text:
# Analytic Light-Curves of Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows: Homogeneous versus Wind External Media

## 1 Introduction

One of the most important issues regarding Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) is the nature of the object that releases the relativistic ejecta generating the high energy emission of the main event and the lower frequency emission during the ensuing afterglow. Some insight about the GRB progenitor can be obtained from the properties of the circum-burst medium, which can be inferred from the features of the afterglow emission. If the ejecta is expelled during the merging of two compact objects (Mészáros & Rees 1997b), it is expected that the medium surrounding the GRB source is homogeneous. However, if a collapsing massive star (Woosley 1993, Paczyński 1998) is the origin of the relativistic fireball, the circum-burst medium is the wind ejected by the star prior to its collapse, whose density decreases outwards. The two models differ in the dependence on radius of the particle density of the circum-burst medium which the GRB remnant interacts with, and in the value of this density at the deceleration length-scale. The former modifies the rate of decline of the afterglow, while the latter determines the overall afterglow brightness. Therefore it is possible to correlate afterglow emission features to a specific type of external medium.

Significant work in this direction has been done by many researchers. The two afterglows that exhibited breaks consistent with the effects arising from strong collimation of ejecta – GRB 990123 (Kulkarni et al. 1999a) and GRB 990510 (Stanek et al. 1999, Harrison et al. 1999) – indicate that the external gas was homogeneous (recent work by Kumar & Panaitescu 2000 shows that jets interacting with winds cannot produce sharp breaks in the afterglow light-curve). The optical emission of three afterglows had a steeper than usual decline. GRB 970228 decayed as $`T^{1.7}`$ after the subtraction of an underlying supernova emission (Reichart 1999, Galama et al. 2000). The light-curve of GRB 980326 fell off as $`T^{2.1}`$ (Groot et al. 1998) and an emission in excess of the early time extrapolation was detected $`20`$ days after the main event, indicating a supernova contribution (Bloom et al. 1999). A $`T^2`$ decay was observed for the afterglow of GRB 980519 (Halpern et al. 1999). Such steep declines can be produced either by a fireball interacting with a pre-ejected wind (Chevalier & Li 1999) and an electron index around 3, or by a narrow jet expanding laterally in a homogeneous external medium and an electron index slightly larger than 2. Chevalier & Li (1999) found that the radio emission of the afterglow of GRB 980519 is consistent with an external wind; however Frail et al. (2000) point out that the interstellar scintillation present in the radio data does not allow ruling out the jet model. Nevertheless, the existence of supernovae associated with GRB 970228 and GRB 980326 points toward a massive star as the origin of these bursts, implying a pre-ejected wind as the external medium. From the analysis of the optical radio emission of the afterglow of GRB 970508, Chevalier & Li (2000) conclude that the surrounding medium was a wind. Frail, Waxman & Kulkarni (2000) argue that the same radio afterglow can be explained by a homogeneous external medium.

In this work we investigate the differences between the light-curves of afterglows arising for each type of external medium, with the aim of finding ways for distinguishing between the two models. This study is done within the usual framework of a relativistic remnant interacting with a cold external gas. As the fireball is decelerated, a shock front sweeps up the external gas, accelerating relativistic electrons and generating a magnetic field in the shocked gas. We ignore the emission from electrons accelerated by the reverse shock which propagates through the ejecta at very early times. At optical wavelengths this emission is short lived, lasting up to few tens of seconds after the main event (Sari & Piran 1999), but it could be important for the radio emission until few days (Kulkarni et al. 1999b).

Analytical afterglow light-curves for spherical remnants interacting with homogeneous external media have been previously published by Sari, Piran & Narayan (1998). Features of afterglows from spherical fireballs, such as peak flux, break frequencies, and time evolution of fluxes at a fixed frequency, have been studied by Mészáros & Rees (1997a), Waxman (1997b), Wijers & Galama (1999), and Dai & Lu (2000) for homogeneous media, and by Chevalier & Li (2000) for pre-ejected winds. In this work we present and compare analytical and numerical light-curves at various observing frequencies, covering all cases of interest, for both types of external media, taking into account the differential arrival-time delay and Doppler boosting due to the spherical shape of the source. We take into account first order IC scattering, calculate its effect on the electron cooling and on the afterglow synchrotron emission, and study briefly the high-energy emission resulting from the up-scattering of synchrotron photons. The possible importance of IC scatterings for the early afterglow emission was pointed out by Waxman (1997a) and Wei & Lu (1998).

