text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

If monopoles are present in a theory, electric charge is quantized. This observation of Dirac is fundamental to any quantum-mechanical theory. Yet there appears to be a violation of this basic principle in a class of string theories.

The apparent violation occurs for D-branes in the presence of a background NSNS three-form flux. A variety of arguments show that in these theories, D-branes have a charge of the form $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi j/k)`$, where $`j,k`$ are integral. In this paper, we shall reexamine the arguments for this strange behaviour, and show how they are in fact compatible with Dirac’s argument. Other proposals have been made to resolve this problem: we discuss the connection of our solution to these other suggestions.

We first describe the boundary state construction of D-branes on $`S^3`$ , where this behaviour was first noted. A semiclassical description of these branes was given in  and it was argued that the semiclassical description also produced nonquantized charges. Taylor  later argued that in fact, terms not considered by  made the charge integral. We review all these arguments in the following sections.

We then construct a supergravity description of such branes, which provides a complementary approach. We show that all the features of the semiclassical description are reproduced by the supergravity solution. The supergravity approach in general also allows us to generalize to the case of RR backgrounds, which cannot be treated in the boundary state approach.

In this paper, we focus on the case of M-branes in a $`S^4`$ background, which as we show displays all the features of D-branes in $`S^3`$. The supergravity description tells us the field configuration outside the M-branes. The charge of the M-brane is associated with a massless gauge field $`A`$ whose long distance falloff is governed by the harmonic equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}}_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}_BA)=0`$ (1)
Here $`G`$ is the asymptotic metric.

The falloff therefore crucially depends on the form of the asymptotic geometry. It turns out that the falloff is much faster in the case of asymptotically $`AdS`$ geometries as compared to asymptotically flat geometries. Thus there is no long range interaction between a fundamental charge and a monopole in asymptotically $`AdS`$ spaces, and the Dirac argument does not lead to charge quantization. This is very similar to the proposal of  for resolving the charge quantization issue. However, we also argue that in fact, the semiclassical description produces quantized charges, in agreement with Taylor .

We close with a discussion of related issues. We show that deriving the flat space S-matrix from the AdS/CFT correspondence must deal with issues raised by the existence of the fractionally charged states. Also we comment on the issue of charge conservation in these theories.

## 2 The boundary state construction

D-branes in flat space are described as endpoints of open strings. In more general theories, it is necessary to use the more abstract language of boundary states to describe them. In this language, D-branes are described in terms of their overlap amplitudes with closed string states. The connection to open strings is made through Cardy’s condition described below.

Boundary states are typically hard to construct, but the special case of D-branes in $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ with background NS-NS flux can be analyzed exactly, since the $`S^3`$ factor can be represented by the exactly solvable $`SU(2)`$ WZW model. Boundary states in this theory were constructed in . We review this construction here.

One first tries to solve the equation

$`(J^a+\overline{J}^a)|I=0`$ (2)
The solutions to this equation are the Ishibashi states $`|I_n`$, which are constructed by taking any primary $`\varphi _n`$ and summing the normalized states in the Verma module. More precisely, start with a primary $`|\varphi ^j`$ (by this we mean a state which is annihilated by all lowering operators $`J_n^a`$, $`n>0`$). Define the Ishibashi state

$`|I^j=M_{IJ}^1J_I\overline{J}_J|\varphi ^j`$ (3)
Here $`I,J`$ are ordered strings of indices $`(n_1,a_1)\mathrm{}(n_r,a_r)`$ and $`J_I=J_{n_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}J_{n_r}^{a_r}`$ The normalization is defined by

$`M_{IJ}=\varphi ^j|J_IJ_J|\varphi ^j`$ (4)
$`M_{IJ}`$ is invertible for any module. It is straightforward to show that the states (3) satisfy the equation (2).

There is therefore a 1-1 correspondence between the Ishibashi states and the primaries. In the $`SU(2)`$ WZW theory at level $`k`$, the primaries are labelled by an index $`j`$ that runs from 0 to $`k`$. Hence there are $`k+1`$ Ishibashi states.

One then constructs Cardy states, which are linear combinations of Ishibashi states satisfying Cardy’s condition. Cardy’s condition is that the modular transform of the overlap of any two boundary states should be interpretable as an open string partition function. This ensures that the D-branes can be reinterpreted as endpoints of open strings.

The Cardy states in $`SU(2)`$ WZW theory are found in terms of the S-matrix $`S_a^b`$ of the theory to be

$`|B_j={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_j^n}{\sqrt{S_0^n}}}|I^n`$ (5)
The charge of the state $`|B_j`$ is given by its overlap with the lowest primary, and is hence proportional to

$`Q_j={\displaystyle \frac{S_j^0}{\sqrt{S_0^0}}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (2j+1)}{k+2}}`$ (6)
The charge of the brane labelled by the integer $`j`$ is therefore not an integer multiple of the brane labelled by $`j=1`$. Hence the charges are not quantized.

## 3  The semiclassical approach

We now want to turn to a semiclassical description of these branes, following .

The boundary states that we have described satisfy $`(J^a+\overline{J}^a)|B=0`$. It was shown in  that the semiclassical description of such branes is that of D2-branes wrapping conjugacy classes in $`S^3`$. This motivates the study of the dynamics of branes wrapping such conjugacy classes. As we now see, the phenomenon of fractional charges can be reproduced by this calculation, as shown by Bachas, Douglas, and Schweigert .

The background metric of the $`S^3`$ is taken to be

$`ds^2=k\alpha ^{}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\varphi ^2)`$ (7)
and the three form flux is

$`H_{\theta \chi \varphi }=2k\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi `$ (8)
The conjugacy classes in $`S^3`$ are 2-spheres. Examples of such conjugacy classes are the hypersurfaces $`\theta =\mathrm{constant}`$. We should therefore consider the dynamics of a D2-brane wrapped on such a hypersurface.

The brane interacts with the background curvature and 3-form flux through the Born-Infeld action

$`S=T{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \sqrt{det(G_{ab}+B_{ab}+F_{ab})}}`$ (9)
Here $`G_{ab}=G_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu `$ and $`B_{ab}=B_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu `$ are respectively the pullbacks of the spacetime metric and two form field to the D-brane worldvolume. $`F_{ab}`$ is the worldvolume field strength.

In general, we can take the D2-brane to have a nontrivial gauge field on its worldvolume. Flux quantization implies that $`𝑑\sigma ^\mu 𝑑\sigma ^\nu F_{\mu \nu }=n`$ with n integral.

For a brane wrapped on the conjugacy class $`\theta =\mathrm{constant}`$, we can choose a static gauge of the form

$`\sigma ^0=t\sigma ^1=\varphi \sigma ^2=\chi `$ (10)
We then find an energy functional for the field $`\theta (\sigma ^0,\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)`$, which is

$`E_n(\theta )=4\pi k\alpha ^{}T\left(\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +(\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{k}})^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (11)
The equation of motion has a static solution for $`\theta =\frac{\pi n}{k}`$. Therefore, there are stable solutions where the 2-brane wraps a hypersurface of constant $`\theta =\frac{\pi n}{k}`$ for any $`n`$.

It can further be shown that these branes are BPS, and have a mass and induced D0-brane charge which is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi n}{k})`$. We refer to  for details. Hence we again find the phenomenon of nonquantized charges.

### 3.1 An objection

It is however rather difficult to conclude on the basis of this semiclassical computation that the brane charge is fractional. This was pointed out by Taylor , who suggested that bulk interactions could compensate for the nonintegral charge, by providing another potential source for the brane charge.

Let us denote the gauge field coupling to the D0-brane charge as $`A_\mu `$ and the gauge field coupling to the D2-brane charge as $`C_{\mu \nu \rho }`$. Furthermore, denote the field strength corresponding to $`C_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ by $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$.

There is a term in the type II string action of the form $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }A^\mu H^{\nu \rho \sigma }`$, where $`H^{\nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the NS-NS flux. The equation of motion for $`A_\mu `$ therefore contains an extra contribution proportional to $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }H^{\nu \rho \sigma }`$. Now the presence of the D2-brane implies that $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ must be nonzero, and of course we have a nontrivial NSNS flux in the background. So this contribution is nonzero, and presumably should be added to the charge obtained by the semiclassical computation in the previous subsection.

Taylor further argued in  that the total charge obtained by this procedure was indeed integral (see also ).

This might suggest that there is no issue here; the charges of all the branes are in fact integral. However, this cannot be the complete solution. The boundary state construction is exact in string theory; in other words, it sums up all the corrections including the supergravity interactions mentioned above. Therefore since the boundary state has a fractional charge, the total charge including all bulk interactions is fractional, whether or not one trusts the semiclassical computation of . We shall return to this issue in a later section.

## 4  The supergravity description

### 4.1 Notation

We now turn to the supergravity description of these branes.

There are several reasons why such a description is useful. The supergravity approach is complementary to the boundary state and the semiclassical approaches, since it can be applied to cases where the boundary state cannot at present be constructed, and to cases where NS5-branes or M-branes are involved. We will also be able to address the issue of charge quantization in this approach.

Now, the brane in $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ is a special case of a brane in the background of another brane or set of branes. The supergravity solution for this brane should be a special case of the more general case of supergravity solutions for intersecting branes. The method for constructing such solutions for brane intersections was given in ; we will review this construction below. We shall then show that we can indeed find expanded brane solutions, similar to those of the previous sections, as a special case of these solutions.

For concreteness we will examine a special case where an M2-brane is ending on a set of M5-branes. We shall orient the M5-branes along the $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5`$ directions, and the M2-branes will be oriented along the $`x_0,x_1,x_6`$ directions and end on the M5-brane.

For notational purposes, we shall label the coordinates $`x_0,x_1`$ by $`x_i`$. The coordinates $`x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5`$ will collectively be labelled $`x_a`$, and the coordinates $`x_7,x_8,x_9,x_{10}`$ will collectively be labelled $`x_\alpha `$.

In the limit when the number $`N`$ of M5-branes is large, the supergravity solution for the M5-branes goes over to the metric

$`ds^2G_{\mu \nu }dX^\mu dX^\nu =`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{N^{1/3}}}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+dx_a^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{N^{2/3}}{r^2}}\left(dx_6^2+dx_\alpha ^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{N^{1/3}}}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+dx_a^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{N^{2/3}}{r^2}}\left(dr^2\right)+N^{2/3}d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$
which is the metric of $`AdS_7\times S^4`$. Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ is the metric of $`S^4`$.

