format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

Under T-duality of type II string theory, NS5-branes are mapped into Ricci flat, background geometries. For $`N`$ parallel NS5-branes, this background is the hyperKähler metric on an asymptotically locally flat (ALF) space with an $`A_{N1}`$ singularity . This relationship plays a prominent role in the duality plexus yet, from the perspective of the string worldsheet, has been proven only for smeared NS5-branes, for which the transverse circle is an isometry and the usual Buscher rules for T-duality may be applied . This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The purpose of this paper is to rectify this situation and demonstrate T-duality between the ALF space and the localized NS5-brane. As we shall see, the missing ingredient is the contribution from worldsheet instantons.

Our tool in exploring this duality is the $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ supersymmetric gauged linear sigma model for the ALF space. Since their inception, linear sigma models have proven useful in determining the effects of worldsheet instantons . More pertinently, Hori and Vafa have recently used this technique to calculate instanton corrections to T-duality transformations in theories with $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry . Subsequent applications include . In each of these cases, a superpotential is generated by a one instanton effect, breaking a global symmetry of the theory. While the calculations presented below are similar to those of , they differ in two important respects. Firstly, the existence of $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ supersymmetry prohibits the generation of a superpotential, and the instantons now correct the target space metric where their effect is to break an isometry. Secondly, the corrections do not stop at the one instanton level, and the metric receives contributions from all topological sectors.

To make this discussion more explicit, let us start with type II string theory “compactified” on an ALF space. For simplicity we consider Taub-NUT space. It is worth noting that this is T-dual to a single NS5-brane, and subtleties abound concerning this object . However, these difficulties play no role in the following discussion. The metric of Taub-NUT space is given by,

$`ds_{ALF}^2=H(r)d𝐫d𝐫+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H(r)^1(d\psi +𝝎d𝐫)^2`$ (1.1)
where $`𝐫𝐑^3`$ and $`\psi [0,4\pi )`$ and $`\times 𝝎=(1/r)`$. The harmonic function $`H(r)`$ is given by,

$`H(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}`$ (1.2)
As $`r0`$, the metric becomes flat $`𝐑^4`$ while, in the asymptotic regime $`r\mathrm{}`$, the metric is locally $`𝐑^3\times 𝐒^1`$, with the $`𝐒^1`$ parameterized by $`\psi `$. The asymptotic radius of this circle is $`g`$.

This metric enjoys a $`U(1)`$ isometry which acts by shifting the value of $`\psi `$, ensuring that momentum around the circle is a conserved quantum number. In contrast, string winding number around the circle is not conserved since the string may slip off, either by moving to $`r=0`$ where the circle degenerates, or alternatively by wrapping once around the asymptotic boundary of Taub-NUT .

The existence of the $`U(1)`$ isometry allows for the application of the usual T-duality transformation, exchanging momentum and winding on the string worldsheet: $`_\mu \psi =g^2ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\nu \theta `$. As we will review in Section 2, after such an operation the resulting metric has the form,

$`ds_{NS5}^2=H(r)\left(d𝐫d𝐫+d\theta ^2\right)`$ (1.3)
where $`\theta [0,2\pi )`$ parameterizes the dual $`𝐒^1`$. The conformal factor $`H`$ is related to the dilaton and is given by (1.2), implying that the dual circle has asymptotic radius $`1/g`$, as expected under T-duality. Moreover, as we shall see explicitly in Section 2, the non-trivial fibration of $`𝐒^1`$ over $`𝐑^3`$ in Taub-NUT space results in a torsion term, $`T_{ijk}=ϵ_{ijk}^l_lH^1`$, carrying the charge of a single NS5-brane. However, as may be seen from (1.2) and (1.3), the metric has no dependence on the dual circle $`\theta `$. In other words, the NS5-brane has been smeared in this direction.

Thus, after the naive application of T-duality, we find a string background in which both momentum and winding are conserved. Let us contrast this situation with the metric for an NS5-brane that is fully localized on $`𝐑^3\times 𝐒^1`$. This can be easily determined from supergravity by considering an infinite, periodic, array of colinear NS5-branes. Upon Poisson resummation, the metric takes the form (1.3), but with the smeared function (1.2) replaced by

$`H_{sugra}(r,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}r}{\mathrm{cosh}r\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)`$ (1.4)
Notice in particular the appearance of $`\theta `$ in the function $`H_{sugra}`$, ensuring that the circle transverse to the NS5-brane is no longer an isometry111To compare with the metric for the NS5-brane in flat space, define $`\widehat{𝐫}=𝐫/t`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }=\theta /t`$, and send $`t0`$, keeping $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }`$ fixed., and momentum in this direction is no longer conserved.

Our challenge is to reproduce this localization of the NS5-brane from the worldsheet perspective of T-duality. A clue as to the mechanism responsible for this localization can be found from the Taylor expansion ,

$`H_{sugra}(r,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}e^{kr\pm ik\theta }\right)`$ (1.5)
which points the finger of responsibility firmly at worldsheet instantons. Thus, in Section 3 we turn to the task of uncovering the instanton structure of the gauge theory. As we shall see, although the theory does contain the topology necessary to admit instantons, there are in fact no finite action solutions to the equations of motion. The situation is reminiscent of constrained instantons in four-dimensional Yang-Mills-Higgs theories , and we proceed accordingly. The lessons of four dimensional instanton calculations teach us that exact results may be gleaned from constrained instantons, providing the approximate solutions are suitably compatible with supersymmetry (see for example ). We therefore identify approximate Bogomoln’yi type solutions to the equations of motion. These solutions are nothing more than the BPS vortices of the abelian Higgs model. In the remainder of Section 3 we compute the various components necessary to perform the instanton computation and piece everything together to find that the isometry of the smeared NS5-brane is indeed broken, with the instanton corrections to the smeared function $`H(r)`$ taking the form,

$`H_{inst}(r,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}m_ke^{kr\pm ik\theta }\right)`$ (1.6)
where the numerical coefficients $`m_k`$ encode certain information about the classical BPS vortex solutions. Due to the lack of integrability of the vortex equations, the results necessary to determine $`m_k`$ from first principles are not available in the soliton literature. For example, neither the one-vortex solution, nor the two-vortex moduli space is known analytically, facts which impede calculation of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ respectively. However, we may use the conjectured equality,

$`H_{inst}(r,\theta )=H_{sugra}(r,\theta )`$
to yield predictions for these quantities; namely $`m_k=1`$ for all $`k`$. For the $`k=1`$ instanton sector, we will show that $`m_1=l_1^4/8`$, where the coefficient $`l_1`$ characterizes the exponential radial decay of the Higgs field in the single vortex solution (see equation (3.49)). This number is known only through numerical studies . However, agreement with supergravity predicts $`l_1=8^{1/4}`$. It is heartening that this value agrees with  to within one part in a thousand (and is within $`2\%`$ of the older numerical value quoted in ).

For the higher instanton sectors, the numbers $`m_k`$ do not have as simple an interpretation. They are given by

$`m_k=(2k)^3\nu (\stackrel{~}{}_k)`$ (1.7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$ is the centered moduli space describing the relative positions of $`k`$ BPS vortices in the abelian Higgs model, and $`\nu (\stackrel{~}{}_k)`$ is the weighted integral of the Euler form over $`_k`$ (see equation (3.52)). The appearance of the Euler form for different soliton moduli spaces is not uncommon in instanton calculations. In particular, it was first encountered by Dorey, Khoze and Mattis in the context of three-dimensional gauge theories , and the calculation presented here closely follows this paper. One difference in the present case is that this integral is weighted by the functions $`l_k^4`$, which characterize the exponential radial decay of the $`k`$-vortex solution. It would be interesting to understand these functions in more detail.

Other approaches relating the NS5-brane to ALF spaces include an analysis of the 5-brane worldvolume dynamics , mirror symmetry in three-dimensional gauge theories , Nahm transforms  and D-brane probes .

## 2 Gauge Theory, ALF Spaces and T-Duality

In this section we introduce the gauge theory of interest. We start by describing the full supersymmetric gauge theory in all its glory. We show that in the classical, low-energy limit, this gauge theory reduces to the sigma-model with torsion describing the NS5-brane smeared on a transverse circle, as discussed in the introduction. In Section 2.2 we perform a T-duality transformation, and show that this result is equivalent to the Taub-NUT metric. Appendix A contains a discussion of the generalization to $`A_{N1}`$ ALF spaces.

### 2.1 The Gauge Theory

Let us start with a description of the gauge theory. It has $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ supersymmetry (or 8 non-chiral supercharges) in $`d=1+1`$ dimensions, and may be thought of as the $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ extension of the theories discussed recently by Hori and Kapustin . There are three superfield representations of the $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ supersymmetry algebra: a vector multiplet, a hypermultiplet and a twisted hypermultiplet. To construct our gauge theory, we need one of each.

The $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ vector multiplet contains a $`U(1)`$ gauge field, two complex scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\sigma `$, and two Dirac fermions $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. It will prove convenient to decompose our $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ superfields into $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ representations, resulting in an $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet $`V`$ and a neutral chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For the purposes of writing the gauge kinetic terms, one usually exchanges the vector multiplet in favor of a twisted chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\overline{D}_+D_{}V`$. (For a detailed introduction to $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ theories and superspace notation, see ). The non-derivative terms in the component expansion of these superfields are,

$`\text{Vector multiplet}\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sigma i\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\lambda }_+i\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^{}\overline{\lambda }_{}+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^{}(D^3iF_{12})+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi +\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_++\sqrt{2}\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\theta ^+\theta ^{}(D^1+iD^2)+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.9)
The hypermultiplet contains two complex scalars, $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, which are again paired with two Dirac fermions, $`\psi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$. It decomposes into two chiral multiplets $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ with charge $`+1`$ and $`1`$ respectively under the $`U(1)`$ gauge group. Again, the lowest components in the expansion read,

$`\text{Hypermultiplet}\{\begin{array}{c}Q=q+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\psi _++\sqrt{2}\theta ^{}\psi _{}+\theta ^+\theta ^{}F+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{Q}=\stackrel{~}{q}+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_++\sqrt{2}\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}+\theta ^+\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{F}+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.11)
Finally, the twisted hypermultiplet also contains four scalars and two Dirac fermions. This time the scalars naturally pair off into a triplet $`𝐫=(r^1,r^2,r^3)`$ and a singlet $`\theta `$. We denote the fermions as $`\chi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. Under decomposition into $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ superfields, we have a chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and a twisted chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, each of which is uncharged under the gauge group. Once more, the component fields are given by,

$`\text{Twisted Hypermultiplet}\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }=(r^1+ir^2)+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\chi }_++\sqrt{2}\theta ^{}\chi _{}+\theta ^+\theta ^{}G+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }=(r^3+i\theta )i\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_+i\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^{}\stackrel{~}{G}+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.13)
With these conventions, the action takes a simple form in superspace notation. The kinetic terms for all fields arise from D-terms,

$`_D={\displaystyle d^4\theta \frac{1}{e^2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)+Q^{}e^{2V}Q+\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}e^{2V}\stackrel{~}{Q}`$
while the F-terms and twisted F-terms are given by,

$`_F={\displaystyle }d\theta ^+d\theta ^{}(\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }Q\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }),_{\stackrel{~}{F}}={\displaystyle }d\theta ^+d\overline{\theta }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Theta }`$
The cubic superpotential is familiar from all theories with 8 supercharges. The other two terms give the coupling between the vector multiplet and twisted hypermultiplet. These ensure that the fields $`𝐫`$ play the role of a triplet of dynamical Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) parameters, while $`\theta `$ is a dynamical theta-angle.