## 2 Simple Dynamics of Relativistic Remnants

For the calculation of the afterglow emission it is necessary to know how the remnant Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ evolves with observer time $`T`$, as all other quantities that appear in the expression of the spectral flux are functions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and of the remnant radius $`r`$ and external medium density $`n(r)`$. We shall assume that the remnant is adiabatic, i.e. the energy carried away by the emitted photons is a negligible fraction of the total energy of the remnant. This assumption is correct if the energy density of the electrons accelerated at the shock front is a fraction $`\epsilon _e1`$ of the total energy density in post-shock fluid or if most of the electrons are adiabatic, i.e. their radiative cooling timescale exceeds that of the adiabatic losses due to the remnant expansion.

Assuming that the internal energy of the ejecta is negligible compared to its rest-mass energy and that the ratio internal-to-rest mass energy in the energized external medium is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ (i.e. its “temperature” tracks that of the freshly shocked gas), conservation of energy leads to

$$m(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+M_{fb}\mathrm{\Gamma }[m(r)+M_{fb}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0]=0$$
(1)
where $`M_{fb}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ are the initial mass and Lorentz factor of the fireball (whose energy is $`E=M_{fb}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$) and

$$m(r)=\frac{4\pi }{3s}m_pn(r)r^3$$
(2)
is the mass of swept-up material ($`m_p`$ being the proton’s mass). The external medium particle density is

$$n(r)=Ar^s,$$
(3)
with $`s=0`$ for a homogeneous medium and $`s=2`$ for a wind ejected by the GRB progenitor at a constant speed.

Equation (2) is valid if the remnant is spherical, but can also be used for collimated ejecta when the lateral spreading (Rhoads 1999) is insignificant if the quantity $`E`$ above is defined as the energy the fireball would have if it were spherical. Throughout this work we shall assume that the remnant is a jet with an initial half-angle larger than $`>20^\mathrm{o}`$, in which case the sideways expansion is negligible during the relativistic phase. The following analytical calculations of the afterglow emission can be extended to sideways expanding jets and non-relativistic remnants by first determining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$. The set of coupled differential equations describing the evolution of the jet Lorentz factor and its opening can be solved analytically for $`s=0`$ (Rhoads 1999). The lack of a good approximation for the jet dynamics in the case of pre-ejected winds is the main motivation for restricting the following analytical calculations to spherical or wide-angle remnants.

The solution of equation (1) is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{4x^{3s}+1+(2x^{3s}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)^2}1\right]x^{s3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,$$
(4)
where $`x`$ is the radial coordinate $`r`$ scaled to

$$r_0=\left(\frac{3s}{4\pi }\frac{E}{m_pc^2A\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2}\right)^{1/(3s)},$$
(5)
the deceleration length-scale, at which $`m(r_0)=E/(c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2)=M_{fb}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The result given in equation (4) is also valid in the non-relativistic regime. For $`x1`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, while for $`1xx_{nr}`$ we find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=x^{(3s)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Here $`x_{nr}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2/3)^{1/(3s)}`$ marks the end of the relativistic regime: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_{nr})=2`$. For the ease of analytical calculations we shall assume that the power-law behavior of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ lasts from $`x=1`$ to $`x=x_{nr}`$.

The Lorentz factor given in equation (4) represents a “dynamical” average of the Lorentz factors at which different regions of the shocked remnant move (the Blandford – McKee solution). The Lorentz factor of the shock front that propagates into the external gas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sh}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by equation (4), matches that given in equation (69) of Blandford & McKee (1976) for the power-law regime $`1xx_{nr}`$ if $`E`$ is multiplied by $`(174s)/(124s)`$. This correction factor ($`17/8`$ for $`s=0`$ and $`9/4`$ for $`s=2`$) will be used in the following results.

The constant $`A`$ in equation (3) is the number density $`n_{}`$ of the external homogeneous medium for $`s=0`$, while for $`s=2`$

$$A=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\stackrel{.}{M}}{m_pv}=3.0\times 10^{35}A_{}\mathrm{cm}^1,$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{.}{M}`$ is the mass loss rate of the massive star that ejected the wind at constant speed $`v`$, and $`A`$ was scaled to

$$A_{}=\frac{\stackrel{.}{M}/10^5\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1}{v/10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1},$$
(7)
as in Chevalier & Li (2000) for a Wolf-Rayet star. For further calculations it is convenient to use equation (3) in the form $`n(r)=n_0(r/r_0)^s`$ where $`n_0=n_{}`$ for $`s=0`$, while for $`s=2`$

$$n_0=1.9\times 10^4E_{53}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^4A_{}^3\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(8)
is the wind particle density at the deceleration radius (eq. ):

$$(s=2)r_0=4.0\times 10^{15}E_{53}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^2A_{}^1\mathrm{cm}.$$
(9)
The usual notation $`C_n=10^nC`$ is used throughout this work.

