format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Generalized scalar-tensor (GST) theories? have enjoyed new attention in recent years, partly because the potential energy of the scalar field and/or the presence of a variable cosmological term could drive inflation, resolving puzzles such as the monopole, horizon and flatness problems.? The variable cosmological term has also been mentioned as a possible solution to the cosmological “constant” problem,? and — most recently — as a candidate for the dark matter (or quintessence) making up most of the Universe.?

In a previous paper? we have introduced a modified GST theory in which the cosmological term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depends not only on the scalar field $`\varphi `$ but its gradient $`\varphi _{,i}\varphi ^{,i}`$ as well. A correspondence with solutions of Wesson’s five-dimensional Space-Time-Matter (STM) theory? has been observed, with the scalar field arising in four-dimensional spacetime as a manifestation of higher-dimensional geometry. Here we obtain cosmological solutions of the theory and explore their properties in detail, with special regard to constraints from recent observational data.

The theory is summarized and applied to cosmology (the Robertson-Walker metric) in Section 2. The connection to STM theory is drawn in Section 3, where solutions for the scale factor $`a`$, Hubble parameter $`H`$ and deceleration parameter $`q`$ are discussed. Analytic expressions for the scalar field and cosmological term are derived in Sections 4 and 5, and related to observation via the energy density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$. Section 6 is a discussion.

## 2 Modified GST Cosmology

We consider here a modified GST theory, first introduced by the authors in Ref. 5, in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depends on both the scalar field $`\varphi `$ and its gradient $`\varphi _{,i}\varphi ^{,i}`$ (the Brans-Dicke coupling parameter $`\omega `$ is however taken as a function of $`\varphi `$ alone). This dependence leads to significant departures from earlier GST theories in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ only.? Possible implications for the early universe have recently been investigated in Ref. 8. In this paper we focus primarily on the later stages of cosmic evolution (i.e., the radiation and matter-dominated eras).

The action principle of the modified GST theory is

$$0=\delta \left\{\varphi \left[R+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ,\varphi _{,i}\varphi ^{,i})\right]+\frac{16\pi }{c^4}L_m\omega (\varphi )\frac{\varphi _{,i}\varphi ^{,i}}{\varphi }\right\}\sqrt{g}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(1)
where the Latin index $`i`$ runs over 0,1,2 and 3. Variation leads to the following field equation for the metric field $`g_{ij}`$

$$R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}R=\frac{8\pi }{\varphi c^4}\left(T_{ij}+T_{ij}^\varphi \right),$$
(2)
where $`b\varphi _{,l}\varphi ^{,l}`$, $`T_{ij}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter, and the energy-momentum tensor of the scalar field is defined as follows?

$$\frac{8\pi }{\varphi c^4}T_{ij}^\varphi \frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}\left(\varphi _{,i}\varphi _{,j}\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}b\right)+\frac{1}{\varphi }(\varphi _{,i;j}g_{ij}\mathrm{}\varphi )+g_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{b}\varphi _{,i}\varphi _{,j}.$$
(3)
When $`\varphi =`$const., $`T_{ij}^\varphi `$ reduces to the vacuum energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ij}^{\mathrm{vac}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ij}`$, as expected. The field equation for $`\varphi `$ is

$$R+2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\varphi }4\frac{}{x^l}\left(\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{b}\right)\varphi ^{,l}4\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{b}\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}b\frac{2\omega }{\varphi }\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{b}{\varphi }\frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }.$$
(4)
Eq. (4) ensures that the conservation law $`T_{i;k}^k=0`$ holds, as required.

When the scalar field $`\varphi `$ depends only on $`x^0=ct`$, then the field equations for homogeneous and isotropic perfect-fluid cosmology may be obtained from Eq. (2) as follows.?,? The time-time component gives

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{\dot{\varphi }^2}\dot{\varphi }^2=\frac{8\pi }{3\varphi c^2}ϵ+\frac{\omega }{6}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)^2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi },$$
(5)
while the space-space components lead to

$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2=\frac{8\pi }{\varphi c^2}p\frac{\omega }{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)^2\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }.$$
(6)
From Eq. (4), we haveaaaThis equation should be identical with Eq. (8) of Ref. 5. The latter however contains two typesetting mistakes, a missing $`(\dot{a}/a)^2`$-term and a missing overdot on one of the $`\varphi `$-terms. Ref. 5 is also missing an equal sign between the first and second lines of Eq. (3), and the RHS of Eq. (17) in that paper should read $`2\ddot{a}/\dot{a}`$ rather than $`2\ddot{a}/a`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kc^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{\dot{\varphi }^2}}\right)\dot{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{\dot{\varphi }^2}}\left(\ddot{\varphi }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\varphi }\right)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}\right)^2.`$
This equation can be greatly simplified if the cross-terms in $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$ on either side are equated. In particular the ansatz

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{\dot{\varphi }^2}=\frac{\omega }{2\varphi ^2},$$
(8)
reduces Eq. (7) to the separable form

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}=\frac{1}{3}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2+\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi }+\frac{\omega }{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)^2\right].$$
(9)
This is natural because one expects that $`a`$ (a metric quantity) and $`\varphi `$ (part of the source term $`T_{ij}^\varphi `$) should be independent. In what follows, we use Eqs. (5), (6) and (9) with the ansatz (8) to solve for $`a`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2`$.

## 3 Connection with STM Theory and Evolution of the Scale Factor

Both sides of Eq. (9) may be equated to a parameter $`K`$ which is taken to be constant according to the arguments of Ref. 8. We focus in this paper on the case $`K=0`$; the complementary situation in which $`K0`$ has been examined in Ref. 8. The choice $`K=0`$ is motivated by STM theory, a generalization of Kaluza-Klein theory in which Kaluza’s “cylinder condition” is relaxed to allow dependence on the extra coordinate(s) in principle. A large literature? has now built up around this theory, in which 4D field equations of the form (2), together with a scalar field $`\varphi `$ and a wide class of 4D matter fields, can be “induced” from pure geometry in 5D; that is, from the action principle $`0=\delta R^{(5)}\sqrt{g^{(5)}}d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}x`$ (or, equivalently, the vacuum field equations $`R_{AB}^{(5)}=0`$, where $`A,B`$ run over 0,1,2,3 and 5).

The energy-momentum tensor of the matter so induced is of a general nature but has well-defined properties (see Refs. 6 for discussion) consistent with those of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ij}^\varphi `$ in Eq. (3). In this sense one can interpret both 4D matter and the scalar field in modified GST theory as manifestations of 5D geometry. More generally, one can consider homogeneous and isotropic extensions of the Robertson-Walker metric to a 5D manifold, $`d^{(5)}s^2=d^{(4)}s^2+e^\mu (dx^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}})^2`$, where $`d^{(4)}s^2`$ is the 4D RW line element and $`\mu `$ is taken as a function of both $`x^0=ct`$ and the fifth coordinate $`x^5`$.bbbThis new coordinate $`x^5`$ need not necessarily be lengthlike, as in traditional Kaluza-Klein theory, but could for instance be related to particle rest mass via $`x^5=Gm/c^2`$ (Ref. 10) or other quantities (see Refs. 5, 6 for discussion). As was first shown in Ref. 11 (see also Ref. 5), substitution of this metric into the 5D vacuum field equations leads to

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mu }=0,$$
(10)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}+\frac{\ddot{\mu }}{2}+\frac{\dot{\mu }^2}{4}+\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mu }=0,$$
(11)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}=0.$$
(12)
These results have the same form as the GST equations (5), (6) and (9) respectively; and in fact all six equations form a self-consistent set if the metric coefficient of the fifth coordinate satisfies $`\dot{\mu }=2\ddot{a}/\dot{a}`$ (a result which played an important role in Ref. 5 but will not be needed here). The salient point here is that Eq. (12) from 5D STM theory gives the same result as the separable differential equation (9) in our modified GST theory, if the separability parameter $`K`$ in the latter is set to zero.

The solution of Eq. (12) is?

$$a=\sqrt{kc^2t^2+\alpha t+\beta },$$
(13)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants. Differentiating twice, we find that the scale factor, Hubble parameter $`H\dot{a}/a`$ and deceleration parameter $`qa\ddot{a}/\dot{a}^2`$ of the theory may be expressed in dimensionless form as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(\stackrel{~}{t})=\sqrt{k\stackrel{~}{t}^2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{t}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }},\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{~}{t})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }2k\stackrel{~}{t}}{2\stackrel{~}{a}^2},q(\stackrel{~}{t})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2/4+k\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{\stackrel{~}{H}^2\stackrel{~}{a}^4},$$
(14)
where tildes denote dimensionless quantities and

$$\stackrel{~}{t}H_0t,\stackrel{~}{a}\frac{H_0a}{c},\stackrel{~}{H}\frac{H}{H_0},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\frac{H_0\alpha }{c^2},\stackrel{~}{\beta }\frac{H_0^2\beta }{c^2}.$$
(15)
We require that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\stackrel{~}{t}_0)=\stackrel{~}{a}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{~}{t}_0)=1`$, and $`q(\stackrel{~}{t}_0)=q_0`$ at the present time $`\stackrel{~}{t}_0`$, and also that the present phase of expansion begin in either a big bang \[$`\stackrel{~}{a}(0)=0`$\] or a “big bounce” \[$`\stackrel{~}{H}(0)=0`$\] at time zero. The theory then admits four classes of solutions (Table 1).