In component form, the action splits neatly into kinetic, scalar potential and fermion mass and Yukawa terms,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x_{kin}}+_{pot}+_{yuk}`$ (2.14)
where the pre-factor of $`1/2\pi `$ is the usual normalization of the Polyakov action, and ensures that T-duality acts as $`(\text{radius})(\text{radius})^1`$, with no further numerical factors. We have,

$`_{kin}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{01}^2\frac{1}{2}|\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{2}|\sigma |^2+i(\overline{\lambda }_+_{}\lambda _++\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_+_{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_++\overline{\lambda }_{}_+\lambda _{}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_{}_+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{})\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\left(\frac{1}{2}|𝐫|^2\frac{1}{2}(\theta )^2+i(\overline{\chi }_+_{}\chi _++\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_+_{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_++\overline{\chi }_{}_+\chi _{}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_{}_+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{})\right)`$
$`+\left(|𝒟q|^2|𝒟\stackrel{~}{q}|^2+i(\overline{\psi }_+𝒟_{}\psi _++\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_+𝒟_{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_++\overline{\psi }_{}𝒟_+\psi _{}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}𝒟_+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{})\right)`$
where our conventions are $`_\pm =_0\pm _1`$, and $`𝒟q=qiAq`$, and $`𝒟\stackrel{~}{q}=\stackrel{~}{q}+iA\stackrel{~}{q}`$. The scalar potential is given by,

$`_{pot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\left(|q|^2|\stackrel{~}{q}|^2r^3\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\left|2\stackrel{~}{q}q(r^1+ir^2)\right|^2+\theta F_{01}`$
$`(|\varphi |^2+|\sigma |^2)(|q|^2+|\stackrel{~}{q}|^2+g^2)`$
The terms on the first line make manifest the roles played by the fields $`𝐫`$ and $`\theta `$ as FI parameters and theta angles respectively. In particular, it is clear from the topological nature of the $`\theta F`$ coupling that the physics is invariant under shifts of $`\theta \theta +2\pi `$. It is worth noting that the supersymmetric completion of these couplings includes the mass $`g`$ of the vector multiplet scalar fields, which may be seen in the second line. Finally, the fermion masses and Yukawa couplings are given by,

$`_{yuk}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\chi _{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_++\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}\chi _++\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_+\lambda _{}+\overline{\lambda }_+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\right)\left(\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_+\overline{\chi }_{}+\overline{\chi }_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_{}+\overline{\lambda }_{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_++\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_{}\lambda _+\right)`$
$`+i\sqrt{2}q\left(\overline{\lambda }_{}\overline{\psi }_+\overline{\lambda }_+\overline{\psi }_{}+i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_++i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_+\right)\sqrt{2}\sigma \left(\overline{\psi }_{}\psi _+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+\right)`$
$`i\sqrt{2}q^{}\left(\psi _+\lambda _{}\psi _{}\lambda _+i\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_{}i\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}\right)\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{}\left(\overline{\psi }_+\psi _{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\right)`$
$`+i\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{q}\left(\overline{\lambda }_{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_+\overline{\lambda }_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}\psi _++i\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_+\right)\sqrt{2}\varphi \left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\psi _+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+\psi _{}\right)`$
$`i\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{q}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+\lambda _{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\lambda _++i\overline{\psi }_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_{}i\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_+\overline{\psi }_{}\right)\sqrt{2}\varphi ^{}\left(\overline{\psi }_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}\overline{\psi }_{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_+\right)`$
The theory enjoys an $`SU(2)_R\times SO(4)_R`$ R-symmetry group, under which the vector multiplet scalars transform in the $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})`$, the hypermultiplet scalars transform in the $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and the twisted hypermultiplet scalars transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$. We have chosen to normalize fields such that the engineering dimension of the gauge coupling constant is $`[e^2]=2`$, which implies the vector multiplet scalars have $`[\varphi ]=[\sigma ]=1`$, while all other scalar fields are dimensionless, $`[q]=[\stackrel{~}{q}]=[𝐫]=[\theta ]=0`$. Importantly, the coefficient of the twisted hypermultiplet kinetic terms is also dimensionless: $`[g^2]=0`$.

#### The Low-Energy Theory

The vacuum moduli space of the theory, determined by the zero locus of the scalar potential, is given by

$`F_{01}=\sigma =\varphi =0,|q|^2|\stackrel{~}{q}|^2=r^3,2\stackrel{~}{q}q=r^1+ir^2`$ (2.15)
Since $`e^2`$ is the only dimensionful parameter in the theory, low energies corresponds to $`e^2\mathrm{}`$, and the physics is described by a sigma-model on the vacuum moduli space (2.15). The metric on the moduli space is inherited from the kinetic terms which, in this case, receive contributions from both the hypermultiplet and twisted hypermultiplet. To see this, it is useful to introduce the gauge-variant field $`\alpha =2\mathrm{arg}(iq)`$. After imposing the constraint (2.15), the hypermultiplet bosonic kinetic terms may then be written as,

$`|𝒟q|^2+|𝒟\stackrel{~}{q}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}𝐫𝐫+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{4}}(\alpha +2A+𝝎𝐫)^2`$ (2.16)
where $`\times 𝝎=(1/r)`$, and we have used the fact that, in vacuo, $`r=|𝐫|=|q|^2+|\stackrel{~}{q}|^2`$. We now chose to work in $`\alpha =0`$ gauge, and integrate out the gauge field $`A`$. In the strict $`e^2\mathrm{}`$ limit, the kinetic terms for $`A`$ vanish, but the $`\theta dA`$ term does not. We have,

$`A_\mu =\frac{1}{2}𝝎_\mu 𝐫+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\nu \theta `$
After substitution into the kinetic terms (2.16), and including the twisted hypermultiplet kinetic terms, we find that the bosonic sector of the low-energy effective action is given by a sigma-model with torsion,

$`_{bosonic}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(r)\left(_\mu 𝐫^\mu 𝐫+_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu }𝝎^\mu 𝐫^\nu \theta `$ (2.17)
where the function $`H(r)`$ is given by,

$`H(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}`$
As discussed in the introduction, this is the target space metric and torsion describing an NS5-brane localized in the $`𝐑^3`$ parameterized by $`𝐫`$, but smeared along a transverse circle parameterized by $`\theta `$. In the following section, we shall see how quantum effects alter this metric. However, let us first continue our examination of the classical low-energy effective action, turning now to the fermions. Working once more in the infra-red limit $`e^2\mathrm{}`$, we notice that the vector multiplet fermions, $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, become Grassmannian Lagrange multipliers, imposing the fermionic constraints,

$`\psi _+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}(iq\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_++\stackrel{~}{q}^{}\chi _+)`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}(q^{}\chi _++i\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_+)`$
$`\psi _{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}(iq\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_{}\stackrel{~}{q}^{}\chi _{})`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}(q^{}\chi _{}i\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_{})`$ (2.18)
Substituting these into the fermionic kinetic terms, and summing the contribution from both the hypermultiplet and twisted hypermultiplet, we have

$`_{fermionic}=iH(r)\left(\overline{\chi }_+_{}\chi _++\overline{\chi }_{}_+\chi _{}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_+_{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_++\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_{}_+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\right)+𝒪(\chi ^2q)`$
This combines with the bosonic action (2.17) to yield a the first two terms of an $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ supersymmetric sigma-model with torsion. The full supersymmetric action for this theory was given in  and a nice summary may be found in . The full action takes the form,

$`S_{susy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\frac{1}{2}G_{ij}_\mu X^i_\nu X^j}+\frac{1}{2}B_{ij}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\mu X^i^\nu X^j+iG_{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^iD\mathrm{\Omega }^j`$ (2.19)
$`+\frac{1}{4}R_{ijkl}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^i\mathrm{\Omega }^j\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^k\mathrm{\Omega }^l`$
where the covariant derivative is given by $`D\mathrm{\Omega }^j=\mathrm{\Omega }^j+\mathrm{\Omega }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^jX^k`$. The connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in this expression is constructed with respect to the torsion $`T=dB`$, and the Riemann tensor $`R`$ is similarly defined. Comparing to the terms above, we have the metric $`G`$ given by equation (1.3), and the fields normalized as $`X^i=(r^1,r^2,r^3,\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i=(\chi _+,\chi _{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{})`$.

### 2.2 T-Duality and Taub-NUT Space

In this section, we would like to perform T-duality on the periodic direction $`\theta `$, and show that the low-energy physics is determined by a sigma-model without torsion, with the target space metric given by Taub-NUT of equation (1.1). We work with the full gauge theory (2.14) rather than the low-energy fields. To perform the duality, we first isolate the terms involving $`\theta `$, and then introduce the auxiliary Lagrangian,

$`_{dual}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}C_\mu C^\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu }C^\mu A^\nu +ϵ_{\mu \nu }^\mu C^\nu \kappa `$
where the topological nature of the final term ensures that physics is invariant under $`2\pi `$ shifts of the Lagrange multiplier $`\kappa `$. Integrating out $`\kappa `$, we have $`C_\mu =_\mu \theta `$, which returns us to the original Lagrangian. If, however, we choose to integrate out $`C`$, we find instead

$`C_\mu =g^2ϵ_{\mu \nu }(^\nu \kappa +A^\nu )`$
and, in terms of the dual field $`\kappa `$, the Lagrangian becomes

$`_{dual}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\left(\kappa +A\right)^2`$
Notice that the presence of the $`\theta F`$ coupling causes the dual field $`\kappa `$ to transform transitively under the gauge group action,

$`U(1):qe^{i\gamma }q,\stackrel{~}{q}e^{i\gamma }\stackrel{~}{q},\kappa \kappa +\gamma `$ (2.20)
From a geometrical perspective, it is this transitive action which results in a stabilization of the $`𝐒^1`$ fiber at infinity, leading to an ALF, as opposed to ALE, space . (This is discussed further in Appendix A. From the gauge theoretical perspective this construction was first described in ). Let us see explicitly how this occurs. After restricting to the vacuum moduli space (2.15), and rewriting the hypermultiplet kinetic terms as (2.16), the low-energy bosonic action in terms of the dual variable becomes,

$`_{TN}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(r)𝐫𝐫+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{4}}(\alpha +2A+𝝎𝐫)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}(\kappa +A)^2`$
Recall that $`\alpha =2\mathrm{arg}(iq)`$, and thus has period $`4\pi `$. It remains to divide by the gauge action (2.20). There are a number of equivalent ways to implement this. Following , we chose to set $`A=0`$, and to work in terms of the gauge invariant quantity $`\psi =\alpha 2\kappa `$, which also has period $`4\pi `$. We can then re-write,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{4}}(\alpha +𝝎𝐫)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}(\kappa )^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(r+\frac{1}{2}g^2\right)\left(\kappa +\frac{1}{2}r(r+\frac{1}{2}g^2)^1(\psi +𝝎𝐫)\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}H^1(r)\left(\psi +𝝎𝐫\right)^2`$
In this form, the second term is gauge invariant while the first, being a total square, is simply lost upon taking the $`U(1)`$ quotient. Thus, our final low-energy bosonic effective action is

$`_{TN}=\frac{1}{2}H(r)𝐫𝐫+\frac{1}{8}H^1(r)\left(\psi +𝝎𝐫\right)^2`$
which is indeed the sigma-model with Taub-NUT metric (1.1) as advertised.