Note that, for the reference values used here, the deceleration radius in the wind model is 1.5 orders of magnitude lower than that for a homogeneous external medium:

$$(s=0)r_0=1.3\times 10^{17}E_{53}^{1/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^{2/3}n_{,0}^{1/3}\mathrm{cm},$$
(10)
and even smaller for higher initial fireball Lorentz factors or slower winds (i.e. a larger parameter $`A_{}`$). If GRBs are due to internal shocks occurring in unstable relativistic fireballs (Rees & Mészáros 1994, Paczyński & Xu 1994, Piran 1999), then the external shock resulting from the interaction of the fireball with the pre-ejected (non-relativistic) wind may occur before the internal shocks are over. In this case successive internal collisions occur when faster parts of the ejecta catch up with the decelerating leading edge of the fireball, a scenario suggested within the $`s=0`$ model by Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000), but which is more likely to happen if the external medium is the gas ejected by a massive star. The GRB itself would then exhibit the erratic variability characteristic of internal shocks until a time of the order

$$\frac{r_0}{c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2}10E_{53}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^4A_{}^1s,$$
(11)
(which has a strong dependence on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$), after which there may be significant emission from internal shocks on the outermost part of the fireball and from the external shock that plows through the external gas. The former mechanism generates pulses of increasing duration as the fireball expands, while the later leads to a continuous emission.

The time $`T`$ when the observer receives a photon emitted along the line of sight toward the fireball center can be calculated by integrating

$$\mathrm{d}T=(1\beta )\mathrm{d}t=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(12)
where $`\beta `$ is the shocked fluid speed and $`t=r/c`$ is the time measured in the laboratory frame. Approximating the solution given in equation (4) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for $`x<1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=x^{(3s)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for $`1<x<x_{nr}`$, one obtains

$$T=T_0(x^{4s}+3s),T_0\frac{1}{2(4s)}\frac{r_0}{c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2}.$$
(13)
Note that $`T`$ given in equation (13) is the earliest time a photon emitted by the remnant at time $`t`$ can reach the observer. Photons emitted by the fluid moving at an angle $`\theta =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ off the center–observe axis arrive at $`T=t(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )=t/2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, which is a factor $`4s`$ larger than the time corresponding to $`\theta =0`$: $`T=t/2(4s)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$.

From equation (13) $`r(T)`$ can be found and then substituted in the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$ and $`n(r)`$ to obtain these quantities as a function of the observer time. For the power-law phase the results are

$$(s=0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=6.3E_{53}^{1/8}n_{,0}^{1/8}T_d^{3/8},$$
(14)
$$(s=0)r(T)=8.2\times 10^{17}E_{53}^{1/4}n_{,0}^{1/4}T_d^{1/4}\mathrm{cm},$$
(15)
$`n=n_{}`$ (constant) for a homogeneous external medium and

$$(s=2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=7.9E_{53}^{1/4}A_{}^{1/4}T_d^{1/4},$$
(16)
$$(s=2)r(T)=6.4\times 10^{17}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^{1/2}T_d^{1/2}\mathrm{cm},$$
(17)
$$(s=2)n(T)=0.73E_{53}^1A_{}^2T_d^1\mathrm{cm}^3,$$
(18)
for an external wind, $`T_d`$ being the observer time measured in days. Note that, at least for the scaling values chosen here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`r`$, and $`n`$ have about the same values at $`T=1`$ day in both models. Also note that the above quantities (and thus the afterglow emission) are independent of the fireball initial Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$.

## 3 Break Frequencies

Within the synchrotron emission model there are three expected breaks in the afterglow spectrum: $`(i)`$ an injection break, at the synchrotron frequency $`\nu _i`$ at which the bulk of the electrons injected by the shock front radiate, $`(ii)`$ a cooling break, at the synchrotron frequency $`\nu _c`$ of electrons whose radiative cooling time equals the expansion timescale, and $`(iii)`$ an absorption break, at $`\nu _a`$ below which the synchrotron photons are absorbed by electrons in free-free transitions in a magnetic field (synchrotron self-absorption).