The M2-branes (which are oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_6`$) in this new metric are oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_r`$ and occupy a point in the $`S^4`$.

The considerations of  suggest that the semiclassical description of the M2-branes should actually be that of M5-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_r`$ and wrapping a $`S^3`$ hypersurface in $`S^4`$. To stabilize this extended brane configuration, there should be a nontrivial worldvolume flux on the M5-brane. (Just as a nontrivial 2-form field strength can stabilize a brane wrapped on $`S^2`$, a nontrivial 3-form field strength can stabilize the M5-brane wrapped on $`S^3`$.) We could therefore perform a semiclassical calculation analogous to to verify this. Instead, we will explicitly derive this from the supergravity description of the branes.

We should therefore look at the supergravity solution for M2-branes ending on M5-branes. The general approach to constructing such solutions was given in . One is attempting to find solutions to the Killing spinor equations, which for instance in the case of 11-D supergravity, is

$`_\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{288}}(\gamma _\mu ^{abcd}8e_\mu ^a\gamma ^{bcd})G_{abcd}ϵ=0`$ (13)
Here $`G_{abcd}`$ is the four-form field strength of 11-dimensional supergravity.

### 4.2 Ansatz for the Killing equation

We will solve the Killing equation by assuming an ansatz for the Killing spinor. We take the ansatz for the Killing spinor to be

$`ϵ=(g_{00})^{1/4}ϵ_0`$ (14)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is a constant spinor.

Furthermore, there are constraints on the constant spinor $`ϵ_0`$ since the supersymmetry is partly broken. Each brane imposes a constraint on the spinor $`ϵ_0`$. The way this happens is that each brane is associated with a projector $`P_i`$ satisfying $`P_iP_i=P_i`$. For example the presence of a M5-brane oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5`$ imposes the equation $`P_1ϵ_0=0`$ where $`P_1=(1+i\gamma _{678910})/2`$. Similarly the M2-brane oriented along the $`x_0,x_1,x_6`$ imposes the equation $`P_2ϵ_0=0`$ where $`P_2=(1+i\gamma _{016})/2`$.

For a system containing several branes we should impose all the separate projection equations on $`ϵ_0`$. In the case we are considering, we therefore take the constraints on the spinor $`ϵ_0`$ to be $`P_1ϵ_0=P_2ϵ_0=0`$.

After imposing all these constraints, the Killing spinor equations reduce to a set of algebraic equations, which can be used to solve for the field strengths and the metric.

### 4.3 Solution

For the case of M2-branes ending on M5-branes, the solution was found in . The metric was found to be of the form

$`ds^2=\lambda ^{2/3}H^{1/3}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2)+\lambda ^{1/3}H^{1/3}dx_a^2`$
$`+\lambda ^{2/3}H^{2/3}(dx_6+\varphi _adx^a)^2+\lambda ^{1/3}H^{2/3}dx_\alpha ^2`$ (15)
where we must impose the constraint

$`_6(H\varphi _a)=_aH`$ (16)
The field strengths are given by (all the indices are world indices)

$`G_{0167}=_7({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }})G_{0147}=_7({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _4}{\lambda }})`$ (17)
$`G_{0164}=_4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }})_6({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _4}{\lambda }})`$
$`G_{2345}=H^1_6\lambda +\varphi _a_6\varphi _aG_{2357}=_7\varphi _4`$ (18)
$`G_{2356}=_6\varphi _4`$
$`G_{78910}=_6(H\lambda )G_{68910}=_7H`$ (19)
$`G_{48910}=_7(H\varphi _4)`$
Hence there are two independent functions $`\lambda ,H`$ describing the solution. This is as it should be since we have two types of branes.

## 5 Interpretation of the solution

### 5.1 Source terms

What is the physical meaning of this solution? To answer this question, we must look at the various sources, which can be found by looking at the Bianchi identities and the equations of motion.

We first define the quantities $`P,Q`$ through

$`P=_a\varphi _a+H^1_6\lambda +\varphi _a_6\varphi _a`$ (20)
and

$`_6Q=_6^2(H\lambda )+_\alpha ^2H`$ (21)
$`Q`$ also satisfies

$`_aQ=_6_a(H\lambda )+_\alpha ^2(H\varphi _a)`$ (22)
The nontrivial Bianchi identities are then found to be

$`_6G_{2345}+\mathrm{cyclic}=_6P`$ (23)
$`_7G_{2345}+\mathrm{cyclic}=_7P`$ (24)
$`_4G_{78910}+\mathrm{cyclic}=_4Q`$ (25)
$`_6G_{78910}+\mathrm{cyclic}=_6Q`$ (26)
while the nontrivial equations of motion are

$`_A(\sqrt{g}G^{A235})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2.(24)^2}}ϵ^{235abcdefgh}G_{abcd}G_{efgh}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}(_4Q\varphi _4_6Q)`$ (27)
$`_A(\sqrt{g}G^{A8910})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2.(24)^2}}ϵ^{8910abcdefgh}G_{abcd}G_{efgh}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}_7P`$ (28)
$`_A(\sqrt{g}G^{A017})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2.(24)^2}}ϵ^{017abcdefgh}G_{abcd}G_{efgh}=H_7P`$ (29)
$`_A(\sqrt{g}G^{A014})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2.(24)^2}}ϵ^{014abcdefgh}G_{abcd}G_{efgh}=\varphi _4_6Q_4Q`$ (30)
$`_A(\sqrt{g}G^{A016})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2.(24)^2}}ϵ^{016abcdefgh}G_{abcd}G_{efgh}=P_6(H\lambda )`$
$`\varphi _a_aQ+{\displaystyle (dx_6)(_a^2Q_\alpha ^2(HP))}`$ (31)
The RHS of the Bianchi identities and the equations of motion should be interpreted as sources like M5-branes and M2-branes.

For instance if there are no M2-branes, and $`N`$ M5-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5`$, then only the RHS of (26) should be nonzero. In this case we have

$`_6Q=N\delta (x_6)\delta (x_\alpha )P=\varphi _4=0\lambda =1`$ (32)
### 5.2 Interpretation of sources

We now present the interpretation of these sources in the more general case when we have both M5-branes and M2-branes. In this more general case, both $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are nonzero, and this produces source terms for all the Bianchi identities and the equations of motion. To simplify the analysis, we will focus on the limit where the number $`n_2`$ of M2-branes is much smaller than the number $`N`$ of M5-branes, so that the picture of branes in the metric (12) is still valid.

Some of the sources are easy to interpret. As we have already seen, the RHS of (26) is the density of M5-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5`$. Similarly the RHS of (31) is the density of M2-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_6`$.

However, it would seem strange to interpret the source term on the RHS of (30) as the density of M2-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_4`$. Luckily, there is a better interpretation. There is a 2-form gauge field on the M5-brane worldvolume, which couples to the spacetime gauge fields through the term $`d^6\sigma A^{(3)}h^{(3)}`$. A nonzero flux $`h_{014}`$ thus provides a source for the field $`A_{014}`$ i.e. we can set the right hand of (30) to be

$`h^{014}=\varphi _4_6Q_4Q`$ (33)
Similarly the right hand side of (27) can be identified with $`h^{235}`$, which is equal to $`h_{014}`$ since the 3-form is self dual.

The source terms on the RHS of (23,24) are very interesting. The source in (23) has a natural interpretation as M5-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_7,x_8,x_9,x_{10}`$. Similarly, the source in (24) has a natural interpretation as M5-branes oriented along $`x_0,x_1,x_6,x_8,x_9,x_{10}`$.

Such sources represent a M5-brane occupying a hypersurface in the
$`x_0,x_1,x_6,x_7,x_8,x_9,x_{10}`$ directions. If we go to the coordinates in the metric (12), we see that the brane occupies the $`x_0,x_1`$ directions and traces a hypersurface in the $`x_r\times S^4`$ directions. If we wish to ensure that the brane occupies a hypersurface in $`S^4`$ alone, we must take

$`r_rP=x_6_6+x_\alpha _\alpha P=0`$ (34)
The brane now occupies the $`x_0,x_1,x_r`$ directions and a $`\theta =\theta _0`$ hypersurface. This provides a connection between our solution and the semiclassical description of section (3).

Remarkably, the correspondence can be made even more explicit. A flux $`h_{8910}`$ on the worldvolume of this brane produces the source in equation (28), and its self-dual partner sources equation (29). In the metric (12), we find that this is exactly a constant worldvolume field strength on the M5-brane. This makes the correspondence with section (3) precise.

The remaining source terms can be understood as deformations of the M5-branes.

We thus see that the branes discussed in  represent a special subclass of the general supergravity solution given above.

### 5.3 Long distance behaviour

Now we look at the long distance behaviour of the field configuration. This requires the usual assumption that the sources are localized in a finite region. Hence in the long distance region, we can set $`P=Q=0`$.

We will expand around the background geometry of the M5-brane

$`H=H_0\lambda =1\varphi _a=0`$ (35)
To leading order the perturbations

$`\delta H=HH_0\delta \lambda =\lambda 1\delta \varphi _a=\varphi _a`$ (36)
satisfy the system of equations (16,20,21) with $`P=Q=0`$. The solution to this system of equations is

$`\delta H=_6^2\tau H_0\varphi _a=_6_a\tau \delta \lambda =_a^2\tau `$ (37)
where $`\tau `$ satisfies

$`(_6^2+_\alpha ^2+H_0_a^2)\tau =0`$ (38)
This is more recognizable as the harmonic equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}}_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}_B\tau )=0`$ (39)
where $`G`$ is the unperturbed metric for the M5-branes defined in (12).

Hence $`\tau `$ satisfies the equation for a massless field in $`AdS_7\times S^4`$. (Note that this is different from , where it was suggested that $`\tau `$ was massive.)

This is the solution far away from the branes. More generally, the sources $`P,Q`$ will appear on the RHS of equation (38). The general solution for $`\tau `$ is then

$`\tau ={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}H(x,x^{})\rho (x^{})}`$ (40)
where $`H(x,x^{})`$ is the Green’s function satisfying

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}}_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}_BH(x,x^{}))=\delta (xx^{})`$ (41)
and $`\rho (x^{})`$ is a source density.

