format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

BROWN HET-1306

Moduli Space Metric of $`𝒩=2`$ Supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Gauge Theory and the Enhancon

Gian Luigi Alberghi, Steven Corley, and David A. Lowe

Department of Physics

Brown University

Providence, RI 02912

gigi@het.brown.edu

scorley@het.brown.edu

lowe@het.brown.edu

We compute the moduli space metric of $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry in the vicinity of the point where the classical moduli vanish. This gauge theory may be realized as a set of $`N`$ D7-branes wrapping a $`K3`$ surface, near the enhancon locus. The moduli space metric determines the low-energy worldvolume dynamics of the D7 branes near this point, including stringy corrections. Non-abelian gauge symmetry is not restored on the worldvolume at the enhancon point, but rather the gauge group remains $`U(1)^{N1}`$ and light electric and magnetically charged particles coexist. We also study the moduli space metric for a single probe brane in the background of $`N1`$ branes near the enhancon point. We find quantum corrections to the supergravity probe metric that are not suppressed at large separations, but are down by $`1/N`$ factors, due to the response of the $`N1`$ enhancon branes to the probe. A singularity appears before the probe reaches the enhancon point where a dyon becomes massless. We compute the masses of W-bosons and monopoles in a large $`N`$ limit near this critical point.

March 2002

1. Introduction

Some time ago, Argyres and Faraggi , and Klemm, Lerche, Theisen and Yankielowicz  obtained the exact solution of the low-energy effective action of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, generalizing the work of Seiberg and Witten for $`SU(2)`$ . The answer is written as a prepotential for the $`𝒩=2`$ theory, expressed as the period matrix of a certain hyperelliptic Riemann surface. The period matrix becomes the metric for the $`N1`$ dimensional moduli space of this gauge theory. This period matrix was evaluated in an instanton expansion, in the limit of well-separated moduli, by D’Hoker, Kirchever and Phong . Picard-Fuchs equations were set up by . Many of these results are described in the review article .

The large $`N`$ limit of this theory was considered by Douglas and Shenker . This limit is rather subtle, because if the moduli have finite separations as $`N\mathrm{}`$ the instanton corrections vanish exponentially fast. To obtain a non-trivial limit, one must consider points on moduli space where separations vanish as $`1/N`$. Douglas and Shenker focused on the case where the moduli eigenvalues are located on the real axis. This is the case that is smoothly connected to vacua of the $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory with massive adjoint matter. In this paper we will generalize the analysis of , to the case when the moduli sit near a circle (or circles) in the complex plane, as well as to the case where a pair of eigenvalues are separated from such a circle. This limit has also been studied in \[8,,9\].

One of the main motivations for studying this problem is given by recent attempts to understand the resolution of certain naked singularities in string theory. For the case of D-branes wrapping a $`K3`$ surface, it was argued  that the timelike repulson singularity present in the naive continuation of the geometry, should be replaced by a shell of D-brane source sitting outside this point – the so-called enhancon locus. Inside this locus, it was argued the geometry should be flat. This picture received further support from a detailed analysis of the junction conditions , and from black hole entropy considerations \[12,,13\].

A detailed understanding of this phenomena requires a full string theory treatment of the problem. From the point of view of the supergravity analysis, the D-brane source boundary conditions are put in by hand. In this paper we present the nonperturbative moduli space metric that describes the low-energy worldvolume dynamics of D7-branes wrapping $`K3`$, near the enhancon locus. This is an important step toward a better string theory understanding of the enhancon phenomenon.

Our results support the picture advocated in . A wrapped D7-brane probe approaching $`N1`$ branes at the enhancon point, smoothly melts into the other branes, and then emerges from the other side. The probe brane does not see the interior of the geometry at all. The enhancon locus is simply a non-singular point from the viewpoint of the probe. Interestingly, we find nontrivial quantum corrections to the probe metric that do not fall off at large separations, however these appear at subleading order in $`1/N`$.

The plan of this paper is as follows: in section 2 we briefly review the solution of $`SU(N)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory of \[1,,2\] to fix notation; in section 3 we compute the moduli space metric along a one-complex parameter slice of the space in two different situations: for a pair of enhancon-like shells, and for a probe brane in an enhancon background. An analytic form of the metric along this slice is presented for all values of $`N`$. The metric includes nontrivial quantum corrections. For the case of the probe brane, the moduli space metric has a singularity as the probe starts to get close to the enhancon shell, when two eigenvalues collide and a dyon becomes massless. We obtain analytic expressions for the masses of dyons and monopoles in the large $`N`$ limit, near this critical point. In section 4 we comment on the implications of these results for the resolution of spacetime singularities in string theory, and discuss future prospects.

2. Review and Notation

Recall that the solution to the low-energy effective action of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory is given in terms of an auxiliary Riemann surface $`𝒞`$, that consists of a genus $`N1`$ hyperelliptic curve $`𝒞`$ defined by

$$Y^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(X\varphi _j)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N}=(P(X))^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N}$$

along with the 1-form

$$\lambda =\frac{XdP}{2\pi iY}$$

whose $`\varphi _j`$ derivatives are holomorphic. The $`\varphi _i`$ denote the classical expectation values of the gauge theory moduli. For SU(N) gauge theory the moduli space coordinates must satisfy the tracelessness condition

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _j=0.$$

The periods $`a_j`$ and $`a_{Dk}`$ are then given by the integrals

$$a_j=_{\beta _j}\lambda ,a_{Dm}=_{\alpha _m}\lambda $$

for some choice of cycles $`\alpha _m`$ and $`\beta _k`$ where only $`N1`$ of each of these sets of cycles is independent.

To construct the moduli space metric one requires derivatives of the periods with respect to the moduli space coordinates $`\varphi _k`$. If the periods (2.1) can be evaluated as functions of the coordinates $`\varphi _j`$ then this is easy to compute. Finding the periods at a generic point in moduli space however is difficult and it is easier instead to compute the derivatives at a fixed point in moduli space directly by noting that

$$\frac{\lambda }{\varphi _k}=\frac{1}{i2\pi Y}\frac{P}{\varphi _k}dX+d\left(\frac{X}{Y}\frac{P}{\varphi _k}\right).$$

The term inside the total derivative is periodic around a closed contour, so the $`\varphi `$-derivatives of the period integrals can be evaluated using only the first term of (2.1).

Using this information one can then compute the period matrix $`\tau _{mk}`$ via the prescription

$$\tau _{mk}=\frac{a_{Dm}}{a_k}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{da_{Dm}}{d\varphi _l}\left(\frac{da}{d\varphi }\right)_{lk}^1$$

where the derivatives on the far right-hand-side are total derivatives. That is, we have removed the $`\varphi _N`$ dependence using the tracelessness property (2.1) so that

$$\frac{da_{Dm}}{d\varphi _l}=\frac{a_{Dm}}{\varphi _l}\frac{a_{Dm}}{\varphi _N}.$$

It is important to note however that this prescription has an apparent singularity if $`\varphi _j=\varphi _k`$ for any indices $`jk`$. The singularity can be easily seen from (2.1) by noting that $`a_l/\varphi _j=a_l/\varphi _k`$ when evaluated at the point $`\varphi _j=\varphi _k`$. The $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ matrix $`[a/\varphi ]`$ is then not invertible. If the branch points of the curve (2.1) are all distinct, then we do not expect this point in moduli space to be a real singularity, but rather just a coordinate singularity. In the cases that we discuss below we will indeed see that this is true.

3. Moduli Space Metric

It is rather difficult to obtain explicit expressions for the metric throughout the full moduli space. To simply matters we will focus on two distinct one complex parameter slices through the full $`N1`$-dimensional moduli space, each of which contains the enhancon point (all $`\varphi _i=0`$).

3.1. Two enhancon shells

The first slice we consider retains a $`Z_N`$ rotation symmetry in the curve $`𝒞`$, and corresponds to a pair of concentric enhancon shells, which coalesce at the enhancon point. The corresponding brane configurations have been analyzed from the supergravity viewpoint in \[12,,11,,13\]. We parametrized the moduli space coordinates in terms of a complex parameter $`v`$ as

$$\varphi _j=ve^{i2\pi j/N}$$

where $`1jN`$. Note that this choice of moduli space coordinates does satisfy the tracelessness condition (2.1). The enhancon point sits at $`v=0`$, which leads to a coordinate singularity in the period matrix (2.1) as discussed above. One can get around this problem as we shall see by computing the period matrix for nonzero $`v`$ and then taking the limit $`v0`$, in which case a nonsingular answer is obtained. For nonzero $`v`$ this subspace corresponds to two separate enhancon shells.

Fig. 1: Positions of branch cuts, and choice of 1-cycles for double enhancon configuration.

To see this in more detail we must solve for the branch points of the curve given by $`Y=0`$. For the simple subspace in moduli space that we have taken these can be found exactly. The point is that the product in (2.1) simplifies to

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(X\varphi _j)=X^Nv^N,$$

which follows easily from the identity

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i2\pi jk/N}=N\delta _{k,0\mathrm{mod}N}.$$

The branch points are then found to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_{2k}& =(\mathrm{\Lambda }^N+v^N)^{1/N}e^{i2\pi k/N},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{2k+1}& =(\mathrm{\Lambda }^Nv^N)^{1/N}e^{i2\pi (k+1/2)/N}\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`1kN`$. For real $`v`$ we get the structure shown in fig. 1 with a pair of concentric circles of branch points. We have also shown some of the cycles $`\alpha _m`$ and $`\gamma _j`$. We take the $`\alpha _m`$ cycle to enclose the $`X_{2m}`$ and $`X_{2m+1}`$ branch points, with $`1m<N`$. The $`\gamma _j`$ cycle encloses the $`X_{2j1}`$ and $`X_{2j}`$ branch points, with $`1jN`$. The $`\beta _n`$ cycles are then given in terms of the $`\gamma `$ cycles by

$$\beta _n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma _j$$

and we take $`1n<N`$. The $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ cycles comprise a canonical basis of homology 1-cycles.