Models I, II and III are all characterized by a big bang, as usual. For Model IV, one also finds that the size of the scale factor at the moment of the big bounce is given by $`\stackrel{~}{a}(0)=\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{1/2}=\sqrt{q_0}\stackrel{~}{a}_0^2`$. This tends to zero as $`q_00`$, so that one also recovers a big bang in this limit.

Current data on Hubble’s constant and the age of the Universe imply that $`H_065`$ km s-1Mpc-1 and $`t_011`$ Gyr,? so that we may take $`\stackrel{~}{t}_0>0.7`$. This would rule out models of types I and II, which have $`\stackrel{~}{t}_00.5`$. The evolution of the scale factor in all four models is plotted in Fig. 1, where we have adopted the values $`q_o=2`$ for Model II, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_0=0.8`$ for Model III, and $`q_0=0.5`$ for Model IV.

The physical meaning of the deceleration parameter $`q`$ in scalar-tensor gravity differs somewhat from that in standard general relativity, and needs to be clarified before numerical boundary conditions can be applied. From the matter conservation law $`T_{}^{k}{}_{i;k}{}^{}=0`$ one obtains the usual expression for the energy density of matter,

$$ϵ=ϵ_\gamma a^{3(1+\gamma )},$$
(16)
where $`\gamma p/ϵ`$ and $`ϵ_\gamma =`$ const. The energy density and pressure of the scalar field can be obtained from Eq. (3) and read

$$ϵ_\varphi =\frac{\varphi c^2}{8\pi }\left(3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\varphi }\right),p_\varphi =\frac{\varphi c^2}{8\pi }\left(\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\varphi }\right).$$
(17)
Eliminating $`\varphi `$ from these two expressions, we find

$$ϵ_\varphi 3p_\varphi =(3\gamma 1)ϵ_\gamma a^{3(\gamma +1)}.$$
(18)
Following the approach adopted in other quintessence-type theories,? one can define a ratio of $`p_\varphi `$ to $`ϵ_\varphi `$ for the scalar field (analogous to that for matter) via

$$p_\varphi \gamma _\varphi ϵ_\varphi ,$$
(19)
where $`\gamma _\varphi `$ is in general a function of $`t`$. More sophisticated equations of state are possible too. With Eq. (19), one finds for the deceleration parameter,

$$q=\frac{(1+3\gamma )}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\frac{(1+3\gamma _\varphi )}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ,$$
(20)
where the energy density parameters of matter and the scalar field are respectively

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m\frac{8\pi ϵ}{3H^2\varphi c^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \frac{8\pi ϵ_\varphi }{3H^2\varphi c^2}=\frac{1}{H}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2\varphi }.$$
(21)
In the case $`\varphi =`$ const., \[or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$const.\] where the energy-momentum tensor of the scalar field reduces to that of a vacuum ($`\gamma _\varphi =\gamma _{\mathrm{vac}}=1`$) and we recover the standard expression for the deceleration parameter,

$$q=\frac{(1+3\gamma )}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{vac}}.$$
(22)
Observations of galaxy clusters indicate that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}<0.5`$, while analysis of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}1.1\pm 0.1`$ (see Ref. 12 for a recent review of the observational data). Both numbers together imply that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}0.5`$, a result which agrees with data on distant supernovae. For dustlike ($`\gamma =0`$) models with $`\varphi =`$ const., we would then conclude from Eq. (22) that $`q_0<0.2`$, which would restrict us to Model IV in our theory. For more general situations, we can say nothing about the value of $`q_0`$ at this stage, and either of Models III and IV are viable in principle.

## 4 Evolution of the Scalar Field

Integrating Eq. (8) with $`\omega =\omega (\varphi )`$, we find with the help of Eq. (12) that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2=\frac{\omega }{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)^2+\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\varphi },$$
(23)
where $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ const. Eq. (23) shows that in an RW universe with $`\varphi =`$ const., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is constant too. Alternatively, in Brans-Dicke (BD) theory with $`\varphi `$ a power-law function of time and $`\omega =`$const., the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (23) goes as $`t^2`$ (this behavior is common to other modified GST theories?).

The scalar field $`\varphi (ct)`$ is then obtained from either of Eqs. (5) or (6), with the help of Eq. (8) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2/\dot{\varphi }^2`$, Eq. (13) for $`a`$, Eq. (16) for $`ϵ`$ (or $`p`$), and Eq. (23) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2`$. The result is

$$\dot{\varphi }+\frac{\alpha ^2+4k\beta c^2}{2(2kc^2t+\alpha )a^2}\varphi =\frac{2a^2}{2kc^2t+\alpha }\left[\frac{8\pi ϵ_\gamma }{3c^2}a^{3(1+\gamma )}+\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right].$$
(24)
Eq. (24) is a linear differential equation of first order, and may be solved analytically for $`\varphi (t)`$ in the cases $`k=0,\pm 1`$ and $`\gamma =1,1,1/3,0`$. For $`k=0`$ we obtain

$$\varphi =\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{32\pi ϵ_1}{15\alpha ^2c^2}a^4+\frac{4f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{15\alpha ^2}a^4+\frac{\varphi _k}{a}\text{if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{32\pi ϵ_1}{3\alpha ^2c^2a^2}+\frac{4f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{15\alpha ^2}a^4+\frac{\varphi _k}{a}\text{if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{32\pi ϵ_{1/3}}{3\alpha ^2c^2}+\frac{4f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{15\alpha ^2}a^4+\frac{\varphi _k}{a}\text{if }\gamma =\frac{1}{3}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{16\pi ϵ_0t}{3\alpha c^2a}+\frac{4f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{15\alpha ^2}a^4+\frac{\varphi _k}{a}\text{if }\gamma =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
We solve Eq. (24) for $`k=\pm 1`$ as follows,

$$\varphi =\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{2c^2t+\alpha }{a}\left(\frac{16\pi ϵ_1}{3c^2}\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{2f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }+\varphi _k\right)\text{if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{32\pi ϵ_1\left(8c^4t^2\pm 8\alpha c^2t\alpha ^2\pm 4\beta c^2\right)}{3c^2\left(\alpha ^2\pm 4\beta c^2\right)^2a^2}+\frac{2c^2t+\alpha }{a}\left(\frac{2f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }+\varphi _k\right)\text{if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{32\pi ϵ_{1/3}}{3c^2\left(\alpha ^2\pm 4\beta c^2\right)}+\frac{2c^2t+\alpha }{a}\left(\frac{2f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }+\varphi _k\right)\text{if }\gamma =\frac{1}{3}\hfill \\ \\ \pm \frac{8\pi ϵ_0}{3c^4a}+\frac{2c^2t+\alpha }{a}\left(\frac{2f_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }+\varphi _k\right)\text{if }\gamma =0\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{a^3}{4c^4t\pm 2\alpha c^2}+\frac{3}{16c^4}\left[(2c^2t+\alpha )a\frac{\alpha ^2\pm 4\beta c^2}{2}I_F\right],$$
(27)
and

$$I_F\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{c}\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{2c^2t+\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+4\beta c^2}}\text{if }k=+1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{2c}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{2c^2t+\alpha +2ca}{2c^2t+\alpha 2ca}\right|\text{if }k=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
To obtain a quantitative idea of the evolution of the scalar field with time, we need the parameter $`ϵ_\gamma `$ in Eqs. (25) and (26). Application of Eq. (16) at the present time with the boundary condition $`ϵ(t_0)=c^2\rho _0=c^2\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ leads to

$`ϵ_1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3H_0^2c^2}{8\pi G_0}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}`$ $`,`$ $`ϵ_1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3c^8}{8\pi G_0H_0^4}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\stackrel{~}{a}_0^6,`$
$`ϵ_{1/3}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3c^6}{8\pi G_0H_0^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\stackrel{~}{a}_0^4`$ $`,`$ $`ϵ_0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3c^5}{8\pi G_0H_0}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}\stackrel{~}{a}_0^3,`$ (29)
where the present critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}3H_0^2/8\pi G_0`$ and $`G_0`$ is the present value of Newton’s gravitational constant (which varies roughly as $`1/\varphi `$ in scalar-tensor theories). Of these parameters, only the last is relevant to the present (dustlike) universe. In a more sophisticated model one would allow for different epochs (characterized by different values of $`\gamma `$) and evaluate Eq. (16) across the phase transitions between them, enforcing continuity to obtain realistic values of $`ϵ_\gamma `$.

We proceed to define a dimensionless scalar field via $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(G_0/\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0})\varphi `$. With $`ϵ_\gamma `$ as given in Eqs. (29), this is found to consist of three components,

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3,$$
(30)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ take simple analytic forms, depending on the model parameters (see Appendix). Figs. 2(a)–(d) show the evolution of the scalar field $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in Models I–IV respectively, using the same values for $`q_0`$ as those in Fig. 1, and values of $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ as marked beside the curves.

## 5 Evolution of the Cosmological Term

The cosmological term is found from Eq. (23) and may be expressed in the usual form of a dimensionless vacuum energy density parameter

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3H_0^2}=\frac{\omega }{6}\left(\frac{1}{H_0}\frac{\dot{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^2+\frac{5\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}.$$
(31)
(Note that this is not the same as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$.) At the present time, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$ is the quantity measured by observers using, e.g., the magnitude-redshift relation for distant supernovae. Eq. (31) cannot be evaluated without a specific functional form for $`\omega (\varphi )`$. Let us consider to begin with the case in which $`\omega =\omega _0=`$ const., and the simplest models in which $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k=0`$. Taking $`\gamma =0`$ (dust) and $`k=0`$ (Model I), we find from Eq. (31) that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=\frac{\omega _0}{6}\left(\frac{1\stackrel{~}{t}_0}{\stackrel{~}{t}_0}\right)^2=\frac{\omega _0}{6},$$
(32)
since $`\stackrel{~}{t}_0=1/2`$ for Model I. Using the observational upper limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}1.1`$? we find that $`\omega _0<7`$, which violates the current experimental lower bound ($`\omega _0600`$) on this quantity.? This means that, at least in the case $`k=0`$ with $`\omega =`$ const., we cannot have both $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ equal to zero.