## 6 Discussion

### 6.1 Charge quantization

We now examine the behaviour of $`\tau `$. On shorter distance scales, much less than the radius of the $`AdS_7`$, the space is locally flat (if $`N>>1`$) and so $`\tau `$ has the usual flat space behaviour.

For distances larger than the radius of the $`AdS_7`$, the curvature becomes important. The long-distance behaviour depends on the form of $`H_0`$. If $`H_01`$ at long distances, then asymptotically $`\tau `$ again has the flat space behaviour.

But we can also consider the near-horizon limit of the M5-brane, where $`H_0=\frac{r_0^3}{r^3}`$. Then the curvature does not vanish asymptotically, and the equation for $`\tau `$ does not go over to the flat space equation.

We would like to understand the long distance behaviour of $`\tau `$ in this case. Unfortunately, in this case, we cannot solve for the Green’s function explicitly. We instead note that the equation (39) is now the harmonic equation for a massless field in $`AdS_7\times S^4`$. We can therefore expand the fields in harmonics on the $`S^4`$.

The higher harmonics are massive and hence fall off exponentially in $`AdS_7`$. The long distance behaviour is therefore dominated by the lowest harmonic, and hence we only need to consider the lowest harmonic on the $`S^4`$. Note that this is similar to the discussion in section 2, where the charge is defined as the overlap of the boundary state with the lowest harmonic.

This harmonic (which we denote $`\tau _0`$) satisfies the equation

$`(y^2+2y)_y^2\tau _0+(7y+7)_y\tau _0=0`$ (42)
where we have defined

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{rr_0}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{r}\sqrt{r_0})^2}{rr_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(x^ax_0^a)^2}{4N}}\right)`$ (43)
Here $`x_0^a,r_0`$ are constants labelling the position of the branes.

We see that for large $`y`$ the solution has the behaviour $`\tau _0y^6`$, while for small $`y`$, the solution has the behaviour $`\tau _0y^{5/2}`$. Clearly the falloff is much steeper for large $`y`$.

Note that for small $`y`$, the falloff is appropriate for a massless field in 6+1 dimensions. (This is consistent with the idea that for short distances $`AdS_7`$ resembles $`R^{6,1}`$). For large $`y`$ the falloff is faster, so $`\tau `$ behaves as if it has an effective mass.

The long distance behaviour of the gauge fields is controlled by the behaviour of $`\tau `$ through the supergravity solution. Since $`\tau `$ has a steep falloff at long distances, we correspondingly find a steep falloff of the gauge field. In effect, the massless gauge field appears to get an effective mass due to the background curvature. Due to this behaviour, we find that there is no requirement of charge quantization for asymptotically $`AdS`$ spaces. The fields fall off too quickly to have a long distance interaction. This explanation is similar to that of .

To summarize, in the case of asymptotically flat geometries, we have the usual quantization condition. In the case of asymptotically $`AdS`$ spaces, there is no quantization condition, since the fields fall off too fast.

### 6.2 Integral charges

There are other puzzles raised by this situation, though. We are claiming that for very large but finite $`N`$, the semiclassical picture produces quantized charge. Yet, in the limit $`N=\mathrm{}`$, the semiclassical solution becomes nonquantized. A local observer in $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ would then be able to determine the asymptotic geometry from local measurements. This is therefore a gross violation of locality.

The natural objection to this is that in this limit, the nonquantized spectrum, which is of the form $`Q_n=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi }{N}\right)`$ goes over to $`Q_n=\left(\frac{n\pi }{N}\right)`$, a quantized spectrum. But clearly, if we scale $`n`$ with $`N`$, this is not the case. Therefore the problem remains.

The solution to this puzzle is that demanding locality actually requires quantized charges. This is easily seen from the supergravity solution. The field strength on the brane is a constant. It is obtained from the RHS of equation (28). The shape of the brane in $`S^4`$, on the other hand, is given by (24). Clearly to linear order in perturbations, they are proportional with a fixed constant of proportionality (in fact, they are exactly proportional even at the nonlinear level, once the effects of the curved geometry are taken into account.)

Hence the field strength is constant on the brane, and the constant does not depend on the size of the brane. Since the total flux is quantized, this implies that the volume of the brane is quantized. This further implies that the mass and charge of the brane are quantized.

Note that this argument does not depend on the asymptotic geometry. It only requires that the local observer, sees branes that are interpretable as flat space branes in the large $`N`$ limit. Such an observer must necessarily see quantized charges. This is furthermore in agreement with Taylor’s argument in , where he argued that the semiclassical picture a la  should always result in quantized charges.

There is no inconsistency with the boundary state analysis. We have already shown that charges need not be quantized in asymptotically curved spaces. The only issue is whether there is a semiclassical description of the boundary states. Our analysis indicates that there is not such a description. More precisely, it would appear that the boundary states constructed in section 2 correspond to states in the semiclassical description where the flux on the brane is not quantized.

### 6.3 On the flat space S-matrix

The AdS/CFT correspondence provides a nonperturbative definition of string theory on $`AdS`$ spaces. It has been proposed  that this indirectly also provides a nonperturbative definition of string theory on flat space by considering a limit where the interaction region is small compared to the scale of the $`AdS`$ space. Intuitively, the curvature of the space should be invisible in this limit, and we should reproduce scattering in flat space.

However, if the BPS spectrum in the $`AdS`$ space differs from the flat space BPS spectrum, then the interactions will not be reproduced. The existence of the fractionally charged objects might then lead to a breakdown of the map from $`AdS`$ space to flat space.

This is most easily exhibited in the case of $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^3\times K3`$, when the K3 is taken to have a size $`l_s`$ (the string length), while $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^3`$ has a large radius $`kl_s`$ with $`k`$ large. If we consider interactions occurring in a small, string-scale sized local region of $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^3`$ , then we might expect to reproduce scattering in $`R^{5,1}\times K3`$.

Now in $`R^{5,1}\times K3`$ there are no bound states of two D0-branes. In $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^3\times K3`$, on the other hand there does exist such a state. This has a charge $`\frac{k}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{k}2`$ times the D0-brane charge. The semiclassical construction of  provides an explicit description of another state, which has charge exactly $`2`$ times the D0-brane charge. We know the size of this second state; it is of order $`l_s`$.

Now if either of these bound states appears in the interaction then it will produce a pole (or cut) in the $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^3\times K3`$ correlations which would not appear in the flat space S-matrix. This would then indicate that the flat space S-matrix would not be obtained as a limit of the $`AdS`$ scattering. Since the second state above has a small size, of order $`l_s`$, there is no obvious reason it should not appear in the interactions. This therefore seems to lead to a breakdown of the derivation of the flat space S-matrix (at least in this particular case, but similar issues exist in the cases with greater supersymmetry).

It would be very interesting to see if there is a way that this issue is resolved, or whether it is really the case that the flat space S-matrix cannot be obtained from the $`AdS`$ theory.

### 6.4 Charge quantization

Finally, we comment on the issue of charge quantization. Since we now have branes of charge $`\frac{k}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{k}<2`$, one can ask if two branes of charge 1 can decay to a bound state with the charge given above.

We wish to argue that this in fact cannot occur. The charge is still coupled to a massless gauge field. The consistency of the gauge transformation implies charge conservation. In other words, the lack of charge conservation leads to a gauge anomaly. This would appear to be fraught with difficulties.

It was argued in  that in fact one could find a transition between a set of separated D0-branes and a bound state which is of the form described in section (3). We have argued that in fact this new state is also integrally charged, and hence charge conservation is maintained. (A similar argument was given in ). Presumably there is no transition between separated D0-branes and a fractionally charged state.

## 7 Summary and Conclusions

We have presented a supergravity solution for branes in $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ which displays the fact that branes which are naively pointlike in the $`S^4`$ are in fact extended objects on the $`S^4`$. The existence of a constant flux on the worldvolume was found as a direct consequence of the supergravity solution. The construction works similarly for branes in other $`AdS`$ geometries.

Using this construction, we were able to resolve several confusing issues regarding these branes. We showed that the charges of these branes were not quantized despite the fact that they were coupled to a massless gauge field. This was because the curvature of the $`AdS`$ space led to an effective mass for the gauge field at long distances.

Furthermore, we were able to show that the semiclassical description  of this brane always produced integral charges. This is most directly seen in the construction we have given. Other calculations require a careful accounting of bulk charges and brane charges, which is automatically taken care of here.

Finally, we have commented on several other issues, including the problems of reproducing the flat space S-matrix, and charge conservation in these theories.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Two-dimensional quantum field theories with boundary have attracted attention for many years, as they play an important role in the analysis of low dimensional statistical systems near criticality or quantum gravity (open string approach). Solving integrable theories restricted on the half-line for various types of boundary is then of great interest. Among the known examples, the sine-Gordon model with a non-dynamical boundary has been shown to be integrable at classical level  as well as at quantum level . This has provided one of the simplest examples for which exact results such as factorized scattering theory, boundary spectrum, etc… have been derived.

Recently , an integrable Hamiltonian which describes a sine-Gordon model on the half-line coupled to a non-linear oscillator at the boundary has been shown to be integrable at classical level. Using a solution of the classical reflection equations (also called classical boundary Yang-Baxter equations) and following Sklyanin formalism we have obtained an infinite number of mutually commuting classical conserved quantities, provided some specific classical boundary conditions. The existence of such integrals of motion is a sufficient condition which ensures classical integrability of the model. Quantum integrability had remained an open question. Although a solution of the quantum reflection equations - quantum boundary Yang-Baxter equations (qBYBE) - had been proposed for a certain representation of the quantum $`R`$-matrix , there was no reason to believe that this solution could describe the soliton/antisoliton scattering process bouncing off the boundary.

Independently, the method of construction of non-local conserved charges in integrable models in the bulk  has been extended to non-dynamical boundary ones more recently. For instance, the sine-Gordon model  and the $`A_r^{(1)}`$ affine Toda theory with imaginary coupling  restricted to the half-line have been studied. The existence of such non-local conserved charges provides a useful tool to determine the scattering properties of the theory. Indeed, the explicit form of the $`S`$-matrix (soliton/antisoliton scattering) and the $`K`$-matrix (soliton/antisoliton scattering on the boundary) is encoded in the minimal solution of quantum Yang-Baxter equations (qYBE)s and qBYBEs, respectively.

