}\stackrel{}{a}`$ theory. In particular there is no meaning to discussing the $`\stackrel{}{a}=(\frac{k}{3},\frac{k}{3},\frac{k}{3})`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(\frac{k}{6},\frac{k}{6},\frac{2k}{3})`$ theories for general $`k`$, they are all equivalent to the ones with $`k=3,6`$ respectively. We will assume that $`a_1,a_2`$ and $`k`$ have no non-trivial common divisor.

When the gauge group is $`SU(3)^k`$ there is another possible set of superpotentials. If $`Q_i^I,Q_j^I,Q_p^I`$ are bifundamentals of the same two groups, we can add the following marginal operator:

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{ijp}^I}{3!}}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ^{abc}(Q_i^I)_a^l(Q_j^I)_b^m(Q_p^I)_c^n.`$ (21)
We will start by treating the most general case in some detail, and then discuss briefly the special cases. Only fields in the same representation can mix under renormalization, so we can write the gamma matrix as $`\gamma _{lm}^I`$, where $`\gamma _{lm}^I`$ can be non vanishing only if $`a_l=a_m`$. In all the orbifold theories the 1-loop beta functions vanish, and the NSVZ formula gives

$`\beta _{g_I}\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma ^I)+\gamma _{11}^{Ia_1}+\gamma _{22}^{Ia_2}+\gamma _{33}^{Ia_3}.`$ (22)
For the superpotential couplings we have the usual expression coming from the general formula (1),

$`\beta _{h_{lmn}^I}h_{pmn}^I\gamma _{pl}^I+h_{lpn}^I\gamma _{pm}^{I+a_l}+h_{lmp}^I\gamma _{pn}^{I+a_l+a_m}.`$ (23)
### 3.1 The General Case

As we mentioned at the beginning of this section, in the most general case $`h_{ijk}^I`$ (from (19)) can appear only if $`(i,j,k)`$ is some permutation of $`(1,2,3)`$. The redundancy condition gives

$`h_{123}^I`$ $`=`$ $`h_{231}^{I+a_1}=h_{312}^{I+a_1+a_2},`$
$`h_{132}^I`$ $`=`$ $`h_{321}^{I+a_1}=h_{213}^{I+a_1+a_3},`$ (24)
so we actually have only $`2\times k`$ independent superpotential couplings here, $`h_Ih_{123}^I`$ and $`h_I^{}h_{132}^I`$.

We start with a general analysis of the expected dimension of the space of exactly marginal deformations, along the lines of . From the general $`\beta `$-functions (22), (23), we obtain, using the fact that in this case there is no mixing between the fields,

$`\beta _{h_I}`$ $``$ $`\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^{I+a_1}+\gamma _3^{I+a_1+a_2},`$
$`\beta _{h_I^{}}`$ $``$ $`\gamma _1^I+\gamma _3^{I+a_1}+\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3},`$ (25)
$`\beta _{g_I}`$ $``$ $`\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^I+\gamma _3^I+\gamma _1^{I+a_2+a_3}+\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3}+\gamma _3^{I+a_1+a_2}.`$
Naively the vanishing of (3.1) gives $`3k`$ conditions for $`3k`$ couplings so we don’t expect any exactly marginal directions. However, there are some relations between the $`\beta `$-functions.

Let us denote the largest common divisor of $`k`$ and $`a_i`$ by $`\alpha _i`$, and define $`𝒮_{a_i}^J`$ to be the set of indices $`(J,J+a_i,J+2a_i,\mathrm{})`$. We find that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{h_I}}{h_I}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}}(\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^I)+{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^{J+a_2}}{}}\gamma _3^{I+a_2},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{h_I^{}}}{h_I^{}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}}(\gamma _1^I+\gamma _3^I)+{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^{J+a_1+a_3}}{}}\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3},`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{g_I}}{f(g_I)}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}}(2\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^I+\gamma _3^I)+{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^{J+a_1+a_3}}{}}\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3}+{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^{J+a_2}}{}}\gamma _3^{I+a_2},`$
where $`f(g)\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{2g^3C_1}{1\frac{2C_1g^2}{16\pi ^2}}`$. Thus, we have $`_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}\frac{\beta _{g_I}}{f(g_I)}_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}\frac{\beta _{h_I}}{h_I}+_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}\frac{\beta _{h_I^{}}}{h_I^{}}`$, and our system of linear equations is dependent. The number of such dependencies is obviously $`\alpha _1`$, since there are $`\frac{k}{\alpha _1}`$ elements in $`𝒮_{a_1}^J`$. We can do the same procedure for $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$, finding $`_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}\frac{\beta _{g_I}}{f(g_I)}_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}\frac{\beta _{h_I}}{h_I}+_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}\frac{\beta _{h_I^{}}}{h_I^{}}`$, $`_{I𝒮_{a_3}^J}\frac{\beta _{g_I}}{f(g_I)}_{I𝒮_{a_3}^J}\frac{\beta _{h_I}}{h_I}+_{I𝒮_{a_3}^J}\frac{\beta _{h_I^{}}}{h_I^{}}`$. These three relations are not completely independent. By summing over $`J`$ each of the three relations we get the same constraint. Thus, we find from here $`(_{i=1}^3\alpha _i2)`$ linear relations between the beta functions.