While the previous discussion of T-duality involved only the bosonic fields, the extension to the supersymmetric theory is simple. A superfield derivation using Rocek-Verlinde transformations  in the $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ context may be found in .

## 3 Worldsheet Instantons

In the previous section we examined the gauge theory at the classical level and found dual descriptions of the low-energy physics. In one set of variables, this was the sigma-model on Taub-NUT space while, in the other, we found the NS5-brane, smeared on a transverse circle. In this section we examine the quantum corrections to the latter description. Before proceeding, we should make the usual disclaimer regarding the Coleman-Mermin-Wagner theorem . In two dimensional theories, a quantum moduli space of vacua does not exist, and the groundstate wavefunction spreads over all classical vacuum states. Here we work in the Born-Oppenheimer spirit, in which high momentum modes are integrated out to reveal a low-energy description in terms of a sigma-model on the quantum corrected moduli space. This approach is relevant for comparison to supergravity. Motivated by this comparison and, in particular, the expression (1.5) describing a localized NS5-brane, we search for instanton solutions of the gauge theory. In the following section, we identify the relevant semi-classical configurations. In Section 3.2 we compute the instanton measure and various other accessories necessary to perform the calculation. Finally, in Section 3.3 we calculate the $`k`$-instanton contribution to the four-fermi vertex and translate this into the corrections to the metric.

### 3.1 Aspects of Instantons

In the gauge theory approach to sigma models, worldsheet instantons appear as vortices . This has several advantages, among them the fact that vortices exist — and contribute to correlation functions — even when there are no two-cycles in the target space . Indeed, this is the case here. Although the second homology class of both Taub-NUT and the smeared NS5-brane metric is trivial, the gauge theory does have instanton sectors labelled by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle F_{12}}=k𝐙`$
where $`F_{12}`$ denotes the Wick rotation of the field strength $`F_{01}`$ into Euclidean space. However, although the requisite topology of the gauge theory exists, there are no finite action solutions to the equations of motion with the desired boundary conditions. To see this, let us start by choosing a classical vacuum from within the moduli space of vacua. We necessarily have $`\varphi =\sigma =0`$ and, without loss of generality, we may employ the $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry to further set $`\stackrel{~}{q}=r^1+ir^2=0`$, while

$`|q|^2=r^3=\zeta `$ (3.21)
The field $`\theta `$ is left unconstrained. To perform a semi-classical calculation, one must search for an instanton solution which asymptotes to this vacuum. However, the gauge field strength $`F_{12}`$ is a source for the massless field whose vacuum expectation value parameterizes the moduli space. Since this field is massless, far from a suitably localized instanton it must solve the Laplace equations in two-dimensions and therefore runs logarithmically at large distances. For this reason solutions to the equations of motion will not asymptote to the vacuum (3.21) for finite $`\zeta `$. This problem has also been discussed in related models . Of course, this behavior is unsurprising: it is simply a reflection of the Coleman-Mermin-Wagner theorem mentioned previously. Nevertheless, in order to proceed with our Born-Oppenheimer approximation, we must circumvent this obstacle.

Although the physics is somewhat different, formally the problem is reminiscent of four-dimensional instantons in Yang-Mills-Higgs theories. Recall that the presence of a vacuum expectation value, $`v`$, for the Higgs field implies that the Yang-Mills instanton will shrink to zero size in order to minimize its action. In this case a procedure known as “constrained instantons”  is employed which, in practice, involves expanding around the configurations which are solutions at $`v=0`$. In supersymmetric theories, these approximate solutions retain all their BPS properties, which allows them to deliver exact, quantitative information (see, for example,  for various applications and reviews). In the present two-dimensional situation, the logarithmic divergence implies that any putative solution wishes to expand. To halt this, we need to find the analog of the quantity $`v`$, which we can tune to zero in order to recover solutions. We will now show that this quantity is the asymptotic radius of Taub-NUT space, $`g^2`$. To see this, let us firstly truncate the theory to allow only the gauge field, $`q`$ and $`r^3`$ to vary over space-time. All other scalar fields are restricted to their classical expectation values and it can be checked that they will not further destabilize our solution. The equation of motion for $`r^3`$ in this background is,

$`^2r^3=g^2e^2(|q|^2r^3)`$ (3.22)
In the limit $`g^2=0`$, it is consistent to keep $`r^3=\zeta `$, even as $`|q|^2`$ moves out of vacuum. With this truncation, the bosonic Euclidean action is given by,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\frac{1}{2e^2}F_{12}^2}+|𝒟q|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\left(|q|^2\zeta \right)^2+i\theta F_{12}`$
which is simply the abelian Higgs model at critical coupling, together with a $`\theta `$ term for the gauge field. Note the factor of $`i`$ which appears in front of this latter term after Wick rotation to Euclidean space. As is well known, this theory admits BPS vortex solutions . The first order equations of motion may be found by a judicious completion of the square,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\frac{1}{2e^2}\left(F_{12}e^2(|q|^2\zeta )\right)^2}+|𝒟_1qi𝒟_2q|^2+(\zeta +i\theta )F_{12}`$
where the upper (lower) sign is taken for $`k>0`$ ($`k<0`$). Throughout the remainder of this paper, we work with $`k>0`$. Introducing the complex basis $`z=x^1+ix^2`$, our Bogomoln’yi equations take the form,

$`F_{12}=e^2(|q|^2\zeta )^2,𝒟_zq=0`$ (3.23)
and solutions to these equations have the action

$`S_k=k\zeta +ki\theta `$ (3.24)
To summarize, the instanton calculation is performed in the limit $`g^20`$, and finite $`e^2`$. In contrast, the sigma-model limit is finite $`g^2`$, and $`e^2\mathrm{}`$. We shall show that the final answer is independent of $`e^2`$, justfying the latter choice. In Appendix B, we show that the supergravity metric (1.4) yields a finite contribution to the four-fermi vertex of interest in the limit $`g^20`$, thus also justifying the former choice.

### 3.2 The Instanton Measure

To compute the contributions of instantons to the low-energy effective action, we must first isolate the zero modes. The bosonic zero modes are given by the solutions to the linearized Bogomoln’yi equations (3.23),

$`ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\mu \delta A_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`e^2(q^{}\delta q+q\delta q^{})`$
$`𝒟_\mu \delta qi\delta A_\mu q`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\mu \nu }𝒟_\nu \delta q+ϵ_{\mu \nu }\delta A_\nu q`$
which are augmented by a suitable gauge fixing condition which we take to be,

$`_\mu \delta A_\mu =ie^2(q\delta q^{}q^{}\delta q)`$
Using complex spacetime coordinates and defining $`=_z`$ and $`\overline{}=_{\overline{z}}`$, these can be elegantly combined into a bosonic Dirac equation,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta A_z\\ \delta q\end{array}\right)=0\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2i}{e^2}\overline{}& q^{}\\ q& i𝒟\end{array}\right)`$ (3.29)
These equations were analyzed by E. Weinberg , who showed, using index theory, that there exist $`2k`$ normalizable, linearly independent zero modes $`(\delta _aA_\mu ,\delta _aq)`$, for $`a=1,\mathrm{},2k`$. Of these, two are Goldstone modes, arising from broken translational invariance, and given by

$`\delta _\nu A_\mu =F_{\nu \mu },\delta _\nu q=𝒟_\nu q\nu =1,2`$ (3.30)
while the remaining $`2(k1)`$ are not generated by any symmetry. It can be shown that these remaining zero modes correspond to the decomposition of the $`k`$-vortex soliton into $`k`$ single vortices with arbitrary positions given by the zeroes of the Higgs field . We can introduce $`2k`$ collective coordinates, $`X^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},2k`$, which parameterize the multi-vortex moduli space $`_k`$. This space is endowed with a complete Kähler metric, given by the overlap of the zero modes ,

$`g_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\frac{1}{2e^2}\delta _aA_\mu \delta _bA_\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _aq\delta _bq^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _aq^{}\delta _bq`$ (3.31)
where the complex structure of $`g`$ is inherited from the complex structure of the two-dimensional worldsheet. The moduli space $`_k`$ decomposes metrically as

$`_k=𝐑^2\times \stackrel{~}{}_k`$
where $`𝐑^2`$ is parameterized by $`X^\mu `$, the center of mass of the vortices. The restriction of the metric $`g`$ to the $`𝐑^2`$ factor can be easily calculated by substituting the zero modes (3.30) into the metric (3.31). It yields $`\zeta k\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, as expected for a soliton of “mass” $`\zeta k`$ (“mass” becomes “action” for instantons). The centered moduli space $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$ is parameterized by the relative positions $`Y^p`$, $`p=1\mathrm{},2(k1)`$ of $`k`$ vortices. We denote the metric on this $`2(k1)`$ dimensional space as $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{pq}`$. Its analytic form is unknown, even for $`k=2`$.

When performing the instanton calculation we must integrate over all these collective coordinates. The measure is obtained by changing variables in the path integral, and is given by ,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _B}={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta k}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2X\underset{p=1}{\overset{2(k1)}{}}dY^p\frac{det^{1/2}(\stackrel{~}{g})}{(2\pi )^{k1}}}`$ (3.32)
#### Fermion Zero Modes

The fermionic zero modes are related to the bosonic zero modes via the unbroken supersymmetry. To see this more explicitly, we examine the Dirac equations for the vector and hypermultiplet fermions in vortex background, in the limit $`g^20`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{c}i\overline{\lambda }_+/\sqrt{2}\\ \psi _{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_+/\sqrt{2}\\ \overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}\end{array}\right)=0`$ (3.37)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}i\overline{\lambda }_{}/\sqrt{2}\\ \psi _+\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}/\sqrt{2}\\ \overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_+\end{array}\right)=0`$ (3.42)
where the Dirac operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the same as that encountered in the analysis of the bosonic zero modes (3.29). The fermionic zero modes are related to the bosonic ones by $`\lambda \sqrt{2}\delta A_z`$ and $`\psi \delta q`$. Note that, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has $`2k`$ zero modes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ has none. To see this consider the action on an arbitrary complex doublet $`Y`$ and define the norm,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}Y`$ $`=`$ $`|\frac{2i}{e^2}y_1+q^{}y_2|^2+\frac{2}{e^2}|i\overline{𝒟}y_2qy_1|^2`$
$`=`$ $`|\frac{2}{e^2}y_1|^2+\frac{2}{e^2}|\overline{𝒟}y_2|^2+\frac{2}{e^2}|qy_1|^2+|q^{}y_2|^2\frac{2i}{e^2}\left(y_1y_2^{}𝒟qy_1^{}y_2\overline{𝒟}q^{}\right)`$
The last two terms vanish when evaluated on the background of the vortex, while the middle two ensure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}Y=0`$ if and only if $`Y=0`$. Thus the zero modes are carried by the pairs $`(i\overline{\lambda }_+,\psi _{})^T`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_+,\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{})^T`$, $`(i\lambda _{},\overline{\psi }_+)^T`$, and $`(\overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_{},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+)^T`$. For example, the Goldstone bosons of equation (3.30) are related to the fermionic zero modes generated by the four broken supersymmetries,