The holomorphic 1-forms (2.1) on this slice of moduli space are given by

$$\frac{\lambda }{\varphi _k}=\frac{1}{i2\pi }\frac{(X^Nv^N)dX}{(Xve^{i2\pi k/N})\sqrt{(X^Nv^N)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N}}}.$$

While one could try to compute the period matrix using this basis of holomorphic 1-forms, it turns out that it is not the most convenient. The computation of the period matrix is simpler if we change basis to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\lambda }{t_n}& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\lambda }{\varphi _k}e^{i2\pi kn/N}\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\varphi _k}\frac{\lambda }{\varphi _N}\right)e^{i2\pi kn/N}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{i2\pi N}\left(\frac{v}{X}\right)^{Nn}\frac{dX^N}{\sqrt{(X^Nv^N)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N}}}\hfill \end{array}$$

where the second line follows from the identity (3.1).

To compute the period matrix we now compute the derivatives of the periods

$$\frac{a_j}{t_n}=_{\beta _j}\frac{\lambda }{t_n},\frac{a_{Dm}}{t_n}=_{\alpha _m}\frac{\lambda }{t_n}.$$

For the $`a_D`$-periods we make the change of variables

$$X=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^Ne^{i\phi }+v^N)^{1/N}e^{i2\pi j/N}$$

which reduces (3.1) to

$$\frac{\lambda }{t_n}=\frac{v^{Nn}}{2\pi N}e^{i2\pi jn/N}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }^Ne^{i\phi }+v^N)^{1n/N}}\frac{e^{i\phi }d\phi }{\sqrt{e^{i2\phi }1}}.$$

Defining

$$f(v^N,n/N)\frac{1}{\pi N}_0^\pi 𝑑\phi \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }^Ne^{i\phi }+v^N)^{1n/N}}\frac{e^{i\phi }}{\sqrt{e^{i2\phi }1}}$$

we then have

$$\frac{a_{Dm}}{t_n}=v^{Nn}f(v^N,n/N)e^{i2\pi mn/N}.$$

Similarly for the $`a`$-periods we find

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_k}{t_n}=v^{Nn}f(v^N,n/N)e^{i2\pi (k1/2)n/N}.$$

The tilde notation here denotes a period evaluated along a $`\gamma `$ contour. To obtain the $`a`$-period we must sum as in (3.1), or in matrix notation

$$\frac{a_j}{t_n}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}q_{jk}\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_k}{t_n}$$

where the matrix entries of $`q_{jk}`$ are given by ones for $`jk`$ and zeroes everywhere else.

What makes the coordinate transformation in (3.1) so convenient is that (3.1) and (3.1) depend on the $`a_D`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ indices respectively only through a phase factor. Consequently either matrix is easy to invert provided that $`f(v^N,n/N)`$ does not vanish for any $`n`$ and $`v`$. Specifically the $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ matrix

$$m_{jn}e^{i2\pi jn/N}$$

has the inverse

$$(m^1)_{nk}=\frac{1}{N}(e^{i2\pi nk/N}1)$$

from which it follows that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\frac{a_D}{t}\right)_{np}^1& =\frac{1}{v^{Nn}f(v^N,n/N)}(m^1)_{np},\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{t}\right)_{nj}^1& =\frac{e^{i\pi n/N}}{v^{Nn}f(v^N,n/N)}(m^1)_{nj}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using (3.1) and (3.1) it is now straightforward to compute the period matrix (2.1), and we find

$$\tau _{mk}=\frac{2i}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{f(v^N,n/N)}{f(v^N,n/N)}\mathrm{sin}(\pi n/N)e^{i2\pi n(mk)/N}.$$

In obtaining this result we have multiplied the inverse $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ matrix in (3.1) on the right by the matrix $`q_{jk}^1=\delta _{j,k}\delta _{j1,k}`$ which converts the $`\gamma `$-period $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ matrix to a $`\beta `$-period $`a`$ matrix. While we cannot simplify the period matrix any further for generic values of $`v`$, at $`v=0`$ the sum is straightforward to do,

$$\tau _{mk}=\frac{i}{N}(\mathrm{cot}(\pi (mk+1/2)/N)\mathrm{cot}(\pi (mk1/2)/N)).$$

There is a theorem in Riemann surface theory that says that $`\tau _{mk}`$ is symmetric and that its imaginary part is positive definite. By replacing the summation index $`n`$ by $`Nn`$ one easily shows that symmetry implies the condition that

$$\frac{f(v^N,n/N)}{f(v^N,n/N)}=\frac{f(v^N,1n/N)}{f(v^N,1n/N)}.$$

For $`v=0`$ this condition holds trivially as both sides are one, and moreover from the explicit expression given in (3.1). For generic values of $`v`$ we have checked numerically that it does hold for various values of $`v`$ and $`N`$, which provides a check on our explicit expression for the period matrix.

For positivity we again do not have a direct analytic proof that this condition holds for the explicit form for $`\tau `$ given above. Even for $`v=0`$ we have not been able to show analytically that all eigenvalues are positive. Curiously though it is straightforward to check that $`\mathrm{sin}(2\pi kj/N)`$ for $`1j[N/2]`$ are eigenvectors of $`\mathrm{Im}[\tau _{mk}]`$ with eigenvalues $`2\mathrm{sin}(\pi j/N)`$, which are indeed positive. For the remaining eigenvalues and for more general values of $`v`$, we have checked numerically that the eigenvalues are indeed positive.

3.2. Probe in Enhancon Background

In this section we compute the period matrix in various limits along a one dimensional slice of moduli space corresponding to a wrapped D7-brane probe of the enhancon background. For the most part we are able to derive explicit expressions for finite $`N`$, and consider the large $`N`$ expansion only when necessary.

The moduli in this case are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi _j& =\frac{v}{N},1j(N1)\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _N& =v\frac{v}{N}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`v`$ is the complex coordinate which parametrizes the subspace that we will be investigating. The associated curve $`𝒞`$ is given by

$$Y^2=(Xv+v/N)^2(X+v/N)^{2(N1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N}.$$

$`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ Limit

For $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ the branch points of the curve are given by the series expansion in $`v`$

$$X_k=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{i\pi k/N}\left(1+\frac{1}{2N}(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2e^{i2\pi k/N}\left(1\frac{1}{N}\right)+𝒪\left((\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^3\right)\right).$$

This form of the branch points suggests a more convenient basis for the holomorphic 1-forms than those given in (2.1) (which, as discussed above, are not independent when more than one of the moduli space coordinates $`\varphi _k`$ are equal). Specifically we shall take the basis of holomorphic forms given by

$$\omega _n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{X^{n1}dX}{Y},1n(N1).$$

The advantage of this basis is that the linear in $`v`$ correction to the period matrix vanishes identically, as we now explain in more detail. We shall take the same basis of cycles as in the previous example for $`v=0`$. That is, the $`\alpha _k`$ cycle encircles the $`X_{2k}`$ and $`X_{2k+1}`$ branch points, while the $`\gamma _j`$ cycle encircles the $`X_{2j1}`$ and $`X_{2j}`$ branch points. The $`\beta _k`$ cycles are then defined as in (3.1).

To evaluate a period integral of any of the holomorphic forms $`\omega _n`$ over an $`\alpha _k`$ cycle, it is convenient to parametrize the integral in terms of an angular variable $`\phi `$ as

$$X=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{i\pi 2k/N}e^{i\phi /N}\left(1+\frac{1}{2N}(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2e^{i4\pi k/N}e^{i2\phi /N}(1\frac{1}{N})+𝒪\left((\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^3\right)\right),$$

a result which follows naturally from the form of the branch points (3.1). Similarly for a period integral about a $`\gamma _k`$ cycle, one simply replaces $`k(k1/2)`$ in (3.1). In this parametrization $`X^{n1}dX`$ clearly has no linear in $`v`$ piece. Furthermore $`Y`$ has no linear in $`v`$ piece as follows by substituting (3.1) into (3.1) and expanding, or more simply by noting that $`dX(v)/dv`$ vanishes at $`v=0`$ for $`X(v)`$ a branch point of the curve which follows from differentiating (3.1) with respect to $`v`$.

The periods are now straightforward to write down in an expansion in $`v`$. Specifically we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{a_{Dm}}{\xi _n}& =_{\alpha _m}\omega _n=\frac{1}{2\pi N}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(Nn)}(F(n)m_{mn}\hfill \\ & +(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2\frac{(N1)(n2)}{2N^2}F(n2)m_{m,(n2)}+𝒪\left((\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^3\right)),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_k}{\xi _n}& =_{\gamma _k}\omega _n=\frac{a_{Dm}}{\xi _n}|_{m=k1/2}\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have defined

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(n)& \sqrt{2}e^{i\pi /4}_0^\pi 𝑑\phi \frac{e^{i(n/N1/2)\phi }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}(\phi )}}\hfill \\ & =i4\sqrt{\pi }\frac{N}{n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+n/(2N))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+n/(2N))}e^{in\pi /(2N)}\mathrm{sin}(n\pi /(2N))\hfill \end{array}$$

and the matrix

$$m_{kn}e^{i2\pi kn/N}.$$

The $`a_k/\xi _n`$ periods are integrals over $`\beta _k`$-cycles defined in terms of the $`\gamma `$ cycles in (3.1).