Alternatively, we can use Eq. (31) to constrain the values of $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ if we impose the boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$ and $`\omega =\omega _0=600`$ (say). For Model I ($`k=0`$) as the simplest case, we find on differentiating Eq. (30) that this procedure gives a quadratic for $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (if $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ is held constant) or $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ (if $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is held constant). In particular, if $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k=0.418`$ and $`0.598`$ both give $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=0.8`$ at the present time (with minima in the past and future respectively). Similarly, if $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k=0`$, then the same thing occurs for $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.140`$ and $`0.110`$. This second possibility however involves a negative cosmological term in the near past (or future), which is strongly disfavored by observation as it would shorten the age of the Universe. The implication is that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$, which arises as a constant of integration in Eqs. (25) and (26), is probably nonzero in models of this kind if they are to be realistic. This scalar-field theory, in other words, is of the “chaotic” kind, in which the field begins to roll from an (arbitrary) nonzero initial value.?

We show four representative solutions of Eq. (31) in Fig. 3, which assumes Model I ($`k=0`$) and $`\omega _0=600`$. These have been fit to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=0.8`$ at the present time, as suggested by current experimental data.? Simplest is the $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ solution, but all are natural in the sense of having dimensionless parameters (other than $`\omega _0`$) of order unity. All models, moreover, show a steep increase in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the past direction. This behavior is generic to constant-$`\omega `$ solutions of Model II, III and IV as well as those of Model I. The modified GST theory, therefore, provides one possible mechanism for addressing the problem of the cosmological “constant”.? Any such increase during the nucleosynthesis and decoupling eras, however, must satisfy constraints based on light element synthesis?,? and the observed spectrum of CMB anisotropies.? In a realistic GST, the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is probably more complicated than that shown in Fig. 3, and $`\omega (\varphi )`$ will almost certainly not be constant.

Let us accordingly consider some aspects of models in which $`\omega (\varphi )`$ const. We focus on the matter and radiation eras, since these may be constrained by observational cosmology,? and again take the simplest case with $`k=0`$ and $`\beta =0`$. During the matter era ($`\gamma =0`$), the cosmological term is given by Eq. (23) as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_mc^2=\frac{1}{8t_m^2}\left[\omega (\varphi _m)\left(\frac{1+4E_1t_m^{3/2}E_2/t_m}{1+Et_m^{3/2}+E_2/t_m}\right)^2+\frac{30E_1t_m^{3/2}}{1+E_1t_m^{3/2}+E_2/t_m}\right],$$
(33)
where

$`E_1{\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^{3/2}c^2}{20\pi ϵ_0}},E_2{\displaystyle \frac{3\varphi _k\alpha c^2}{16\pi ϵ_0}}.`$ (34)
Here $`ϵ_0`$ is the value of $`ϵ_\gamma `$ at $`\gamma =0`$ in Eq. (16) \[see Eq. (29)\]. The energy density parameter of matter may be obtained from Eq. (21)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{2}{1+E_1t_m^{3/2}+E_2/t_m}.$$
(35)
Its present value, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=2/(1+E_1t_0^{3/2}+E_2/t_0)`$, is constrained experimentally to the range $`0.01\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}0.5`$.?

During the radiation era ($`\gamma =1/3`$), on the other hand,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_rc^2=\frac{1}{4t_r^2}\left[8\omega (\varphi _r)\left(\frac{B_1t_r^2B_2/4t_r^{1/2}}{1+B_1t_r^2+B_2/t_r^{1/2}}\right)^2+\frac{15B_1t_r^2}{1+B_1t_r^2+B_2/t_r^{1/2}}\right],$$
(36)
where

$$B_1t_r^2\frac{f_\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^2c^2}{40\pi ϵ_{1/3}}t_r^2=\frac{ϵ_m}{2ϵ_r}E_1t_m^{3/2},\frac{B_2}{t_r^{1/2}}\frac{3\varphi _k\alpha ^{3/2}c^2}{32\pi ϵ_{1/3}t_r^{1/2}}=\frac{ϵ_m}{2ϵ_r}\left(\frac{t_m}{t_r}\right)^{5/2}\frac{E_2}{t_m}.$$
(37)
If we take $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ as above (i.e., $`E_1=0`$ and $`B_1=0`$), then the cosmological term at nucleosynthesis time $`t=t_n`$ is given by Eq. (36) as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_nc^2={\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi _n)}{8t_n^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_2/t_n^{1/2}}{1+B_2/t_n^{1/2}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi _n)}{8t_n^2}},`$ (38)
where $`B_2/t_n^{1/2}1`$ from Eqs. (34) and (37), since $`ϵ_n10^{30}ϵ_0`$, $`t_010^{15}t_n`$ and $`E_2/t_04`$. At decoupling time $`t=t_d`$, finally, Eq. (33) gives

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_dc^2={\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi _d)}{8t_d^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1E_2/t_d}{1+E_2/t_d}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi _d)}{8t_d^2}},`$ (39)
where $`E_2/t_d=(2/\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}1)(t_0/t_d)1`$ from Eq. (34), since $`t_010^5t_d`$. These expressions can in principle be used to constrain the behavior of $`\omega (\varphi )`$ during the radiation era via nucleosynthesis considerations?,? and observations of the power spectrum of CMB fluctuations.?

## 6 Discussion

We have modified the generalized scalar-tensor theory by taking the cosmological term as a function not only of the scalar field but of its gradient as well. This means that we effectively interpret both the second and third terms in Wagoner’s Lagrangian density \[Eq. (2) in Ref. 1\] as a single variable cosmological term. In the context of higher-dimensional theories this may be justified by considering the origin of the scalar field, which is induced in 4D spacetime by the geometry of the empty higher-dimensional universe.? The scalar field and cosmological term can in this sense be recognized together as a single geometrical entity. We in the 4D universe then study this as constant for de Sitter models, or as temperature-dependent in spontaneous symmetry-breaking models,? or as kinetic energy-like in connection with the age? or dark matter problems.? A recent comprehensive discussion of the cosmological term has been given by Sahni and Starobinsky.?

We have previously explored the relationship between the modified GST theory (1) and 5D STM theory in Ref. 5. There, an identification of the extra part of the higher-dimensional metric tensor in terms of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ enabled us to obtain solutions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ relevant to vacuum-dominated or stiff matter-like phases in the history of the Universe. In the present paper, a different ansatz (8) has led to a wider class of solutions which can be used to describe the radiation and matter-dominated eras. As seen from Eq. (23) and the solutions (25) and (26), the cosmological term evolves differently in each era because $`\varphi `$ depends explicitly on $`\gamma `$. This presents a mechanism for generating new cosmological terms during successive cosmological phase transitions.

This work has made use of STM theory, because it is one of our motivations to explore the relevance of higher-dimensional physics to 4D cosmology. But Eq. (9) admits a second class of solutions for the evolution of the scale factor when we do not make use of Eq. (12) from STM theory to set Eq. (9) to zero. Fukui et al.? have used these to model inflation in the early universe — something for which the present set of solutions is not suited, as seen from the form of Eq. (13). Taken together, both classes of solutions can allow us to follow the evolution of the cosmological term throughout the history of the Universe. These and other aspects of modified GST theory will be pursued further elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

T. F. is grateful for the hospitality of the Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, while staying on the research program of Dokkyo University. J. M. O. is supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).

References

Appendix A

In this Appendix we give expressions for the components $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ of the dimensionless scalar field, Eq. (30), as obtained from Eqs. (25) and (26) and plotted in Figs. 2 of the main text. For Model I:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}H_0t\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^1\text{ if }\gamma =0\hfill \\ \\ 1\text{ if }\gamma =1/3\hfill \\ \\ \left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\text{ if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^4\text{ if }\gamma =1\text{ ;}\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.8)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`5\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ }\text{(with }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ as for }\gamma =1\text{ case)};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^1.`$ (A.9)
For Model II:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{q_01}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^1\text{ if }\gamma =0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_0}\text{ if }\gamma =1/3\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_0}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\left(12\xi ^2\right)\text{ if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_01}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\zeta ^2+\frac{3\zeta ^3}{2\xi ^2}\mathrm{arcsin}\xi \right)\text{ if }\gamma =1\text{ ;}\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.17)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`5\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ }\text{(with }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ as for }\gamma =1\text{ case)};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k\zeta ,`$ (A.18)
For Model III:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{q_01}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^1\text{ if }\gamma =0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_0}\text{ if }\gamma =1/3\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_0}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\left(12\xi ^2\right)\text{ if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_01}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\left(1\frac{3}{2}\zeta ^2+\frac{3\zeta ^3}{4\xi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\zeta +1}{\zeta 1}\right|\right)\text{ if }\gamma =1\text{ ;}\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.26)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`5\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ }\text{(with }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ as for }\gamma =1\text{ case)};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k\zeta .`$ (A.27)
For Model IV:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{q_01}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^1\text{ if }\gamma =0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_0}\text{ if }\gamma =1/3\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_0}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\left(1+2\eta ^2\right)\text{ if }\gamma =1\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{q_01}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2\left(1\frac{3}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{3\lambda ^3}{4\eta ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\lambda +1}{\lambda 1}\right|\right)\text{ if }\gamma =1\text{ ;}\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.35)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`5\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ }\text{(with }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\text{ as for }\gamma =1\text{ case)};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k\lambda .`$ (A.36)
In these equations we have introduced four new parameters

$`\xi `$ $``$ $`1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_0}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}},\zeta \xi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q_0}{|q_01|}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^1,`$
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_0}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}},\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1q_0}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}},`$ (A.37)
and additionally defined two dimensionless free parameters $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_0/15H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0})f_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k(G_0/a_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0})\varphi _k`$ (if $`k=0`$) or $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k(cG_0/\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0})\varphi _k`$ (if $`k=\pm 1`$). In a natural theory one expects both of these parameters to take values of order unity (no fine-tuning). As discussed in Section 5 of the main text, this expectation appears to be borne out for the simplest models.