The break frequencies can be calculated if the distribution of the injected electrons and the strength of the magnetic field are known. The distribution of the injected electrons is assumed to be $`𝒩_i(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$ starting from a minimum random Lorentz factor given by

$$\gamma _i=\frac{m_p}{m_e}\epsilon _e(\mathrm{\Gamma }1),$$
(19)
where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass. The energy carried by this electron distribution is a fraction $`\frac{p1}{p2}\epsilon _e`$ of the total internal energy. The post-shock magnetic field strength in the co-moving frame is given by

$$\frac{B^2}{8\pi }=\epsilon _Bm_pc^2n_e^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)=4\epsilon _Bm_pc^2n(r)(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{3}{4}\right),$$
(20)
where $`\epsilon _B`$ is the fractional energy carried by the magnetic field and $`n_e^{}`$ is the co-moving frame electron density behind the shock front. Equations (19) and (20) are based on that the internal to rest-mass energy density ratio in the shocked fluid is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$; the derivation of the latter equation also used that the co-moving particle density is $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }+3`$ times larger than that ahead of the shock.

### 3.1 Injection Break

Using the relativistic Doppler factor $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to the motion of the source toward the observer (i.e. $`\theta =0`$), the synchrotron emission from a power-law distribution of electrons peaks at the observer frame frequency

$$\nu _i=\frac{3x_p}{2\pi }\frac{e}{m_ec}\gamma _i^2B\mathrm{\Gamma }=8.4\times 10^6x_p\gamma _i^2B\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Hz},$$
(21)
where the factor $`x_p`$ is calculated in Wijers & Galama (1999) for various values of the electron index $`p`$. We shall use $`x_p=0.52`$, which is strictly correct only for $`p=2.5`$. With the aid of equations (14), (16), (18), (19), and (20) one obtains:

$$(s=0)\nu _i=0.92\times 10^{13}E_{53}^{1/2}\epsilon _{e,1}^2\epsilon _{B,2}^{1/2}T_d^{3/2}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(22)
$$(s=2)\nu _i=1.9\times 10^{13}E_{53}^{1/2}\epsilon _{e,1}^2\epsilon _{B,2}^{1/2}T_d^{3/2}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(23)
Note that $`\nu _i`$ has the same scalings with the model parameters for $`s=0`$ and $`s=2`$. The ratio of the two frequencies is $`\sqrt{\frac{17}{72}}`$.

### 3.2 Cooling Break

The relativistic electrons cool radiatively through synchrotron emission and IC scatterings of the synchrotron photons on a co-moving frame timescale

$$t_{rad}^{}(\gamma )=\frac{t_{sy}^{}(\gamma )}{Y+1}=\frac{6\pi }{Y+1}\frac{m_ec}{\sigma _e}\frac{1}{\gamma B^2},$$
(24)
where $`t_{sy}^{}(\gamma )`$ is the co-moving frame synchrotron cooling timescale of electrons of Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$, $`Y`$ is the Compton parameter, and $`\sigma _e`$ the cross-section for electron scatterings111 The up-scattering of the $`\nu _i`$ synchrotron photons on the $`\gamma _c`$\- and $`\gamma _i`$-electrons occurs in the Thomson regime for $`T>10^3`$ day, i.e. the scattering cross-section in equation (24) is not reduced by the Klein-Nishina effect. Using equation (20), the Lorentz factor of the electrons that cool radiatively on a timescale equal to the remnant age

$$t^{}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{2}{5s}\frac{r}{c\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(25)
can be written as

$$\gamma _c=\frac{3\pi (5s)}{Y+1}\frac{m_ec^2}{\sigma _e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{B^2r}=\frac{77(5s)}{(Y+1)\epsilon _B}\frac{1}{n\mathrm{\Gamma }r_{18}},$$
(26)
with $`n`$ in $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

The observer-frame frequency $`\nu _c`$ of the cooling break is

$$(s=0)\nu _c=3.7\times 10^{14}E_{53}^{1/2}n_{,0}^1(Y+1)^2\epsilon _{B,2}^{3/2}T_d^{1/2}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(27)
$$(s=2)\nu _c=3.5\times 10^{14}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^2(Y+1)^2\epsilon _{B,2}^{3/2}T_d^{1/2}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(28)
Hereafter we shall use the terminology “radiative electrons” for the case where the $`\gamma _i`$-electrons cool mostly through emission of radiation (i.e. $`t_{rad}^{}(\gamma _i)<t^{}`$ and $`\gamma _c<\gamma _i`$), and we shall refer to “adiabatic electrons” if the $`\gamma _i`$-electrons cool mostly adiabatically (i.e. $`t_{rad}^{}(\gamma _i)>t^{}`$ and $`\gamma _i<\gamma _c`$).