To compute the period matrix we need the inverse

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\xi }\right)_{nj}^1& =\frac{iN\mathrm{\Lambda }^{Nn}}{F(n)}e^{i\pi n/N}((m^1)_{nj}(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2\underset{l,k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}(m^1)_{nl}\alpha _2(l,k)m_{lk}(m^1)_{kj}\hfill \\ & +𝒪\left(\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^3\right))\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have defined

$$\alpha _2(k,n)\frac{(N1)(n2)}{2N^2}\frac{F(n2)}{F(n)}e^{i4\pi (k+1/2)/N}.$$

The period matrix is then given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _{mk}& =\tau _{mk}^{double}|_{v=0}+(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2\underset{n,j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}(\alpha _{D_2}(m,n)m_{mn}(m^1)_{nj}\hfill \\ & \underset{l,p=1}{\overset{N1}{}}m_{mn}(m^1)_{nl}\alpha _2(l,p)m_{lp}(m^1)_{pj})(\delta _{j,k}\delta _{j1,k})+𝒪((\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^3)\hfill \end{array}$$

where the first term is the period matrix of the double enhancon evaluated at $`v=0`$ found in the previous subsection and we have defined

$$\alpha _{D_2}(m,n)\frac{(N1)(n2)}{2N^2}\frac{F(n2)}{F(n)}e^{i4\pi m/N}.$$

The last two Kronecker delta functions convert the $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ periods to $`a`$ periods as discussed above.

To connect this result with the supergravity description, we compute the induced metric on the subspace of moduli space parametrized by $`v`$. This induced metric corresponds to the moduli space metric of a probe $`D7`$ brane in the enhancon background, which may be computed using the Born-Infeld action plus Chern-Simons couplings. To construct this induced metric we need the periods $`a_k`$ as functions of $`v`$. These are given by the contour integrals (2.1). The computation is similar to what we have done before. Namely one parametrizes the integrals as (3.1) and expands the integrand in powers of $`v`$. The end result is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_k(v)& =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{i4\pi \mathrm{sin}(\pi /N)}(F(N+1)(1e^{i2\pi k/N})+(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2\frac{(N1)}{2N^2}F(N1)(1e^{i2\pi k/N})\hfill \\ & +𝒪\left(\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^3\right)).\hfill \end{array}$$

The induced metric is now given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_{probe}^2& =\underset{m,k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{Im}[\tau _{mk}](\frac{da_m}{dv})^{}\frac{da_k}{dv}|dv|^2\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{8\pi ^2N}\frac{|F(N1)|^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /N)}|vdv|^2\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{8\pi ^2N}\frac{|F(N1)|^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /N)}(d\rho ^2+4\rho ^2d\varphi ^2)\hfill \end{array}$$

where the $`(\rho ,\varphi )`$ coordinates are defined as $`v\sqrt{2\rho }\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$. The last form shows in particular that the induced metric has a conical singularity at $`\rho =0`$ with negative deficit angle.

One may use this result to compute the trajectory of a probe brane approaching the enhancon shell. At the enhancon point, the probe hits the conical singularity in the induced metric. The full metric is smooth at this point, and may be used to continue the motion of the probe past the conical singularity. On the subspace parametrized by $`v`$, the $`\varphi _i`$ respect a $`Z_{N1}`$ symmetry. Since the periods $`a`$ vary continuously (and with continuous first derivatives) through the enhancon point, the same symmetry will be present after passing through the enhancon point. The unique vacuum expectation value that preserves this symmetry corresponds to the subspace parametrized by $`v`$, so the probe remains on the v-slice. From the point of view of the spacetime coordinates, the probe merges with the enhancon, and then smoothly reemerges from the other side.

$`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ Limit

In this section we consider the opposite extreme for the probe, $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$. In this limit the probe is located far from the remaining moduli as is clear from the polynomial (3.1). In particular one finds for the branch points in this limit

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{X}_\pm & =\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(1\pm (\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v})^N\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{X}_j& =x_j\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}x_j\frac{1}{2N}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v})^2(x_j)^2+𝒪\left(\frac{x_j\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}\right)^3\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$x_j(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v})^{1/(N1)}e^{i\pi (j1)/(N1)}$$

for $`1j2(N1)`$. We have here introduced the scaled and shifted variable $`\stackrel{~}{X}(X+v/N)/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Fig. 2: Branch cuts and 1-cycles for the probe configuration.

So far our choice of electric versus magnetic cycles has been relatively arbitrary. However in this case we must be careful to identify the $`\gamma _N`$-cycle which encircles the branch cut connecting the $`\stackrel{~}{X}_\pm `$ branch points, see fig. 2, with an electric contour and eg. $`\alpha _{N1}`$, the cycle encircling the $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ branch points, with a magnetic contour. For the remaining cycles we take $`\gamma _j`$ to encircle $`X_{2j1}`$ and $`X_{2j}`$ for $`1j(N1)`$ and $`\alpha _k`$ to encircle $`X_{2k}`$ and $`X_{2k+1}`$ for $`1k(N2)`$. We further define $`\beta `$-cycles as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta _j& \gamma _N+\underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}\gamma _k=\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{N1}{}}\gamma _k,1j(N2)\hfill \\ & \gamma _N=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\gamma _k,j=(N1).\hfill \end{array}$$

The periods $`a_j`$ and $`a_{Dm}`$ are then defined as in (2.1).

To compute the period matrix we again need the matrices of integrals of some basis of holomorphic forms over the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$-cycles. We shall take a slightly different basis for the holomorphic forms than in the previous two cases, namely let

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\stackrel{~}{X}^{n1}d\stackrel{~}{X}}{Y},1n(N1).$$

The only difference as compared to (3.1) is to replace $`X`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, so clearly the basis (3.1) is just a linear transformation of (3.1).

The periods encircling pairs of branch points on the circle are straightforward to compute in an expansion in powers of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }/v)`$ and basically follow from the previous two sections. Specifically one finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_j}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}& =_{\gamma _j}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n=\frac{1}{2\pi (N1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^N}(x_{2j1})^n(\stackrel{~}{F}(n)+𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v})),1j,n(N1)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{a_{Dm}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}& =_{\alpha _m}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_k}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}|_{k=m+1/2},1n(N1),1m(N2)\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have defined

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(n)F(n)|_{N(N1)}$$

where $`F(n)`$ was given in (3.1).

Computation of the remaining periods over the $`\alpha _{N1}`$ cycle is slightly more involved. As it turns out we have not been able to evaluate all of the remaining periods directly. However, as we discuss in the appendix, one can evaluate them indirectly and still compute the period matrix. We record the results here and relegate the details to the appendix. For the remaining periods we find

$$\frac{a_{D_{N1}}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}(n)}{2\pi (N1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^N}\frac{e^{\frac{i\pi n}{N1}}1}{e^{\frac{i2\pi n}{N1}}1}\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{\frac{n}{N1}}$$

for $`1n(N2)`$ while the $`n=(N1)`$ case is given by

$$\frac{a_{D_{N1}}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{N1}}i\frac{(N+1)}{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^N}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right).$$

The period matrix can now be expressed as

$$\tau _{mj}=\underset{n,k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{da_{D_m}}{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}\left(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{a}}{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }}\right)_{nk}^1(\stackrel{~}{q})_{kj}^1.$$

The $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{jk}`$ matrix was essentially defined in (3.1) as the matrix which converts the $`\gamma `$-cycles (or $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ periods) into $`\beta `$-cycles (or $`a`$ periods), analogously to the earlier discussion around (3.1). The inverse matrix does the reverse, and is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (q^1)_{kj}& (\delta _{k,j}\delta _{k,j+1}),1k(N1),1j(N2)\hfill \\ & \delta _{k,1},1k(N1),j=(N1).\hfill \end{array}$$

The period matrix is now straightforward to evaluate and we find to leading order at large $`v`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _{mj}& =\frac{i}{(N1)}\left(\mathrm{cot}(\pi \frac{mj+1/2}{N1})\mathrm{cot}(\pi \frac{mj1/2}{N1})\right),1m,j(N2)\hfill \\ & =\frac{i}{(N1)}\frac{e^{i\pi (m1/2)/(N1)}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi (m1/2)/(N1))},1m(N2),j=(N1)\hfill \\ & =\frac{i}{\pi }(N+1)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right),m=(N1),j=(N1).\hfill \end{array}$$

The row $`\tau _{(N1),j}`$ for $`1j(N2)`$ then follows by the fact that the period matrix is symmetric.

The general form of this result was to be expected. Indeed, one might think that when $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })1`$ the probe is located far from the enhancon and the physics of the probe reduces to that of a weakly coupled $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory, which is given by the tree-level plus one-loop result. In the large $`N`$ limit, this accounts for the $`\tau _{N1,N1}`$ entry, which agrees with the supergravity probe brane metric . However, already at order $`1/N`$ we see a shift in the coefficient of the log term. The one-loop beta function would give a coefficient of $`N1`$, rather than the $`N+1`$ that emerges from our detailed calculation. This arises from the response of the $`N1`$ background branes to the position of the probe, which can generate such corrections due to the close spacing $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }/N)`$ of the eigenvalues of the associated moduli. We also see instanton corrections in the other entries, which do not fall off as $`v`$ becomes large, but are also suppressed by $`1/N`$ factors. These have a similar interpretation.

$`\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}1`$ Limit

We have so far discussed the large and small $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limits. Starting from $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ and decreasing $`v`$, the probe branch points move toward the enhancon branch points distributed on (an approximately) unit circle. On the real axis there is a critical point

$$\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{N^{1/N}}{(11/N)^{(11/N)}}1+\frac{\mathrm{log}N}{N}$$

at large $`N`$, where one of the probe branch points collides with an enhancon branch point. At this point the period matrix becomes singular, and a dyon becomes massless. For finite $`N`$, the singularity is of the same form as the singularities of the $`SU(2)`$ theory . Near, but not at, this point however the period matrix is nonsingular. To fully understand the motion of the probe in this region we must compute the period matrix. We will obtain analytic expressions for the masses of charged particles near this point, in a large $`N`$ limit, but so far have been unable to obtain an analytic expression for the period matrix. Some of these periods have also been computed in , and it has been argued in , that the large $`N`$ limit can be taken in such a way as to define a four-dimensional non-critical string theory.