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

An efficient way to study the relation between String Theory and Standard Model (SM) field theory is through the bottom-up approach  which constitutes an alternative to the traditional top-down approach. In the latter one starts from a string theory and tries to reproduce the SM massless spectrum by a suitable Calabi-Yau manifold compactification that reduces the number of space-time dimensions and supersymmetry, giving the right gauge group. In the former, instead, one looks for configurations of D-branes with world-volume gauge theories similar as much as possible to the SM. One of the advantages of this approach is that it does not require any knowledge of the geometrical details of the manifold compactification. We would like here to observe that the bottom-up approach is essentially based on the property that a D-brane supports a gauge field theory on its world-volume. On the other hand it is well-known that D-branes can be studied from a complementary point of view: they are classical solutions of the ten-dimensional supergravity. This is the essence of the gauge/gravity correspondence. It means that one can analyze the classical backgrounds generated by a particular configuration of D-branes to get some insight on the dual gauge theories living on their world-volume and viceversa. This is just the point of view we want to adopt in this paper that can represent a sort of link between the bottom-up approach and the gauge/gravity correspondence. We study the latter by considering a suitable configuration of fractional branes yielding the SM-like gauge theory. Fractional branes 111For a recent review on fractional branes see Ref.  and references therein., living at orbifold singularities, are interesting tools to study gauge/gravity correspondence for non conformal gauge theories with reduced supersymmetry  in different renormalization schemes . This aim would be better achieved, for $`𝒩=1`$ theories, by considering branes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles inside a Calabi-Yau space. In fact it has been shown that the classical supergravity solutions determined by these non perturbative objects are completely regular  and therefore they allow to study also the infrared properties of the dual gauge theories . Unfortunately, within this approach, it is not straightforward to find a classical background dual to gauge theory with chiral matter, which is instead more easily deducible from bound states of fractional branes. We expect, in analogy with similar configurations, that the classical background determined by fractional branes  contains a naked singularity resolved by the enhançon mechanism . The enhançon is a sort of screen which excises the region of space-time corresponding to scales where non-perturbative effects become relevant in the gauge theory and this clarifies why we are able to obtain only the ultraviolet behavior of the field theory.

In this paper we consider a stack of fractional D3-D7 branes living on the orbifold $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$. The choice of such an orbifold is motivated by the interest in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories with matter. In fact this is one of the simplest orbifolds preserving four supersymmetry charges. Furthermore in this orbifold background there are four different kinds of fractional D-branes corresponding to the four irreducible representations of the abelian discrete group $`_2\times _2`$ . The gauge theory supported by a general bound state of $`N_I`$ fractional branes of type $`I`$ is a $`_{I=1}^4U(N_I)`$ gauge theory with chiral multiplets charged under the bifundamental representations of the gauge group. The inclusion of fractional D7-branes, since the open strings have one end on a D3-brane and the other end on a D7, allows us to have chiral multiplets charged only under the fundamental representation of the gauge group. They have also a flavor index running on the number of fractional D7-branes.

It is relevant to note that when we turn off three of the gauge groups by choosing $`N_2=N_3=N_4=0`$ the gauge theory (in the presence of the D7-brane) is exactly $`𝒩=1`$ super QCD with matter.

In the forthcoming discussion we will consider a bound state of a D3-brane living at the orbifold singularities and hence it is completely localized in the world-volume of the D7-brane. The latter is partially extended along the orbifold directions. For our purposes it has been enough to compute the asymptotic behavior of the classical supergravity solution via the boundary state formalism .

The solution so found exhibits a $`U(1)`$ isometry acting as a phase factor on the coordinates transverse to the D3 branes. Such an invariance is related to the classical $`\widehat{U}(1)_R`$ R-symmetry of the dual gauge theory . In a gauge theory this symmetry is just a member of a supersymmetric multiplet containing also the dilations. In classical theories, which are invariant under superconformal transformations, the corresponding currents are conserved. Quantum corrections break superconformal invariance and give rise to anomalies. The anomaly breaking of the global $`\widehat{U}(1)_R`$ symmetry appears as a spontaneous symmetry breaking in supergravity . It is important to stress that the $`\widehat{U}(1)_R`$ is not the final anomaly free $`U(1)_R`$ which is obtained via a suitable choice of the R-charges of the various fields. We have found that also our classical solution explicitly breaks the $`U(1)`$ isometry to one of its discrete subgroups. Therefore we expect to obtain the associated anomaly of the underlying gauge theory. In fact, by analyzing on the supergravity side how the solution transforms under a combined scale and chiral transformation, we have been able to reproduce the corresponding anomalies, i.e. the one-loop $`\beta `$-function and its chiral anomaly. It is evident that we have used supergravity to get perturbative information on the dual gauge theory. This means that our correspondence has to be interpreted not in the same spirit as AdS/CFT, but more properly in that of open/closed string duality.

The paper is organized as follows.

In sect. 2 we analyze the properties of fractional D3-branes on the orbifold $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$ and in particular we study how the orbifold acts on the open strings stretched between two of these branes. This analysis allows us to obtain the massless spectrum of the gauge theory surviving the orbifold projection.

Furthermore we introduce fractional D7-branes, determine the massless spectrum of the matter chiral fields and fix a configuration of D7-branes that leads to an anomaly free gauge theory.

In sect. 3 we analyze, from the point of view of the boundary state approach, the boundary action of our system. In particular, by writing the boundary states of a fractional D7-brane and by computing the coupling of this boundary with the bulk fields, we construct, at linearized level, the boundary action for such a brane in this orbifold. Furthermore, still within the boundary state formalism, we also compute the classical solution of the equations of motion at first order in the string coupling $`g_s`$. In the last part of this section we investigate the stability of the system related to the one-loop massless tadpole cancellation.

Finally in sect. 4, by studying how the scale and chiral transformations of the dual gauge theory are realized in supergravity, we are able to compute the corresponding anomalies. The one-loop $`\beta `$-function and the chiral anomalies emerge out from the asymptotic classical profile of the bulk fields.

## 2 D3 and D7-branes on the orbifold $`^{1,3}\times ^3/(_2\times _2)`$

Let us consider a system of D3 and D7-branes of type IIB string theory on the orbifold $`R^{1,3}\times ^3/(_2\times _2)`$. In particular we analyze the spectrum of the massless open string states having their end-points attached to them. We take the orbifold directions to be along $`x^4,\mathrm{},x^9`$.

### 2.1  General features of the orbifold $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$

The six coordinates of the orbifold space can be simply arranged in three complex coordinates spanning $`^3`$:

$`z^1=x^4+ix^5,z^2=x^6+ix^7,z^3=x^8+ix^9.`$ (1)
The $`_2`$ group is characterized by two elements $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},h\}`$, with $`h^2=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, hence the tensor product $`_2\times _2`$ is made of the following four elements

$`_2\times _2:\{e=\mathrm{𝟏}\times \mathrm{𝟏},h_1=h\times \mathrm{𝟏},h_2=\mathrm{𝟏}\times h,h_3=h\times h\}.`$ (2)
The action of the orbifold group $`_2\times _2`$ on the complex vector $`\stackrel{}{z}=(z^1,z^2,z^3)`$ of $`^3`$ is given by a three-dimensional representation (necessarily reducible) of this finite group. We perform the following choice:

$`R_e=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],`$ $`R_{h_1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],`$ (9)
$`R_{h_2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],`$ $`R_{h_3}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (16)
It is possible to summarize the orbifold action on $`^3`$ as follows:

$`R_{h_i}=\mathrm{diag}[e^{i\pi b_{h_i}^1},e^{i\pi b_{h_i}^2},e^{i\pi b_{h_i}^3}],`$ (17)
with

$`\stackrel{}{b}_{h_1}=(0,1,1),\stackrel{}{b}_{h_2}=(1,0,1),\stackrel{}{b}_{h_3}=(1,1,0).`$ (18)
The vectors defined in (18) clearly satisfy the following condition:

$$b_{h_i}^1+b_{h_i}^2+b_{h_i}^3=0\mathrm{mod}.2.$$
(19)
The present choice of the orbifold representation from the point of view of the gauge theory is the one which leaves intact the $`𝒩=1`$ theory we are interested in.