$`\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{\lambda }_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F_{12}\alpha _1,& \lambda _{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F_{12}\alpha _2,& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F_{12}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,& \overline{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F_{12}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\\ \psi _{}=\overline{𝒟}q\alpha _1,& \overline{\psi }_+=\overline{𝒟}q\alpha _2,& \overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}=\overline{𝒟}q\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,& \stackrel{~}{\psi }_+=\overline{𝒟}q\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\end{array}`$ (3.45)
The fermionic measure for these broken supersymmetries is determined by calculating the overlap as for the bosonic case222The constant $`\frac{1}{2}\zeta k`$ differs by a factor of $`1/2`$ from normalization of the bosonic Goldstone modes. This can be traced to the fact that, under supersymmetry transformation, $`\delta \psi =\sqrt{2}i\overline{𝒟}q\xi `$, and thus $`\alpha =\sqrt{2}\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ are the infinitesimal supersymmetry parameters, yielding

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{\mu }_F}={\displaystyle d^2\alpha d^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\frac{1}{2}\zeta k)^2}`$ (3.46)
There are $`4(k1)`$ further fermionic zero modes, related by unbroken supersymmetry to the $`2(k1)`$ relative vortex positions. Let us denote the corresponding Grassmannian collective coordinates as $`\beta ^p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }^p`$, with $`p=1,\mathrm{},2(k1)`$, where the $`\beta `$’s arise from the $`(\lambda ,\psi )`$ pairs, and the $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$’s from the $`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$ pairs. As with their bosonic partners, each of these must also be integrated over, with the measure given by

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F}={\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{2(k1)}{}}d\beta ^pd\stackrel{~}{\beta }^p\frac{1}{det(\stackrel{~}{g})}}`$ (3.47)
#### The Action, Determinants and Long-Distance Behavior

While the constant part of the instanton action is given by (3.24), the instanton action can, in principle, also depend on the collective coordinates. This occurs when the zero modes discussed in the last section, each of which solves the linearized equations of motion, cannot all be simultaneously integrated to solutions of the full equations of motion. While this does not occur for the bosonic collective coordinates , it is commonplace for fermionic collective coordinates and, indeed, is even required by supersymmetry considerations . (For a toy model, and a discussion of these issues, see ). To see this, note that the vortices discussed here preserve $`𝒩=(2,2)`$ non-chiral333Non-chiral supersymmetry in space-time dimensions less than two, refers to the dimensional reduction of a non-chiral theory in two dimensions. To see that the theory on the vortex worldvolume is indeed non-chiral in the two-dimensional sense, it suffices to notice that the gauge theory described in Section 2 can be lifted in a supersymmetric fashion to 5+1 dimensions, where the vortices have a 3+1 dimensional worldvolume supersymmetry on their worldvolume. The low-energy dynamics of these objects is described by a “0+0-dimensional sigma-model”. Naively, one may imagine that, since sigma models have only derivative couplings, such an action is trivial. However, the non-chiral supersymmetric extensions of sigma-models also include non-derivative, four-fermi couplings . These survive in the instanton action and, in the present case, are given by

$`S_{4fermi}=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{pqrs}\beta ^p\beta ^q\stackrel{~}{\beta }^r\stackrel{~}{\beta }^s`$ (3.48)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the Riemann tensor on the relative vortex moduli space $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$.

In any instanton calculation, one must also integrate over the non-zero modes. In supersymmetric theories, the non-zero eigenvalues of the bosonic and fermionic operators around the background of a BPS instanton are guaranteed to coincide. In the case of four dimensional instantons, ’t Hooft showed long ago that this is sufficient to ensure the cancellation of the one-loop determinants. However, this cancellation need not necessarily occur for operators with continuous spectra for, while the spectrum of eigenvalues must coincide, the density need not. Indeed, for instantons in three-dimensional gauge theories, it can be shown that the integration over non-zero modes leads to a finite, calculable contribution . In the present case however, such fears are groundless as the exponential fall-off of the vortex tail ensures that the spectrum is suitably well-behaved  and the non-zero modes cancel.

Finally, we turn to the long-distance behavior of fields in the background of the instanton. While no explicit analytic solutions to the Bogomoln’yi equations (3.23) have been found, at distances large compared to all other length scales, the asymptotic form of the solutions is known . Using polar coordinates, $`z=\rho \mathrm{exp}(i\vartheta )`$, the solution for a $`k`$-vortex configuration with center of mass at the origin, $`X=0`$, becomes

$`|q|^2\zeta \left(1l_k(Y^p,\vartheta )\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi L}{\rho }}}\mathrm{exp}(\rho /L)\right)`$ (3.49)
where the characteristic length scale of the vortex is

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2e^2\zeta }}}`$
The functions $`l_k(Y^p,\vartheta )`$ characterize the exponential return to vacuum. The fact that the vortex tail is exponential, as opposed to polynomial, implies that these coefficients are functions of both the relative positions of the vortices, as well as the angular position on the complex plane, as indicated. Certain properties of these functions were recently studied in . For a single vortex, $`l_1`$ is simply a numerical coefficient. It is not known analytically, but has been calculated numerically . The newer result of Speight  is444To compare with the conventions of , one must multiply by $`2\pi `$. The older numerical result of  gives $`l_11.708`$.

$`l_11.683\pm 0.001`$ (3.50)
### 3.3 The Calculation

We will now collect together all the pieces in order to compute the $`k`$-instanton contribution to the four-fermi correlation function,

$`G_4^{(k)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_+(x_1)\psi _{}(x_2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+(x_3)\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}(x_4)|_{kinstanton}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _B𝑑\overline{\mu }_F𝑑\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\overline{\psi }_+(x_1)\psi _{}(x_2)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_+(x_3)\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_{}(x_4)e^{S_kS_{4fermi}}}`$
where the various components of this expression can be found in equations (3.24), (3.32), (3.46), (3.47) and (3.48). The fermions are replaced in the path-integral by their zero-mode values in the $`k`$-instanton background. In order to determine instanton contributions to higher dimension operators, one would need to know the explicit form for all such zero modes. However, for the special case of the four-fermi correlation function $`G_4`$, we need only the expression for the zero modes arising from unbroken supersymmetry (3.45). This is the semi-classical reflection of the non-renormalization theorems which ensure the calculability of two-derivative terms in theories with eight supercharges. From equations (3.45) and (3.49), we have the large distance expansion

$`\psi (x_i)`$ $``$ $`l_k(Y^p,\vartheta \vartheta _i)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \zeta }{2L\rho }}}e^{\rho /L}e^{i(k1)(\vartheta \vartheta _i)}\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`l_k(Y^p,\vartheta \vartheta _i)\sqrt{\zeta }e^{i(k1)(\vartheta \vartheta _i)}S_F\alpha `$
Here $`S_F`$ is the leading order behavior of the diagonal component of the fermionic propagator for a Dirac fermion of mass $`1/L`$ in the vacuum,

$`S_F\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2L\rho }}}\mathrm{exp}(\rho /L)`$
as befits a Green’s function for the Dirac operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi `$, defined in (3.29). Note that all dependence on the gauge coupling constant $`e^2`$ appears through the vortex length scale $`L`$ which, in turn, appears only in the propagator. This is to be expected since gauge coupling constants cannot appear in the metric of the Higgs branch . Note, in contrast, that not all position dependence can be absorbed in the propogator; angular dependence remains. This results in a form-factor for $`G_4^{(k)}`$ with $`k>1`$ which can be converted to higher derivative interactions. To leading order in the derivative expansion, we have

$`G_4^{(k)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=2\zeta k^1\pi ^1\nu (\stackrel{~}{M}_k)e^{\zeta kik\theta }{\displaystyle d^2X\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}S_F(Xx_i)}`$ (3.51)
where the integration over all relative bosonic and fermionic zero modes has been collected into the function $`\nu `$, and expressed as an integral over the $`d=2(k1)`$ dimensional moduli space $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$ as in ,

$`\nu (\stackrel{~}{M}_k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{d}{}}dY^pd\beta ^pd\stackrel{~}{\beta }^pd\vartheta \frac{l_k^4(Y^p,\vartheta )}{\sqrt{det(\stackrel{~}{g})}}\frac{e^{4i(k1)\vartheta }}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{pqrs}\beta ^p\beta ^q\stackrel{~}{\beta }^r\stackrel{~}{\beta }^s\right)}`$ (3.52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(8\pi )^{d/2}(d/2)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{p=1}^ddY^p}{\sqrt{det(\stackrel{~}{g})}}ϵ^{p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_d}ϵ^{q_1q_2\mathrm{}q_d}\stackrel{~}{R}_{p_1p_2q_1q_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{R}_{p_{d1}p_dq_{d1}q_d}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\vartheta l_k^4(Y^p,\vartheta )e^{4i(k1)\vartheta }}`$
For $`k=1`$, we have $`\nu _1=l_1^4`$. For $`k>1`$, the expression above is familiar as the integral of the Euler form over the $`k`$-vortex relative moduli space, $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$, weighted by a specific Fourier mode of $`l_k^4(Y^p,\vartheta )`$, the function which characterizes the exponential fall-off of the vortex solution.

Summing over all instanton sectors, $`k𝐙`$, the correlation function $`_kG_4^{(k)}`$ is equivalent to a four-fermi vertex for $`\psi `$ in the low-energy effective action. Imposing the constraints (2.18) on this low-energy coupling, and re-expressing $`\zeta r`$, allows us to re-write the interaction in terms of the massless fermions $`\chi `$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\xi _k\left(e^{ik\theta }\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\overline{\chi }_+\chi _{}+e^{+ik\theta }\stackrel{~}{\chi }_+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}_{}\chi _+\overline{\chi }_{}\right)`$ (3.53)
where the coefficient is given by

$`\xi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^5\pi rk}}\nu (\stackrel{~}{}_k)e^{kr}`$
To compare to the supergravity prediction (1.5), we examine the low-energy action (2.19). The coefficient in front of the four-fermi term above is related to the Riemann tensor of the target space metric, computed with respect to the connection with torsion. In Appendix B we compute this object, at leading order in $`1/r`$, and to leading order in $`g^2`$, as is warranted given the discussion of Section 3.1. Taking into account the symmetries of the Riemann tensor, the prediction for the low-energy four-fermi term has the same functional form as (3.53), but with the coefficient $`\xi _k`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_k`$, given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_k={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4\pi r}}e^{kr}`$
We thus see that agreement with supergravity requires $`\nu (\stackrel{~}{M}_k)=8k^3`$. It would be interesting to recover this prediction solely from the study of vortices. For now we claim agreement only for the $`k=1`$ instanton sector, where we have $`\nu _1=l_1^4`$. The supergravity prediction requires

$`l_1=8^{1/4}1.682`$
Encouragingly, this is in accord with the value (3.50) obtained through numerical studies of the vortex equations .

## Acknowledgements

I’d like to express my thanks to Luis Bettencourt, Neil Constable, Nick Dorey, Ansar Fayyazuddin, Dan Freedman, Ami Hanany, Conor Houghton, Clifford Johnson, Neil Lambert, Nick Manton, Adam Ritz, Martin Speight, Brett Taylor, Wati Taylor, Jan Troost and Piljin Yi for useful discussions, and especially to Mina Aganagic, Kentaro Hori and Andreas Karch for collaboration in the initial stages of this project. My thanks also to Clifford Johnson and Andreas Karch for correcting an important mistake in the original version of these acknowledgements. I’m supported by a Pappalardo fellowship, and am very grateful to Neil Pappalardo for the money. This work was also supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement #DF-FC02-94ER40818.