The $`\beta _{h_I}`$ and $`\beta _{h_I^{}}`$ are also not completely independent: we have $`_I\frac{\beta _{h_I}}{h_I}=_I\frac{\beta _{h_I^{}}}{h_I^{}}`$, which gives another relation. Thus, all in all we have $`(_{i=1}^3\alpha _i1)`$ linear relations between the $`\beta `$-functions.

We have $`k`$ gauge couplings, $`k`$ $`h_I`$’s, and $`k`$ $`h_I^{}`$’s, for a total of $`3k`$ parameters. We have $`3k(_{i=1}^3\alpha _i1)`$ independent equations, so we expect to find an $`(_{i=1}^3\alpha _i1)`$ dimensional manifold of fixed points. In the generic case of $`\alpha _i=1`$ we find two exactly marginal deformations. This is what we expect from the orbifold relations, at least for large $`N`$, as we will discuss in section 4.

We also found that some linear combinations of anomalous dimensions do not appear in (3.1), so the anomalous dimensions do not have to vanish on the fixed surface, unlike the $`𝒩=4`$ case. Let us find explicitly the $`(_{i=1}^3\alpha _i1)`$-dimensional space of possible values for the anomalous dimensions. From the vanishing of (3.1) we get:

$`\gamma _3^I`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3}+\gamma _1^{I+a_3},`$
$`\gamma _3^I`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1^{I+a_2+a_3}+\gamma _2^{I+a_3},`$ (27)
$`\gamma _3^I\gamma _3^{I+a_1+a_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3}+\gamma _1^{I+a_2+a_3}+\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^I,`$
leading to

$`\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3}+\gamma _1^{I+a_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2^{I+a_3}+\gamma _1^{I+a_2+a_3},`$
$`\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_3}+\gamma _1^I`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2^{I+a_3}+\gamma _1^{I+a_2},`$ (28)
and finally to

$`\gamma _1^{I+a_3}\gamma _1^{I+a_2+a_3}=\gamma _1^I\gamma _1^{I+a_2}.`$ (29)
We see that if we define $`\gamma _1^I\gamma _1^{I+a_2}K_I`$ then $`K_I=K_{I+a_3}`$, so we have $`\alpha _3`$ independent $`K_I`$’s, which satisfy $`_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}K_I=0`$.

Since $`a_2,a_3`$ and $`k`$ have no common divisor, we find that if $`_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}K_I=0`$ for some $`J`$ then it is true for any $`J`$. Similarly, we find that $`_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}K_I=0`$. Thus, we have one constraint on $`\alpha _3`$ $`K_I`$’s. Since

$`\gamma _1^IK_I`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1^{I+a_2},`$
$`\gamma _2^IK_I`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2^{I+a_1},`$ (30)
$`\gamma _3^I`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1^{I+a_2+a_3}+\gamma _2^{I+a_3},`$
we conclude that we have $`\alpha _2`$ independent $`\gamma _1^I`$’s, $`\alpha _1`$ independent $`\gamma _2^I`$’s and $`\alpha _31`$ independent $`K_I`$’s. Thus, we can have $`(_{i=1}^3\alpha _i1)`$ independent $`\gamma `$-functions as expected. The naive expectation is that these $`\gamma `$ functions will not vanish at generic points on the surface of exactly marginal deformations.

#### 3.1.1 Perturbative Calculations

Let us now look at the perturbative conditions for vanishing $`\beta `$-functions. At one loop we have101010We define $`=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{N^21}{N}`$, $`𝒜=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{N}{2}`$.

$`\gamma _{Q_1^I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(|h_{123}^I|^2+|h_{132}^I|^2)(g_I^2+g_{I+a_1}^2)=\gamma _1^I,`$
$`\gamma _{Q_2^I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(|h_{231}^I|^2+|h_{213}^I|^2)(g_I^2+g_{I+a_2}^2)=\gamma _2^I,`$
$`\gamma _{Q_3^I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(|h_{312}^I|^2+|h_{321}^I|^2)(g_I^2+g_{I+a_3}^2)=\gamma _3^I,`$ (31)
or

$`\gamma _{Q_1^I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(|h_I|^2+|h_I^{}|^2)(g_I^2+g_{I+a_1}^2)=\gamma _1^I,`$
$`\gamma _{Q_2^I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(|h_{Ia_1}|^2+|h_{I+a_2}^{}|^2)(g_I^2+g_{I+a_2}^2)=\gamma _2^I,`$
$`\gamma _{Q_3^I}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(|h_{I+a_3}|^2+|h_{Ia_1}^{}|^2)(g_I^2+g_{I+a_3}^2)=\gamma _3^I.`$ (32)
Defining

$`A_{I+a_1}`$ $``$ $`𝒜|h_I|^2g_{I+a_1}^2,B_I𝒜|h_I^{}|^2g_I^2,`$
$`C_I`$ $``$ $`(g_{Ia_1}^2+g_{Ia_2}^2g_I^2g_{I+a_3}^2),`$ (33)
we have using (3.1):