The spectrum of the closed string theory on the orbifold space $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$ consists of an untwisted sector, corresponding to the identity of the orbifold group and three twisted sectors corresponding to its non trivial elements. In particular, the massless spectrum in the twisted sectors coincides with the zero modes of supergravity fields dimensionally reduced on the three exceptional vanishing two-cycles $`𝒞_i`$ with $`i=1,2,3`$ characterizing the orbifold, each of them embedded in one of the three four-dimensional subspaces of $`^3`$. The three anti self-dual two-forms $`\omega _2^i`$, dual to the cycles $`𝒞_i`$, are completely independent and normalized as: 222In this paper we adopt a different convention with respect to the paper of Ref. . One can go from one convention to the other by rescaling by a factor 2 the antiself-dual two-forms: $`\omega =2\omega _{\text{[19]}}`$.

$$_{𝒞_i}\omega _2^j=2\delta _j^i,\omega _2^i\omega _2^i=1,_4\omega _2^i=\omega _2^i$$
(20)
where $`_4`$ denotes the dual in the four-dimensional space in which the two-cycle is embedded.

In the following we are interested in describing fractional branes coupled to two kinds of twisted scalars and twisted RR four-form. The scalars are obtained by reducing the Kalb-Ramond two-form $`B_2`$ and the RR two-form on the exceptional two-cycles, while the RR four-form is obtained by reducing the RR six-form, i.e.:

$$B_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}b^i\omega _2^i;C_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}c^i\omega _2^i;C_6=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_4^i\omega _2^i.$$
(21)
### 2.2  D3-D3 open string spectrum on the orbifold $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$

Let us introduce now fractional D3-branes on this orbifold. In particular we are interested in studying configurations where these branes are transverse to the orbifold, namely with world-volume directions $`x^\mu `$ with $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$.

Before the orbifold projection, the low energy modes consistent with the open superstring theory living on the $`N`$ $`D3`$-branes, are those of the four dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`U(N)`$ super Yang Mills theory. In fact a generic open string state is the product of a Chan-Paton factor, that is in this case an $`N\times N`$ matrix, and of an oscillator part. In particular, in the Neveu-Schwarz sector, the massless states are given by:

$`A^\mu =\lambda \psi _{1/2}^\mu |0,k,`$
$`\varphi ^i=\lambda \left(\psi _{1/2}^{2i+2}+i\psi _{1/2}^{2i+3}\right)|0,k`$ (22)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the Chan-Paton factor and $`i=1,2,3`$.

The states $`A^\mu `$ can be identified with the $`U(N)`$ gauge bosons of the supersymmetric $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory; the three complex fields $`\varphi ^i`$ describe the six real scalars living, as $`A^\mu `$, in the adjoint representation of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group. All of them fill the bosonic part of the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge multiplet.

The same analysis can be repeated for the Ramond sector. In this case the massless spectrum is identified with the four two-component (on shell) fermions still in the adjoint representation of $`U(N)`$.

Let us now consider the spectrum in the orbifold theory, taking into account that the orbifold group acts both on the oscillators and on the Chan-Paton factors. The only allowed states are the ones surviving under this combined action. We would like here to remind that the action of the orbifold group element $`h`$ on the Chan-Paton factors is defined as:

$$\gamma (h)\lambda \gamma ^1(h)=\lambda ^{^{}}.$$
(23)
In the case of $`_2\times _2`$, $`h`$ runs over the four elements of this group defined in (2).

We are interested in fractional branes which are defined as D-branes whose Chan-Paton factors transform under the irreducible representations of the orbifold group. $`_2\times _2`$ has four one-dimensional irreducible representations:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _1(e)=+1\hfill & \gamma _1(h_1)=+1\hfill & \gamma _1(h_2)=+1\hfill & \gamma _1(h_3)=+1,\hfill \\ \gamma _2(e)=+1\hfill & \gamma _2(h_1)=+1\hfill & \gamma _2(h_2)=1\hfill & \gamma _2(h_3)=1,\hfill \\ \gamma _3(e)=+1\hfill & \gamma _3(h_1)=1\hfill & \gamma _3(h_2)=+1\hfill & \gamma _3(h_3)=1,\hfill \\ \gamma _4(e)=+1\hfill & \gamma _4(h_1)=1\hfill & \gamma _4(h_2)=1\hfill & \gamma _4(h_3)=+1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
The above definition implies that fractional branes, differently from the regular ones, do not admit images and hence they live at the orbifold fixed point $`z_1=z_2=z_3=0`$. Furthermore it also shows that there are four different kinds of fractional branes that we label with the index $`I=1,2,3,4`$. In the following we consider a configuration made of $`N_I`$ D3-branes of type $`I`$, with $`_{I=1}^4N_I=N`$. The orbifold action in (24) is generalized to:

$`\gamma _e^{(D3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_1,N_1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{N_2,N_2},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{N_3,N_3},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{N_4,N_4}),`$ (25)
$`\gamma _{h_1}^{(D3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_1,N_1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{N_2,N_2},\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_3,N_3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_4,N_4}),`$ (26)
$`\gamma _{h_2}^{(D3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_1,N_1},\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_2,N_2},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{N_3,N_3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_4,N_4}),`$ (27)
$`\gamma _{h_3}^{(D3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_1,N_1},\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_2,N_2},\mathrm{𝟏}_{N_3,N_3},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{N_4,N_4}).`$ (28)
Our orbifold action preserves only the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry while acting on the states of the NS-sector as follows:

$`\left[\gamma _{h_l}^{(D3)}\right]A^\mu \left[\gamma _{h_l}^{(D3)}\right]^1=A^\mu ,`$ (29)
$`\left[\gamma _{h_l}^{(D3)}\right]\varphi ^i\left[\gamma _{h_l}^{(D3)}\right]^1R_{h_l}^{ij}=\varphi ^j.`$ (30)
The physical states invariant under the orbifold action and which can be identified as gauge bosons are the following:

$$A_\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A_\mu ^1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& A_\mu ^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& A_\mu ^3& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& A_\mu ^4\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
showing that the gauge group is now $`U(N_1)\times U(N_2)\times U(N_3)\times U(N_4)`$, while the scalars of the twelve chiral multiplets can be organized in the following matrices:

$$\varphi ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& a_{i_1,\overline{j}_2}& 0& 0\\ a_{i_2,\overline{j}_1}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& a_{i_3,\overline{j}_4}\\ 0& 0& a_{i_4,\overline{j}_3}& 0\end{array}\right),\varphi ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& a_{i_1,\overline{j}_3}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& a_{i_2,\overline{j}_4}\\ a_{i_1,\overline{j}_3}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a_{i_4,\overline{j}_2}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

$$\varphi ^3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& a_{i_1,\overline{j}_4}\\ 0& 0& a_{i_2,\overline{j}_3}& 0\\ 0& a_{i_3,\overline{j}_2}& 0& 0\\ a_{i_1,\overline{j}_4}& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
where $`i_I=1,\mathrm{},N_I`$ and the bar on the index $`j_I`$ picks in the antifundamental representation of the group. Since we preserve $`𝒩=1`$ it is sufficient to consider the orbifold action on the NS sector and to deduce via supersymmetry the fermionic spectrum in the R sector.

In Table 1 we summarize the spectrum of the chiral superfields according to their transformation properties under each gauge group.

It can be written compactly:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ $``$ $`(N_1,\overline{N}_2)+(N_2,\overline{N}_1)+(N_3,\overline{N}_4)+(N_4,\overline{N}_3),`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $``$ $`(N_1,\overline{N}_3)+(N_2,\overline{N}_4)+(N_3,\overline{N}_1)+(N_4,\overline{N}_2),`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ $``$ $`(N_1,\overline{N}_4)+(N_2,\overline{N}_3)+(N_3,\overline{N}_2)+(N_4,\overline{N}_1).`$ (36)
As expected, we have a vector-like theory which does not suffer of any gauge anomaly and it is well-defined. The vectors together with the relative gauginos (R-sector) are all living in the adjoint representation of each group. The corresponding one-loop $`\beta `$-functions are:

$`\beta (g_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^3}{16\pi ^2}}(3N_1N_2N_3N_4),`$ (37)
$`\beta (g_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^3}{16\pi ^2}}(3N_2N_1N_3N_4),`$ (38)
$`\beta (g_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^3}{16\pi ^2}}(3N_3N_1N_2N_4),`$ (39)
$`\beta (g_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_4^3}{16\pi ^2}}(3N_4N_1N_2N_3).`$ (40)
It is worth noticing that all of them vanish when $`N_1=N_2=N_3=N_4`$.

### 2.3 D3-D7 open string spectrum on $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$: the matter

In this subsection we introduce D7-branes in order to add extra chiral matter to the gauge theory living on the stack of the D3-branes discussed previously. The matter is given by the open strings with one end attached to the D3-branes and the other one to the D7-brane. Physical states associated to these strings transform under the fundamental representation of the gauge group, thus providing chiral matter fields while the number of D7-branes can be regarded as a flavor index for them. In particular, we will consider configurations in which the D7-branes extend in the directions $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3,x^6,\mathrm{},x^9,`$ i.e. partially along the orbifold, while the D3-branes remain in the directions $`x^0,\mathrm{}x^3`$, being localized completely in the D7-brane world-volume. The configuration is represented in Fig. 1.