#### 3.2.1 Compton Parameter and Electron Distribution

For the calculation of the Compton parameter $`Y`$, we take into account only one up-scattering of the synchrotron photons. Multiple IC scatterings of the same photon have an important effect on the electron cooling only if the $`Y`$ parameter for single scatterings is above unity. As shown in §3.2.2 and §3.2.3 this occurs if $`1)`$ $`\epsilon _B<10^2\epsilon _{e,1}`$ and if $`2)`$ $`T<T_y`$, where $`T_y`$ is the time when $`Y`$ falls below unity.

Using equations (19) and (20), it can be shown that IC scatterings of order higher than two are suppressed by the Klein-Nishina effect. For adiabatic electrons, a second IC scattering occurs in the Thomson regime if $`3a)`$ $`T>1E_{53}^{1/3}n_{,0}^{1/9}\epsilon _{e,1}^{20/9}\epsilon _{B,4}^{2/9}\mathrm{d}`$ for $`s=0`$, and if $`3b)`$ $`T>1E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^{1/4}\epsilon _{e,1}^{5/2}\epsilon _{B,4}^{1/4}\mathrm{d}`$ for $`s=2`$. If a second IC scattering is ignored in these cases then a higher energy component peaking around 1 GeV is left out, otherwise the synchrotron and first IC emissions remain unaltered if the electrons are adiabatic.

The effect of second order up-scatterings is more important when electrons are radiative, i.e. for $`4)`$ $`T<T_r`$ with $`T_r`$ calculated in §3.2.2, as in this case it reduces the intensity of the synchrotron and first stage IC components. With the aid of equations (19) and (20) it can be shown that for $`s=0`$ a second up-scattering occurs in the Thomson regime and at $`T>10^2\mathrm{d}`$ if $`5a)`$ $`n>25E_{53}^{7/11}\epsilon _{e,1}^{10/11}\epsilon _{B,3}^{2/11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, while for $`s=2`$ the second IC emission is not suppressed by the Klein-Nishina effect if $`5b)`$ $`T>0.05E_{53}^{1/3}A_{}^{11/6}\epsilon _{e,1}^{5/6}\epsilon _{B,3}^{2/3}\mathrm{d}`$.

Concluding, second stage up-scatterings can be ignored if the set of conditions $`1),2),3)`$ or $`1),4),5)`$ are not simultaneously satisfied. For a single up-scattering, the Compton parameter is

$$Y=\frac{4}{3}_{𝒩_e}\gamma ^2d\tau _e=\frac{4}{3}\tau _e_{𝒩_e}\gamma ^2𝒩_e(\gamma )d\gamma ,$$
(29)
where $`𝒩_e(\gamma )`$ is the normalized electron distribution and $`\tau _e`$ is the optical thickness to electron scattering, given by

$$\tau _e=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\sigma _em(r)}{m_pr^2}=\frac{1}{3s}\sigma _enr.$$
(30)
If the injected $`\gamma _i`$-electrons cool faster than the timescale of their injection, then $`\gamma _c`$ given by equation (26) is the typical electron Lorentz factor in the remnant, and the electron distribution in the shocked fluid can be approximated by

$$𝒩_e^{(r)}\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^2\hfill & \gamma _c<\gamma <\gamma _i\hfill \\ \gamma ^{(p+1)}\hfill & \gamma _i<\gamma \hfill \end{array},$$
(31)
with $`p>2`$. In the opposite case most electrons have a random Lorentz factor $`\gamma _i`$, and the electron distribution is

$$𝒩_e^{(a)}\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^p\hfill & \gamma _i<\gamma <\gamma _c\hfill \\ \gamma ^{(p+1)}\hfill & \gamma _c<\gamma \hfill \end{array}.$$
(32)
#### 3.2.2 Radiative Electrons

For $`\gamma _c\gamma _i`$ equations (29) and (31) lead to

$$Y_r=\frac{4}{3}\gamma _i\gamma _c\tau _e.$$
(33)
Substituting $`\gamma _c`$ with the aid of equation (26), one obtains

$$Y_r(Y_r+1)=\frac{5s}{8(3s)}\frac{n_e^{}m_ec^2\gamma _i}{B^2/8\pi }=\frac{5s}{8(3s)}\frac{\epsilon _e}{\epsilon _B},$$
(34)
where we used equations (19) and (20). Therefore the Compton parameter during the electron radiative phase is

$$Y_r=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{5s}{2(3s)}\frac{\epsilon _e}{\epsilon _B}+1}1\right).$$
(35)
Hence the electron cooling is dominated by IC scatterings (i.e. $`Y_r>1`$) for $`\epsilon _B<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon _B}`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon _B}=\frac{5s}{16(3s)}\epsilon _e.$$
(36)
Note that $`Y_r`$ is time-independent. Therefore the $`\nu _c`$ given by equations (27) and (28) decreases with time for $`s=0`$ and increases in the $`s=2`$ model. Thus, for observations made at a fixed frequency, the electrons emitting at that frequency change their cooling regime from adiabatic to radiative in the case of a homogeneous external gas, and from radiative to adiabatic for an external wind (Chevalier & Li 2000).