The roots of the Seiberg-Witten curve for $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }<1`$ are given approximately in a large $`N`$ expansion by

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_k=e^{i\pi k/N}(1\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}(1\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{i\pi k/N})+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{v}{N\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{i\pi k/N})^2+𝒪(1/N^3))$$

for $`1k2N`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ was defined after (3.1). This expansion is valid provided the log term is much smaller than $`N`$. We keep $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fixed as $`N`$ becomes large.

To compute the periods we use the same set of holomorphic one forms (3.1) as given in the previous section. Furthermore we shall take the same set of cycles as in the small $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case. Parameterizing the integrals in terms of an angular coordinate $`\phi `$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{X}(\phi )\stackrel{~}{X}_k|_{kk+\phi /\pi },$$

the expansion of the holomorphic one forms (3.1) produces to leading order in $`1/N`$ the expression

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n=\frac{d\phi }{2\pi N}\frac{e^{i\phi n/N}}{\sqrt{e^{i2\phi }1}}\frac{e^{i2\pi kn/N}}{(1(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{i2\pi k/N}e^{i\phi /N})^{(n1)/N}}+\mathrm{}.$$

Expanding the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi /N)`$ in powers of $`N`$, one is left with integrals that we have seen before, (3.1). In particular one finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{a_{D_k}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}& =\frac{1}{2\pi N}\frac{e^{i2\pi kn/N}}{(1(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{i2\pi k/N})^{(n1)/N}}(1+2F(n)(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{(n1)}{N^2}\frac{\mathrm{log}(1(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{i2\pi k/N})}{(e^{i2\pi k/N}v/\mathrm{\Lambda })}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}(1(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{i2\pi k/N})\frac{v}{N\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{1}{(e^{i2\pi k/N}v/\mathrm{\Lambda })})+2\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{n}{N}\frac{(F(n)F(n+1))}{(e^{i2\pi k/N}v/\mathrm{\Lambda })}\hfill \\ & +𝒪\left(\frac{1}{N^2}\right)),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_m}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}& =\frac{a_{D_k}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}|_{k(m1/2)}\hfill \end{array}.$$

The periods are given in terms of the derivatives of the periods by

$$a_{D_k}=N\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{a_{D_k}}{\xi _{N+1}^{}}\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{a_{D_k}}{\xi _N^{}}+(1\frac{1}{N})\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\frac{a_{D_k}}{\xi _{N1}^{}}\right)$$

with similar expressions for the $`a`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$’s. As discussed in  the large $`N`$ limit of the period $`a_{D_{N1}}`$ is non-uniform, in the sense that when $`|v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1|`$ decreases to of order $`e^N`$, the large $`N`$ expansion breaks down (this is because the log term that appears in (3.1) becomes of order $`N`$).

To compute the period matrix we must invert the matrix $`a/\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$. Unlike in our previous cases however the $`k`$-dependence of $`a_k/\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n`$ is no longer contained only in a phase factor, but rather something more complicated. We do not know of any nice analytic expression for the inverse of this matrix and therefore have not been able to compute an analytic form for the period matrix. Nevertheless the expressions for the periods given above generate the masses of charged particles including instanton corrections, at leading orders in the large $`N`$ expansion.

4. Conclusions

In this paper we have computed the moduli space metric for $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory along some distinguished one-complex dimensional slices of relevance for resolution of singularities in string theory via the enhancon mechanism. One unexpected result of this analysis is the presence of corrections suppressed by powers of $`1/N`$ that do not fall off at large separations, in the regime where one of the classical moduli is taken to be large. When all moduli are well-separated, one expects the tree-level plus one-loop contributions to only receive corrections due to instantons, which should be exponentially suppressed in the large $`N`$ limit. The reason other corrections survive here is because the moduli associated with the branes on the enhancon shell have separations of order $`1/N`$, so we are never in a purely semiclassical regime. In , similar effects have been attributed to fractional instantons.

From the supergravity perspective, this limit of moduli space corresponds to a probe brane moving in the background of $`N1`$ branes on an enhancon shell. The corrections, which are suppressed by powers of $`1/N`$, contain information about stringy and quantum corrections to the classical supergravity description of the enhancon.

We have also explicitly computed the enhancon metric near the point where all the classical moduli vanish. As expected, the moduli space metric is smooth in this limit. Gauge symmetry is not enhanced at this point – the gauge symmetry remains $`U(1)^{N1}`$. The light particles include both electrically and magnetically charged states which are mutually non-local. The lightest masses go like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/N`$, which sets the cutoff scale for our description of the low-energy effective field theory.

We computed the induced metric on a one-complex dimensional subspace corresponding to a probe brane near the enhancon locus, and find a conical singularity at the center. In \[14,,15\] it was argued a similar conical singularity appears on the induced metric on a subspace of a higher dimensional analog of the Atiyah-Hitchin space, relevant for a probe brane in the background of an enhancon shell arising from wrapped D6-branes. As mentioned above, the full moduli space metric at this point is smooth. This supports the picture of a probe brane approaching the enhancon shell advocated in . The probe brane melts into the enhancon branes and becomes indistinguishable from them at the point where the classical moduli vanish. In particular, a probe brane corresponding to a wrapped D7-brane is unable to probe the region inside the enhancon shell. We are currently completing a computation of the moduli space metric for $`SU(N)`$ with fundamental matter. This will allow us to consider instead a probe D3-brane which is able to probe inside the enhancon shell. This will provide a useful check on the idea that the region inside the enhancon shell is simply flat space.

Finally, it is interesting to address the question of to what extent the enhancon mechanism is a general phenomenon. In the highly symmetric situations we have studied in this paper, the presence of the enhancon shell corresponds to the fact that the branch points of the Riemann curve are not coincident, but rather become closely spaced points around a circle. However nothing stops us considering other regions in moduli space where branch points collide. In particular, we could consider subspaces of moduli space where large numbers of branch points collide and give rise to generalizations of the Argyres-Douglas point . Related multi-critical points have been studied at large $`N`$ in . These presumably give rise to timelike singularities in the supergravity description for which the enhancon mechanism will not work. We hope to return to a study of this regime in the future.

Acknowledgements

We thank F. Ferrari, A. Jevicki, R. Myers, J. Polchinski, and S. Ramgoolam for helpful comments. This research is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FE0291ER40688-Task A.

Appendix A. Period matrix for $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$

We discuss the details of the computation of the periods $`a_{D_{N1}}/\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n`$ for the $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })1`$ case in this appendix. Some of these integrals have essentially been done in . The basic point is the following. The integral is between the limits $`\stackrel{~}{X}_11+\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/v)/N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{}(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })(1(\mathrm{\Lambda }/v)^N)`$. It follows that over most of the integration region the $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{2(N1)}`$ term in $`Y`$ will dominate so that the 1 can be dropped and one has the simple integral

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{a_{D_{N1}}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}& =_{\alpha _{N1}}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n\frac{1}{i\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^N}_{\stackrel{~}{X}_1}^{\stackrel{~}{X}_{}}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{X}}{(\stackrel{~}{X}v/\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{~}{X}^{Nn}}\hfill \\ & \frac{i}{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^N}\frac{1}{N1n}\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{n/(N1)},1n(N2)\hfill \\ & i\frac{(N+1)}{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^N}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right),n=N1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Actually the integral on the far right-hand-side of the top line in (A.1) can be done exactly and one would get $`𝒪(Nn)`$ terms. We have written only the dominant term above. However for this approximation to the full integral to be valid one needs to check if the contribution of both the other $`𝒪(Nn)`$ terms as well as the contribution to the integral coming from the integration region near the limits where $`Y`$ vanishes is subdominant. Actually the former contribution can be removed easily by taking a different basis of holomorphic one-forms. For example, if we take the basis

$$\omega _n^{}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_n\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{n+1})$$

for $`1n<(N2)`$ and $`\omega _{N1}^{}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{N1}`$ instead, the periods in the above approximation would reduce to just one term.

The real problem is that the contribution to the periods coming from the region of integration near the limits becomes important once $`n=𝒪(1)`$. To see this consider the following correction to the $`a_{D_{N1}}/\xi _n^{}`$ period (we are working in the $`\omega ^{}`$ basis instead of the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ basis here simply because it decouples the two effects mentioned above),

$$\frac{1}{\pi i}_{\stackrel{~}{X}_1}^{\stackrel{~}{X}_m}\left[(1(\mathrm{\Lambda }/v)\stackrel{~}{X})\frac{\stackrel{~}{X}^{n1}}{Y}+\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{X}^{N+n}\right]𝑑\stackrel{~}{X},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1<\stackrel{~}{X}_m<\stackrel{~}{X}_{}`$, but otherwise $`\stackrel{~}{X}_m`$ is arbitrary. The integrand here is just the difference of the exact holomorphic one-form (A.1) and its approximate form given by dropping the 1 in $`Y`$. Expanding near the lower limit as $`\stackrel{~}{X}=\stackrel{~}{X}_1(1+x/(N1))`$ one obtains the integral

$$\frac{1}{\pi i}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}\right)^{n/(N1)}\frac{1}{N1}_0^{x_m}\left[\frac{e^{x(n1)/(N1)}}{\sqrt{e^{2x}1}}e^{x(Nn)/(N1)}\right]𝑑x.$$

The upper limit $`x_m`$ can be taken to infinity at the cost of an exponentially small correction to the integral. This integral can now be evaluated and one finds

$$\frac{1}{\pi i}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{v}\right)^{n/(N1)}\frac{1}{N1}\left[\frac{N1}{Nn}+\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{Nn}{2(N1)})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2Nn1}{2(N1)})}\right].$$

This should be much less than the leading order contribution to the period integral, which in this case simply coincides with the contribution coming from the first term in brackets of the above expression. When $`n=N𝒪(1)`$ then the term in brackets vanishes to leading order and indeed this correction is subdominant. However when $`n=𝒪(1)`$ the term in brackets does not vanish to leading order and the “correction” term is of the same order as the leading order piece, so the approximations made in this regime are not valid.