In this paper, we study at quantum level the model introduced in . In section 2 we will show that quantum boundary conditions take a form similar to the classical boundary ones proposed in . Also, we will construct non-local conserved charges corresponding to our dynamical case, which are natural extensions of the known ones (non-dynamical) . In our case the non-local conserved charges generate a certain coideal subalgebra of $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ mixed with the Heisenberg one, where $`q`$ is the deformation parameter. Further, by specifying the representation for $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ we solve the corresponding intertwining equations. It provides a new solution $`K_0(\theta )`$ to the qBYBEs, different from the one proposed in .

In section 4, we use the minimal solution $`K_0(\theta )`$ of these equations 333These relations, in the dynamical case, are no longer linear in terms of the whole set of operators. to construct the soliton/antisoliton reflection matrix $`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta )`$ which describes the scattering of the sine-Gordon soliton/antisoliton off the dynamical boundary. In particular, taking the commutative limit of the Heisenberg algebra, we check that the “minimal” part reduces to the one obtained by Ghoshal-Zamolodchikov  and DeVega-Gonzales-Ruiz . In the generic noncommutative case, we show that $`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta )`$ is a solution of the qBYBEs associated with the sine-Gordon $`S`$-matrix. This shows consistency of the nonperturbative analysis based on non-local conserved charges approach. To determine uniquely $`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta )`$ we impose the boundary unitarity condition as well as the boundary cross-unitarity condition proposed in . Studying the singularities of the proposed reflection matrix we identify a finite set of boundary bound states. Then, we apply the bootstrap equation to construct explicitly the reflection matrices associated with bound states (breathers) scattering off the boundary.

As we are going to see, with the help of certain algebraic relations between Heisenberg operators the boundary unitarity condition is satisfied without specifying the boundary state structure. However, the boundary cross-unitarity condition leads to restrict its form in order to preserve certain “physical” principles. We identify the corresponding constraints: choosing a continuous representation for the boundary operators difference equations are obtained. They restrict the boundary state in two sectors, associated with “even” or “odd” breathers $`B_n`$.

Concluding remarks follow in the last section. There, following Corrigan  we use the so-called breather-particle identification to obtain the particle reflection factor in the boundary sinh-Gordon model with quantum degrees of freedom at the boundary. The result is found to be self-dual under the weak-strong coupling duality transformation $`b2/b`$.

## 2 Classical sine-Gordon field theory with a dynamical boundary

Let us first recapitulate some main results of  without details. There, we considered a Hamiltonian describing the interaction between a sine-Gordon field theory restricted to the half-line and a non-linear oscillator living at the boundary. The sine-Gordon part describes a relativistic 1+1 dimensional self-interacting bosonic field $`\varphi (x,t)`$ with mass $`m`$ and its conjugate field $`\pi (x,t)`$. The Hamiltonian reads

$`H_{SG}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi (x)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_x\varphi (x))^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\beta \varphi (x)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta ^2}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\beta \stackrel{~}{p}/\sqrt{2M_0m})e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}+\mathrm{cos}(\beta \sqrt{M_0m}\stackrel{~}{q}/2\sqrt{2})e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\right).`$
Expanding the oscillator part for small $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, these degrees of freedom can be interpreted as position and momentum variables, respectively. In this limit, it can be shown that the effective mass of the oscillator depends on the value of the field at the boundary and the parameter $`M_0`$.

At fixed time $`t`$ we introduced the Poisson bracket

$`\{𝒪_1,𝒪_2\}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒪_1}{\delta \pi (x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒪_2}{\delta \varphi (x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒪_1}{\delta \varphi (x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒪_2}{\delta \pi (x)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_1}{\stackrel{~}{p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_2}{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_1}{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_2}{\stackrel{~}{p}}}`$ (2)
for any observable $`𝒪_j`$ . At constant time slices the non-vanishing Poisson brackets in the sine-Gordon field theory and for the boundary variables $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ are, respectively

$`\{\pi (x),\varphi (y)\}=\delta (xy),\{\stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{q}\}=1`$ (3)
from which it is straightforward to calculate the equations of motion. However, in order to have the continuity of these equations on the left half-line $`]\mathrm{},0]`$, the equations for the field $`\pi (x)`$ leads to the classical boundary condition

$`_x\varphi (0)=i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{p}e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{q}e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}).`$ (4)
where we have introduced the reduced parameters $`\widehat{p}=\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2M_0m}}\stackrel{~}{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}=\frac{\beta \sqrt{M_0m}}{2\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{q}`$.

The model with Hamiltonian (2) is integrable: it is possible to construct an infinite number of higher spin integrals of motion that are in involution with each other. For instance, assuming the boundary condition above (4) the first non-trivial integral of motion reads

$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{16m^3}}(\pi (x)^4+6\pi (x)^2(_x\varphi (x))^2+(_x\varphi (x))^4){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{m^3}}((_x\pi (x))^2+(_x^2\varphi (x))^2)`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4m}}(\pi (x)^2+5(_x\varphi (x))^2)\mathrm{cos}\beta \varphi (x)+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{8}}\left(\mathrm{cos}2\beta \varphi (x)\right))dx+I_3^{boundary}`$
with

$`I_3^{boundary}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{3i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{q}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{cos}^3\widehat{q}\right)e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{p}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{q}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{p}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2m^2}}\pi (0)^2\mathrm{cos}\widehat{q}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`e^{3i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{p}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{cos}^3\widehat{p}\right)e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{p}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{q}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2m^2}}\pi (0)^2\mathrm{cos}\widehat{p}\right)`$
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{m}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{q}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{p}.`$
In general, this Hamiltonian is not real. Such kind of situation is typical in higher rank affine Toda theories with imaginary coupling for which the Hamiltonian is also non-hermitian. In these theories, the classical soliton solutions are found to be complex. Nevertheless, the energy of these configurations is real .

## 3 Quantum sine-Gordon field theory with a quantum boundary

Let us suppose that there exists a well-defined action describing the sine-Gordon (SG) field theory restricted on the half-line coupled with a quantum mechanical system at the boundary. To characterize the dynamics of the boundary we introduce, let say, two boundary operators $`_\pm (y)`$. We propose the following action

$`𝒜={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(_\nu \varphi )^22\mu \mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\beta }\varphi )\right)+\mu ^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\mathrm{\Phi }_{pert}^B(y)+𝒜_{boundary}`$ (6)
where the interaction between the field and the dimensionless boundary quantum operators reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{pert}^B(y)=_{}(y)e^{i\widehat{\beta }\varphi (0,y)/2}+_+(y)e^{i\widehat{\beta }\varphi (0,y)/2}`$
and $`𝒜_{boundary}`$ is the kinetic part associated with the boundary operators. Here we used the notation $`\widehat{\beta }=\beta /\sqrt{4\pi }`$. In the deep UV, this model can be considered as a relevant perturbation of a conformal field theory (for instance the free Gaussian field) on the semi-infinite plane with certain boundary conditions at $`x=0`$. In the limit 444As we will see later, integrability of the QFT (6) requires that one can not turn on the boundary perturbation independently of $`\mu `$. $`\mu =0`$ Neumann boundary conditions $`_x\varphi |_{x=0}=0`$ preserve integrability. If one turns on the boundary perturbation ($`\mu 0`$), following the arguments of  we expect that a quantum analogue of the classical integral of motion (5) can be constructed explicitly. Obviously, the boundary operators $`\widehat{}_\pm (y)`$ will have to satisfy certain algebraic relations in order to preserve integrability at quantum level too. Even if we do not construct explicitly such local quantum conserved charges here, analysis of following sections will support integrability of the model.

There are two alternative description 555It seems important to us to recall the analysis of . of the model (6). On one hand, one can choose the $`y`$-direction to be the “time” in which case the Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ contains the boundary contribution, and the Hilbert space $`_B`$ is identified with the half-line $`y=Const.`$. Then, correlation functions are calculated over the ground state of $`H_B`$, denoted $`|0_B`$ below.

On the other hand, one can choose the infinite line $`x=Const.`$ as the “equal time section”. The Hamiltonian in this case is the same as in the bulk theory on the full line with Hilbert space $``$. The boundary at $`x=0`$ plays the role of initial condition, and all its information is encoded in the boundary state $`|B`$. Correlation functions are written as $`0|\mathrm{}|B`$ where $`|0`$ is a (degenerate) ground state of $``$. Notice that the existence of local integrals of motion $`^{(s)},\overline{}^{(s)}`$ for certain values of $`s`$ implies

$`(^{(s)}\overline{}^{(s)})|B=0.`$ (7)
In the perturbed boundary conformal field theory (BCFT) approach, the free bosonic fundamental field restricted to the half-line can be written in terms of its holomorphic/anti-holomorphic components

$`\varphi (x,y)=\phi (z)+\overline{\phi }(\overline{z}).`$
If we denote the expectation value in the BCFT with Neumann boundary conditions $`\mathrm{}_0`$, then the holomorphic components are normalized such that

$`\phi (z)\phi (w)_0=2\mathrm{ln}(zw),\overline{\phi }(\overline{z})\overline{\phi }(\overline{w})_0=2\mathrm{ln}(\overline{z}\overline{w}),\phi (z)\overline{\phi }(\overline{w})_0=2\mathrm{ln}(z\overline{w}).`$
To find the boundary conditions at quantum level, we can consider the expectation value of the local field $`_x\varphi (0,y)`$ with any other local field in first order of boundary conformal perturbation theory $`\mu 0`$. Due to the presence of the boundary operators $`_\pm (y)`$, we write the ground state $`|0_B`$ as

$`|0_B=|vac_B|0_{BCFT}+𝒪(\mu ),`$ (8)
where $`|0_{BCFT}_{BCFT}`$ and $`|vac_B`$ denotes the effective boundary ground state which satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$`H(_+,_{})|vac_B=E_{0,B}^{eff}|vac_B`$ (9)
with effective ground state 666Taking the perturbative limit $`\widehat{\beta }0`$ and using an explicit realization of the boundary operators in terms of Heisenberg operators (see further sections), one can show that the “pure” boundary wave function satisfies certain difference equations. energy $`E_{0,B}^{eff}`$. Here, $`H(_+,_{})`$ is an effective boundary Hamiltonian. In this approximation, following the analysis of  with eqs. (3) it is straightforward to show that, in first order of boundary conformal perturbation theory, the quantum boundary condition takes a form similar to the classical one. Furthermore, using scaling arguments 777Dimensions of both side must be equal. Due to the form of the perturbing operator one finds that the only term that can appear on the right hand side must be linear in the parameter $`\mu `$. All other terms must vanishes. it is possible to show that this condition is satisfied at all order in perturbation theory. It reads