With the aid of equations (19), (20), and (24), it can be shown that the electrons are radiative if

$$nr\mathrm{\Gamma }^2>\frac{3(5s)}{32(Y_r+1)}\frac{(m_e/m_p)^2}{\sigma _e\epsilon _e\epsilon _B}=\frac{4.2\times 10^{16}}{\epsilon _e\epsilon _B}\frac{5s}{Y_r+1}\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(37)
which, with the further use of equations (14) – (18), leads to the conclusion that the electrons are radiative until the observer time $`T_r`$ given by

$$(s=0)T_r=0.025E_{53}n_{,0}(Y_r+1)^2\epsilon _{e,1}^2\epsilon _{B,2}^2\mathrm{day},$$
(38)
$$(s=2)T_r=0.23A_{}(Y_r+1)\epsilon _{e,1}\epsilon _{B,2}\mathrm{day}.$$
(39)
#### 3.2.3 Adiabatic Electrons

For $`\gamma _i\gamma _c`$ equations (29) and (32) give the Compton parameter

$$Y_a=\frac{4}{3}\tau _e\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _i^{p1}\gamma _c^{3p}\hfill & 2<p<3\hfill \\ \gamma _i^2\hfill & 3<p\hfill \end{array}.$$
(40)
Case 1: $`2<p<3`$. By substituting equations (19) and (26) in equation (40), one obtains

$$Y_a(Y_a+1)^{3p}=_p(T)c_s(p)\epsilon _e^{p1}\epsilon _B^{p3}(n\mathrm{\Gamma }^2r_{18})^{p2},$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{log}c_s(p)=(3p)\mathrm{log}(5s)\mathrm{log}(3s)+1.4p3.7`$. The Compton parameter can be obtained by solving numerically the above equation. For analytical purposes, one can approximate $`Y_a=_p`$ for $`_p<1`$, in which case the IC losses are less important, and

$$Y_a=_p^{\frac{1}{4p}}\mathrm{for}_p>1.$$
(42)
In the latter case the IC scatterings affect the electron cooling.

Note that the quantity $`n\mathrm{\Gamma }^2r`$ in equation (41) decreases with time. Thus, for $`\epsilon _B<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon _B}`$, the Compton parameter $`Y_a`$ is above unity until a time $`T_y`$ which can be determined by substituting equations (14) – (18) in (42):

$$(s=0)T_y=10^{\frac{83p}{p2}}E_{53}n_{,0}\epsilon _{e,1}^{2\frac{p1}{p2}}\epsilon _{B,3}^{2\frac{3p}{p2}}\mathrm{day},$$
(43)
$$(s=2)T_y=10^{\frac{4.91.6p}{p2}}A_{}\epsilon _{e,1}^{\frac{p1}{p2}}\epsilon _{B,3}^{\frac{3p}{p2}}\mathrm{day}.$$
(44)
Thus, for $`\epsilon _B<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon _B}`$ and $`T_r<T<T_y`$, the Compton parameter determines the evolution of the cooling break frequency (eqs.  and ):

$$\nu _c\stackrel{(s=0)}{=}10^{15+\frac{2.5p5.5}{4p}}\left[E_{53}^{\frac{p}{2}}n_{,0}^2\epsilon _{e,1}^{2(p1)}\epsilon _{B,3}^{\frac{p}{2}}T_d^{\frac{3p8}{2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{4p}}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(45)
$$\nu _c\stackrel{(s=2)}{=}10^{15+\frac{2.2p5.5}{4p}}E_{53}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[A_{}^4\epsilon _{e,1}^{2(p1)}\epsilon _{B,3}^{\frac{p}{2}}T_d^{\frac{3p4}{2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{4p}}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(46)
Note that for a homogeneous medium ($`s=0`$) and $`8/3<p<3`$, the cooling break frequency increases with time, unlike the decreasing behavior it has for $`T<T_r`$.