As we commented on in the text, we do not actually need to compute all of these period integrals directly to construct the period matrix. We only need to evaluate eg. $`a_{D_{N1}}/\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{N1}`$ (we are working once again with the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ basis) directly, for which the approximations described above are valid, and the remaining periods can be obtained indirectly as we now discuss. Basically one notes that given just the periods in (3.1), and the fact that the period matrix is symmetric, is enough to construct the entire period matrix except for the element $`\tau _{(N1),(N1)}`$. To compute this element we need the values of the remaining periods. We can however solve for them by viewing the symmetry requirement $`\tau _{(N1),k}=\tau _{k,(N1)}`$ for $`1k(N2)`$ as a set of equations to determine the periods $`a_{D_{N1}}/\stackrel{~}{\xi }_k`$ over the same range of $`k`$, where one must remember that $`a_{D_{N1}}/\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{N1}`$ has been given above. In more detail, in terms of the tilded period matrix defined as $`\tau _{mj}=_k\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{mk}(q^1)_{kj}`$, the equations determining the remaining periods are

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{a_{D_{N1}}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n}\left(\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}\right)_{nk}^1\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}\right)_{n,(k+1)}^1\right)=\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{k,1}.$$

It is a simple exercise to solve these equations for the remaining periods to find (3.1).

References

relax P. C. Argyres and A. E. Faraggi, “The vacuum structure and spectrum of N=2 supersymmetric SU(n) gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3931 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9411057\]. relax A. Klemm, W. Lerche, S. Yankielowicz and S. Theisen, “Simple singularities and N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Phys. Lett. B 344, 169 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9411048\]. relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 426, 19 (1994) \[Erratum-ibid. B 430, 485 (1994)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9407087\]. relax E. D’Hoker, I. M. Krichever and D. H. Phong, “The effective prepotential of N = 2 supersymmetric SU(N(c)) gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 489, 179 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9609041\]. relax J. M. Isidro, A. Mukherjee, J. P. Nunes and H. J. Schnitzer, “A new derivation of the Picard-Fuchs equations for effective N = 2 super Yang-Mills theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 492, 647 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9609116\]. relax E. D’Hoker and D. H. Phong, “Lectures on supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and integrable systems,” arXiv:hep-th/9912271. relax M. R. Douglas and S. H. Shenker, “Dynamics of SU(N) supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 447, 271 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9503163\]. relax F. Ferrari, “The large N limit of N = 2 super Yang-Mills, fractional instantons and infrared divergences,” Nucl. Phys. B 612, 151 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0106192\]. relax F. Ferrari, “Exact amplitudes in four dimensional non-critical string theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 617, 348 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0107096\]. relax C. V. Johnson, A. W. Peet and J. Polchinski, “Gauge theory and the excision of repulson singularities,” Phys. Rev. D 61, 086001 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9911161\]. relax C. V. Johnson, R. C. Myers, A. W. Peet and S. F. Ross, “The enhancon and the consistency of excision,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 106001 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105077\]. relax C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, “The enhancon, black holes, and the second law,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 106002 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105159\]. relax N. R. Constable, “The entropy of 4D black holes and the enhancon,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 104004 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0106038\]. relax C. V. Johnson, “Enhancons, fuzzy spheres and multi-monopoles,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 065004 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0004068\]. relax C. V. Johnson, “The enhancon, multimonopoles and fuzzy geometry,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 990 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0011008\]. relax P. C. Argyres and M. R. Douglas, “New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 448, 93 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9505062\].


text:
# Rheological Chaos in a Scalar Shear-Thickening Model

## Abstract

We study a simple scalar constitutive equation for a shear-thickening material at zero Reynolds number, in which the shear stress $`\sigma `$ is driven at a constant shear rate $`\dot{\gamma }`$ and relaxes by two parallel decay processes: a nonlinear decay at a nonmonotonic rate $`R(\sigma _1)`$ and a linear decay at rate $`\lambda \sigma _2`$. Here $`\sigma _{1,2}(t)=\tau _{1,2}^1_0^t\sigma (t^{})\mathrm{exp}[(tt^{})/\tau _{1,2}]dt^{}`$ are two retarded stresses. For suitable parameters, the steady state flow curve is monotonic but unstable; this arises when $`\tau _2>\tau _1`$ and $`0>R^{}(\sigma )>\lambda `$ so that monotonicity is restored only through the strongly retarded term (which might model a slow evolution of material structure under stress). Within the unstable region we find a period-doubling sequence leading to chaos. Instability, but not chaos, persists even for the case $`\tau _10`$. A similar generic mechanism might also arise in shear thinning systems and in some banded flows.

PACS numbers: 83.60.Rs, 83.10.Gr, 05.45.Ac

Rheochaos can be defined as the occurence of macroscopic chaos  in a viscoelastic material at negligible Reynolds number. With the neglect of inertia that this implies, the nonlinearity must come not from the advection of momentum (as in Navier Stokes turbulence) but from the constitutive behaviour of the material, which may include strong memory effects. Likewise for the chaos to be macroscopically observable (for example in time series data on the stress measured at fixed strain rate, or vice versa, in a bulk sample) a mechanism must be present that goes beyond the microscale chaos known to be present in, e.g., colloidal Stokes flow .

Strong candidates for rheochaos include micellar materials , dense lamellar phases , and also dense suspensions where erratic stress response at fixed strain rate (or vice versa) is widespread but poorly documented (see e.g. ). It is not yet clear whether spatial as well as temporal inhomogeneity is present for all instances of rheochaos, and if so to what extent. This could range from a shear-banded flow in which the interface between bands of fast and slow flowing material is unsteady in time (as suspected in micelles ) through to fully developed ‘elastic turbulence’ as recently reported in polymer solutions near the overlap threshold . Spatial inhomogeneities are also known to occur in shear–thickening colloid solutions . However, the closely related phenomenon of director chaos in sheared nematics has been studied theoretically and does not seem to require spatial inhomogeneity. In the present state of understanding, a theoretical search for temporal rheochaos in spatially homogenous models remains justified.

Recent work by the authors has studied the onset of temporal instability in spatially homogeneous mesoscopic models of shear-thickening type . One interesting prediction was that such instability could arise in a system where the steady state flow curve, $`\sigma (\dot{\gamma })`$ is monotonic . This contrasts with the conventional instability to spatial inhomogeneity in the form of shear bands: this is always associated with regions of negative slope on the flow curve . The mesoscopic models of  are not fully tensorial but work with a single (spatially uniform) component of each of the stress and strain rate tensors ($`\sigma `$ and $`\dot{\gamma }`$); nonetheless they contain an infinite number of degrees of freedom, corresponding to the distribution of local strain variables for different mesoscopic elements. This makes them complex to analyse.

In this paper we propose closely related but much simpler models in which there is only one degree of freedom (the shear stress $`\sigma `$) whose time evolution at constant strain rate $`\dot{\gamma }`$ is governed by a simple constitutive equation with retarded and nonlinear features. The simplest such model combines a nonlinear instantaneous relaxation rate for stress (chosen nonmonotonic) with a linear but retarded relaxation. For a single exponential retardation kernel, its dynamics can be completely understood: it shows spontaneous oscillation in a region of the flow curve with positive slope, but no chaos. This is qualitatively very like the mesoscopic model of Ref. (although that model exhibits oscillations at a constant imposed stress rather than strain rate). In particular, the instability is associated with a negative slope on the ‘bare’ flow curve (before the retarded term is added). A second, similar model, in which the nonlinear relaxation is itself delayed, shows chaos.

We first examine the simplest model alluded to above. This is defined by the equation

$$\dot{\sigma }(t)=\dot{\gamma }R(\sigma )\lambda \sigma _2$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _2(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^tM_2(tt^{})\sigma (t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ is a retarded stress and $`M_2(t)`$ is a memory kernel whose integral is unity. The first term on the right side of this equation means that, in the absence of relaxation, stress increases linearly with straining (the elastic constant is set to unity) – a Hookean solid. The second term describes instantaneous decay of stress at rate $`R(\sigma )`$, for example through ‘hops’ or plastic rearrangement of mesoscopic elements (returning these to an unstrained state) with jump rate $`R/\sigma `$. Unlike in the mesoscopic models of , no attempt is made to track the dynamics of individual elements. The third term is also a decay term, but describes retarded relaxation. This could represent ‘delayed jumps’ which, perhaps because they involve a cooperative motion of many elements, take a distribution of finite times to accomplish (governed by the kernel $`M_2`$). More generally, a retarded term could represent some other slow structural reorganization of the material in response to stress.

For example, one could have a model of instantaneous jumps but with a ‘fluidity’ or jump rate that itself adapts slowly to stress. In this context it might be more natural to have a nonlinear retarded term such as

$$\dot{\sigma }=\dot{\gamma }R(\sigma )\lambda \sigma _2\sigma $$
(2)
However, this gives qualitatively the same instability as described below for Eq.(1; we retain the linear version, for simplicity, below.

Solving Eq.(1) in steady state gives immediately the flow curve, or rather its inverse:

$$\dot{\gamma }=R(\sigma )+\lambda \sigma $$
(3)
The interesting case is when $`R(\sigma )`$ is nonmonotonic but $`R(\sigma )+\lambda \sigma `$ is monotonic. Then the flow curve is monotonic, but only because of the retarded contribution to the jump rate. One might suspect that a sufficiently sluggish retarded contribution might fail to correct the underlying instability in the region where $`R^{}(\sigma )`$ is negative: over short timescales the system appears to unstable with respect to shear banding but at long timescales it is not. Here, the timescales are measured relative to the strain rate at which $`R(\sigma )`$ in (3) first becomes non–monotonic; we choose units so that this is $`O(1)`$.