$`{}_{B}{}^{}0|_x\varphi (0,y)\mathrm{}|0_{B}^{}=i2\pi \widehat{\beta }\mu _B^{1/2}0|(_{}(y)e^{i\widehat{\beta }\varphi (0,y)/2}_+(y)e^{i\widehat{\beta }\varphi (0,y)/2})\mathrm{}|0_B.`$ (10)
The method of constructing non-local conserved charges in the model (6) follows the line presented in . So, we refer the reader to this paper for more details. Here, the main difference is that $`_\pm (y)`$ are operators. If we denote the “bulk” non-local charges

$`Q_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x(J_\pm H_\pm ),\overline{Q}_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x(\overline{J}_\pm \overline{H}_\pm ),`$
they can be expressed in terms of holomorphic/anti-holomorphic part of vertex operators as 888On the contrary to , here we denote the fundamental field one the whole line $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x,y)`$ and the one restricted to the half-line $`\varphi (x,y)`$. Then, the chiral components are related in the following way: $`\phi (x,y)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x,y)+\stackrel{~}{\overline{\phi }}(x,y),\overline{\phi }(x,y)=\stackrel{~}{\overline{\phi }}(x,y)+\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x,y)`$.

$`J_\pm =:\mathrm{exp}(\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\widehat{\beta }}}\stackrel{~}{\phi }):\text{and}H_\pm =4\pi \mu {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\beta }^2}{\widehat{\beta }^22}}:\mathrm{exp}(\pm i({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{\beta }}}\widehat{\beta })\stackrel{~}{\phi }i\widehat{\beta }\stackrel{~}{\overline{\phi }}):,`$
$`\overline{J}_\pm =:\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\widehat{\beta }}}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\phi }}):\text{and}\overline{H}_\pm =4\pi \mu {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\beta }^2}{\widehat{\beta }^22}}:\mathrm{exp}(i({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{\beta }}}\widehat{\beta })\stackrel{~}{\overline{\phi }}i\widehat{\beta }\stackrel{~}{\phi }):.`$
Together with the “bulk” topological charge $`T_{bulk}=\frac{\widehat{\beta }}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ they generate the quantum enveloping algebra $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$. In the theory on the half-line, these charges are no longer conserved. Instead, using (8) and the method of  it is straightforward to show that the two combinations

$`\widehat{Q}_\pm =Q_\pm +\overline{Q}_{}+\widehat{}_\pm (y)q^T\text{with}T={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\beta }}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x_x\varphi `$ (11)
and

$`\widehat{}_\pm (y)=\mu ^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\beta }^2}{1\widehat{\beta }^2}}_\pm (y)`$ (12)
are conserved to all orders in boundary conformal perturbation theory framework. Here, the deformation parameter is defined by

$`q\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi /\widehat{\beta }^2).`$ (13)
As the sine-Gordon model possesses a single two dimensional soliton multiplet denoted by $`|\psi _\pm (\theta )`$, we are now interested in two dimensional representations of $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ on asymptotic soliton states, denoted $`\pi _\theta `$ below. Here, $`\theta `$ denotes the rapidity of the soliton/antisoliton. To determine the meaner in which non-local conserved charges (11) are represented on asymptotic single-soliton states, we use the notation of . Furthermore, in the asymptotic limit $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$ on the boundary we will assume

$`\widehat{}_+(y=\pm \mathrm{})\widehat{}_+\text{and}\widehat{}_{}(y=\pm \mathrm{})\widehat{}_{}.`$ (14)
In the first Hamiltonian picture $`y`$ is identified with the time axis. In other words, the condition (14) means that boundary operators lead to the same operators in the far past and future. We must keep in mind that $`\widehat{}_\pm `$ are operators satisfying $`[\widehat{}_\pm ,g]=0`$ and $`\pi _\theta (\widehat{}_\pm g)=\widehat{}_\pm \pi _\theta (g)`$, $`gU_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$. Thus we have

$`\pi _\theta (\widehat{Q}_\pm )_+^+=\widehat{}_\pm q^1,\pi _\theta (\widehat{Q}_\pm )_{}^+=ce^{\pm \lambda \theta },\pi _\theta (\widehat{Q}_\pm )_+^{}=ce^{\lambda \theta },\pi _\theta (\widehat{Q}_\pm )_{}^{}=\widehat{}_\pm q^{\pm 1}`$
with

$`\lambda =2/\widehat{\beta }^21\text{and}c^2=i2\mu (q^21)/\lambda ^2.`$ (15)
For the remaining symmetry algebra of the QFT (6) generated by the non-local conserved charges given above (11) we are looking for a solution to the intertwining equation

$`K_{0}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{\delta }(\theta )\pi _\theta (\widehat{Q}_\pm )_\zeta ^\nu =\pi _\theta (\widehat{Q}_\pm )_\nu ^\delta K_{0}^{}{}_{\zeta }{}^{\nu }(\theta )`$ (16)
where indices $`\{\delta ,\nu ,\zeta \}\{\pm \}`$ refer to two dimensional representations of $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$ on asymptotic soliton states $`|\psi _\pm (\theta )`$. Then, using this representation the solution $`K_0(\theta )`$ is written as a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with entries expressed in terms of the boundary operators. In the non-dynamical case, the entries are just analytic functions of $`\theta `$ as $`_\pm `$ are $`c`$numbers. For further convenience, let us define

$`K_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{+}(\theta )=A(\theta ),K_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}(\theta )=B(\theta ),`$
$`K_{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}(\theta )=D(\theta ),K_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta )=E(\theta ).`$ (17)
After some calculations, we find that the entries of the minimal solution $`K_0(\theta )`$ of the intertwining property (16) takes the following form:

$`A(\theta )=\left(q^1e^{\lambda \theta }\widehat{}_+qe^{\lambda \theta }\widehat{}_{}\right)(qq^1)/2c,`$
$`E(\theta )=\left(q^1e^{\lambda \theta }\widehat{}_{}qe^{\lambda \theta }\widehat{}_+\right)(qq^1)/2c,`$
$`B(\theta )=\left(c^2q^1e^{2\lambda \theta }c^2qe^{2\lambda \theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{qq^1}{q+q^1}}(q^1\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_+q\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_{})\right)/2c^2,`$
$`D(\theta )=\left(c^2q^1e^{2\lambda \theta }c^2qe^{2\lambda \theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{qq^1}{q+q^1}}(q\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_++q^1\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_{})\right)/2c^2,`$ (18)
if the boundary operators satisfy certain commutation relations with the entries $`B(\theta )`$ and $`D(\theta )`$. Among these, we obtain the commutation relation 999For generic values of the coupling and explicit boundary operators dependence in the boundary scattering description, this condition is necessary. Also, we do not assume specific values of the coupling here (e.g. free fermion point, reflectionless point), for which new solutions may be constructed.

$`[\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_{},\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_+]=c^2(q+q^1)^2\left(\widehat{}_+^2\widehat{}_{}^2\right).`$ (19)
Here, we propose a realization of the boundary operators at $`y=\pm \mathrm{}`$ in terms of operators $`\{\widehat{p},\widehat{q}\}`$ which belong to the Heisenberg algebra $`[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]\alpha `$ in order to have (19) satisfied. Due to (14) we denote $`\widehat{p}(\pm \mathrm{})\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}(\pm \mathrm{})\widehat{q}`$. Indeed, one can check that setting 101010Notice that this solution also works, obviously, if one changes $`\alpha \alpha `$.

$`\widehat{}_+=\pm 2e_{UV}\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{p}\text{and}\widehat{}_{}=\pm 2e_{UV}\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{q}\text{where}\pm q=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha /2)`$ (20)
with the normalization $`e_{UV}^2=c^2/(qq^1)^2`$, all the equations (16) can be satisfied for a certain relation between the SG coupling constant and the boundary quantization length $`\alpha `$. However, according to eqs. (20) there is an ambiguity in the definition of the sign of the boundary perturbation. Depending on each sign, the boundary quantization length is fixed to

$`[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha mod(4i\pi )\text{with}\alpha =i4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\beta }^21)}{\widehat{\beta }^2}}(+)\text{or}\alpha =i2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\beta }^22)}{\widehat{\beta }^2}}().`$ (21)
In the model (6) with (12) and (20), $`e_{UV}`$ is fixed by the “bulk” non-local conserved charges algebraic structure which gives

$`e_{UV}^2={\displaystyle \frac{i2(1q^2)}{\lambda ^2(qq^1)^2}}\mu `$ (22)
To relate the UV parameter $`e_{UV}`$ and the IR soliton mass parameter $`M`$ we can use their exact relation calculated in :

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{\beta }^2/2)}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }((2\widehat{\beta }^2)/2)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+1/2\lambda )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2\lambda )}}\right]^{2\widehat{\beta }^2}.`$ (23)
It follows that the strength of the boundary perturbation is fixed by the bulk soliton mass $`M`$. This is consistent with the classical model (2) in the sense that the only free parameter is the mass $`m`$111111Whatever the mass of the effective oscillator is, the relevant quantity is its frequency $`\omega =m/2`$ . Using the particle-breather identification, one can relate $`m`$ associated with the lightest breather with the mass $`m`$ of the fundamental particle.. In other words, choosing an arbitrary boundary mass would destroy integrability. Physically, this phenomena is not so surprising: to preserve integrability the effects brought by the SG model and the non-linear oscillator (energy transfer, for instance) have to compensate each other, which is characterized by the exact relation between the quantization length $`\alpha `$ and the SG coupling constant in (21).