Case 2: $`p>3`$. This case is treated here for completeness, as there are no afterglows for which such a steep electron index has been found. Equations (19), (30), and (40) lead to

$$Y_a=\frac{3}{3s}\epsilon _e^2n\mathrm{\Gamma }^2r_{18}.$$
(47)
For $`\epsilon _B<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon _B}`$ the Compton parameter is above unity until

$$(s=0)T_y=0.11E_{53}n_{,0}\epsilon _{e,1}^4\mathrm{day},$$
(48)
$$(s=2)T_y=0.87A_{}\epsilon _{e,1}^2\mathrm{day}.$$
(49)
For $`\epsilon _B<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon _B}`$ and $`T_r<T<T_y`$, the evolution of the cooling break frequency is

$$(s=0)\nu _c=1.1\times 10^{17}E_{53}^{3/2}n_{,0}^2\epsilon _{e,1}^4\epsilon _{B,3}^{3/2}T_d^{1/2}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(50)
$$(s=2)\nu _c=1.5\times 10^{16}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^4\epsilon _{e,1}^4\epsilon _{B,3}^{3/2}T_d^{5/2}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(51)
Note that in this regime $`\nu _c`$ increases with time in both models.

### 3.3 Absorption Break

The synchrotron self-absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$ can be calculated with the aid of equation (6.50) from Rybicki & Lightman (1979). With the notations $`\gamma _p=\mathrm{min}(\gamma _i,\gamma _c)`$, $`\nu _p=\mathrm{min}(\nu _i,\nu _c)`$, and $`\nu _0=\mathrm{max}(\nu _i,\nu _c)`$ it can be shown that optical thickness to synchrotron self-absorption can be approximated by

$$\tau _{ab}(\nu )5\frac{e\mathrm{\Sigma }}{B\gamma _p^5}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}(\nu /\nu _p)^{5/3}\hfill & \nu <\nu _p\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _p)^{(q+4)/2}\hfill & \nu _p<\nu <\nu _0\hfill \end{array},$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(3s)^1nr`$ is the remnant electron column density, $`q=2`$ for radiative electrons ($`\gamma _c<\gamma _i`$), $`q=p`$ for adiabatic electrons ($`\gamma _i<\gamma _c`$).

#### 3.3.1 Radiative Electrons

Equations (20), (26), and (52) give the optical thickness at the cooling break frequency

$$\tau _c=\frac{5}{3s}\frac{enr}{B\gamma _c^5}=\frac{1.1\times 10^3}{(3s)(5s)^5}(Y_r+1)^5\epsilon _B^{9/2}n^{11/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^4r_{18}^6.$$
(53)
For $`s=0`$ equations (14), (15), and (53) lead to

$$(s=0)\tau _c=0.11E_{53}^2n_{,0}^{7/2}(Y_r+1)^5\epsilon _B^{9/2}.$$
(54)
For $`\tau _c<1`$ the optical thickness to synchrotron self-absorption is unity at $`\nu _a`$ given by $`\nu _a=\nu _c\tau _c^{3/5}`$:

$$(s=0)\nu _a=6.5\times 10^9E_{53}^{7/10}n_{,0}^{11/10}(Y_r+1)\epsilon _{B,1}^{6/5}T_d^{1/2}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(55)
For $`s=2`$ equations (16) – (18), and (53) give

$$(s=2)\tau _c=0.44E_{53}^{3/2}A_{}^7(Y_r+1)^5\epsilon _B^{9/2}T_d^{7/2}.$$
(56)
For $`T>T_a`$ we have $`\tau _c<1`$ and $`\nu _a<\nu _c`$:

$$(s=2)\nu _a=1.4\times 10^{12}E_{53}^{2/5}A_{}^{11/5}(Y_r+1)\epsilon _{B,2}^{6/5}T_{d,2}^{8/5}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(57)
#### 3.3.2 Adiabatic Electrons

The optical thickness to synchrotron self-absorption at the injection break can be found using equations (19), (20), and (52):

$$\tau _i=\frac{5}{3s}\frac{enr}{B\gamma _i^5}=\frac{2.9\times 10^2}{3s}\frac{n^{1/2}r_{18}}{\epsilon _{e,1}^5\epsilon _B^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^6}.$$
(58)
If the external medium is homogeneous

$$(s=0)\tau _i=1.3\times 10^6E_{53}^{1/2}n_{,0}\epsilon _{e,1}^5\epsilon _{B,2}^{1/2}T_d^{5/2},$$
(59)
$$(s=0)\nu _a=2.6\times 10^9E_{53}^{1/5}n_{,0}^{3/5}\epsilon _{e,1}^1\epsilon _{B,2}^{1/5}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(60)
which is time-independent.