We analyse the case of a single exponential kernel, $`M_2=\tau _2^1\mathrm{exp}[(tt^{})/\tau _2]`$. As is easily checked, for this kernel Eq.(1) can be replaced by a differential equation of second order. Differentiating Eq.(1) with respect to $`t`$, and noting that $`\dot{\sigma }_2=(\sigma \sigma _2)/\tau _2`$, we obtain immediately

$$\ddot{\sigma }=\frac{V}{\sigma }\xi (\sigma )\dot{\sigma }$$
(4)
which effectively describes a particle of unit mass in a 1-D potential $`V`$ with damping constant $`\xi `$. Here

$`\tau _2V(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\sigma }R(\sigma )d\sigma +\lambda \sigma ^2/2\dot{\gamma }\sigma `$ (5)
$`\xi (\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`R^{}(\sigma )+1/\tau _2`$ (6)
As $`\dot{\gamma }`$ is varied, the steady state flow curve $`\sigma (\dot{\gamma })`$, as given by Eq.(3), is recovered as the solution of $`V^{}(\sigma )=0`$. Stability of the steady state solution requires that two further conditions are satisfied. The first is $`V^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )>0`$ (so that the effective potential has a minimum not a maximum). This is equivalent to $`d\sigma /d\dot{\gamma }>0`$ which is the usual criterion to avoid shear banding. However, stability also requires that $`\xi (\sigma )`$ is positive at the minimum of $`V`$. When $`R^{}(\sigma )`$ in Eq.(6) is negative, this is only satisfied if the retardation time $`\tau _2`$ is sufficiently short. When not satisfied, one has antidamping at the minimum of $`V`$ so that small velocity fluctuations are amplified; this is reminiscent of a van der Pol oscillator . Velocity fluctuations will grow until a limit cycle is reached in which the postive damping at large amplitudes balances the antidamping near the minimum.

An example of the ‘bare’ flow curve, the final flow curve, and the region of instability is shown in Fig.1(a). Fig. 1(b) shows typical time series of the stress just inside, and well within, the unstable region. The limits of this region, $`\sigma _c^\pm `$, are Hopf bifurcation points where there is onset of finite frequency sinusoidal oscillations with an amplitude varying as $`|\dot{\gamma }\dot{\gamma }_c|^{1/2}`$.

Our choice of an exponential kernel is nongeneric: most integral kernels are not equivalent to any finite order differential equation . However, the above argument gives a generic mechanism of instability. If the flow curve is monotonic only because of a retarded term ($`\lambda <R^{}(\sigma )<0`$), then temporal instability survives if the retardation time is too long. Its presence does not depend on details of the kernel, but what it leads to might do so: in particular, chaos is impossible in a second-order system  such as Eq.(4). However, our finding of spontaneous oscillation but not chaos appears to be structurally stable: we were unable to find chaos with $`M_2`$ taken as the sum of two exponentials (which gives a third order dynamical system for which chaos is allowed).

In that case, what does need to be added to the model of Eq.(1) to give temporal chaos rather than just spontaneous oscillation? So far, the simplest variant we have found that definitely shows chaos is the following:

$$\dot{\sigma }(t)=\dot{\gamma }R(\sigma _1)\lambda \sigma _2$$
(7)
where the stress in the nonlinear term, $`\sigma _1`$, is now also retarded. The steady state flow curve is the same as that for (1). For simplicity, we choose a single exponential kernel here too: $`\sigma _1(t)=_0^t\sigma (t^{})\tau _1^1\mathrm{exp}[(tt^{})/\tau _1]dt^{}`$. To maintain continuity of interpretation with the simpler version of the model, we choose $`\tau _1\stackrel{<}{}1\tau _2`$. We study the situation where the monotonicity of the flow curve (still given by Eq.(3)) is restored only via the more retarded of the two relaxation terms. While there is no longer a simple interpretation in terms of an effective potential or a damping function, the generic instability of the previous model remains. But now, within the unstable region, we find a period doubling cascade leading to chaos. Figure 2(a) shows, for a specified set of model parameters, the period and Lyapunov exponents $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3`$ as a function of $`\dot{\gamma }`$ ($`\lambda _1>0`$ means that nearby trajectories exponentially separate ); Fig.2(b) shows a series of period-doubling orbits in the $`(\sigma _2,\sigma )`$ plane and Fig.2(c) shows the strange attractor in $`(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma )`$-space. Its Lyapunov dimension $`D_{\mathrm{lyap}}=2+\lambda _1/|\lambda _3|`$ varies with the parameters but is slightly greater than 2, typically $`2.0<D_{\mathrm{lyap}}<2.1`$.

Physically it is not clear to us yet why retardation of the nonlinear term (as well as the linear one) seems necessary to get chaos out of Eq.(7); presumably, however, this adds something which is missing even from the mesoscopic model of Ref. (where chaos remained absent despite the infinite order of the system). Attempts to associate the retarded stresses in this model with, say, higher moments of the distribution of local strains in the model of Ref. (where the first moment is the instantaneous stress) have so far proved unconvincing. A more detailed study is left for future work.

We conclude with a broader discussion. The key idea is that of a flow curve (for spatially homogeneous states) whose monotonicity is rescued only by a retarded contribution; if too retarded, this does not restore temporal stability because the system continues to amplify perturbations over short timescales. Although the equations involved will look rather different, very similar physics could arise in materials of shear-thinning type where shear banding is present  or narrowly avoided . It might be very interesting to look more closely in shear-thinning micellar systems where, by varying density and temperature, one can arrange a material whose flow curve is only just monotonic . Similar studies in colloids close to the transition from continuous to discontinuous shear thickening  would also be valuable although this field is a lot less developed experimentally.

Quite similar equations, but with different variables and interpretation, might describe a pre-existing shear banded flow, whose stability remains unclear in many cases . The simplest scenario would ascribe a single coordinate to describe the bands (e.g. the position of the interface between them, assumed flat) and seek to develop equations for its time evolution. Chaotic behavior of such an interface, rather than of a spatially homogeneous stress, might be the explanation of rheochaos seen in various micellar systems. In the case where one of the bands is a static gel, empirical models such as those proposed in Refs. have met with some success at explaining the observed (though not entirely steady ) dependence of stress on strain rate when averaged across such a banded flow. Such models involve equations such as $`\dot{h}=f(h)1/\sigma `$ where $`h`$ is the width of a shear band, $`f`$ is a nonlinear term arising from the difference in concentration in the two bands and $`\sigma `$ is the stress . Under controlled strain rate conditions (say) $`1/\sigma `$ is linear in $`h`$ and the equation is not dissimilar to Eq.(1) without retardation. If a slow process can be identified (possibly concentration equilibration), then a retarded version of this type of equation could share the generic instability of the models discussed above.

Acknowledgements: MEC and DAH acknowledge the hospitality of the Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB, where part of this work was completed with the support of NSF Grant No. PHY99–07949. AA acknowledges the hospitality and support of the University of Edinburgh, where this work was initiated.


text:
# Study of the isotropic contribution to the analysis of photoelectron diffraction experiments at the ALOISA beamline

## I Introduction

The study of the angular distribution of the Auger- and photo–electrons at medium kinetic energies (a few hundreds of eV) is a well established method to determine the atomic structure in a local environment surrounding the emitting atoms close to the surface of ordered materials. The lattice geometry is usually retrieved exploiting the observation of intensity maxima along the direction of close packed atom rows. By taking into account the electron diffraction (ED) features, one can also reconstruct the atomic distances between the emitter and its closest neighbors.

In general, the distribution of the intensity in the ED patterns is originated by two contributions: one anisotropic component $`\chi `$, which is determined by the geometry of the local atomic structure, and one, slowly varying, isotropic component $`ISO`$ which depends from both instrumental factors (such as sample illumination and detector angular resolution) and material dependent factors (such as atomic differential cross section, film thickness/escape depth, surface morphology/roughness).

The origin of the various contributions to the $`ISO`$ component has been identified since many years . Some aspects relevant to photoelectron diffraction have been recently reviewed , in particular regarding the role of dipolar emission in surface science experiments. Nonetheless in this work we present original developement of the ED analysis, which arises from the evolution of instrumental performance, in terms of analyzers positioning and angular resolution, as well as collimation and size of X-ray beams in third generation synchrotron sources. The analytical treatement of the instrumental factors is presented in detail for the end station of the ALOISA beamline (Trieste Synchrotron), where a wide variety of scattering geometries is available for ED experiments.

In the following, we present a functional form of the $`ISO`$ component using physically meaningful parameters, that can be fitted at once with the $`\chi `$ component to rigorously deal with the ED analysis. This functional form has been coupled to multiple scattering calculations of the anisotropic structure-dependent $`\chi `$ component (we made use of the MSCD code by Chen and Van Hove ). This fitting procedure was applied to the structural study of thin Fe films grown on the Cu3Au(001) surface, where the Fe structure changes from an fcc-like configuration to a bcc-like one as a function of the film thickness. For this system, Auger- and photo-electron ED data where taken in combination with in-plane X-ray diffraction. The latter technique yielded the lateral lattice parameter of the growing film with utmost precision and its value was used as input in the fitting of the ED patterns, the vertical lattice spacing thus being the only structural parameter to be determined. In the next section, we have compared our model of the $`ISO`$ function with the ED data taken for a few Fe films to enlight the weight of a proper choice of the $`ISO`$ functional form in the determination of the $`\chi `$ component.

## II Experimental setup

The experimental chamber of the ALOISA beamline hosts several electron and photon detectors in UHV for the study of surface photoemission, X-ray and photolectron diffraction. This experimental setup exploits the very wide photon energy range given by the ALOISA grating-crystal monochromator, which spans from the dominion of X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (hundreds of eV) to that of X-ray diffraction (thousands of eV) . The three angular degrees of freedom given by the manipulator (a modified CTPO manipulator by Vacuum Generators) allow one to freely orient the sample surface with respect to the photon beam direction and the beam linear polarization. At the same time, the combined rotation of the frame (rotation $`B`$) hosting in UHV the electron analyzers, and of the whole experimental chamber (rotation $`C`$) allows one to explore a wide portion of the hemisphere above the surface for any sample orientation. (see Fig. 1 for a sketch of the scattering geometries accessible by the detectors). The electron analyzers are of the hemispherical type with a 33 mm mean radius and an optical lens system yielding an acceptance angle of $`1^{}`$ (FWHM) and a field of view of $`1\times 4`$ mm2 . The transverse size (FWHM) of the photon beam at the sample position is $`20`$ $`\mu `$m vertically and $`150`$ $`\mu `$m horizontally, with a slight dependence on the photon energy. The photon beam is linearly polarized, with the electric field vector $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ in the horizontal plane .