At specific values of the SG coupling constant $`\widehat{\beta }^2=2/(n+1)`$ with $`n`$ the operators $`\widehat{}_\pm `$ commute, and we have $`q^2=1`$. Then, there is no need to assume some special relation involving $`c`$ and the boundary parameters like (19), and $`\widehat{}_\pm `$ remain free. Consequently, $`K_0(\theta )`$ is reduced to a $`2\times 2`$ matrix where $`\widehat{}_\pm `$ are $`c`$numbers. Expanding $`K_0(\theta )`$ in powers of $`(q^21)`$ we obtain

$`K_0(\theta )2\mathrm{cosh}(2\lambda \theta )/(qq^1)+iK_{nondyn}^{min}(\theta ),`$
where $``$ is the $`2\times 2`$ permutation matrix. The first (singular) term is a trivial solution of the intertwining property (16) whereas the second term is the minimal reflection matrix obtained by Ghoshal-Zamolodchikov and DeVega-Gonzales-Ruiz .

## 4 Boundary Yang-Baxter equations and factorized scattering theory

For the coupling constant $`\widehat{\beta }^2<2`$, the bulk sine-Gordon model in 1+1 Minkowski space-time is massive and integrable. The particle spectrum consists of a soliton/antisoliton pair $`(\psi _+(\theta ),\psi _{}(\theta ))`$ with mass $`M`$ and neutral particles, called “breathers”, $`B_n(\theta )`$ $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},<\lambda `$. As usual, $`E=M\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$ and $`P=M\mathrm{sinh}\theta `$ the energy and momentum, respectively, of the soliton/antisoliton. In this model, $``$ is the Fock space of multiparticle states. A general $`N`$-particles state is generated by the “particle creation operators” $`A_{a_i}(\theta _i)`$

$`|A_{a_1}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{a_N}(\theta _N)=A_{a_1}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{a_N}(\theta _N)|0`$ (24)
where $`a_i`$ characterizes the type of particle. The commutation relations between these operators are determined by the $`S`$-matrix elements, which describe the factorized scattering theory . Integrability imposes strong constraints on the system which implies that the $`S`$-matrix has to satisfy the quantum Yang-Baxter equations. For instance, the SG soliton/antisoliton scattering $`S`$-matrix can be written as

$`S_{SG}(\theta )=R(\theta )\rho (i\theta )/i,`$ (25)
where we introduced the four dimensional representation of the trigonometric solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation written in terms of the standard Pauli matrices $`\sigma _k`$, $`k=1,2,3`$:

$`R(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{a(\theta )}{2}}\left(II+\sigma _3\sigma _3\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b(\theta )}{2}}\left(II\sigma _3\sigma _3\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{c(\theta )}{2}}\left(\sigma _1\sigma _1+\sigma _2\sigma _2\right)`$ (26)
with

$`a(\theta )=\mathrm{sinh}(i\lambda \pi \lambda \theta ),b(\theta )=\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \theta ),c(\theta )=\mathrm{sinh}(i\lambda \pi ).`$
The amplitudes $`b(\theta )`$ and $`c(\theta )`$ possess simple poles in the physical strip $`0<\theta <i\pi `$ located at $`\theta _n=i\pi in\pi /\lambda `$ for $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}<\lambda `$. They are interpreted as the neutral bound state (breather) $`B_n`$. The factor $`\rho (u)`$ in (25) ensures unitarity and crossing symmetry of the $`S`$-matrix. It reads

$`\rho (u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\lambda +\lambda u/\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_l(u)F_l(\pi u)}{F_l(0)F_l(\pi )}},`$ (27)
with

$`F_l(u)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2l\lambda \lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2l\lambda \lambda u/\pi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((2l+1)\lambda \lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+(2l1)\lambda \lambda u/\pi )}}.`$
Using the bootstrap equation, the amplitudes associated with (anti)soliton-breather $`\psi _\pm B_n`$ and breather-breather $`B_nB_m`$ scattering have been calculated in .

### 4.1 Soliton reflection matrix for the dynamical boundary

Taking the first Hamiltonian picture, we can consider $`y=it`$ in the QFT (6). If one uses the approach of , asymptotic states are now generated using $`A_a(\theta )`$ acting on the ground state $`|0_B_B`$. For boundary integrable field theories, the action of the creation operator on the boundary is characterized by the reflection matrix. It describes the scattering of the soliton/antisoliton on the boundary and is constrained by the so-called reflection equations, i.e. qBYBEs for a certain choice of representation. Depending of the quantization condition in (21) which determines the sign $`ϵ\{\pm \}`$ of the boundary operators (20) - the sine-Gordon reflection matrix $`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta )`$ must satisfy the qBYBEs

$`R(\theta \theta ^{})\stackrel{1}{K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}}(\theta )R(\theta +\theta ^{})\stackrel{2}{K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}}(\theta ^{})=\stackrel{2}{K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}}(\theta ^{})R(\theta +\theta ^{})\stackrel{1}{K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}}(\theta )R(\theta \theta ^{})`$ (28)
where we used the notations $`\stackrel{1}{K}=KI`$, $`\stackrel{2}{K}=IK`$. Recalling the definition of the entries (17) we have fourteen functional equations:

$`(i)`$ $`a_{}c_+\left(BD^{}B^{}D\right)+a_{}a_+[A,A^{}]=0,`$
$`(ii)`$ $`b_{}b_+[A,E^{}]+c_{}c_+[E,E^{}]+c_{}a_+\left(DB^{}D^{}B\right)=0,`$
$`(iii)`$ $`c_{}b_+\left(EA^{}E^{}A\right)+b_{}c_+\left(AA^{}E^{}E\right)+b_{}a_+[B,D^{}]=0,`$
$`(iv)`$ $`b_{}b_+AD^{}+c_{}c_+ED^{}+c_{}a_+DA^{}a_{}a_+D^{}Aa_{}c_+E^{}D=0,`$
$`(v)`$ $`b_{}b_+B^{}A+c_{}c_+B^{}E+c_{}a_+A^{}Ba_{}a_+AB^{}a_{}c_+BE^{}=0,`$
$`(vi)`$ $`b_{}b_+D^{}E+c_{}c_+D^{}A+c_{}a_+E^{}Da_{}a_+ED^{}a_{}c_+DA^{}=0,`$
$`(vii)`$ $`b_{}b_+EB^{}+c_{}c_+AB^{}+c_{}a_+BE^{}a_{}a_+B^{}Ea_{}c_+A^{}B=0,`$
$`(viii)`$ $`b_{}a_+BE^{}+c_{}b_+EB^{}+b_{}c_+AB^{}a_{}b_+E^{}B=0,`$
$`(ix)`$ $`b_{}a_+A^{}B+c_{}b_+B^{}A+b_{}c_+B^{}Ea_{}b_+BA^{}=0,`$
$`(x)`$ $`b_{}a_+E^{}D+c_{}b_+D^{}E+b_{}c_+D^{}Aa_{}b_+DE^{}=0,`$
$`(xi)`$ $`b_{}a_+DA^{}+c_{}b_+AD^{}+b_{}c_+ED^{}a_{}b_+A^{}D=0,`$
where we used the shorthand notations $`a_{}=a(\theta \theta ^{})`$, $`a_+=a(\theta +\theta ^{})`$ and similarly for $`b`$ and $`c`$ as well as $`A=A(\theta )`$ and $`A^{}=A(\theta ^{})`$ and similarly for $`B,D`$ and $`E`$. The remaining three equations are obtained from $`(i)`$, $`(ii)`$, $`(iii)`$ through the substitutions $`AE`$ and $`BD`$. Straightforward calculations show that $`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta )`$ takes a form similar to $`K_0(\theta )`$. Indeed, the reflection matrix in the dynamical boundary case can be written

$`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta )=K_0^{(ϵ)}(\theta )Y(\theta ),`$ (29)
where the function $`Y(\theta )`$ has to be determined using some physical assumptions (see below). In the two dimensional representation of $`U_q(\widehat{sl_2})`$, the matrix $`K_0^{(ϵ)}`$ is obtained from (18) with the following substitutions 121212Notice that for specific values of the SG coupling constant such that $`q`$ is a root of unity, it is easy to construct a finite dimensional representation for the operators $`A`$, $`B`$, $`D`$, $`E`$ in the reflection matrix.:

$`\widehat{}_+ϵ\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{p},\widehat{}_{}ϵ\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{q},qe^{i\pi \lambda }\text{and}c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \lambda ).`$ (30)
Here, the quantization condition is given in (21). In , Ghoshal and Zamolodchikov proposed the use of the “boundary unitarity” and “boundary cross-unitarity” conditions to determine the overall factor $`Y(\theta )`$ associated with a non-dynamical boundary. Then, let us first consider the boundary unitarity condition. Independently of any representation for the boundary ground state $`|0_B`$, in our case it is natural to consider the combination of operators

$`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}{}_{c}{}^{a}(\theta )K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}{}_{b}{}^{c}(\theta )=\delta _b^a𝕀\text{with}\{a,b,c\}\{\pm \}`$ (31)
as a generalization to the dynamical boundary case of the condition associated with the non-dynamical one. Here, the operator $`𝕀`$ denotes the identity which acts trivially on the boundary ground state. In terms of the entries defined in (17) these relations becomes

$`A(\theta )A(\theta )+B(\theta )D(\theta )=𝕀/Y(\theta )Y(\theta ),`$
$`D(\theta )B(\theta )+E(\theta )E(\theta )=𝕀/Y(\theta )Y(\theta ),`$
$`A(\theta )B(\theta )+B(\theta )E(\theta )=0,`$
$`D(\theta )A(\theta )+E(\theta )D(\theta )=0.`$
As the entries are noncommuting between each others, in general one would expect the product (31) to be ill-defined. However, due to the specific form of the boundary operators one can show that changing $`\theta \theta `$ does not affect the relations above. Also, the first two relations give the same result. Then, using algebraic relations like

$`(q^2+q^2)\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_+^2\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_+^2=c^2(q+q^1)^2\widehat{}_{},`$
$`(q^2+q^2)\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_{}\widehat{}_+\widehat{}_{}^2\widehat{}_{}^2\widehat{}_+=c^2(q+q^1)^2\widehat{}_+`$
after some calculations we arrive at the condition

$`Y(\theta )Y(\theta )=\left[\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\lambda \theta )\mathrm{sinh}^2(i\pi \lambda )\right]^1.`$ (32)
Compared to the non-dynamical boundary sine-Gordon, the situation here is rather simple: there are no free parameters left in the unitarity condition (32) appart from the coupling constant $`\widehat{\beta }^2`$ which appears through $`\lambda `$.