$`\gamma _{Q_1^I}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{I+a_1}+B_I=\gamma _1^I,`$
$`\gamma _{Q_2^I}`$ $`=`$ $`A_I+B_{I+a_2}=\gamma _2^I,`$
$`\gamma _{Q_3^{I+a_1+a_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{I+a_1}+B_{I+a_2}+C_{I+a_1+a_2}=(\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^IK_I).`$ (34)
By subtracting the first equation from the third and summing over $`𝒮_{a_2}^J`$ we get zero since $`_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}C_I=0`$, and thus we find $`_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}(2\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^IK_I)=_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}(2\gamma _1^I+\gamma _2^I)=0`$, and further by using (3.1) we find

$$\frac{2k}{\alpha _2}\gamma _1^J=\underset{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}{}\gamma _2^I2\underset{j=0}{\overset{\frac{k}{\alpha _2}1}{}}(\frac{k}{\alpha _2}1j)K_{I+ja_2}.$$
(35)
By subtracting the second equation from the third and summing over $`𝒮_{a_1}^J`$ we again find zero, so $`_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}(\gamma _1^I+2\gamma _2^IK_I)=_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}(\gamma _1^I+2\gamma _2^I)=0`$, and further by using (3.1) we find

$$\frac{2k}{\alpha _1}\gamma _2^J=\underset{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}{}\gamma _1^I2\underset{j=0}{\overset{\frac{k}{\alpha _1}1}{}}(\frac{k}{\alpha _1}1j)K_{I+ja_1}.$$
(36)
Plugging (36) into (35) we find111111We define $`𝒯_{a_i,a_j}^J\{I|I=J+n_1a_i+n_2a_j;n_1,n_2\}`$. :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4k^2}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\gamma _1^J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒯_{a_1,a_2}^J}{}}\gamma _1^I2{\displaystyle \underset{l,j}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\alpha _1}}1j)K_{J+ja_1+la_2}+{\displaystyle \frac{4k}{\alpha _1}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\frac{k}{\alpha _2}1}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{k}{\alpha _2}}1j)K_{J+ja_2}=`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I𝒯_{a_1,a_2}^J}{}}\gamma _1^I{\displaystyle \frac{4k}{\alpha _1}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\frac{k}{\alpha _2}1}{}}}jK_{J+ja_2},`$
where in the last line we used $`_{I𝒯_{a_1,a_2}^J}K_I=0`$. From the first two equations in (3.1.1) it is clear that

$$\underset{I𝒮_{a_1+a_2}^{J+a_2}}{}\gamma _1^{I+a_2}=\underset{I𝒮_{a_1+a_2}^J}{}\gamma _2^I,$$
(38)
and that $`_I\gamma _1^I=_I\gamma _2^I`$, leading to $`_I\gamma _1^I=_I\gamma _2^I=0`$. From here and from (37) we see that $`\gamma _1^I=\frac{\alpha _2}{k}_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{\alpha _2}1}jK_{I+ja_2}`$ and $`\gamma _2^I=\frac{\alpha _1}{k}_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{\alpha _1}1}jK_{I+ja_1}`$. The periodicity of $`K_I`$ now implies that $`\gamma _1^I=\gamma _1^{I+a_1+a_2}`$ and $`\gamma _2^I=\gamma _2^{I+a_1+a_2}`$, and from (38) we get $`\gamma _1^{I+a_2}=\gamma _2^I`$. Now, from (3.1) we get:

$$\gamma _1^{I+a_1+a_2}=\gamma _2^{I+a_1}=\gamma _2^IK_I=\gamma _1^{I+a_2}K_I=\gamma _1^I2K_I,$$
(39)
so all $`K_I`$ have to vanish. Using our equations this implies that all the $`\gamma _{1,2,3}^I`$ have to vanish. So, at one loop order we cannot turn on any non vanishing anomalous dimensions.

From the first and second equations in (3.1.1) we now see that $`A_I=A_{I+a_1+a_2}`$, so we can parameterize our solution by $`\alpha _3`$ $`A_I`$’s. The $`B_I`$’s are obtained from the $`A_I`$’s using (3.1.1). Using the second and third equations we have $`A_{I+a_1}A_I=C_{I+a_1+a_2}`$, giving the $`C_I`$’s. Note that from the definition of $`C_I`$ we have $`_{I𝒮_{a_2}^J}C_I,_{I𝒮_{a_1}^J}C_I=0`$, thus there are only $`k+1\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ independent $`C_I`$’s (the shift by one is because $`_IC_I=0`$ follows from both constraints). From the $`C_I`$’s we get linear equations on $`k`$ gauge couplings squared, whose space of solutions is $`\alpha _1+\alpha _21`$-dimensional. The $`h_I`$’s and $`(h_I^{})`$’s can be obtained from the $`B_I`$’s, the $`A_I`$’s and the gauge couplings.

Thus, to summarize, we have $`_i\alpha _i1`$ parameters for our solution, as expected. The solution obtained looks non generic, since in the general analysis we expected to find a $`(_i\alpha _i1)`$-dimensional manifold of fixed points due to the possibility of turning on non-zero anomalous dimensions. However, we see that at one loop the anomalous dimensions are forced to vanish, and nevertheless we find the expected dimensionality of the manifold of fixed points. The one-loop solution can be extended to all orders in perturbation theory, as we will illustrate below in the $`𝒩=2`$ example. Generally, the anomalous dimensions may be turned on in this solution at higher loop orders.

#### 3.1.2 $`𝒩=2`$ example

We will illustrate the results of the previous section by the $`𝒩=2`$ example, which is the $`^3/_k`$ $`(1,1,0)`$ orbifold. We denote $`Q_IQ_1^I`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_IQ_2^{I+1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_IQ_3^I`$.