Also in this case we are interested in studying the bosonic spectrum in the NS sector and the fermionic one in the R sector. Supersymmetry allows one to deduce one sector from the other. Let us therefore consider only the NS one. In this case the zero-point energy is zero. Furthermore the open strings can have four different boundary conditions along the directions $`x^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =6,7,8,9`$ and therefore they have zero modes along these directions that generate $`2^{4/2}=4`$ degenerate ground states, which we label by their “spins” in the $`z^2`$ and $`z^3`$ planes:

$`\lambda _{37}|s_2,s_3,`$ (41)
with $`\lambda _{37}`$ being a Chan-Paton factor and $`s_2=s_3=\pm 1/2`$, as implied by the GSO projection. It turns out that a consistent definition of the orbifold action on the physical states is :

$`\left[\gamma _{h_i}^{(D3)}\right]\lambda _{37}\left[\gamma _{h_i}^{(D7)}\right]^1S_{h_i}(s_2,s_3)|s_2,s_3=\lambda _{37}^{}|s_2,s_3`$ (42)
with $`S_{h_i}(s_2,s_3)=e^{i\pi (s_2b_{h_i}^2+s_3b_{h_i}^3)}`$ and

$`\gamma _e^{(D7)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_1,M_1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{M_2,M_2},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{M_3,M_3},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{M_4,M_4}),`$
$`\gamma _{h_1}^{(D7)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_1,M_1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_{M_2,M_2},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_3,M_3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_4,M_4}),`$
$`\gamma _{h_2}^{(D7)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_1,M_1},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_2,M_2},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_3,M_3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_4,M_4}),`$
$`\gamma _{h_3}^{(D7)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_1,M_1},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_2,M_2},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_3,M_3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_4,M_4}),`$ (43)
where $`M_I`$ represents the number of fractional $`D7`$ branes of type $`I`$. The signs and the phase factors introduced in (43) are consistent with group properties of $`_2\times _2`$ i.e. $`h_1h_2=h_3`$ and $`h_i^2=1`$.

In the same way we can study the open string spectrum of the D7-D3 open strings. In this case the states in the NS sector left invariant by the orbifold projection are the ones satisfying:

$$\left[\gamma _{h_i}^{(D7)}\right]\lambda _{73}\left[\gamma _{h_i}^{(D3)}\right]^1S_{h_i}(s_2,s_3)=\lambda _{73}.$$
(44)
The physical states are those invariant under the orbifold action. The physical spectrum (containing both bosons and fermions coming from the R sector) is:

$`\chi \mathrm{\Phi }_{37}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{73}`$ $``$ $`(N_1,\overline{M}_3)+(N_2,\overline{M}_4)+(N_3,\overline{M}_1)+(N_4,\overline{M}_2)`$ (45)
$`+(M_4,\overline{N}_1)+(M_3,\overline{N}_2)+(M_2,\overline{N}_3)+(M_1,\overline{N}_4).`$
The whole spectrum including both D3-D7 and D7-D3 open strings contains eight chiral superfields as shown in Table 2 and, in general, is not gauge anomaly free.

However a simple consistent vector-like theory is obtained for $`M_1=M_2`$ and $`M_3=M_4`$. This spectrum yields the following contributions to the $`\beta `$-functions of the various gauge groups:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta (g_1)=\mathrm{\Delta }\beta (g_2)={\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_3+M_4)\right],`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta (g_3)=\mathrm{\Delta }\beta (g_4)={\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_1+M_2)\right].`$ (48)
Finally in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry the interaction between the different chiral fields can be encoded in the following cubic superpotential  schematically written as:

$`W=\text{T}r\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1[\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_3]\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\text{T}r\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\chi ^2\right).`$ (49)
It is important to observe that if we turn off three of the gauge groups by taking $`N_2=N_3=N_4=0`$ and $`M_1=M_2=0`$ while keeping $`N_1=N`$ and $`M_3=M_4=M`$ non zero the resulting gauge theory is exactly $`𝒩=1`$ super QCD with matter.

## 3 The Fractional D3/D7 Bound State

### 3.1 The boundary state approach

In this subsection we analyze a D3/D7 fractional branes system located at the fixed point of the orbifold $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{1,3}\times ^3/\left(_2\times _2\right)`$ by using the boundary state approach.

The boundary state description for a fractional Dp-brane with a given number of directions parallel to the orbifold $`^3/\left(_2\times _2\right)`$ is encoded in the following one-loop vacuum energy $`Z`$ of the open strings stretched between two such Dp-branes:

$$Z=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{R}}\left[P_{\mathrm{GSO}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}+h_1+h_2+h_3}{4}\right)\mathrm{e}^{2\pi s(L_0a)}\right],$$
(50)
where $`a=0[1/2]`$ in the R \[NS\] sector and the orbifold group elements $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},h_3)`$ act both on the oscillators and on the Chan-Paton factors of the open strings.

Alternatively, the interaction between two fractional Dp-branes can be more easily studied by performing in eq. (50) the modular transformation $`s1/s`$, that leads to the closed string channel, and by rewriting $`Z`$ as a matrix element between two boundary states $`|Bp`$:

$`Z=Bp|𝒟|Bp,`$ (51)
with $`𝒟`$ being the closed string propagator. Our boundary states are the sum of four terms, one untwisted obtained by performing the modular transformation on the first term in eq. (50), i.e. the one associated to the identity of the discrete group, and three twisted sectors associated to the three non trivial group elements $`h_i`$.

The sign in front of each twisted sector is determined by eqs. (24) and therefore we have four boundary states describing the four different fractional branes that we can have in this orbifold. They are given by:

$`|Bp>_1=|Bp>_u+|Bp>_{t_1}+|Bp>_{t_2}+|Bp>_{t_3},`$
$`|Bp>_2=|Bp>_u+|Bp>_{t_1}|Bp>_{t_2}|Bp>_{t_3},`$
$`|Bp>_3=|Bp>_u|Bp>_{t_1}+|Bp>_{t_2}|Bp>_{t_3},`$
$`|Bp>_4=|Bp>_u|Bp>_{t_1}|Bp>_{t_2}+|Bp>_{t_3},`$ (52)
where $`p`$ is the integer relative to the $`Dp`$-brane and $`u`$ labels the untwisted sector while $`t_i`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},3`$ label the twisted states.

The untwisted part of the boundary state, as already noticed in Ref. , has the same structure as in flat space but with an extra 1/2 factor due to the 1/4 factor of the orbifold projector appearing in eq. (50). The other terms in eqs. (52), instead, apart an extra factor $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ due again to the orbifold projector, are the same as those for the orbifold $`^2/_2`$.

Let us consider for instance the part in eq. (50) containing just the $`h_1`$ group element. Since $`h_1`$ is the generator of $`_2`$ acting as a reflection along the directions $`z_2`$ and $`z_3`$, the associated twisted boundary states are the ones corresponding to the twisted sector of the $`_2`$ orbifold acting on these directions. Similar arguments can be repeated for the other two elements $`h_2`$ and $`h_3`$ acting respectively on ($`z_1`$, $`z_3`$) and on ($`z_1`$, $`z_2`$).

Finally for the orbifold $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$ we can directly use the twisted boundary state given in Ref.  for the orbifold $`^2/_2`$ and multiply it for an additional factor $`1/\sqrt{2}`$.

Using the same logic we derive the couplings between the boundary states and the closed string states. These couplings are $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ of the corresponding ones for the orbifolds $`^2/_2`$ while we now have three twisted sectors. Following Ref.  we deduce the couplings of the fractional D3-branes to the fluctuation of the $`h_{MN}`$, of the untwisted four-form potential $`C_4`$ and of the twisted fields $`\stackrel{~}{b}^i`$ and $`A_{0123}^i`$ 333The couplings written in the paper  are recovered when using the relation between $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}`$.:

$${}_{u}{}^{}B3|h=\frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}V_4h_\mu ^\mu ,{}_{u}{}^{}B3|C_4=\frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}V_4C_{0123}$$
(53)
$${}_{t_i}{}^{}B3|\stackrel{~}{b}^i=\frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{V_4}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\stackrel{~}{b}^i,{}_{t_i}{}^{}B3|A_4^i=\frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{V_4}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}A_{0123}^i$$
(54)
where for a general $`p`$ $`T_p=\sqrt{\pi }/(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^{p3}`$, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}=2\kappa =16\pi ^{7/2}(\alpha ^{})^2g_s`$, $`V_4`$ is the (infinite) world-volume of the D3-brane and we defined $`b^i=b_0+\stackrel{~}{b}^i`$, being $`b_0`$ the background value of the $`B_2`$-flux :

$$_{𝒞_i}B_2=4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}\frac{1}{2}b_0$$

for any $`i`$. From the above couplings one can write the boundary action for a fractional D3-brane of type $`I`$ on this orbifold:

$`S_{b,I}^{\mathrm{D3}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{detG_{\mu \nu }}\left[1+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^i\stackrel{~}{b}^i\right]}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}{\displaystyle \left[C_4\left(1+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^i\stackrel{~}{b}^i\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^iA_4^i\right]}.`$ (55)
The quantities $`_I^i`$ take in account the different signs appearing in the definition of the boundary states (52) and their explicit form is:

$`\stackrel{}{}_1=(+1,+1,+1)`$ $`\stackrel{}{}_2=(+1,1,1)`$ $`\stackrel{}{}_3=(1,+1,1)`$ $`\stackrel{}{}_4=(1,1,+1).`$
In the case of a D7-brane, which is transverse only to the direction $`z_1`$ and therefore partially extended along the orbifold, we have to take into account the condition $`M_1=M_2`$ and $`M_3=M_4`$, that as previously discussed, leads to an anomaly-free gauge theory. The role played by this condition is to cancel, in the boundary state describing this compound system, the contributions coming from the twisted sectors $`t_2`$ and $`t_3`$ in eq. (52). Hence we consider only the couplings between the bulk fields and the twisted boundary state associated to the element $`h_1`$ of the orbifold group.