ED polar scans are usually collected by rotating one electron analyzer in the scattering plane from the surface normal to the horizon (polar angle $`\theta `$), even though different geometries can be suitable to specific experimental requirements, such as photoelectron holography  or near node photoelectron diffraction . As far as the data reported in this paper are concerned, the scans have been taken in transverse–magnetic polarization with the substrate  direction oriented along the photon beam direction for a few selected grazing angles $`\alpha `$ on the surface. In the present case, the ED patterns have been collected for the Fe L23M23M45 Auger line at a kinetic energy of 698 eV (we used a photon energy of 900 eV). In one case, we measured the ED pattern from a policrystalline Fe sample for the 3p core level at a kinetic energy of 803 eV. The signal was always taken at the maximum of the corresponding spectral line and at two suitably chosen energies aside the peak, in order to allow an effective subtraction of the background of secondary electrons. The films were prepared by in situ evaporation of Fe on a Cu3Au(001) surface and the thickness was measured in situ by X-ray reflectivity (further detail about the sample preparation can be found elsewhere ). After an initial pseudomorphic stage, the Fe films assume a tetragonally distorted bcc structure, displaying a (001) surface orientation, but rotated by 45 with respect to the substrate. At the largest thickness considered here (36 Å), the Fe film has almost recovered its bcc bulk structure, with a lateral lattice spacing $`a=2.830\pm 0.005`$ Å, as measured by in-plane X-ray diffraction .

## III Description of the ISO function

### a Angles definition

A schematic picture of the angular degrees of freedom available in the determination of the scattering geometry is shown in Fig.1. The manipulator rotation $`\varphi `$ is used to select the azimuthal orientation of the surface, without altering the grazing angle which is selected by the rotation $`\alpha `$. The surface normal can be rotated around the beam axis by $`\pm 180^{}`$ with the manipulator rotation $`\xi `$: at $`\xi =0^{}`$ the surface normal versor $`\widehat{n}`$ lies in the plane normal to the electric field vector $`\stackrel{}{E}`$.

The rotation $`B`$ of the electron analyzer frame sets the deflection angle between the X-ray beam and the photoelectron wavevector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, with a clearence of $`\pm 115^{}`$. Furthermore, the frame rotation axis $`\widehat{B}`$ can be oriented in the $`yz`$ plane of the laboratory reference system exploiting the $`C`$ rotation of the whole experimental chamber (independently of the manipulator settings). In particular, $`\widehat{B}`$ is related to the rotation $`C`$ as $`\widehat{B}=\widehat{z}\mathrm{cos}C\widehat{y}\mathrm{sin}C`$.

According to these definitions, the polar emission angle $`\theta `$ (defined by $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and the surface normal direction $`\widehat{n}`$) is defined as:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta (\xi ,\alpha ,B,C)=\mathrm{cos}B\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\mathrm{sin}B\mathrm{cos}C\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\xi +\mathrm{sin}B\mathrm{sin}C\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\xi ,$$
(1)
which simplifies to $`\theta =90^{}(B\alpha )`$ if the analyzer is rotated in the plane containing the surface normal, which is often the case if the projection of the photoelectron wavevector onto the surface plane is to be mantained along a specific azimuthal direction, as in ED polar scans.

In the following we describe the factors contributing to the measured $`ISO`$ electron yield.

### b Atomic cross–section

In the dipole approximation (we will not consider multipolar expansion coefficients in the following applications), the atomic differential cross–section $`d\sigma _{nl}/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the $`nl`$ initial state of the photoemission process takes the well known analytical expression,

$$\frac{d\sigma _{nl}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\beta ;\gamma )[1+\frac{1}{2}\beta (3\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma 1)],$$
(2)
where $`\beta (nl,h\nu )`$ is the asimmetry parameter in the matrix elements for the photoemission process  and $`\gamma `$ is the angle between the directions of the polarization vector $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and the photoelectron wavevector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ (see Fig.1). The value of $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\mathrm{sin}B\mathrm{cos}C`$ is determined only by the $`B`$ and $`C`$ rotations of the electron analyzer, independently from the sample surface orientation.

### c Escape depth

The effect of inelastic scattering on the probability of escape of photoelectrons from the surface of condensed matter samples is described by means of the inelastic mean free path (IMFP), whose variation as a function of the electron kinetic energy is well known and can be evaluated by analytical formulas.

The flux of electrons emitted at a depth $`z`$ and detected at a polar angle $`\theta `$ from the surface normal will be reduced by inelastic scattering according to the Beer-Lambert relationship $`I(z,\theta )=e^{\frac{z}{\lambda cos\theta }}`$.

Integration over the depth from the surface yields the angular dependence expected for an emitting slab of matter of thickness $`D`$

$$I_{IMFP}(D,\lambda ;\theta )=_0^DI(z,\theta )𝑑z=\lambda cos\theta [1e^{\frac{D}{\lambda cos\theta }}]$$
(3)
which corresponds to the well known $`cos(\theta )`$ behaviour in the limit $`D\mathrm{}`$ of an homogeneous semi-infinite emitting volume.

The same description can be used to describe the reduction of the photoemission intensity caused by a non–emitting layer, i.e. with different chemical composition, above the emitting region of the sample. Considering an emitting layer of thickness $`D`$ below a non-emitting one of thickness $`D^{}`$, the full formula can be written as:

$$I_{IMFP}(D,\lambda ,D^{},\lambda ^{};\theta )=\lambda cos\theta [1e^{\frac{D}{\lambda cos\theta }}]e^{\frac{D^{}}{\lambda ^{}cos\theta }}$$
(4)
Further, the limited penetration of the X-ray beam can be taken into account: this yields a very small correction, since the IMFP of the photoelectrons at the kinetic energies typical of photoemission experiments (50-1000 eV) is of the order of 10 Å, while the characteristic penetration depth of the X-ray photons is normally larger than 50 Å.

### d Surface roughness

The angular distribution of the photoelectron intensity, specially for high values of polar angle, is also affected by the surface roughness of the emitting layer. Models can be set up, to take into account the effects of shadowing of the photoelectron flux at grazing emission, where the details of the resulting formulae depend on the details of the surface morphology .

A simple statistical model, which can be used in a phenomenological way, has been described in Ref. . The rough surface is described in terms of an isotropic stationary random function $`z(x,y)`$ of the in–plane surface coordinates with a mean value $`<z>=0`$. The distribution of heights is assumed to be normal, so that the probability density for $`z`$ is $`f(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }e^{\frac{z^2}{2\sigma ^2}}`$.

After a statistical analysis of the average shadowing by the surface protrusions, an analytical expression $`I_R(\delta ,\theta )`$ for the dependence on the polar angle $`\theta `$ is derived. Details of the formulae can be found in Ref.. Qualitatively speaking, $`I_R`$ assumes a constant unit value near normal emission, and drops to zero for $`\theta 90^{}`$, the steepness of the decay being determined by the amount of surface roughness. The shadowing can be completely neglected up to a maximum take–off value of the polar angle $`\mathrm{arctan}(\delta )`$, so that the phenomenological parameter $`\delta `$ can be used as an effective marker of the surface roughness.

### e Surface illumination

Due to the high angular resolution of the ALOISA analyzers (acceptance angle of 1, FWHM), the angular smearing of the $`ISO`$ function originated by the angular acceptance can be neglected, although it must be taken into consideration in the simulation of the ED pattern $`\chi `$. On the other hand, the interplay between the size of the field of view and the illuminated portion area of the surface must be carefully taken into account. All the experiments at ALOISA are performed at grazing incidence, i.e. the value of the grazing angle $`\alpha `$ of the photon beam with respect to the sample surface is always in the $`[010^{}]`$ range. Further, $`\alpha `$ is often set to values as low as a few degrees in order to exploit the increase of the signal from the surface region when total reflection condition are satisfied. Even if the transverse width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam}`$ of the focussed photon beam (FWHM) is narrow, the beam footprint on the surface is elongated in the beam direction. The width of the illuminated surface area $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam}/\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ can easily exceed the width of the surface area representing the projection of the analyzer slits ($`1\times 4mm^2`$), specially when working in very grazing conditions ($`\alpha _{in}1^{}`$) and in transverse magnetic polarization, $`\xi =90^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam}`$ has its maximum value of $`150\mu `$m. This polarization setting is indeed the most frequently used, since it takes the nodal planes of the atomic cross-section close to the surface horizon.

The beam footprint on the surface can be considered as an unidimensional Gaussian intensity distribution $`exp\left\{\frac{x^2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\alpha )}\right\}`$ (see Fig. 2), since the transverse distribution is always completely integrated by the analyzer slits.