The possible superpotentials here are:

$`W_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{Tr}(\alpha _I\stackrel{~}{Q}_I\mathrm{\Phi }_IQ_I+\delta _IQ_I\mathrm{\Phi }_{I+1}\stackrel{~}{Q}_I),`$
$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h_I\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I).`$ (40)
The superpotential $`W_2`$ is specific to the $`𝒩=2`$ case where $`a_3=0`$ so we will deal with it at the end of this subsection. Setting $`h_I`$ to zero, the $`\beta `$-functions are :

$`\beta _{g_I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_I^3}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{1\frac{2Ng_I^2}{16\pi ^2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _{Q_I}+\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_I}+\gamma _{Q_{I1}}+\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{I1}})+\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}),`$
$`\beta _{\alpha _I}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _I(\gamma _{Q_I}+\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_I}+\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}),`$ (41)
$`\beta _{\delta _I}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _I(\gamma _{Q_I}+\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_I}+\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_{I+1}}).`$
Because of the symmetry of all interactions we have $`\gamma _{Q_I}=\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_I}`$. Equating the $`\beta `$-functions to zero we obtain that $`I:\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}\gamma `$, and also all the $`\gamma _{Q_I}`$’s have to be equal and equal to $`\frac{1}{2}\gamma `$. So, we have here $`3k`$ couplings and one possible independent anomalous dimension $`\gamma `$. Since a priori we have $`2k`$ different anomalous dimensions, we have $`2k1`$ equations, and we expect to find a $`(k+1)`$-dimensional manifold of fixed points.

Next, we do the perturbative analysis. The one-loop calculation gives:

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}((|\delta _{I1}|^2+|\alpha _I|^2)8g_I^2),`$ (42)
$`\gamma _{Q_I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{4N}}\left\{(|\delta _I|^2+|\alpha _I|^2)4(g_I^2+g_{I+1}^2)\right\}.`$
Defining $`B_I|\delta _{I1}|^24g_I^2`$, $`A_I|\alpha _I|^24g_I^2`$ and $`16\pi ^2\frac{4N}{N^21}\gamma \gamma `$, the requirement of vanishing $`\beta `$-functions becomes :

$`B_I+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma ,`$ (43)
$`B_{I+1}+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma .`$
By subtracting the first line from the second and summing over $`I`$, we find that $`\gamma =0`$. Thus, again we find that at one loop precision the $`\gamma `$ parameter has to vanish. As we will see later this is not necessarily true for higher loop calculations.

The case of vanishing $`\gamma `$ is the case of vanishing anomalous dimensions. We see that in this case the condition for having zero $`\beta `$-functions is that for all $`I`$, $`B_I=X=A_I`$ for some number $`X`$ which is a parameter. Thus, we find a family of solutions parameterized by $`X`$ and the gauge couplings, with

$`|\delta _{I1}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`X+4g_I^2,`$ (44)
$`|\alpha _I|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4g_I^2X.`$
We see that the parameter $`X`$ is constrained to the range $`\mathrm{min}_I\left\{4g_I^2\right\}X\mathrm{min}_I\left\{4g_I^2\right\}`$. The case $`X=0`$ is the case of $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY.

To summarize, we find a $`(k+1)`$-dimensional space of solutions. We expected a $`(k+1)`$-dimensional manifold from the general analysis, but the $`(+1)`$ was due to the $`\gamma `$ parameter. At one loop we find that $`\gamma =0`$ but nevertheless we have a $`(k+1)`$-dimensional space of solutions.

A natural question is whether the vanishing of $`\gamma `$ extends to higher loops, and whether we can extend our solution, parameterized by the gauge couplings and the parameter $`X`$, to higher loops. We will prove that the non-vanishing $`X`$ solution does not disappear at higher loops. First we will represent a general solution as a function of the gauge couplings and the $`X`$ parameter. The procedure we use here is similar to the coupling constant reduction procedure described in .

The most general solution for $`\alpha _I`$ and $`\delta _I`$ depending on our parameters $`X`$ and $`g_I`$, consistent with the one loop analysis and with the $`𝒩=2`$ case (which is known to be exactly conformal for any gauge couplings), is of the form

$`|\delta _{I1}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4g_I^2+X(1+{\displaystyle \underset{m,j,l_s}{}}a_{l_1\mathrm{}l_j}^{(I)m}X^mg_{l_1}^2\mathrm{}g_{l_j}^2),`$ (45)
$`|\alpha _I|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4g_I^2X(1+{\displaystyle \underset{m,j,l_s}{}}b_{l_1\mathrm{}l_j}^{(I)m}X^mg_{l_1}^2\mathrm{}g_{l_j}^2),`$
where $`a,b`$ are some constants and $`m+j>0`$. We will construct the solution by an inductive process. Assume that we have computed the $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s in these solutions up to $`(n1)`$’th order in $`g^2`$ and $`X`$, and look at the $`n`$’th order. First, we calculate the $`\gamma _{Q_I}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}`$. We can write them as:

$`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)}=\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(1loop)}+\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ (46)
$`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)}=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(1loop)}+\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}.`$
We define:

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_I^{(n)}`$ $``$ $`(\delta _{I1}^2)^{(n)}=X({\displaystyle \underset{m,j,l_s,m+j=(n1)}{}}a_{l_1\mathrm{}l_j}^{(I)m}X^mg_{l_1}^2\mathrm{}g_{l_j}^2),`$ (47)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}`$ $``$ $`(\alpha _I^2)^{(n)}=X({\displaystyle \underset{m,j,l_s,m+j=(n1)}{}}b_{l_1\mathrm{}l_j}^{(I)m}X^mg_{l_1}^2\mathrm{}g_{l_j}^2).`$
The $`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(1loop)}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(1loop)}`$ have a special structure, giving:

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{I+1}^{(n)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(1loop)},`$ (48)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_I^{(n)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(1loop)}.`$
Now, we parameterize the remaining contributions to the $`\gamma `$’s as:

$`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ $``$ $`T_I^{(n)}+S_{I+1}^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{(n)},`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ $``$ $`T_I^{(n)}+S_I^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{(n)},`$
where the different quantities are defined as :

$`k({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{(n)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }X^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_1^{(n)}0,`$ (50)
$`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{I+1}^{(n)}S_I^{(n)}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{(n)}.`$
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^{(n)}`$ is just a redefinition of X, so we can set it to zero without any loss of generality, and the $`T_I^{(n)}`$’s are automatically determined from above. We see that the definitions above uniquely determine $`S_I,T_I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$.

The crucial point is that in order to calculate the one loop contribution to the $`n`$’th order we use the $`n`$’th order components of (45), while for two loops we use the (n-1)’th order of (45), and so on. Thus, because we have already determined (45) up to $`n1`$’th order, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ and $`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ depend only on already determined quantities. The yet undetermined quantities appear only at one loop.

From the $`\beta `$-function analysis we know that $`\gamma _{Q_I}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}=\gamma `$. Thus, using the equations above we find

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_I^{(n)},`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_I^{(n)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{(n)},`$
where in the first two lines we are determining the $`n`$’th order $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s, and in the third line we are computing the $`\gamma `$ parameter. We see that it does not have to be zero at higher loops. This procedure is well defined and unique, and can be extended to any order in perturbation theory. So, we have proven that there exists a $`(k+1)`$-dimensional manifold of fixed points parameterized by the gauge couplings and the $`X`$ parameter121212 Equivalently, we can use $`\gamma `$ to parameterize the solution, if it is non-zero starting from some order in the perturbation series., at all orders of perturbation theory.

The procedure described above for the $`𝒩=2`$ theory can be repeated for any general orbifold theory. In the general case we also find that the anomalous dimensions can not be turned on at one loop order, but nevertheless the number of exactly marginal directions is as predicted from the general analysis. The anomalous dimensions may be turned on at higher orders of perturbation theory.

As mentioned above, in the specific $`𝒩=2`$ example we can also turn on a deformation $`W=\frac{1}{6}h_I\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I)`$, which we now analyze. In this case we are constrained to have $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}=0`$ or equivalently $`\gamma =0`$. We have here $`4k`$ couplings ($`k`$ gauge couplings, $`\alpha _I`$’s, $`\delta _I`$’s and $`h_I`$’s), and $`2k`$ constraints $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}=\gamma _{Q_I}=0`$, so we expect naively to find a $`2k`$-dimensional manifold of fixed points.

At one-loop we get, defining $`C_I\frac{1}{8}\frac{N^24}{N^2}|h_I|^2`$,

$`B_I+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`C_I,`$ (52)
$`B_{I+1}+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
By subtracting the equations and summing over $`I`$ we get $`_IC_I=0`$, but this is impossible unless all $`h_I`$ vanish because $`C_I`$ is positive definite. So, we conclude that there are no fixed points with non vanishing $`h_I`$ at one-loop.

We now proceed in search of all loop solutions like we did above. The general expressions for $`\alpha _I`$ and $`\delta _I`$ can now depend also on the $`h_I`$’s, and we proceed as before:

$`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)}=\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(1loop)}+\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)},`$ (53)
$`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)}=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(1loop)}+\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)},`$
where the $`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(1loop)}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(1loop)}`$ have a special structure,

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{I+1}^{(n)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(1loop)},`$ (54)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_I^{(n)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}+C_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(1loop)}.`$
Now, we parameterize the remaining contributions to the $`\gamma `$’s as

$`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ $``$ $`T_I^{(n)}+S_{I+1}^{(n)},`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ $``$ $`T_I^{(n)}+S_I^{(n)}C_I^{(n)},`$
where the different quantities are defined by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}C_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }X^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_1^{(n)}(0),`$ (56)
$`\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{N^2}}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{I+1}^{(n)}S_I^{(n)}+C_I^{(n)}.`$
Again, $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^{(n)}`$ is just a redefinition of $`X`$, so we can set it to zero without any loss of generality, the first equation determines $`_IC_I`$ and we can choose the individual $`C_I`$’s arbitrarily (subject to this constraint), and then the $`T_I^{(n)}`$’s are automatically determined from above.

The definitions above are well-defined, except for one caveat. The first equation above cannot always be satisfied: in the lowest order where $`C_I^{(n)}`$ is not zero it has to be positive, so at that order $`\widehat{\gamma }_I\gamma _{Q_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}\frac{N^21}{N^2}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}^{(n)(2..nloops)}`$ has to be positive. In  we computed this combination $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ up to three loop order (without the $`h_I`$’s) and found that it vanished, thus implying that no $`h_I`$’s can be turned on up to this order.