## Appendix

## A Linear Sigma-Model for ALF Spaces

While the gauged linear sigma-model model for asymptotically locally Euclidean (ALE) spaces is well known, the deformation to asymptotically locally flat (ALF) spaces appears to be less familiar to string theorists. For this reason we include this appendix describing the gauge theory whose Higgs branch is endowed with the hyperkähler metric on the ALF space with $`A_{N1}`$ singularity, given by,

$`ds^2=H(r)d𝐫d𝐫+\frac{1}{4}H(r)^1\left(d\psi +𝝎d𝐫\right)^2`$ (A.54)
where $`𝐫`$ is a three-vector, and $`\psi `$ has period $`4\pi `$. The connection $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ is determined by $`\times \stackrel{}{\omega }=2H`$, where $`H`$ is the harmonic function,

$`H(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2r}}`$ (A.55)
For $`N=1`$, this is the Taub-NUT metric of equation (1.1). The metric is written in Gibbons-Hawking coordinates which describe the ALF space as a fibration of $`𝐒^1`$ — parameterized by $`\psi `$ — over an $`𝐑^3`$ base. Asymptotically $`𝐒^1`$ has radius $`g`$, and provides a Hopf fibration over $`𝐒^2=𝐑^3`$, with winding number $`N`$. Rotations around this $`𝐒^1`$ yield a tri-holomorphic isometry which we denote as $`U(1)_F`$,

$`U(1)_F:\psi \psi +\alpha `$ (A.56)
It is instructive to consider the limit $`g^2\mathrm{}`$, in which the boundary becomes the Lens space $`𝐒^3/𝐙_N`$, and (A.55) is simply the flat metric on the ALE orbifold $`𝐂^2/𝐙_N`$. We will refer to this as the ALE limit. In this case, there is a well-known gauged linear sigma model which reproduces this target space. It appears naturally in string theory as the theory on a probe D-brane . It is the quiver theory with 8 supercharges — corresponding to $`𝒩=(4,4)`$ supersymmetry in two dimensions — associated to the affine $`A_{N1}`$ Dynkin diagram. The theory has gauge group $`𝒢=_{i=1}^NU(k_i)`$ where, for a single D-brane, $`k_i=1`$ for all $`i`$. The matter content consists of a bi-fundamental hypermultiplet transforming under each pair of adjacent gauge groups, $`(+k_i,k_{i+1})`$, where the index $`i`$ is defined modulo $`N`$. Since the overall “center-of-mass” $`U(1)`$ decouples, the interacting matter is,

$`A_{N1}`$ ALE Theory: $`U(1)^{N1}`$ with $`N`$ hypermultiplets

The Higgs branch of this theory reproduces the $`𝐂^2/𝐙_N`$ orbifold. The bridge between the gauge theory and the geometry is provided by the hyperkahler quotient construction acting on the quaternionic space $`𝐇^N`$, parameterised by the $`N`$ complex doublets $`w`$, which are the scalar components of the hypermultiplets. In the notation of Section 2, we have $`\omega _i^{}=(q_i^{},\stackrel{~}{q}_i)`$. The moment maps coincide with the D-terms of the gauge theory and are given by,

$`𝝁_i=\omega _i^{}𝝉\omega _i\omega _{i+1}^{}𝝉\omega _{i+1}`$ (A.57)
where $`𝝉`$ are the Pauli matrices. Note that the sum of the moment maps is trivial, leaving only $`(N1)`$ linearly independent triplets of constraints. After dividing by the $`U(1)^{N1}`$ gauge action, we arrive at the metric (A.55) in the ALE limit, $`1/g^2=0`$. It is important to note that the action of the $`U(1)_F`$ isometry on the target space (A.56) arises from the flavor symmetry of the gauge theory,

$`U(1)_F:\omega _i\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha )\omega _ii`$ (A.58)
We would like to generalise this gauged linear sigma model to the ALF metric, with finite $`g^2`$. Geometrically, this requires squashing the $`𝐒^1`$ fibre at infinity. The hyperkähler quotient construction for such a space was discussed in , and a gauge theoretic interpretation (in the three-dimensional context) was given in . The upshot of these papers is that the squashing from the ALE to ALF space can be achieved in a two-step process. Firstly, one gauges the $`U(1)_F`$ isometry; secondly, this is coupled to a “linear multiplet”. In the $`d=1+1`$ dimensions of interest, a linear multiplet is also referred to as a twisted hypermultiplet555In $`d=2+1`$ dimensions, the linear multiplet is also known as a twisted vector multiplet, and couples to $`U(1)_F`$ through a Chern-Simons interaction. In $`d=3+1`$, the linear multiplet contains a two-form field and three scalars, and couples to $`U(1)_F`$ through a “BF” interaction.. Thus the matter content for the gauged linear sigma-model describing the ALF space is,

$`A_{N1}`$ ALF Theory: $`U(1)^N`$ with $`N`$ hypermultiplets and 1 twisted hypermultiplet

For $`N=1`$ this is the theory described in Section 2. Let us denote the gauge field appearing in the additional vector multiplet as $`A_F`$. We further decompose the four scalars of the twisted hypermultiplet as a triplet $`𝐫`$ and a singlet $`\theta `$. The full couplings between the vector and twisted hypermultiplet is given in Section 2.1. Here we isolate the terms relevant for the hyperkähler quotient. They include the terms,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2}}dA_F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left(d\theta ^2+d𝐫^2\right)+\theta dA_F`$ (A.59)
We have introduced the coupling constants $`e^2`$ and $`g^2`$. The metric on the Higgs branch cannot depend upon coupling constants for vector multiplets  and, to truly restrict to the Higgs branch, we take the $`e^2\mathrm{}`$ limit. However, the metric on the Higgs branch does depend on $`g^2`$. Indeed, this will determine the amount of asymptotic squashing of the $`𝐒^1`$ fiber through its contribution to the harmonic function (A.55). The key to seeing this fact lies in understanding the supersymmetric completion of $`\theta dA_F`$ term in (A.59). As well as various fermion couplings, there are also further D-terms which enhance the moment map for the $`U(1)_F`$ gauge action to include a coupling to $`𝐫`$,

$`𝝁_F={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}w_i^{}𝝉w_i𝐫`$ (A.60)
The presence of the $`𝐫`$ term in the moment map implies the presence of a field transforming transitively under $`U(1)_F`$ . As explained in detail in Section 2, such a field exists, but appears only after dualizing $`\theta `$ in exchange for a new scalar field $`\kappa `$ through the relationship $`d\theta =g^2{}_{}{}^{}(d\kappa +A)`$, after which the kinetic terms require,

$`U(1)_F:\sigma \sigma +\alpha `$ (A.61)
The explicit hyperkähler quotient reduction with this moment map was performed in  where it was shown to reproduce the metric (A.54). The case of $`N=1`$ was described in detail in Section 2.2.

## B The Riemann Tensor

In this appendix we calculate the leading order contribution from all sectors of instantons and anti-instantons to the Riemann tensor for the metric

$`ds^2=H(r,\theta )=H(r)\left(d𝐫\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}+𝐝\theta ^\mathrm{𝟐}\right)`$
where $`𝐫=(r^1,r^2,r^3)`$, and $`H`$ depends only on $`\theta `$ and $`|𝐫|=r`$,

$`H(r,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}r}{\mathrm{cosh}r\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (B.62)
Setting $`r^4\theta `$, the torsion is given by

$`T_{ijk}=ϵ_{ijk}^l_lH^1`$ (B.63)
We define the vierbein one-forms $`e^\alpha =e_i^\alpha dr^i`$,

$`e^\alpha =H^{1/2}dr^i\delta _i^\alpha `$
which facilitates calculation of the spin connection, $`\omega `$

$`\omega _\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(H^1_jHdr^iT_{jk}^idr^k)\delta _i^\alpha \delta _\beta ^j\frac{1}{2}H^1_iHdr^j\delta ^{i\alpha }\delta _{j\beta }`$
It can be checked that these reproduce the Levi-Civita connection when $`T0`$, and satisfy Cartan’s first structure equation,

$`de^\alpha +\omega _\beta ^\alpha e^\beta =T^\alpha \frac{1}{2}T_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma `$
The curvature two-forms are now determined using Cartan’s second equation,

$`d\omega _\beta ^\alpha +\omega _\gamma ^\alpha \omega _\beta ^\gamma =R_\beta ^\alpha \frac{1}{2}R_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha e^\gamma e^\delta `$
From which we may extract the Riemann tensor which, in the original $`r^i`$ coordinates, reads

$`R_{jkl}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\frac{1}{4}H^2_jH_{[l}H\frac{1}{4}H^1_kHT_{j[l}^k\frac{1}{2}_j(H^1_{[l}H)\right)\delta _{k]}^i`$
$`\left(\frac{1}{4}H^2_iH_{[l}H+\frac{1}{4}H^1_kHT_{m[l}^i\delta ^{km}\frac{1}{2}_i(H^1_{[l}H)\right)\delta _{k]j}`$
$`\frac{1}{2}H^1T_{lk}^i_jH+\frac{1}{4}T_{k[j}^m\delta _{l]m}H^1_iH+\frac{1}{2}_{[l}T_{k]j}^i\frac{1}{4}T_{m[l}^iT_{k]j}^m`$
$`\frac{1}{2}H^2(_mH)^2\delta _{[k}^i\delta _{j]l}`$
To compare with the instanton calculation, we should expand this expression for large $`r`$. In fact, from (B.62), we see that there exist two such expansion paramters: $`r^1`$ and $`e^r`$. We wish to keep all orders in the instanton expansion, but only leading order in $`r^1`$. Expanding the function (B.62), we have

$`H{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}ke^{kr\pm ik\theta }`$ (B.64)
from which we deduce that the leading order contribution to the Riemann tensor appears at $`1/r`$, and is given by the eminently more managable

$`R_{jkl}^i\frac{1}{2}H^1_j_{[l}H\delta _{k]}^i+\frac{1}{2}H^1_i_{[l}H\delta _{k]j}\frac{1}{2}_{[l}T_{k]j}^i`$
Finally, following the discussion of the constrained instantons presented in Section 3, we also wish to expand the Riemann tensor in powers of $`g^21`$. Since the first two terms are of order $`g^2`$, while the third is of order $`g^6`$, we neglect the torsion completely:

$`R_{jkl}^i\frac{1}{2}H^1_j_{[l}H\delta _{k]}^i+\frac{1}{2}H^1_i_{[l}H\delta _{k]j}`$
To compare with the instanton computation, we change to a complex basis of coordinates,

$`z^1=r^1+ir^2,z^2=r^3+i\theta `$
and compute the components of the Riemann tensor evaluated at the point $`z^1=0`$. At leading order in $`r^1`$ and $`g^2`$, we find

$`R_{212}^{\overline{1}}|_{z^1=0}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{2\overline{1}\overline{2}}^{\overline{1}}|_{z^1=0}0`$
$`R_{212}^1|_{z^1=0}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k^2e^{krik\theta }`$ (B.65)
$`R_{\overline{2}\overline{1}\overline{2}}^{\overline{1}}|_{z^1=0}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k^2e^{kr+ik\theta }`$
To compare with the appearance of this Riemann tensor in the low-energy effective action (2.19), we must lower the sole upper index. At leading order in $`r`$, this simply removes the factor of $`g^2`$, and the relevant components of the tensor are,

$`R_{\overline{1}212}|_{z^1=0}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k^2e^{krik\theta }`$
$`R_{1\overline{2}\overline{1}\overline{2}}|_{z^1=0}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}k^2e^{kr+ik\theta }`$


text:
# A comment on the dual field in the AdS-CFT correspondence

## 1 Introduction

The AdS-CFT correspondence  as a concretization of Maldacena’s conjecture  owes much of its fascination to the fact that it produces conformal correlation functions for the “dual” conformal field $`𝒪`$, using as the generating functional a functional integral of highly non field theoretical appearance, of the form

$$\mathrm{e}^{𝒪(f)}=\frac{Z(f)}{Z(0)}\text{with}Z(f)=D\varphi \mathrm{e}^{I(\varphi )}\delta (\varphi _0f),$$
(1.1)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is the boundary limit of the functional variable $`\varphi `$, and $`𝒪`$ is the (Euclidean) dual field. The use of prescribed values of the functional integration variable $`\varphi `$ as the source for a quantum field, is deeply inspired from string theory  and has no precedent in field theory. We shall refer to (1.1) as the “dual prescription”.