Let us now consider the boundary cross-unitarity condition. In the alternative Hamiltonian description, $`x`$ is now interpreted as “time” and the space of states is the same as in the bulk theory, i.e. $``$. The “initial” (boundary) condition at $`x=0`$ is encoded in $`|B`$. If the theory is integrable (7) must be satisfied. It follows that $`|B`$ is a superposition of asymptotic states of the bulk theory constituted by pairs of particles of equal mass but opposite rapidities . Thus, we define the boundary state as

$`|B=𝒩\left(|\text{B}_0+{\displaystyle \underset{\{n\}}{}}g^nB_n(0)|\text{B}_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\theta K_{}^{(ϵ)}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{b}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\theta )A_a(\theta )A_b(\theta )|\text{B}_{ab}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (33)
Here $`𝒩`$ is a normalization coefficient and the states $`|\text{B}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}𝒱_\text{B}`$ where $`𝒱_\text{B}`$ is a representation for boundary operators. The second term corresponds to the contribution from the zero-momentum particles, namely the breathers. The coefficients $`g^n`$ indicate their contribution. Considering in particular the soliton scattering, arguments of  can be applied and we assume the boundary cross-unitarity condition

$`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{b}(i\pi /2\theta )=S_{SG}^{}{}_{a^{}b^{}}{}^{ab}(2\theta )K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}{}_{\overline{b}^{}}{}^{a^{}}(i\pi /2+\theta ),`$ (34)
as the “$`in`$” and “$`out`$” states are related through the $`S`$-matrix. Notice that this relation is linear in the boundary operators. For simplicity, let us introduce two meromorphic functions $`Y_0(\theta )`$ and $`Y_1(\theta )`$ which solve the functional equations ($`ui\theta `$):

$`Y_0(\theta )Y_0(\theta )=1\text{and}Y_0(i\pi /2\theta )=\mathrm{sin}(\lambda (\pi 2u))\rho (2u)Y_0(i\pi /2+\theta );`$
$`Y_1(\theta )Y_1(\theta )=\left[\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\lambda \theta )\mathrm{sinh}^2(i\pi \lambda )\right]^1\text{and}Y_1(i\pi /2\theta )=Y_1(i\pi /2+\theta ).`$
Then, it is not difficult to show that for the choice

$`Y(\theta )=Y_0(\theta )Y_1(\theta )`$ (35)
in (29), the boundary unitarity and boundary cross-unitarity conditions are satisfied. Following Ghoshal-Zamolodchikov notations we finally obtain

$`Y_0(\theta )=R_0(u)G_0(u)`$ (36)
where we used

$`R_0(u)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4\lambda k2\lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+4\lambda (k1)2\lambda u/\pi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda (4k3)2\lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\lambda (4k1)2\lambda u/\pi )}}/(uu)\right]`$
and we introduced

$`G_0(u)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+(4k2)\lambda 2\lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }((4k2)\lambda 2\lambda u/\pi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((4k4)\lambda 2\lambda u/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+4k\lambda 2\lambda u/\pi )}}/(uu)\right].`$
Notice that the factor $`R_0(u)`$ contains poles in the “physical strip” $`0<u<\pi /2`$ located at $`u_n=n\pi /2\lambda `$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{}<\lambda `$ . They are associated with zero-momentum soliton-antisoliton bound states (see last section). Also, we find

$`Y_1(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\pi /2+\pi \lambda /2,u)\sigma (\pi \lambda /2,u)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \lambda )}}`$ (37)
where

$`\sigma (x,v)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}x}{\mathrm{cos}(x+\lambda v)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+(2l1)\lambda +x/\pi \lambda v/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+(2l1)\lambda x/\pi \lambda v/\pi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+(2l2)\lambda x/\pi \lambda v/\pi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+2l\lambda +x/\pi \lambda v/\pi )}}/(vv)\right]`$
satisfies the relations

$`\sigma (x,v)\sigma (x,v)=\mathrm{cos}^2x/(\mathrm{cos}(x+\lambda v)\mathrm{cos}(x\lambda v)),\sigma (x,\pi /2v)=\sigma (x,\pi /2+v).`$
From (29) it is clear that there are no resonance states in comparison with the non-dynamical SG model. However, the factors $`\sigma (\pi /2+\pi \lambda /2,u)`$ and $`\sigma (\pi \lambda /2,u)`$ brings an infinite number of singularities at real values of $`u`$. In the “physical strip” $`0<u<\pi /2`$, depending on the value of the SG coupling constant, they are located at:

$`u_k^{even}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{\lambda }}\text{for}0<k<{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\text{and}u_k^{odd}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)\pi }{2\lambda }}\text{for}0<k<{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +1}{2}}.`$
Denoting $`E_0`$ as the ground state energy, we identify these poles as boundary bound states with energy $`E_k^{_{odd}^{even}}E_0=M\mathrm{cos}(u_k^{_{odd}^{even}})`$. For any $`k`$, we conclude that the boundary bound states are stable.

### 4.2 Bound state reflection matrix for the dynamical boundary

Above, we considered the reflection matrix of the soliton/antisoliton off the boundary. We now turn to the reflection matrix of the bound states (breathers) $`B_n(\theta )`$. To calculate it, we use the boundary bootstrap method introduced in  and mainly follow . Using “particle creation” operator formalism, the reflection matrix defines the commutation relation

$`B_n(\theta )B=R_B^{(n)}B_n(\theta )B`$
where $`B_n(\theta )`$ creates the bound state $`B_n`$ with rapidity $`\theta `$. Then, the boundary bootstrap equation reads

$`f_{i_1i_2}^nK_{SG}^{(ϵ)}{}_{j_1}{}^{i_1}(\theta +\theta _n/2)S_{SG}^{}{}_{j_2f_1}{}^{i_2j_1}(2\theta )K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}{}_{f_2}{}^{j_2}(\theta \theta _n/2)=f_{f_1f_2}^nR_B^{(n)}(\theta )`$ (38)
where $`f_{i_1i_2}^n`$ are vertices satisfying $`f_+^n(1)^n=f_+^n`$ and $`f_{\pm \pm }^n=0`$. Furthermore, the solution of (38) has to satisfy the boundary unitarity and boundary cross-unitarity conditions

$`R_B^{(n)}(\theta )R_B^{(n)}(\theta )=𝕀,`$
$`R_B^{(n)}(i\pi /2\theta )=R_B^{(n)}(i\pi /2+\theta )S^{(n,n)}(2\theta ),`$ (39)
respectively. Here, $`S^{(n,n)}(2\theta )`$ denotes the scattering amplitude for $`B_n+B_nB_n+B_n`$ process . In particular, it possesses a pole in the physical strip located at $`\theta =n\pi /2\lambda `$. It is straightforward to show that

$`Y_0(\theta +\theta _n/2)Y_0(\theta \theta _n/2)\rho (2i\theta )/i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda \theta i\lambda \pi )}}R_0^{(n)}(u)S^{(n)}(0,u)S^{(n)}(\pi /2,u),`$
$`Y_1(\theta +\theta _n/2)Y_1(\theta \theta _n/2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda \theta )\mathrm{sinh}(2\lambda \theta 2i\lambda \pi )}}S^{(n)}(\pi /2+\pi \lambda /2,u)S^{(n)}(\pi \lambda /2,u).`$
Here we used the notations of  i.e.

$`R_0^{(n)}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(1+\frac{n}{2\lambda }\right)}{\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{n}{2\lambda }\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{l}{2\lambda }\right)\left(1+\frac{l}{2\lambda }\right)}{\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{l}{2\lambda }\right)^2}}\text{and}S^{(n)}(x,u)={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{x}{\lambda \pi }\frac{1}{2}+\frac{n2l1}{2\lambda }\right)}{\left(\frac{x}{\lambda \pi }+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{n2l1}{2\lambda }\right)}}`$
where we have the shorthand notation $`\left(x\right)=\mathrm{sin}(u/2+x\pi /2)/\mathrm{sin}(u/2x\pi /2)`$. Taking into account the non-diagonal part of the soliton reflection matrix, we finally obtain after some calculations the result

$`R_B^{(n)}(\theta )=(1)^nR_0^{(n)}(u)S^{(n)}(0,u)S^{(n)}(\pi /2,u)S^{(n)}(\pi \lambda /2+\pi /2,u)S^{(n)}(\pi \lambda /2,u)`$ (40)
which, clearly, does not depend on the boundary operators $`\widehat{}_\pm `$. As expected, the factor $`R_0^{(n)}(u)`$ contains the poles in the physical strip located at $`u_n=\pi /2n\pi /2\lambda `$ for $`\lambda >1`$. They are associated with the breather-breather bound states $`B_{2n}`$.

### 4.3 Restriction of the boundary state

Up to now, we only considered the scattering properties without imposing any restriction beyond (7) to the boundary state $`|B`$. However, it is necessary to exclude those which would violate certain physical principles, i.e. it must be in accordance with the SG scattering processes. For instance, the term $`R_0(i\theta )`$ in eq. (35) contains poles in the “physical strip” $`0<\theta <i\pi /2`$ located at $`\theta _n=in\pi /2\lambda `$; $`n=1,\mathrm{}<\lambda `$. They are associated with the zero-momentum breathers $`B_n(0)`$ that should appear as bound states of soliton-antisoliton. At these values of the rapidity any off-diagonal entry of (29) which appears in (33) applied to a state $`|\text{B}_n`$ will not, in general, give a null result. As breathers are neutral, the state $`|\text{B}_n`$ must however be a null vector of $`B(\theta _n)`$ and $`D(\theta _n)`$, i.e it must obey the condition

$`B(\theta _n)|\text{B}_n=0\text{and}D(\theta _n)|\text{B}_n=0`$ (41)
for all $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}<\lambda `$. In the non-dynamical boundary case  this was trivially satisfied due to the form of the off-diagonal entries. Combining these two conditions we obtain

$`[\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{p},\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{q}]|\text{B}_n=0\text{and}\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{p}\mathrm{cosh}\widehat{q}|\text{B}_n=(1)^n\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi \lambda )|\text{B}_n.`$ (42)
To characterize each state $`|\text{B}_n`$ explicitly, we introduce the one dimensional “space” representation $`\{|\text{x}\}`$ for the Heisenberg operators defined by