If at some higher order we find that $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is negative then there are no perturbative solutions with non-zero $`h_I`$. On the other hand, if at the first order where it is non-zero it is positive, then we proceed like in the previous case to obtain a solution, by demanding that $`\gamma _{Q_I}=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}=0`$, so that

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_I^{(n)},`$ (57)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_I^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_I^{(n)}.`$
This defines the yet undetermined $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s, and the equation for $`C_I`$ gives one constraint on the $`k`$ $`h_I`$ couplings, giving an additional $`(k1)`$-dimensional space of solutions as expected from the general analysis. Again, this procedure is well defined and can be extended to any order in perturbation theory, if the sign of $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is right.

### 3.2 Special Cases

The analysis of other special cases is analogous to our analysis above, and we will present here only the results (details may be found in ).

$``$ $`k=3`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,0)`$

In addition to both types of deformations discussed in the previous subsection we can have here also a superpotential $`W=\frac{\kappa }{3!}\mathrm{Tr}(Q_1Q_2Q_3)+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}{3!}\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{Q}_1\stackrel{~}{Q}_2\stackrel{~}{Q}_3)`$. In this case we find, both in the general analysis and in the one-loop analysis, $`7`$ exactly marginal deformations, which is three deformations more than the general $`𝒩=2`$ case we treated above.

$``$ $`k=3`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,1)`$

In this case we can also have a superpotential of the form $`W=h_{ijk}^I\mathrm{Tr}(Q_i^IQ_j^{I+1}Q_k^{I+2})`$, and we find $`3`$ exactly marginal deformations, one beyond the number of deformations expected from the generic case.

$``$ $`\stackrel{}{a}=(a,a,2a)`$

This case includes theories with $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY ($`k=2`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,0)`$) and theories with $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY. The extra interactions that can be turned on here are $`h_{113}^I,h_{223}^I`$ from (19). We define $`p_Ih_{113}^I`$ and $`s_Ih_{223}^I`$. The extra $`\beta `$-functions are:

$`\beta _{s_I}`$ $``$ $`\gamma _2^I+\gamma _2^{I+a}+\gamma _3^{I+2a},`$
$`\beta _{p_I}`$ $``$ $`\gamma _1^I+\gamma _1^{I+a}+\gamma _3^{I+2a}.`$ (58)
From here one can obtain that in the odd $`k`$ case all the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _1^I,\gamma _2^I`$ are equal, and in the even $`k`$ case we have two independent anomalous dimensions : $`\gamma _{1,2}^{I+2a}=\gamma _{1,2}^I`$. We also see that all the $`\gamma _3^I`$’s are equal and equal to $`(\gamma _1^I+\gamma _1^{I+a})`$.

In the even $`k`$ case we find a new solution, not obtained in the general case. This solution is parameterized by three couplings, which can be chosen to be the gauge coupling (equal for all groups) and two of the $`p_I`$’s ($`p_I=p_{I+2a}`$).

$``$ $`k=3k^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(a,\frac{k}{3}a,\frac{k}{3})`$ and $`k=6`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,4)`$.

In these cases we can turn on superpotentials of the form $`h_{333}^I\mathrm{Tr}(Q_3^IQ_3^{I+\frac{2k}{3}}Q_3^{I+\frac{4k}{3}})`$. We add $`k^{}`$ couplings but we also add $`k^{}`$ new $`\beta `$-functions,

$`\beta _{h_{333}^I}\gamma _3^I+\gamma _3^{I+k^{}}+\gamma _3^{I+2k^{}}=0,`$ (59)
or $`_{I𝒮_{\frac{2k}{3}}^J}\gamma _3^I=0`$. Thus we do not expect any new exactly marginal directions here and we indeed don’t see them in the perturbative calculation.

$``$ $`SU(N=3)`$

As we mentioned, we can have here a larger class of marginal deformations (21). Again we discuss the example of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory and briefly report the results for other cases. In this case one can add additional superpotentials of the form $`\frac{\rho _I}{3!}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ^{abc}(Q_I)_a^l(Q_I)_b^m(Q_I)_c^n`$ and $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_I}{3!}ϵ_{lmn}ϵ^{abc}(\stackrel{~}{Q}_I)_a^l(\stackrel{~}{Q}_I)_b^m(\stackrel{~}{Q}_I)_c^n`$, and

$`\beta _{\rho _I}=3\rho _I\gamma _{Q_I},`$
$`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_I}=3\stackrel{~}{\rho }_I\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_I}.`$ (60)
From here and (3.1.2) we find for all $`I`$ $`\gamma _{Q_I}=\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{Q}_I}=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}=0`$. In this case adding non zero $`h_I`$’s doesn’t change the conditions for the $`\gamma `$’s ($`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}`$ has to be zero anyway), so we can consider them together. We have here $`6k`$ couplings and $`3k`$ conditions, leading naively to a $`3k`$ dimensional manifold of fixed points. The interactions we add affect the one loop $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}`$ as in (52), with additional terms $`2\rho _I^2(K_I)`$ for $`Q`$ and $`2\stackrel{~}{\rho }_I^2(\stackrel{~}{K}_I)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ :

$`B_I+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`C_I,`$
$`B_{I+1}+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`K_I,`$ (61)
$`B_{I+1}+A_I`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{K}_I.`$
At one loop we find that necessarily

$`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}C_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}K_I,`$ (62)
$`K_I`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{K}_I,`$
and the one loop solution is:

$`|\delta _{I1}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`X+4g_I^2+{\displaystyle \underset{J=1}{\overset{I1}{}}}(C_JK_J),`$
$`|\alpha _I|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4g_I^2X+{\displaystyle \underset{J=1}{\overset{I1}{}}}K_J{\displaystyle \underset{J=1}{\overset{I}{}}}C_J.`$ (63)
The general solution is parameterized by $`k`$ gauge couplings, the $`X`$ parameter, $`k`$ $`\rho _I`$’s and $`k`$ $`h_I`$’s subject to the condition (62) above, giving a total of $`3k`$ parameters, and a $`3k`$-dimensional manifold of fixed points as expected. These solutions can be extended to all loops like we did before.