It was noticed soon (e.g., ) that the bulk-to-boundary propagators derived from the the dual prescription are limits of the bulk-to-bulk propagators as one of the bulk coordinates approaches the boundary. This implies that the dual Green functions are boundary limits of bulk Green functions, and hence the dual conformal fields themselves are boundary limits, or “restrictions”, of the bulk fields in the sense of eqs. (1.7), (4.1) below.111The boundary limit of the bulk field is a special case of the restriction of a quantum field to a time-like hypersurface, which is well defined  and yields (non-Lagrangian) quantum fields in one dimension less. In contrast, restrictions of quantum fields to space-like surfaces (“time zero fields”)  or light fronts  are generally too singular to exist.

The recognition of the dual field as a boundary limit of the bulk field perfectly complies with two results on the AdS-CFT correspondence derived in axiomatic frameworks. In the Wightman axiomatic framework is has been shown  that the boundary limits of AdS correlation functions inherit the properties of locality, covariance, energy positivity and Hilbert space positivity (unitarity), and fulfill the physical requirements of a local conformal QFT in Minkowski space. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the algebraic treatment in  where the local observables of a QFT on AdS and a corresponding conformal QFT are identified, such that the sharply localized conformal observables coincide with the AdS observables close to the boundary. (The algebraic treatment also allows to characterize and define the observables in the interior of AdS in terms of conformal observables.)

Indeed, many tests of the field theoretic properties of correlation functions computed with the dual prescription have produced perfectly sensible results (including operator product expansions, Ward identities, and positivity ).

The generating functional for the conformal boundary correlations should therefore be as well representable as a functional integral where the field is coupled in the usual field theoretic way to a source, with the specification that the source is confined to the boundary,

$$\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _0(f)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)}{\stackrel{~}{Z}(0)}\text{with}\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)=D\varphi \mathrm{e}^{I(\varphi )}\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \varphi _0f}}.$$
(1.2)
On the right-hand side of this formula, $`\varphi _0`$ stands for the boundary limit of the integration variable $`\varphi `$, while on the left-hand side it denotes the Euclidean bulk quantum field, restricted to the boundary.

It is the purpose of this letter to understand the way how the two competing functional integrals (1.1) and (1.2) of drastically different appearance can provide the same results. $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(if)`$ is actually the functional Fourier transform of $`Z(f)`$. Coincidence of the Schwinger functions generated by the two functional integrals seems to imply that the integrals coincide and hence must be essentially their own functional Fourier transforms, for any form of the action $`I(\varphi )`$. This looks like a straight absurdity.

The apparent conflict is resolved by the fact that we shall have to specify the function spaces to which the respective functional measures $`D\varphi `$ apply, which is equivalent to the choice of the propagators $`G_+`$, $`G_{}`$, formally giving rise to two different functional integrals $`Z^\pm (f)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^\pm (f)`$ of either type (1.1), (1.2), the superscript distinguishing the two measures. Then we observe that in the dual case, the implementation of the $`\delta `$-function in (1.1) leads to an effective modification of the propagator. The total dual bulk-to-bulk propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ turns out to coincide with the field theoretic propagator $`G_+`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(z,x;z^{},x^{})=G_+(z,x;z^{},x^{}).$$
(1.3)
Likewise, we shall analyze the consequences of the dual prescription for the bulk-to-boundary propagator $`K_{}`$ and for the tree level 2-point function (the only connected graph without vertices), with the result that

$$K_{}(z,x;x^{})=c\underset{z^{}0}{lim}z^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}G_{+}^{}(z,x;z^{},x^{})$$
(1.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ is the scaling dimension of the boundary field and $`c`$ a numerical coefficient, and the tree level 2-point function equals

$$c^2\underset{z^{}0}{lim}z^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}\underset{z0}{lim}z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}G_+(z,x;z^{},x^{}).$$
(1.5)
The right-hand sides of eqs. (1.4), (1.5) are the appropriate limits of the field theoretical propagator when the source is confined to the boundary. Hence eqs. (1.3–5) imply

$$Z^{}(f)=\stackrel{~}{Z}^+(cf),$$
(1.6)
valid graph by graph in the formal Euclidean perturbation series. This in turn implies that the conformal field $`𝒪^{}`$ defined by the dual prescription (1.1) coincides with $`\varphi _0^+`$ defined by the restriction prescription (1.2),

$$𝒪^{}(x)=c\varphi _0^+(x)c\underset{z0}{lim}z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}\varphi ^+(z,x).$$
(1.7)
We believe that these facts, which we systematically establish for the most general scalar and vector fields, are a non-trivial manifestation of duality in the AdS-CFT correspondence. They pertain to the approximation of the holographic AdS-CFT correspondence in which string effects are suppressed and gravity is treated as a tensor field in a fixed background. Indeed, the action may be any local functional involving a finite number of tensor fields. Supersymmetry or “large $`N`$” is not assumed.

We emphasize that these results concern the formal perturbative expansions of the Euclidean boundary field theories in question, subject to the well-known difficulties encountered in the Euclidean functional integral approach. Clearly, individual graphs require renormalization, and the entire series diverges. Moreover, the correlation functions may fail to satisfy the Osterwalder-Schrader (OS) positivity condition , which is crucial in order to qualify as Schwinger functions of an associated real-time QFT. Only OS positivity guarantees Einstein causality, Hilbert space positivity and positivity of the energy. The positivity property of the functional integral inherited from the Gaussian measure is not sufficient in this respect.

The graph-by-graph identification (1.6) is not affected by renormalization (if the same renormalization conditions are imposed) and analytic continuation. One may therefore expect that a proper renormalized real-time interpretation of (1.1) also coincides with the real-time perturbation theory for a bulk field with subsequent restriction.

## 2 A discrete model

We want to emphasize the basically algebraic nature of the relations among the relevant propagators, pertaining to the passage between source terms of the respective forms $`\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _0f}`$ and $`\delta (\varphi _0f)`$. For this purpose we first consider finite-dimensional Gaussian integrals, replacing anti-deSitter space by a lattice. In the finite-dimensional case, formal manipulations with Gaussian integrals are exact. In particular, there is no room for further specifications of propagators, and the generating functionals $`Z(if)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)`$ are definitely distinct. We shall see that the difference resides entirely in the propagators. Their algebraic characterizations established in this section will be exploited in the next sections for the continuum case.

We replace the real functions $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$ by an $`N`$-tuple of integration variables $`\varphi (\varphi _i)_{i=1\mathrm{}N}^N`$ where the index $`i`$ labels both the lattice points and the Lorentz (multi)indices $`\alpha `$ in the case of a tensor field. We arrange the numbering such that $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$ label the boundary variables (boundary values of the field), while the remaining ones label the bulk variables.

We denote by $`e:^n^N`$ the corresponding embedding of the spaces of integration variables, and by $`e^\mathrm{t}:^N^n`$ its adjoint. The boundary variables are thus $`\varphi _0e^\mathrm{t}\varphi ^n`$.

The quadratic part $`\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ,A\varphi )`$ of the action is given by a symmetric matrix $`A\text{Mat}_N()`$. The total action is of the form

$$I(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ,A\varphi )+V(\varphi )$$
(2.1)
with a local polynomial potential $`V(\varphi )=_iv(\varphi _i)`$. We proceed in the usual perturbative way by expanding $`\mathrm{exp}V(\varphi )`$ as a power series, and performing the Gaussian integrals.

The integral $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)`$, $`f^n`$, involving the source term $`\mathrm{exp}(\varphi _0,f)\mathrm{exp}(e^\mathrm{t}\varphi ,f)\mathrm{exp}(\varphi ,ef)`$ is computed as usual by completing the square and shifting the integration variable $`\varphi \varphi +A^1ef`$. This yields

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(f,\alpha f)}D\varphi \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ,A\varphi )}\mathrm{exp}V(\varphi +A^1ef).$$
(2.2)
The Gaussian prefactor comes from $`(ef,A^1ef)=(f,\alpha f)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the $`n\times n`$ matrix

$$\alpha :=e^\mathrm{t}A^1e\text{Mat}_n().$$
(2.3)
For the integral $`Z(f)`$, $`f^n`$, with the source term $`\delta (\varphi _0f)`$ we use the projections $`E=ee^\mathrm{t}`$ (“boundary”) and its complement $`E^{}=\mathrm{𝟏}_NE`$ (“bulk”) to separate the boundary variables from the bulk variables:

$$\varphi =E\varphi +E^{}\varphi e\varphi _0+E^{}\varphi ,$$
(2.4)
and perform the obvious integration over the boundary variables $`\varphi _0`$, thus $`\varphi =ef+E^{}\varphi `$. In order to decouple the external variables $`f`$ from the integration variables $`E^{}\varphi `$, we shift the latter by $`E^{}A^1(e\alpha ^1f)`$ such that $`\varphi =E^{}\varphi ^{}+ef+E^{}A^1(e\alpha ^1f)`$. Writing $`ef=EA^1(e\alpha ^1f)`$, we get $`\varphi =E^{}\varphi ^{}+A^1(e\alpha ^1f)`$. The quadratic term decouples as desired:

$$(\varphi ,A\varphi )=(f,\alpha ^1f)+(E^{}\varphi ^{},AE^{}\varphi ^{}),$$
(2.5)
and the functional integral becomes (suppressing the prime)

$`Z(f)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(f,\alpha ^1f)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }D(E^{}\varphi )`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}(E^{}\varphi ,AE^{}\varphi )}\mathrm{exp}V(E^{}\varphi +A^1(e\alpha ^1f)).`$ (2.6)
From these formulae (2.2), (2.6), we read off the diagrammatical rules. The vertices, given by the polynomial structure of the potential $`v`$, are common to both functional integrals. They involve a summation over the lattice index $`i`$. Due to the respective shifts of the variable $`\varphi _i`$, there are inner lines (corresponding to the integration variables) and outer lines (corresponding to the external variables $`f`$) attached to each vertex.

The “bulk-to-bulk propagator” for the inner lines connecting two vertices is the inverse of the Gaussian covariance matrix of the respective integral. The “bulk-to-boundary” propagator for the outer lines is the ($`N\times n`$ matrix-valued) coefficient of $`f`$ in the shifted argument of $`V`$.