By computing the couplings between the D7-fractional branes and the bulk fields we get for the untwisted sector the following expressions:

$`{}_{u}{}^{}B7|h={\displaystyle \frac{T_7}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}V_8h_\alpha ^\mu ,{}_{u}{}^{}B7|C_8={\displaystyle \frac{T_7}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}V_8C_{0,1,2,3,6,7,8,9}`$
$`{}_{u}{}^{}B7|\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{T_7}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}V_8\varphi ,`$ (57)
where $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton and $`C_8`$ is the Ramond-Ramond 8-form potential, while for the twisted fields we get:

$${}_{t_1}{}^{}B7|\stackrel{~}{b}^1=\frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{V_4}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\stackrel{~}{b}^1,{}_{t_1}{}^{}B7|A_4^1=\frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}\frac{V_4}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}A_{0123}^1.$$
(58)
Using the couplings (57) and (58) one can infer the form of the linearized world-volume action for a D7 of type $`I`$:

$`S_{b,I}^{\mathrm{D7}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_7}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}{\displaystyle d^8xe^\varphi \sqrt{detG_{\rho \sigma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_7}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}{\displaystyle C_8}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{detG_{\rho \sigma }}_I^1\stackrel{~}{b}^1}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{2\kappa _{\mathrm{orb}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _I^1A_4^1}+\mathrm{}`$ (59)
where $`\rho ,\sigma `$ run over $`0,\mathrm{},3,6\mathrm{}9`$. Here we have enforced reparametrization invariance and the ellipses stay for terms of higher order in $`g_s`$ which are not accounted for by the boundary state approach.

Equation (59) tells us that the boundary action for a D7-brane of type 1 is coincident with the one for a D7-brane of type 2; the same happens for type 3 and type 4. This means that, due to the anomaly free gauge condition, we have only two different kinds of fractional branes.

We now study the bound state made of $`\text{N}_1`$, $`\text{N}_2`$, $`\text{N}_3`$ and $`\text{N}_4`$ D3-fractional branes respectively of type $`1,\mathrm{},4`$ extended along the direction $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3`$, and $`M_1=M_2`$, $`M_3=M_4`$ D7-fractional branes respectively of type $`1,\mathrm{},4`$ (with $`1,2`$ and $`3,4`$ identified) parallel to the D3-fractional branes and extended along the directions $`x^6,\mathrm{},x^9`$ of the orbifold.

As explained in Ref. , the boundary state formalism allows to compute the asymptotic behavior for large distances of the various fields in the classical brane solution. In our case the boundary states of the D3/D7 system are just linear combinations of the ones describing the constituent branes. It follows that the asymptotic behavior of the classical solution is the sum of the behaviors generated by the single branes. We find that, at the leading order in $`g_s`$, the dilaton and the R-R potentials are:

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(M)g_s}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}\rho _1+\mathrm{},C_4{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3}{r^4}}dx^0\mathrm{}dx^3+\mathrm{}`$
$`C_8`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(M)g_s}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}\rho _1dx^0\mathrm{}dx^3dx^6\mathrm{}dx^9+\mathrm{}`$ (60)
where $`\rho _i=\sqrt{z_i\overline{z}_i}/ϵ`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`ϵ`$ is a regulator. The metric is:

$$ds^2H^{1/2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +H^{1/2}\left(e^\varphi \delta _{ab}dx^adx^b+\delta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta \right)+\mathrm{}$$
(61)
where

$`H=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3}{r^4}}+\mathrm{}\right),r=\sqrt{(x^4)^2+\mathrm{}+(x^9)^2},Q_3=4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2g_sf_0(N),`$ (62)
with $`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{}3`$, $`a,b=4,5`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta =6,\mathrm{}9`$. Finally the asymptotic behavior of the twisted fields is given by (no sum over $`i`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{b}^i4\pi g_s\alpha ^{}\left(f_i(N)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1(M)}{4}}\delta _1^i\right)\mathrm{log}\rho _i,A^i4\pi g_s\alpha ^{}\left(f_i(N)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1(M)}{4}}\delta _1^i\right)\mathrm{log}\rho _i.`$ (63)
In these formulas the factors $`f_i(V)(V=M,N)`$ take into account the different signs in front of the twisted boundary states (52) and their explicit form is:

$`f_0(V)=V_1+V_2+V_3+V_4,`$ $`f_1(V)=V_1+V_2V_3V_4,`$
$`f_2(V)=V_1V_2+V_3V_4,`$ $`f_3(V)=V_1V_2V_3+V_4.`$ (64)
In order to extend the previous analysis to all orders we should solve the complete equation of motion of Type IIB supergravity in this background, having as a source term the actions described by eqs. (55) and (59). This requires a suitable ansatz for the supergravity fields. The asymptotic ansatz, given by eqs. (60)-(63), is not the one that can provide the complete solution in the case of branes localized inside branes, which is exactly the configuration we are considering here .

In the following we will be interested in the classical profile of the RR-form of lower degree and therefore we rewrite the previous solution in terms of the axion $`C_0`$ and the twisted scalar $`c`$ related respectively to the Hodge duals of the RR-potentials $`C_8`$ and $`A_4^i`$. At first order in $`g_s`$ we have:

$${}_{}{}^{}dC_8=dC_0,^6dc^i=dA_4^i,$$
(65)
whose explicit solutions from eqs. (60) and (63) are:

$`C_0{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(N)}{2\pi }}g_s\theta _1,c^i4\pi g_s\alpha ^{}\left(f_i(N)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1(M)}{4}}\delta _1^i\right)\theta _i`$ (66)
where $`\theta _i=\mathrm{tan}^1x^{2i+3}/x^{2i+2}`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. We combine together the dilaton, the axion and the twisted scalars $`b`$ and $`c`$ in two complex quantities relevant for the gravity dual:

$`\tau C_0+ie^\varphi =i{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{2\pi }}f_0(M)\mathrm{log}w_1,`$ (67)
$`\gamma ^{(1)}\tau b^1+c^1=i2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}+4\pi g_s\alpha ^{}i\left(f_1(N)+{\displaystyle \frac{(f_1(M)f_0(M)}{4}}\right)\mathrm{log}w_1,`$ (68)
$`\gamma ^{(2)}\tau b^2+c^2=i2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}+4\pi g_s\alpha ^{}i\left(f_2(N)\mathrm{log}w_2{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(M)}{4}}\mathrm{log}w_1\right),`$ (69)
$`\gamma ^{(3)}\tau b^3+c^3=i2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}+4\pi g_s\alpha ^{}i\left(f_3(N)\mathrm{log}w_3{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(M)}{4}}\mathrm{log}w_1\right),`$ (70)
where we have defined $`w_i=z_i/ϵ`$ .

We see from eqs. (67)-(70) that the dilaton and the $`\gamma `$’s are holomorphic functions of the $`w_i`$’s, at least at the first order in $`g_s`$. This is a property common to all classical solutions having fractional branes as a source and it is a consequence of supersymmetry .

### 3.2 Stability of the system and massless tadpole cancellation

We now investigate the stability of the system related to the one-loop massless tadpole cancellation. The generic boundary state describing our D3/D7 fractional system is the following linear combination of the boundary states introduced in the previous paragraph:

$$|B3/7_{I,J}=|B3_I+|B7_J.$$
(71)
Two D-branes interact at the tree level via the exchange of closed strings and the interaction is:

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}dt{}_{I,J}{}^{}B3/7|e^{\pi t\left(L_0+\overline{L}_02a\right)}|B3/7_{I,J}^{}$$
(72)
where $`a=0`$ in the twisted sectors. Due to the BPS no-force condition even before explicitly evaluating the previous expression we expect a vanishing result. This is consistent with our bound state which preserves $`𝒩=1`$ and with the massless tadpole cancellation requirement.

By separating the various contributions in the correlator (72) and considering only the twisted sectors encoding the orbifold information we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt{}_{t_i}{}^{}Bp|e^{\pi t\left(L_0+\overline{L}_02a\right)}|Bp_{t_i}^{}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{r_i}^2V_{r_i+1}}{2^{s_i}(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{\frac{9r_i}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{\frac{5r_i}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+e^{2n\pi t}\right)^4\left(1+e^{(2n1)\pi t}\right)^4}{\left(1e^{2n\pi t}\right)^4\left(1e^{(2n1)\pi t}\right)^4}}\left(1|_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS}}1|_{\mathrm{RR}}\right),`$
(73)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{}_{t_i}{}^{}B3|e^{\pi t\left(L_0+\overline{L}_02a\right)}|B7_{t_i}^{}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{16}}\delta _{t_i,t_1}{\displaystyle \frac{T_3^2V_4}{(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+e^{2n\pi t}\right)^4\left(1e^{(2n1)\pi t}\right)^4}{\left(1e^{2n\pi t}\right)^4\left(1+e^{(2n1)\pi t}\right)^4}}\left(1|_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS}}1|_{\mathrm{RR}}\right),`$
(74)
where $`r_i`$’s are the world-volume directions outside the sector $`i`$ of the orbifold and $`s_i`$’s are the world-volume directions inside the sector $`i`$ of the orbifold. By sector $`i`$ of the orbifold we mean the two complex coordinates non trivially transformed by the group element $`h_i`$ and hence we have for the D3-brane $`r_i=3`$ ($`s_i=0`$) for $`i=1,2,3`$ while for the D7-brane $`r_1=3`$, $`r_2=r_3=5`$ ($`s_1=4`$, $`s_2=s_3=2`$). Equations(73) and (74) show the cancellation between the contributions due respectively to the NS-NS and the RR sectors. Each of the two term corresponds to a one-loop massless tadpole. For such a term, we see that in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ we have only logarithmic divergences for the contributions coming from sandwiching the closed string propagator with the $`D3`$ boundary state since $`r_i=3`$. The same holds true when considering one boundary state of type $`D3`$ and the other of type $`D7`$. In the spirit of the open/closed sting duality these logarithmic divergences are related to the UV divergences of the gauge theory. When sandwiching the propagator between two $`D7`$ boundary states we observe in the twisted sectors $`t_2`$ and $`t_3`$ the rise of linear divergences which are dangerous since they lead to supersymmetry and/or Poincaré breaking .