$`\widehat{p}|\text{x}=2i\pi \lambda /\text{x},\widehat{q}|\text{x}=\text{x}|\text{x}\text{and}\text{x}|\text{B}_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n(i\text{x}/\pi ).`$ (43)
From the first equation in (42), it is straightforward to obtain a difference equation satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y})`$ for $`\text{y}=i\text{x}/\pi `$. Obviously, at that stage $`n`$ does not appear explicitly. It reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y}+2\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y}2\lambda )}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi (\text{y}\lambda ))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi (\text{y}+\lambda ))}}.`$ (44)
Up to an irrelevant overall constant, it can be solved by the integral representation

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y})=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2((\text{y}1/2)t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{cosh}(2\lambda t)}}\text{for}e(\text{y})<1+\lambda `$ (45)
and is defined through analytic continuation otherwise. The second equation will fix the “allowed” values of y. It reads

$`(1)^n2\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi \lambda )\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y})=\mathrm{cos}(\pi \text{y})\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y}2\lambda )+\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y}+2\lambda )\right)\text{for}\text{y}\{\text{y}^{(n)}\}.`$ (46)
The condition (46) is divided into two sectors, “odd” $`n`$ breathers and “even” $`n`$ breathers. Then, using the definition (45) the boundary state $`|\text{B}_n`$ can be decomposed on the finite set of elementary “odd” and “even” states $`n\{2p,2p+1\}`$ with $`|\text{B}_n=\text{N}_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n(\text{y}^{(n)})|\text{y}^{(n)}`$ ($`\text{N}_n`$ are some normalization constants) which, due to (33), implies that $`K_{SG}^{(ϵ)}(\theta _n)|\text{B}_n`$ will be automatically block diagonal.

Notice that in the commutative limit $`\lambda =0`$ in (44) the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(y)`$ remains arbitrary and (46) leads to $`y=n`$. In other words, the boundary state $`|B`$ is not restricted anymore in agreement with .

## 5 Concluding remarks

As was suggested in , boundary integrable quantum field theories including degrees of freedom at the boundary can be constructed. Here, we provide such an example corresponding to a sine-Gordon quantum field theory coupled to a non-linear quantum oscillator at the boundary, which follows the work initiated in . For certain boundary conditions, integrability of the model is preserved at quantum level for an exact relation between the sine-Gordon coupling constant and the boundary quantization length. In particular, this later quantity fixes the overall sign of the boundary perturbation. The corresponding soliton/antisoliton reflection scattering matrix $`K_{SG}^{(\pm )}(\theta )`$ is constructed explicitly using an extension to the dynamical boundary case of the method based on boundary non-local conserved charges . Bound state reflection matrices are also constructed explicitly. Using some physical constraints, the general form of the boundary state is shown to be restricted.

To study this model further, extensions to the dynamical case of known nonperturbative approaches could be useful. In the non-dynamical case, they have provided an efficient way of studying boundary effects in finite-size system. For instance, TBA analysis  or boundary reflection amplitude method  from which the effective central charge and boundary ground state energy can be deduced. Comparison of both approaches provides important checks of the exact relation between UV and IR parameters as well as the boundary ground state energy. Here, such methods extended to the dynamical case would obviously provide important information.

Due to the form of our model, one may wonder if it could not be related with certain massive extension of the field theory description of the Kondo model . In  two massive versions of the anisotropic spin $`1/2`$ Kondo model have been proposed. It is thus interesting to compare results from  (see also ) to ours. The first massive Kondo (MK) model is one natural generalization of the integrable massless Kondo model for arbitrary spin studied in . The MK Hamiltonian reads

$`H_{MK}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\left((\pi (x))^2+(_x\varphi (x))^2G\mathrm{cos}(\beta \varphi (x))\right)+\lambda _0\left(S_+e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}+S_{}e^{i\beta \varphi (0)/2}\right)`$ (47)
where $`S_\pm `$ form a spin $`1/2`$ representation of the $`q_0`$deformed quantum algebra $`su_{q_0}(2)`$. The $`su_{q_0}(2)`$ relation are

$`[S_z,S_\pm ]=\pm 2S_\pm ,[S_+,S_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{q_0^{S_z}q_0^{S_z}}{q_0q_0^1}}\text{and}q_0=\mathrm{exp}(i\beta ^2/8).`$ (48)
This model has been studied in details in  at the free fermion point $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$ and in  at the reflectionless points for which it was claimed to be integrable. Unlike the massless version, it is not integrable for arbitrary $`\beta `$. On the other hand, in  the modified massive Kondo model (mMK) with Hamiltonian

$`H^{mMK}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x\left((\pi (x))^2+(_x\varphi (x))^2G\mathrm{cos}(\beta \varphi (x))\right)`$ (49)
$`i\lambda _0\left(S_+\mathrm{cos}(\beta (\varphi (0)\widehat{\varphi })/2)S_{}\mathrm{cos}(\beta (\varphi (0)\widehat{\varphi }^{})/2)\right)`$
was proposed. Here $`\widehat{\varphi }=\frac{2}{\beta }(\frac{\pi }{2}i\widehat{\varphi }_0)`$ with $`\widehat{\varphi }_0`$ a free parameter and the coupling $`\lambda _0`$ is related to the bulk coupling $`G`$. This model is believed to be integrable for arbitrary $`\beta `$ and a reflection matrix has been conjectured.

As was mentioned in , it is important to notice that the analysis supposed that the boundary scattering does not involve boundary operators. Here we didn’t assume this condition, which is crucial for our analysis and leads to a new solution (29) of the boundary Yang-Baxter equations. Then, it would be interesting to see in such case if more solutions can be obtained if a “simpler” bulk scattering is considered instead (reflectionless points). Notice that the free fermion point and the reflectionless points are special cases for which our operators (20) $`\widehat{}_\pm `$ commute, i.e. the $`K_0`$ reflection matrix reduces to Ghoshal-Zamolodchikov and DeVega-Gonzales-Ruiz  result (see end of section 3).

Other remarks can be made. First, the model mMK is integrable for arbitrary $`\beta `$ only for a special relation between $`G`$ and $`\lambda _0`$, and the deformation parameter $`q_0`$ is expressed in terms of the SG coupling constant $`\beta `$. It is also the case for our model. Secondly, in the MK and mMK models the boundary dependence only occurs in the CDD factors. With the boundary dependence isolated, the massless limit follows by taking the limit $`\theta \mathrm{}`$, which leads to the (massless) Kondo model reflection matrix. However, in our model the boundary dependence occurs through the operators $`\mathrm{cosh}(\widehat{p})`$, $`\mathrm{cosh}(\widehat{q})`$ in the minimal (non-CDD part) of the reflection matrix (29). Consequently, taking the massless limit of our model requires an analysis which goes beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, for $`q`$ a root of unity it is easy to construct a finite-dimensional cyclic representation for $`\widehat{}_\pm `$. This property might have a certain interest: partition functions of the massless boundary sine-Gordon and the anisotropic Kondo model can be related if the boundary spin is in a cyclic representation .

Among other models, it is now quite natural to consider the analytic continuation of the boundary sine-Gordon model studied above. It should provide one of the simplest boundary integrable QFT, the sinh-Gordon model restricted to $`x<0`$ with quantum degrees of freedom at the boundary. Its spectrum consists of only one particle with mass $`m`$ and the bulk scattering $`S`$-matrix for a pair of particles reads

$`S_{shG}(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)}{\left(\frac{B}{2}\right)\left(1\frac{B}{2}\right)}}\text{where}B={\displaystyle \frac{2b^2}{2+b^2}}.`$
In particular, this amplitude is self-dual under the weak-strong coupling duality transformation $`b2/b`$. Notice that the bulk $`S`$-matrices associated with higher simply laced Toda theories enjoy the same property. As was shown in  for non-dynamical integrable boundary conditions, the sinh-Gordon reflection factor obtained from analytic continuation of Ghoshal’s result  is not self-dual.

Here, taking the analytic continuation $`\widehat{\beta }ib`$ in (40) for $`n=1`$, the fundamental particle reflection factor takes the simple form

$`K_{shG}(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\left(\frac{B}{4}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{B}{4}\right)}}.`$
Then, up to an overall sign in front of the boundary perturbation, integrability is ensured for the boundary quantization length (after changing $`\widehat{\beta }ib`$ in (21) $`()`$) fixed to

$`[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]=\alpha _{shG}\text{with}\alpha _{shG}=i4\pi /B.`$ (50)
Consequently, weak-strong coupling duality of the boundary integrable sinh-Gordon model corresponds to the boundary operator-coupling transformation

$`\{\widehat{p}^{},\widehat{q}^{},b^{}\}=\{b\widehat{p}/\sqrt{2},b\widehat{q}/\sqrt{2},2/b\}.`$ (51)
Although we didn’t discuss them here, it seems to us that our analysis can provide a starting point concerning certain open problems:
$``$ A different choice of trigonometric $`R`$-matrix gives the Boltzmann weights of the six-vertex model. It is known to be related to the XXZ and the XXX (in its rational limit) spin chains. Applying our result to this case, the value of the boundary quantization length will define the value of the anisotropy which preserves integrability of the model. Consequently, we hope our solution $`K_0(\theta )`$ which satisfies the corresponding qBYBEs can be useful in the study of spin chains with dynamical boundary conditions 131313We thank A. Doikou for bringing our attention to ..
$``$ Statistical models with extended line of defects have attracted attention as such inhomogeneities affect the critical properties of the pure statistical systems. In the continuum limit, the scattering theory of their massive excitations is described in terms of the bulk scattering amplitudes as well as those associated with the interaction of particles with the defect line. If integrability is preserved, they reduce to reflection-transmission amplitudes which satisfy the so-called reflection-transmission equations . Similarly to  and in the present work, one may be interested in solutions of these equations with quantum boundary degrees of freedom in the defect, taking a reflection matrix of the form (17), (18). We will discuss this problem elsewhere .

Acknowledgements: We are very grateful to R. Sasaki for a careful reading of the manuscript and important comments. P.B also thanks P. Dorey, A. Doikou and M. Stanishkov for useful discussions and interest in this work, as well as S. Nicolis and S. Jhingan. P.B thanks hospitality of the “Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Physique Théorique” in Tours where part of this work has been done. K.K thanks hospitality of Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics. P.B’s work supported by JSPS fellowship.