For $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)`$ with the exponential insertion, eq. (2.2), we read off the bulk-to-bulk propagator

$$G=A^1$$
(2.7)
and the bulk-to-boundary propagator which is the right boundary restriction of $`G`$, while $`\alpha `$ giving the leading Gaussian is its two-sided restriction,

$$H=Ge,\alpha =e^\mathrm{t}Ge=e^\mathrm{t}H.$$
(2.8)
For $`Z(f)`$ with the $`\delta `$ function insertion, eq. (2.6), the bulk-to-bulk propagator is obtained as follows. Since only the bulk variables $`E^{}\varphi `$ propagate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should have vanishing $`^n`$ (boundary) components. On the orthogonal (bulk) subspace $`E^{}^N`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should be the inverse of $`A`$. Hence

$$E\mathrm{\Gamma }=0=\mathrm{\Gamma }E\text{and}E^{}A\mathrm{\Gamma }=E^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }AE^{}.$$
(2.9)
This pair of algebraic conditions determines the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ uniquely as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=GGe\alpha ^1e^\mathrm{t}G.$$
(2.10)
The bulk-to-boundary propagator is

$$K=Ge\alpha ^1H\alpha ^1,$$
(2.11)
and can be uniquely characterized by the pair of algebraic conditions

$$EK=ee^\mathrm{t}K=\mathrm{𝟏}_n\text{and}E^{}AK=0.$$
(2.12)
We recognize in (2.9) a discrete version of Dirichlet boundary conditions for the inverse of $`A`$ on the bulk. This property will be crucial when we pass to the continuum in the next section.222It is also instructive to pass to the other extreme in which the lattice consists of only two points $`1`$ (the boundary) and $`2`$ (the bulk), i.e., $`n=Nn=1`$. In this case, with $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& c\end{array}\right)`$ and $`A^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \gamma \end{array}\right)`$, one has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1/c\end{array}\right)`$ where $`1/c=\gamma \beta ^2/\alpha `$.

We conclude that the two functional integrals $`Z(f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(f)`$ are obtained as sums over the same sets of graphs but with different prescriptions for the propagators to be inserted for the internal and external lines, and with different leading Gaussian prefactors.

## 3 Scalar propagators on AdS

Passing to Euclidean field theory on $`d+1`$-dimensional anti-deSitter space, we substitute the real scalar field $`\varphi (z,x)`$ (in the usual coordinates $`z_+`$, $`x^d`$) for the vector $`\varphi `$, and the Klein-Gordon operator for the matrix $`A`$:

$$A=\mathrm{}_g+M^2=z^{1+d}_zz^{1d}_zz^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}_i^2+M^2.$$
(3.1)
The inner product $`(\varphi ,A\varphi )`$ is the bulk integration with measure $`dzd^dx\sqrt{g}`$, $`\sqrt{g}=z^{1d}`$. The potential has the form $`V(\varphi )=𝑑zd^dx\sqrt{g}v(\varphi (z,x))`$ with some polynomial density $`v(\varphi )`$.

The inverse $`G=A^1`$ is the Green function solving

$$(\mathrm{}_g+M^2)G(z,x;z^{},x^{})=z^{1+d}\delta (zz^{})\delta ^d(xx^{}).$$
(3.2)
There are two linearly independent AdS-invariant solutions,

$$G_\pm (z,x;z^{},x^{})=\gamma _\pm (2u)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ,\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +\frac{1d}{2},2\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +1d;2u^1)$$
(3.3)
where $`u=\frac{(zz^{})^2+(xx^{})^2}{2zz^{}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ are the two solutions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }d)=M^2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\frac{d}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{d^2+4M^2},$$
(3.4)
and the normalization coefficients are $`\gamma _\pm =\frac{\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +1\frac{d}{2})}`$. The two solutions are distinguished by the boundary behaviour

$$G_\pm z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }\mathrm{as}z0$$
(3.5)
(and likewise for $`z^{}`$). The choice of either of them therefore specifies the functional integration measure to extend formally over spaces of functions $`\varphi ^\pm (z,x)`$ with the corresponding boundary behaviour $`z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }`$.333The Klein-Gordon operator (3.1) is homogeneous in $`z`$ near the boundary and hence preserves spaces of functions $`\varphi `$ which behave like $`z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near $`z=0`$. The integral $`(\varphi ,A\varphi )=z^{1d}𝑑z𝑑x\varphi (\mathrm{}_g+M^2)\varphi `$ converges at $`z=0`$ and is symmetric as a quadratic form only in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+>\frac{d}{2}`$. Nevertheless, proceeding formally also in the case of $`Z^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}<\frac{d}{2}`$, will turn out to be justified (due to the suppression of the boundary functional integration variables by the $`\delta `$ function), and in fact match the perturbative rules adopted in the literature . We denote the corresponding integrals (1.1) and (1.2) by $`Z^\pm (f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^\pm (f)`$.

We retain from the discrete model the diagrammatical rules. The field theoretical integrals $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^\pm (f)`$ have Gaussian prefactors $`\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{2}(f,\alpha _\pm f)`$ and involve propagators $`G_\pm `$ (bulk-to-bulk) and $`H_\pm `$ (bulk-to-boundary), while the AdS-CFT dual integrals $`Z^\pm (f)`$ have prefactors $`\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{2}(f,\alpha _\pm ^1f)`$ and involve propagators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ and $`K_\pm `$. The various propagators are obtained from $`G_\pm `$ via the algebraic relations (2.3) and (2.7)–(2.12), to be understood as relations among integration kernels $`G_\pm `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$, $`H_\pm `$, $`K_\pm `$, $`\alpha _\pm `$ (some of which will require regularization) rather than matrices, and $`e_\pm `$ stand for rescaled limits of the form

$$(F_\pm e_\pm )(x):=\underset{z0}{lim}z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }F_\pm (z,x).$$
(3.6)
The graphs to be summed in both integrals are the same, with the same vertices, but different propagators.

For the field theoretical integrals $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^\pm (f)`$, the bulk-to-bulk propagators are $`G_\pm (z,x;z^{},x^{})`$ as in eq. (3.3). The bulk-to-boundary propagators are, according to eq. (2.8), the limits

$$H_\pm (z,x;x^{})=\underset{z^{}0}{lim}z^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }G_{\pm }^{}(z,x;z^{},x^{})=\gamma _\pm \left(\frac{z}{z^2+(xx^{})^2}\right)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }$$
(3.7)
and likewise, according to eq. (2.3), the tree level 2-point functions are

$$\alpha _\pm (x,x^{})=\underset{z0}{lim}z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }H_\pm (z,x;,x^{})=\gamma _\pm (xx^{})^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm }.$$
(3.8)
Thus, the boundary fields $`\varphi _0^\pm `$ have the scaling dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ (at tree level).

To compute the propagators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }GH\alpha ^1H^\mathrm{t}`$ and $`K=H\alpha ^1`$ for the dual integrals $`Z^\pm (f)`$ according to (2.10) and (2.11), would involve the determination of, and multiplication with inverse integral kernels $`\alpha _\pm ^1`$. It turns out advantageous to exploit instead the algebraic characterizations (2.9) and (2.12) of the dual propagators, worked out in Sect. 2.

Translated into the continuum context, (2.9) states that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ solve Green’s differential equation in the bulk, and vanish on the boundary. In other words, they are the Green functions with Dirichlet conditions with respect to the restrictions given by the limits $`e_\pm `$. Now, by (3.5) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+>\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, the Green function $`G_+`$ vanishes faster than $`G_{}`$ and hence satisfies the Dirichlet condition with respect to the limit $`e_{}`$. We conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=G_+.$$
(3.9)
Likewise, (2.12) translates into the conditions that $`K_\pm `$ solve the Klein-Gordon equation in the bulk, and approach $`\delta ^d(xx^{})`$ in the limits $`e_\pm `$. By definition, the first condition for $`K_\pm `$ is fulfilled by $`H_{}`$. By virtue of a simple scaling argument  based on the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_++\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=d,$$
(3.10)
$`H_+`$ also fulfills the second condition for $`K_{}`$ up to a normalization,

$$(e_{}^\mathrm{t}H_+)(z,x;x^{})\underset{z0}{lim}z^\mathrm{\Delta }_{}H_+(z,x;x^{})=c^1\delta (xx^{}).$$
(3.11)
The constant is computed as $`c=2\mathrm{\Delta }_+d=:c(\mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$. Hence

$$K_{}=cH_+.$$
(3.12)
By (2.11), this implies the integral identity

$$cH_+\alpha _{}=H_{}$$
(3.13)
involving a perfectly regular $`^d`$ integration. In contrast, replacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ everywhere, $`H_{}\alpha _+`$ is UV-divergent. We UV-regularize $`\alpha _+`$ by analytic continuation of (3.13),444Regarding $`H_\pm `$, $`\alpha _\pm `$ as functions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, (3.13) is an equality $`c(\mathrm{\Delta })H(\mathrm{\Delta })\alpha (d\mathrm{\Delta })=H(d\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of two meromorphic functions, valid at $`\text{Re }\mathrm{\Delta }>\frac{d}{2}`$ (hence at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$). The right-hand side being analytic also at $`\text{Re }\mathrm{\Delta }<\frac{d}{2}+1`$, it defines the analytic continuation of the left-hand side to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. At this point, $`H(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})=H_{}`$, $`H(d\mathrm{\Delta }_{})=H_+`$, $`\alpha (d\mathrm{\Delta }_{})=\alpha _+`$, and $`c(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})=c`$. such that also

$$cH_{}\alpha _+=H_+$$
(3.14)
holds. Applying the limit $`e_{}`$ to both sides of (3.14), using $`e_{}^\mathrm{t}H_{}=\alpha _{}`$ and $`ce_{}^\mathrm{t}H_+=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, we get $`c^2\alpha _{}\alpha _+=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or

$$\alpha _{}^1=c^2\alpha _+.$$
(3.15)
As $`\alpha _\pm ^1(x,x^{})`$ are the tree level 2-point functions of the dual fields $`𝒪^\pm `$, the latter have the scaling dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. The regularization of $`\alpha _+`$ implicit in (3.14) is in agreement with the one adopted in , and the absolute normalization $`c^2\gamma _{}`$ of the 2-point functions of $`𝒪^\pm `$ inferred from (3.15) is in agreement with the correction advocated in .

Now, by virtue of the identifications (3.9), (3.12) and (3.15), the propagators involved in $`Z^{}(f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^+(f)`$ are the same, up to the numerical factors. This proves the assertion (1.6), and hence (1.7), with $`c=\sqrt{d^2+4M^2}`$.

Scrutinizing the above argument, we observe that most of it follows from the algebraic characterizations of the propagators obtained in Sect. 2. The only independent information was the validity of the limit (3.11) which in turn followed by a scaling argument from the relation (3.10), along with the analytic property of the coefficient as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$

$$c(d\mathrm{\Delta }_+)=c(\mathrm{\Delta }_+)$$
(3.16)
ensuring the correct relative normalizations of the coefficients in (1.4), (1.5).

## 4 Vector fields

We want to generalize the previous argument to vector fields $`\varphi _\mu (z,x)`$, $`\mu =z,0,\mathrm{}d1`$. For vector fields, the restriction maps $`e_\pm `$ involve rescaled limits and the projection onto the transverse components $`\varphi _i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{}d1`$. We shall establish the identity

$$𝒪_i^{}(x)=c(\varphi _0^+)_i(x)c\underset{z0}{lim}z^{1\mathrm{\Delta }_+}\varphi _i^+(z,x).$$
(4.1)
The dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ will be determined from the quadratic part of the action, and satisfy again (3.10). Adapting the remark at the end of the previous section, we observe that we only have to compute the coefficient $`c`$ in

$$\underset{z0}{lim}z^{1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}\left(\underset{z^{}0}{lim}z^{}{}_{}{}^{1\mathrm{\Delta }_+}G_{+,ij}^{}(z,x;z^{},x^{})\right)=c^1\delta _{ij}\delta (xx^{}),$$
(4.2)
as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and verify that it again satisfies eq. (3.16).