As can be seen from the states in eqs. (52) this divergence can be cured by imposing $`M_1=M_2`$ and $`M_3=M_4`$. Such a condition yields, as expected, a consistent gauge theory free from gauge anomalies as seen in section 2.

## 4 Supergravity analysis of the dual gauge theory anomalies

In this section we discuss in detail from the dual supergravity point of view the trace and chiral anomalies of the gauge theory supported by a bound state made of D3/D7 branes.

As mentioned above, in our case the gauge theory living on the D3-world volume is an $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)\times SU(N_3)\times SU(N_4)`$. Here we do not consider the effects of the abelian $`U(1)`$ factors444The effects are subleading in the large $`N`$ limit.. The theory has twelve chiral multiplets in the bifundamental representation of the gauge group due to the D3/D3 open strings and chiral matter multiplets, both in the fundamental and in the antifundamental representation, due to the D3/D7 strings.

At the classical level this theory is invariant under an abelian $`\widehat{U}(1)_R`$ and the scale symmetry. We note that it is always possible to define a new anomalous free $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry by considering a suitable choice of the chiral super-multiplets. The scalars of the gauge theory have canonical dimension one and R-$`\widehat{U}(1)_R`$ charge 2/3 as it follows from the cubic superpotential, therefore under a combined chiral and scale transformation with parameters respectively $`\alpha `$ and $`\sigma `$ they transform as:

$$\varphi ^{}=e^{\sigma +i\frac{2}{3}\alpha }\varphi .$$
(75)
These global symmetries are broken at the quantum level by anomalies, and the respective currents are given by:

$`_\mu D^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta (g_{\mathrm{YM}})}{2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^3}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu },`$ (76)
$`_\mu J_R^\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{fermions}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_RC_2(T)}{16\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}^{a\mu \nu },`$ (77)
where $`Q_R`$ is the R-charge of the fermions, $`C_2(T)`$ is the quadratic Casimir in the representation $`T`$ of the gauge group and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{a\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{a\rho \sigma }`$. For infinitesimal transformations these equations imply :

$$\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}\frac{2\beta (g)}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^3}\sigma \theta _{\mathrm{YM}}\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}2\alpha \underset{\mathrm{fermions}}{}Q_RC_2(T).$$
(78)
In a supersymmetric theory, such as the one we are considering, these two anomalies are in the same supermultiplet; it follows that, in a renormalization scheme preserving the ABJ theorem, the $`\beta `$-function appearing in the previous expression is the one at the 1-loop level. Indeed in the present case, by using the spectrum discussed in section (2), one obtains the 1-loop $`\beta `$-function for each $`U(N_I)`$ leading to:

$`_\mu D_I^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}}\left[3N_I{\displaystyle \underset{JI=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(M_{I+2}+M_{I+5}\right)\right]F_{(I)\mu \nu }^aF_{(I)}^{a\mu \nu },`$ (79)
where $`M_I`$ satisfies the condition $`M_{I+4}M_I`$.

Analogously, since the R-charge for the gauginos is one while for the chiral fermions it is -1/3, the chiral anomaly for each gauge group turns out to be:

$`_\mu J_{R,(I)}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left[N_I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{JI=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(M_{I+2}+M_{I+5}\right)\right]F_{(I)\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{(I)}^{a\mu \nu }.`$ (80)
By defining the well-known complex gauge coupling

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{4\pi }{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}i+\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}}{2\pi },$$
(81)
and by using the expression of the one-loop beta functions and chiral anomaly together with eq. (78), one can easily see that $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ transforms as:

$`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}^I\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}^I+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}\left[3N_I{\displaystyle \underset{JI=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(M_{I+2}+M_{I+5}\right)\right]\left(\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}i\alpha \right).`$
(82)
Let us now analyze how the scale and chiral anomalies are realized in supergravity and to this aim let us consider the Dirac-Born-Infeld action and the Wess-Zumino term for a stack of $`N_I`$ fractional D3-branes given by eq. (55). Turning on a gauge field on the world-volume of the branes and expanding the boundary action in the supergravity background up to quadratic terms in the derivatives one gets:

$`S_{\mathrm{gauge}}^I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi g_s}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\mathrm{det}G}e^\varphi G^{\mu \rho }G^{\nu \sigma }\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a\left[1+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^i\stackrel{~}{b}^i\right]}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi g_s}}{\displaystyle d^4x\left[C_0\left(1+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^i\stackrel{~}{b}^i\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^ic^i\right]F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}^{a\mu \nu }},`$ (83)
where for simplicity we dropped the index $`I`$ of the gauge fields and the metric $`G`$ is the pull-back to the brane world-volume. The previous boundary action, when evaluated in the supergravity background obtained in the previous section, yields the (gauge part of) $`𝒩=1`$ super YM theory with gauge group $`SU(N_I)`$. More explicitly one obtains:

$$S_{\mathrm{gauge}}^I=\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}d^4x\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}}{32\pi ^2}d^4xF_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}^{a\mu \nu },$$
(84)
where the indices are raised by the flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and

$$\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}=\frac{1}{16\pi g_s}e^\varphi \left[1+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^i\stackrel{~}{b}^i\right],$$
(85)
$$\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{\pi }{2g_s}\left[C_0\left(1+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^i\stackrel{~}{b}^i\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^ic^i\right].$$
(86)
It is worthwhile to observe that in eq. (84) all the dependence on the function $`H`$ of the metric disappears. We have also to include matter in the fundamental and bifundamental representations of the gauge groups. Then, by using eqs. (60) and (63) the gauge coupling and the theta angle turn out to be related to the bulk fields by the following expressions:

$$\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}=\frac{1}{16\pi g_s}+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[_I^if_i(N)+\frac{_I^1f_1(M)f_0(M)}{4}\delta _1^i\right]\mathrm{log}\rho _i,$$
(87)
$$\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left[_I^if_i(N)+\frac{_I^1f_1(M)f_0(M)}{4}\delta _1^i\right]\theta _i.$$
(88)
We note that the method considered above does not rely on the probe technique. The ingredients we are using are the holographic identification among the world-volume fields and the bulk supergravity quantities. In this spirit one has to consider the relations (87) and (88) as directly generated by the low-energy limit of the world-volume action of the fractional branes.

Analogously with the gauge theory we combine the previous equations and construct the supergravity realization of the complex coupling $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}^I=\frac{i}{4g_s}+\frac{i}{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^if_i(N)\mathrm{log}w_i+\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{_I^1f_1(M)f_0(M)}{4}\mathrm{log}w_1.$$
(89)
In supergravity the coordinates $`z_i`$ are holographically identified with the scalar components $`\varphi _i`$ of the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. By using this identification we deduce that under a chiral and scale transformation the coordinates transverse to the brane transform according to the eq. (75), i.e. $`z_ie^{\sigma +\frac{2}{3}i\alpha }z_i`$. The classical profile of the twisted fields are not invariant under these transformations, showing the explicit breaking of the related symmetries. In particular the complex combination given in eq. (89) behaves as:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}^I\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}^I+\frac{i}{2\pi }\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_I^if_i(N)+\frac{_I^1f_1(M)f_0(M)}{4}\right]\left(\sigma +\frac{2}{3}i\alpha \right),$$
(90)
where

$`_1^1f_1(M)f_0(M)=_2^1f_1(M)f_0(M)=2(M_3+M_4)`$
$`_3^1f_1(M)f_0(M)=_4^1f_1(M)f_0(M)=2(M_1+M_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_I^if_i(N)=3N_I{\displaystyle \underset{JI=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_J.`$ (91)
Combining eq. (90) with eq. (91) we recover the right $`\beta `$-function and chiral anomaly from the supergravity side.

In conclusion, by considering a suitable D3/D7 bound state living on an orbifold preserving $`𝒩=1`$, as $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$, we obtained a $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory with matter fields. We have studied the supergravity background determined by this brane configuration by using the boundary state formalism and from this classical solution we have got information about one-loop quantities of the gauge theory. In so doing, we have shown how the gauge/gravity correspondence may be used to analyze the quantum aspects, at least at perturbative levels, of the dual string-like standard model realized by considering branes at orbifold singularities in the spirit of the bottom-up approach. It would be nice to extend our analysis to the infrared regime of the gauge theory by finding a complete non-singular solution. This analysis would be performed by deforming, in an appropriate way, the orbifold singularities and finding a suitable ansatz valid also very near to the brane.

Acknowledgments We thank Paolo Di Vecchia for careful reading of the manuscript and useful discussions. R.M. thanks L. Cappiello for discussions. R.M. and F.P. thank Nordita for the kind hospitality in different stages of this work. The work of F.S. is supported by the Marie–Curie fellowship under contract MCFI-2001-00181.