The number of exactly marginal deformations in other cases with $`SU(N=3)`$ gauge group is :

* General case: $`3k`$ exactly marginal deformations.
* $`k=3`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,0)`$: 11 exactly marginal deformations.
* $`k=3`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,1)`$: 33 exactly marginal deformations.
* $`\stackrel{}{a}=(a,a,2a)`$: $`5k`$ exactly marginal deformations.
* $`\stackrel{}{a}=(a,\frac{k}{3}a,\frac{k}{3})`$, $`k=3k^{}`$: $`4k`$ exactly marginal deformations.
* $`\stackrel{}{a}=(1,1,4)`$, $`k=6`$: $`36`$ exactly marginal deformations.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

First we summarize our results on the exactly marginal deformations :

* $`𝒩=4`$
We found that the only supersymmetric exactly marginal deformations of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, other than changing the gauge coupling, are the superpotentials :

$`\delta \lambda ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i[\mathrm{\Phi }^j,\mathrm{\Phi }^k]),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\{\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^i\}),`$ (64)
$`h_{123}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^1\{\mathrm{\Phi }^2,\mathrm{\Phi }^3\}),`$
with one equation relating $`\lambda `$, $`h_{123}`$, $`h`$ and the gauge coupling. These fixed points are IR stable, and the theory is not asymptotically free for any choice of the coupling constants.
* $`𝒩=2`$

In the $`𝒩=2`$ SYM theories obtained from $`^2/_k`$ orbifolds we found :

+ General $`k`$

    We found that there is one exactly marginal direction (in addition to the $`k`$ gauge couplings), parameterized by a parameter $`X`$, which can be proven to be exactly marginal at any order of perturbation theory. The $`X=0`$ case has $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY and all the $`\gamma `$’s vanish, however if $`X0`$ there may be non-zero $`\gamma `$’s along this direction. From the general analysis we expect to have here another $`k1`$ exactly marginal directions, related to turning on $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I\mathrm{\Phi }_I)`$ superpotentials. We do not see these exactly marginal directions up to three loops. This, however, does not necessarily prevent them from appearing at higher loops. Whether they appear or not depends on the value of a linear combination of the $`\gamma _{Q_I}`$ and the $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}`$ along the flat direction parameterized by $`X`$, which does not include these operators. If this linear combination is positive or zero, then these marginal directions are ruled out, but if it is negative then these exactly marginal directions exist. In any case, the total number of exactly marginal directions is at least $`k+1`$.
    + $`k=3`$

    In this case we have again the gauge couplings and the $`X`$ deformation, as above, and we can also have three additional exactly marginal directions. The perturbative result agrees with the general analysis, and we see all the marginal deformations already at one loop. The total number of exactly marginal directions here is $`7`$.
    + $`SU(N=3)`$

    Here we have yet a larger space of deformations : in addition to the gauge couplings and the $`X`$ deformation, we get $`2k1`$ additional deformations, for a total of $`3k`$ exactly marginal deformations for general $`k`$, and $`11`$ for $`k=3`$. Again we see all the deformations already at one-loop, in agreement with the general analysis.
* $`𝒩=1`$

For the theory coming from a $`_k`$ orbifold with general $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$, denoting the largest common divisor of $`a_i`$ with $`k`$ by $`\alpha _i`$, we show that the number of exactly marginal directions is $`_i\alpha _i1`$. In the case where two of the $`a_i`$s are equal and $`k`$ is even we get additional exactly marginal directions. In the special case of $`SU(N=3)`$ we get much larger manifolds of fixed points, ranging from dimension $`3k`$ in the most general $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ $`_k`$ theory, to $`11k`$ in the $`k=3`$ case.

In the large $`N`$ limit, there is a strong relation between the orbifold theories and the parent $`𝒩=4`$ theory. Operators in the $`𝒩=4`$ theory which are invariant under the orbifold action are related to “untwisted operators” in the orbifold theories; for example, the operator $`\mathrm{Tr}(F_{\mu \nu }^2)`$ in the $`𝒩=4`$ theory is related to the operator $`_I\mathrm{Tr}((F_{\mu \nu }^I)^2)`$ in the orbifold theories. The relation is  that in the large $`N`$ limit, where only planar diagrams contribute to correlation functions, all correlation functions of these operators are equal (up to some powers of $`k`$) in the “parent” theory and in the orbifold theories.