We shall only sketch the computation. The most general quadratic action

$$𝑑zd^dx\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\lambda (D^\mu \varphi _\mu )^2+\frac{1}{2}M^2\varphi ^\mu \varphi _\mu \right)$$
(4.3)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=D_\mu \varphi _\nu D_\nu \varphi _\mu `$, gives rise to Green’s differential equation

$$A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }G_{\nu \alpha }(z,x;z^{},x^{})=g_{\mu \alpha }z^{1+d}\delta (zz^{})\delta ^d(xx^{})$$
(4.4)
with the differential operator

$$A_{\mu \nu }=(D_\kappa D^\kappa +M^2d)g_{\mu \nu }+(1\lambda )D_\mu D_\nu $$
(4.5)
(the shift in the mass being due to the curvature). We make an ansatz with the most general AdS-covariant bivector (with $`u=\frac{(zz^{})^2+(xx^{})^2}{2zz^{}}`$ as before)

$$G_{\mu \alpha }(z,x;z^{},x^{})=g_1(u)(_\mu _\alpha ^{}u)g_2(u)(_\mu u)(_\alpha ^{}u).$$
(4.6)
The singularity in (4.4) requires the short-distance behaviour of the functions $`g_1\gamma _1^{}u^{\frac{d1}{2}}`$ and $`g_2\gamma _2^{}u^{\frac{d+1}{2}}`$ at $`u0`$, and

$$(d1)\gamma _1^{}+2\gamma _2^{}=(2\pi )^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+1}{2}).$$
(4.7)
At $`u0`$, (4.4) yields two differential equations of second order, which can be decoupled with the help of $`f=g_2g_1^{}`$:

$`u(u+2)f^{\prime \prime }+(d+3)(u+1)f^{}+(2dM^2)f=0,`$ (4.8)
$`u(u+2)g_1^{\prime \prime }+(d+3)(u+1)g_1^{}+(d+1M^2/\lambda )g_1=`$
$`=\frac{1\lambda }{\lambda }u(u+2)f^{}+(\frac{1\lambda }{\lambda }d2)(u+1)f.`$ (4.9)
The homogeneous equation (4.7) for $`f(u)`$ is solved by

$$f_\pm (u)=\gamma _\pm u^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm 1}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +1,\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +\frac{1d}{2},2\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +1d;2u^1)$$
(4.10)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\frac{d}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(d2)^2+4M^2}.$$
(4.11)
Both solutions have the same short-distance behavior $`f\gamma ^{}u^{\frac{d+1}{2}}`$. Because of $`f=g_2g_1^{}`$, the coefficient is $`\gamma ^{}=\gamma _2^{}+\frac{d1}{2}\gamma _1^{}`$, which is determined by (4.7). This fixes the absolute normalizations in (4.10),

$$\gamma _\pm =2^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm 1}\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm +1\frac{d}{2})}.$$
(4.12)
We choose either $`f_+`$ or $`f_{}`$ and suppress the subscript for the moment. The function $`g_1g_{1\pm }`$ is determined by the inhomogeneous equation (4.9) up to a solution of the corresponding homogeneous equation. One of these is too singular at short distance and can be excluded. The less singular solution

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(q_+,q_{},\frac{d+3}{2};u/2),q_\pm =\frac{d+2}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{d^2+4M^2/\lambda }$$
(4.13)
behaves like $`u^q_{}`$ at large $`u`$ (small $`z`$, $`z^{}`$). If this solution would dominate the behavior of $`g_1`$ at large $`u`$ (in case $`q_{}<\mathrm{\Delta }`$), then $`g_1^{}`$ would dominate $`f`$, and $`g_2g_1^{}`$. This would produce a boundary 2-point function of scaling dimension $`q_{}`$, which violates conformal invariance, however. Thus we must seek the special solution $`g_1`$ whose behavior at large $`u`$ is determined not by (4.13), but by the inhomogeneity of (4.9). For this solution, $`g_1\gamma _1u^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`g_2=g_1^{}f\gamma _2u^{\mathrm{\Delta }1}`$, with

$$\gamma _1=\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }1}=\frac{2^{\mathrm{\Delta }1}\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }+1\frac{d}{2})},\gamma _2=\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _1\gamma =\gamma _1.$$
(4.14)
This controls the boundary behavior of the Green function. With

$`H_{\mu j}(z,x;x^{})=\underset{z^{}0}{lim}z^{}{}_{}{}^{1\mathrm{\Delta }}G_{\mu j}^{}(z,x;z^{},x^{})=`$ (4.15)
$`=\gamma _1\left(\frac{2z}{z^2+(xx^{})^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \frac{(xx^{})_j}{z}+\gamma _2\left(\frac{2z}{z^2+(xx^{})^2}\right)^{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}\frac{(xx^{})_j}{z}_\mu \frac{z^2+(xx^{})^2}{2z},`$
we obtain the conformally invariant tree level 2-point function

$`\alpha _{ij}(x;x^{})=\underset{z0}{lim}z^{1\mathrm{\Delta }}H_{ij}(z,x;x^{})=2^\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}2\frac{(xx^{})_i(xx^{})_j}{(xx^{})^2}}{(xx^{})^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}.`$ (4.16)
In particular, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ given in (4.11) are the scaling dimensions of the boundary fields, satisfying (3.10) as announced.

We can now also compute the limit $`e_{}^\mathrm{t}H_+`$ and find

$$\underset{z0}{lim}z^{1\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}H_{+,ij}(z,x;x^{})=(2\mathrm{\Delta }_+d)^1\delta _{ij}\delta ^d(xx^{}).$$
(4.17)
Thus, $`c=2\mathrm{\Delta }_+d`$ is the same analytic function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ as for scalar fields, satisfying (3.16) as desired.

As explained above, this completes the proof for the validity of (1.6) also for vector fields. More explicitly, eq. (4.1) holds with $`c=\sqrt{(d2)^2+4M^2}`$. The case of massless gauge fields corresponds to $`M^2=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=d1`$ (independent of the gauge parameter $`\lambda `$), so that (4.16) is the 2-point function of a conserved current. For tensor fields of higher spin, the most general bi-covariant ansatz for the Green functions involves more unknown functions, which complicates the analysis. But since only (3.10) and (3.16) need to be verified, the comparison of (3.4) with (4.10) and the coincidence of the function $`c(\mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$ both for scalar and vector fields, lend support to the expectation that the result generalizes to tensor fields of arbitrary rank.

## 5 Conclusion

The perturbative expansion of the dual field $`𝒪^{}`$ in terms of “Witten graphs” matches the canonical (field theoretical) expansion of the interacting field $`\varphi ^+`$ in the bulk of AdS, with subsequent restriction to the boundary. We have presented a structural analysis of this fact (which was previously observed, e.g., by ) in terms of the formal identification (1.6), graph by graph, of the generating functionals for the respective Euclidean correlation functions. The relations between the relevant propagators, pertaining to the passage between source terms of the respective forms $`\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _0f}`$ and $`\delta (\varphi _0f)`$, are basically algebraic, and independent of any specific geometry. The solution (1.3–5) to these relations, in contrast, is largely due to $`SO(1,d+1)`$ symmetry, while the only piece of the argument which seems not automatic, is the analytic property (3.16) of the coefficient function $`c(\mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$ appearing in (3.11).

In the free case, $`V(\varphi )=0`$, both integrals (1.2) and (1.1) give rise to purely Gaussian boundary fields with scaling dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\frac{d}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{d^2+4M^2}`$. Their Euclidean correlations satisfy OS positivity provided the dimension satisfies the unitarity bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d}{2}1`$. Thus, $`\varphi _0^+`$ is always related to a real-time quantum field, and so is $`\varphi _0^{}`$ provided $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{d^2+4M^2}1`$.

These are Gaussian fields with non-canonical dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Such fields belong to the class of “generalized free fields” \[11, Ch. 2.6\] which were first introduced in  as asymptotic fields appropriate when a particle interpretation breaks down (e.g., in conformal theories). The $`n`$-point functions of a generalized free field factorize into 2-point functions, and its commutator is a numerical distribution, but there is no Lagrangian description with an equation of motion because the Källen-Lehmann measure $`\rho (m^2)`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega },\phi (x)\phi (y)\mathrm{\Omega }=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m^2\rho (m^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_m^+(xy)$$

may cover a continuum of masses. (Specifically, for $`\varphi _0^\pm `$, $`\rho (m^2)m^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm d}`$.) Thus a generalized free field can have the same 2-point function as an interacting field which necessarily covers a continuum of masses extending to $`\mathrm{}`$ \[11, Ch. 6.1\]. It will be shown elsewhere  that inspite of the absence of an equation of motion, a stress-energy tensor can be defined for generalized free fields, which is more singular than a Wightman field but still is a local density for the generators of space-time symmetries.

The (real time) AdS-CFT correspondence thus amounts to a perturbation around a conformal generalized free field whose non-canonical dimension is not itself a perturbative effect, unlike an anomalous dimension.

We notice that a standard perturbation theory around generalized free fields has not been formulated so far, and is expected to suffer from aggravated renormalization problems: e.g., in the case of $`\varphi _0^+`$ already the integration for the retarded propagator

$$[\varphi _0^+(x),\varphi _0^+(x^{})]\theta (x^0x^{}{}_{}{}^{0})=_0^{\mathrm{}}dm^2m^{2\nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_m^{\mathrm{ret}}(xx^{})$$

is UV divergent. Thus, the free propagator itself requires renormalization, i.e., its distributional extension to the diagonal $`x=x^{}`$ is non-unique . Moreover, the propagator entering the power counting argument with a larger scaling dimension affects renormalizability always for the worse.

But perturbation theory around free Klein-Gordon fields on curved space-time is well-defined , subject to the same UV limitations as in flat space-time. Applied to AdS, the interacting fields may be restricted to the boundary (in the sense of limits of correlation functions ). Thus, canonical bulk perturbation theory with subsequent restriction provides a new perturbative scheme around non-canonical free fields.

Let us return to the Euclidean functional integrals. In the free case, an identification between $`Z^{}(f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^+(f)`$ as in (1.6) also holds symmetrically between $`Z^+(f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}(f)`$. The latter both yield the Gaussian Euclidean field with dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, and, unless the AdS mass parameter $`M`$ exceeds the unitarity bound, the real-time generalized free field with the same dimension. But in the presence of an interaction, the generating functionals $`Z^+`$ seems to be ill defined because a Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ decaying faster than $`z^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}`$ does not exist. Eq. (1.6), however, suggests to define $`Z^+(f)`$ as the functional Fourier transform of $`Z^{}(if/c)`$. This qualifies and extends the observation that in the free case the corresponding connected functionals $`\mathrm{log}Z^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}Z^+`$ are each other’s Legendre transforms . One may doubt, however, that the Fourier transform of the generating functional respects OS positivity.

On the other hand, we see no a priori obstruction against a field theoretical perturbation around the canonical free bulk field $`\varphi ^{}`$ (provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}>\frac{d2}{2}`$), which then admits a sensible restriction $`\varphi _0^{}`$. Its generating functional $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}(f)`$, however, would have no interpretation as an AdS-CFT functional integral with $`\delta `$ function insertion.

We finally notice that we had to chose an (implicit) UV-regularization in (3.14). Our choice seems to be the most natural one, and it gives automatically the correct normalization required by Ward identities when the scalar field is coupled to a massless vector field . The identification (1.6) suggests that the fulfillment of Ward identities is another feature which is inherited upon restriction from the bulk QFT.

Acknowlegment: We acknowledge partial support of this work by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We are grateful to D. Buchholz and K. Fredenhagen for critical and helpful comments.