The integration of the photoemission intensity over the portion of illuminated area of the sample surface then results in the intensity factor

$$I_{ILL}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam},\alpha ;B,C)=_{L/2}^{L/2}exp\left\{\frac{x^2}{2(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )/2.35)^2}\right\}𝑑x$$
(5)
The width $`L`$ of the portion of illuminated area, which overlaps to the projected area of the analyzer slits onto the sample surface, can be derived analytically, for any orientation of the sample surface and detector position. For a generic scattering configuration, $`L`$ is a non-trivial function of the experimental angles $`B,C,\xi `$ and $`\alpha `$, and can be also limited by the finite sample size. The complete description of the general case is given in the Appendix. For simple polar scans, in which the analyzer is rotated in the scattering plane defined by the photon wavevector and the surface normal , $`L`$ takes the minimum value between the sample size and the projected slit width on the surface $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. (see Fig. 2)

### f Complete $`ISO`$ formula

The complete formula combines all the described factors:

$$ISO=A\frac{d\sigma _{nl}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\beta )I_{IMFP}(D/\lambda ,D^{}/\lambda ^{})I_R(\delta )I_{ILL}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam},\alpha ),$$
(6)
where, for the sake of clarity, only the fitting parameters have been explicitely reported in the arguments of each correction factor. The cross–section asymmetry parameter $`\beta `$ and the IMFP $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ are set to calculated values. $`A`$ is a scale factor to be determined by fitting the data as well as the roughness parameter $`\delta `$. The X-ray beam width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam}`$ and the grazing angle $`\alpha `$ are usually set to the nominal values in the first step of the iterative fitting procedure. The emitting layer thickness $`D`$ and the non-emitting overlayer thickness $`D^{}`$ are also used as fitting parameters, unless an independent measurement is available for them (for instance by means of X-ray specular reflectivity).

## IV Data analysis

In Fig. 3 a series of polar scans of the Fe Auger LMM line taken for a few Fe films on Cu3Au(001) are shown. For each film thickness, the experimental curve is compared with the calculated $`ISO`$ distribution.

In order to emphasize the dependence on the emitting thickness $`D`$ (see Eq. 3), the curves were divided by a $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ factor. Besides the structural transition from fcc(100) to bcc(100)$`R45^{}`$ (witnessed by the angular shift of the main forward focusing directions), the weight of the thickness of the emitting layer on the $`ISO`$ shape is remarkable, particularly at the highest values of polar emission. The calculations were performed using the nominal Fe overlayer thicknesses (as determined by X-ray reflectivity) and an IMFP of $`13.4`$ Å. The roughness parameter $`\delta `$ was used as a free parameter and adjusted with a minimization procedure to the experimental data. For all the considered thicknesses, it fell in the range $`\delta =1.0\pm 0.1`$ (maximum un-shadowed takeoff angle $`45^{}`$).

To enlight the role of the illumination correction factor we show here data taken from the surface of a polycrystalline Fe sample, where the anisotropy $`\chi `$ component is absent and the ED pattern can be simply reproduced by the $`ISO`$ component. The polar scans of the Fe 3p photoelectron intensity (taken at a kinetic energy of 803 eV) are shown in Fig. 4 in comparison to a few calculated $`ISO`$ functions, built by successive inclusion of inelastic scattering, atomic cross–section and illumination correction factors. The complete $`ISO`$ component accurately fits the experimental data with the same set of parameters for both the scans. The illumination factor $`I_{ILL}`$ was calculated using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{beam}=150`$ $`\mu `$m and $`\alpha `$ set to the nominal values, as indicated in the Figure. The asymmetry parameter in the cross-section factor was set to $`\beta =1.485`$, as calculated using one of the standard formulae . As expected, the weight of the illumination factor on the $`ISO`$ function is more significant at lower grazing angles. Small values of the grazing angle $`\alpha `$ are usually chosen in the experiment settings in order to exploit the enhancement of the surface signal, obtained when $`\alpha `$ is as small as the critical value for total external reflection (of the order of a few degrees for soft X-rays).

As far as the structural analysis is concerned, the $`\chi `$ component is often extracted by substracting an $`ISO`$ component, as obtained by interpolation of the ED pattern with a polynomial or a cosine function. The comparison between the so obtained experimental anysotropy and simulations based on structural models is then approached at a later stage.

Here, we propose the direct fitting of the complete ED experimental pattern, where the simulated ED curve is built up using both the multiple scattering ED calculation and the $`ISO`$ function, so that $`ED_{sim}=ISO(1+\chi _{sim})`$. In Fig. 5 we present an example of full fit to a polar scan taken on the Fe Auger LMM line, for a 36Å Fe film on Cu3Au(001). The data are presented as a function of the analyzer $`B`$ angle (the normal emission direction, i.e. the zero for the polar angle $`\theta `$, is indicated by the vertical line). The $`\chi _{sim}`$ component was calculated for a structural model by assuming the lateral lattice constant $`a=2.830`$ Å, as measured by in-plane X-ray diffraction , and the vertical parameter $`c`$ to be determined by the fitting procedure. The $`ED_{sim}`$ was fitted to the experimental $`ED_{exp}`$, using in this case the roughness parameter $`\delta `$ and the X-ray beam width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as fitting parameters. The layer thickness $`D`$ was set to the value provided by the X-ray reflectivity calibration. In fact, being $`D`$ already as large as $`3\lambda _{IMFP}`$, it would have yielded a contribution very similar to the $`D/lambda\mathrm{}`$ limit, strongly reducing the reliability of its determination by the minimization of the ED fitting procedure. An additional scale factor was also added to $`\chi _{sim}`$ to take into account the ratio between the $`\chi `$ and $`ISO`$ amplitudes.

This procedure was iterated over a series of ED calculations, so that for each structure–dependent $`\chi _{sim}`$, the corresponding best fit $`ISO`$ parameters can be found, thus eliminating any arbitrary a priori choice of the $`ISO`$ shape. The best fit parameters of the $`ISO`$ component were found to be $`\delta =0.9\pm 0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=160\pm 20`$ $`\mu `$m.

Three additional curves are added in the Figure, as obtained by calculating the $`ISO`$ component including only one factor each time. As anticipated before, the contribution due to the electrons escape depth is very close to the limit $`I_{IMFP}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. At low emission angles, the $`ISO`$ shape is strongly affected by the illumination and roughness factors. The cross–section contribution is not shown, since the Auger emission was assumed to be isotropic. In fact, an exact calculation would have required a detailed study of all the decay channels partecipating to the Auger process , but the dependence on the angular momenta of the decay channels decreases as the kinetic energy increases, so that it becomes almost negligible at the present value of 698 eV .

At the bottom of Fig.5, $`\chi _{exp}=(ED_{exp}ISO)/ISO`$ and $`\chi _{sim}=(ED_{sim}ISO)/ISO`$ are compared to highlight the quality of the fit. With the given lateral lattice spacing $`a=2.830`$ Å, we found the ratio of the vertical to lateral spacing to be $`c/a=1.03\pm 0.02`$. The Fe film displays a structure very close to its bcc bulk one, $`a=2.86`$ Å and $`c/a=1`$, the latter being recovered at a much higher thickness . In general, this approach to the calculation of the $`ISO`$ component leads to a substantial improvement of the reliabilty of the structural model (with an indetermination not exceeding a few percents).

## V Appendix

The accurate description of the portion of illuminated area, which is included in the projected area of the analyzer slits onto the sample surface, is derived here for a generic scattering setup ($`B,C,\xi ,\alpha `$). For the sake of clarity, we will assume $`\xi =0^{}`$, since only the mutual orientation of $`\xi `$ and $`C`$ is relevant.

First, the orientation of the slits in the laboratory reference system is defined by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{B}_{slit}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{C}_{slit}`$ which connect the center of the slit with the center of the short and the long sides of the slits, respectively. The $`B`$ and $`C`$ labels recall that the wide aperture is along the direction scanned by the $`B`$ angle, while the narrow one corresponds to a movement of the $`C`$ rotation.

$`\stackrel{}{B}_{slit}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{2}}\widehat{k}\times \widehat{B}_{axis}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{2}}(\mathrm{sin}B,\mathrm{cos}B\mathrm{cos}C,\mathrm{cos}B\mathrm{sin}C)`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{}{C}_{slit}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C}{2}}\widehat{k}\times \widehat{B}_{slit}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C}{2}}(0,\mathrm{sin}C,\mathrm{cos}C),`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{k}=(\mathrm{cos}B,\mathrm{sin}B\mathrm{cos}C,\mathrm{sin}B\mathrm{sin}C)`$ is the photoelectron waveversor, $`\widehat{B}_{axis}=(0,\mathrm{sin}C,\mathrm{cos}C)`$ is the orientation of the $`B`$ rotation axis and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ are the full slit aperture in the two directions.

The displacement of the four vertices of the slit from the center of the slit in the laboratory reference system is then

$$\stackrel{}{V}_j=\pm \stackrel{}{B}_{slit}\pm \stackrel{}{C}_{slit};j=1,2,3,4.$$
(9)
The projection of the slit on the sample surface is in general a parallelogram, whose vertices are in the following positions in the laboratory reference system

$$\stackrel{}{S}_j=\frac{\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{V}_j}{\widehat{n}\widehat{k}}\widehat{k}+\stackrel{}{V}_j,$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{n}`$ is the surface normal waversor. The corresponding $`\stackrel{}{S}^{}`$ positions in the (2-Dimensional) surface reference system are

$`\stackrel{}{S}_j^{}=(\stackrel{}{S}_j\widehat{x}_{tilt},\stackrel{}{S}_j\widehat{y}_{tilt}),`$ (11)
$`\widehat{x}_{tilt}=(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,0,\mathrm{sin}\alpha ),`$ (12)
$`\widehat{y}_{tilt}=\widehat{y}_{Lab}.`$ (13)
The width $`L(B,C,\alpha )`$ of the portion of illuminated area falling inside the parallelogram can be computed as the minimum among the

$$L_j=2\left|\frac{\stackrel{}{S}_{j+1,x}^{}\stackrel{}{S}_{j,x}^{}}{\stackrel{}{S}_{j,y}^{}\stackrel{}{S}_{j+1,y}^{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{j,y}^{}+\stackrel{}{S}_{j,x}^{}\right|;j=1,2,3,4;$$
(14)
which are the crossing points of the parallelogram sides with the $`y=0`$ plane on the surface (we recall that the X-ray spot on the sample can be considered as monodimensional). The integration lenght on the surface may be further limited by the surface physical length.