Clearly, this implies that in the large $`N`$ limit, exactly marginal deformations of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory which are invariant under the orbifolding should correspond to exactly marginal deformations of the orbifold theories as well. Our analysis above shows that this is, in fact, true even at finite $`N`$. Two of the exactly marginal deformations of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory are always invariant under the orbifolds we perform; the only one which is not is $`W=h_i\mathrm{Tr}((\mathrm{\Phi }^i)^3)`$. And indeed, in all our orbifold theories we find two exactly marginal deformations coming from these deformations. Such exactly marginal deformations are necessarily invariant under the action of the $`_k`$ orbifold group. For example, in the $`𝒩=2`$ case, these two deformations are the equal change in all the gauge couplings, and the deformation parameterized by $`X`$. In the special $`k=3`$ case, the third exactly marginal deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM is also invariant under the orbifolding, and indeed we find this additional deformation in all the cases with $`k=3`$. So, our results are consistent with the expectations from the orbifold point of view.

The theories we describe here all have string theory duals, given by type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/_k`$ . Exactly marginal deformations correspond to moduli of these string compactifications, in which some massless scalar fields on $`AdS_5`$ acquire VEVs. The string theory dual of the exactly marginal deformations of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM will be discussed, in the large $`N`$ supergravity approximation, in . When the deformation is invariant under $`_k`$, one can orbifold also the deformed backgrounds, and this will give the string theory backgrounds corresponding to the exactly marginal deformations of the orbifold theories. Alternatively, they can be described by turning on untwisted sector moduli fields in $`AdS_5\times S^5/_k`$.

The additional exactly marginal deformations that we find in the orbifold theories are all related to twisted sector moduli in the string theory. Such moduli can only appear on the string theory side if the orbifold action has fixed points on the $`S^5`$, at which massless twisted sector fields are located. For example, in the $`𝒩=2`$ case, the orbifold keeps one direction in $`^3`$ fixed, and thus because the orbifold acts on the $`S^5`$ factor of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ as it acts on the angular coordinates of the $`^6^3`$, we have a fixed $`S^1`$ in the $`S^5`$. This enables the appearance of massless twisted sector states which can correspond to some exactly marginal operators on the field theory side. In this case these $`k1`$ deformations correspond to $`k1`$ blow up modes of the $`^2/_k`$ singularity  (more precisely, they correspond to the 2-form fields on the vanishing 2-cycles in these singularities). Another case of exactly marginal operators coming from the twisted sector is the $`2`$ additional operators we get in the $`𝒩=2`$ $`_3`$ case.

In the $`𝒩=1`$ case the only fixed point of the full $`_k`$ action is the origin of $`^3`$. However, we still can have massless twisted sector states if some of the elements of the orbifold group have fixed points on the $`S^5`$. The action of the orbifold is given by :

$`\mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k}a_1}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k}a_2}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k}a_3}\end{array}\right).`$ (68)
Now, if $`\alpha _1`$ is the largest common divisor of $`k`$ and $`a_1`$, and if we start with the vector $`(1,0,0)`$, we will get back to our starting point after $`\frac{k}{\alpha _1}`$ applications of $`\mathrm{}`$. So, if $`\alpha _1>1`$, the $`\frac{k}{\alpha _1}`$’th twisted sector has fixed points and could include massless states. More generally we find $`\alpha _i1`$ twisted sectors which could have massless states living on a circle on $`S^5`$.

In the general theory we found $`_i\alpha _i1`$ exactly marginal deformations, two of which came from the untwisted sector. Thus, we see that each twisted sector with fixed points contributes precisely one exactly marginal deformation to the theory, corresponding to turning on a massless scalar in this twisted sector. The $`_i\alpha _i3`$ exactly marginal deformations coming from the twisted sectors can be related to the $`𝒩=2`$ blow up modes – locally near the fixed line where the light twisted sector states live, the background looks like the $`𝒩=2`$ $`AdS_5\times S^5/_{\alpha _i}`$ theory, and these modes will correspond to 2-form fields on vanishing 2-cycles.

So, in the general case we have a nice interpretation for all the deformations, as coming from untwisted or twisted sectors in the string theory, with one deformation in each twisted sector with fixed points. For $`SU(N=3)`$ we get a much larger space of deformations. It would be interesting to understand the origin of this larger space of deformations on the string theory side. Of course, supergravity is not a good approximation in such a case, so this would require a full understanding of string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/_k`$. In some cases we also find additional exactly marginal deformations coming the twisted sector : the $`2`$ extra deformations of the $`𝒩=2`$ $`_3`$ theory and the $`(a,a,2a)`$ extra deformations, for instance. In such cases additional massless twisted sector fields, beyond the one complex scalar of the general case, should also correspond to exactly marginal deformations. It would be interesting to understand the form of these exactly marginal deformations on the string theory side.

An interesting point which we have not been able to resolve involves the marginal operators of the form $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_I^3)`$ in the general $`𝒩=2`$ $`_k`$ case. From the general analysis, by counting the number of variables and equations, $`k1`$ of these operators (which correspond to some twisted sector fields) are expected to be exactly marginal. However, we saw that these operators do not appear in perturbation theory up to 3-loop order. Higher loop calculations are required to decide if these exactly marginal deformations appear in the weak coupling region or not. It would be interesting also to analyze these marginal deformations, using string theory, in the strong coupling regime, and to see if exactly marginal deformations appear there or not.

Acknowledgements

The research of O.A. was supported in part by the Israel-U.S. Binational Science Foundation, by the IRF Centers of Excellence program, by the European RTN network HPRN-CT-2000-00122, and by Minerva.