For the wind model

$$(s=2)\tau _i=6.8\times 10^7E_{53}^{3/2}A_{}^2\epsilon _{e,1}^5\epsilon _{B,2}^{1/2}T_d^{3/2},$$
(61)
$$(s=2)\nu _a=3.7\times 10^9E_{53}^{2/5}A_{}^{6/5}\epsilon _{e,1}^1\epsilon _{B,2}^{1/5}T_d^{3/5}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(62)
Note that, in general, the absorption frequency decreases faster for a remnant interacting with a wind than for one running into a homogeneous external medium.

## 4 Analytical Light-Curves

If the effects arising from the remnant spherical shape (see Appendix) are ignored, than the observed flux peaks at $`\nu _p=\mathrm{min}(\nu _i,\nu _c)`$, where it has a value

$$F_{\nu _p}\frac{\sqrt{3}\varphi _p}{4\pi D^2}\frac{e^3}{m_ec^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }BN_e.$$
(63)
Here $`\varphi _p`$ is a factor calculated by Wijers & Galama (1999), which we shall set $`\varphi _p=0.63`$, $`D=(1+z)^{1/2}D_l(z)`$ with $`D_l`$ the luminosity distance, and $`N_e=m(r)/m_p`$ is the number of electrons in the remnant. Equations (19), (20), and (63) give

$$F_{\nu _p}=\frac{57}{3s}D_{28}^2\epsilon _B^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2n^{3/2}r_{18}^3\mathrm{mJy}.$$
(64)
The afterglow emission at any given frequency and time can be calculated using the synchrotron spectrum for the electron distributions given in equations (31) and (32) (e.g. Sari et al. 1998):

$$F_\nu =F_{\nu _c}\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\nu /\nu _a)^2(\nu _a/\nu _c)^{1/3}\hfill & \nu <\nu _a\hfill & (1)\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _c)^{1/3}\hfill & \nu _a<\nu <\nu _c\hfill & (2)\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _c)^{1/2}\hfill & \nu _c<\nu <\nu _i\hfill & (3)\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _i)^{p/2}(\nu _c/\nu _i)^{1/2}\hfill & \nu _i<\nu \hfill & (4)\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
for $`T<T_r`$, assuming that $`\nu _a<\nu _c`$, and

$$F_\nu =F_{\nu _i}\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\nu /\nu _a)^2(\nu _a/\nu _i)^{1/3}\hfill & \nu <\nu _a\hfill & (5)\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _i)^{1/3}\hfill & \nu _a<\nu <\nu _i\hfill & (6)\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _i)^{(p1)/2}\hfill & \nu _i<\nu <\nu _c\hfill & (7)\hfill \\ (\nu /\nu _c)^{p/2}(\nu _i/\nu _c)^{(p1)/2}\hfill & \nu _c<\nu \hfill & (8)\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
for $`T>T_r`$, assuming that $`\nu _a<\nu _i`$.

In Figures 1 and 2 the plane $`T\epsilon _B`$ is divided into several regions which are labeled as in equations (65) – (66), according to the ordering of the observing frequency $`\nu `$ and of the three break frequencies $`\nu _a`$, $`\nu _i`$, and $`\nu _c`$. The observed fluxes in each case are given in the Appendix, and a set of multi-wavelength light-curves is shown in Figure 3. The results shown in Figures 1–4 have been obtained using equations which are valid in any relativistic regime, such as equations (4), (19), (20), and (63).

### 4.1 Inverse Compton Emission

The IC emission can be easily calculated by using the above equations for the synchrotron spectrum and Compton parameter. The up-scattered spectrum peaks at $`\nu _{ic}\gamma _c^2\nu _c`$ if electrons are radiative and at $`\nu _{ic}\gamma _i^2\nu _i`$ if electrons are adiabatic. It can be shown that, for any electron radiative regime, the flux of the up-scattered emission at this frequency is

$$F_{\nu _{ic}}^{(ic)}=\tau _eF_{\nu _p},$$
(67)
where $`\tau _e`$ and $`F_{\nu _p}`$ are given by equations (30) and (64), respectively. For the up-scattering of synchrotron photons above $`\nu _a`$ and assuming that $`Y_a<1`$, the resulting IC light-curves have the following behaviors:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}s=0\hfill \\ T<T_r\hfill \end{array}\right)F_\nu ^{(ic)}\{\begin{array}{cc}T^{1/3}\hfill & \nu <\gamma _c^2\nu _c\hfill \\ T^{1/8}\hfill & \gamma _c^2\nu _c<\nu <\gamma _i^2\nu _i\hfill \\ T^{(9p10)/8}\hfill & \gamma _i^2\nu _i<\nu \hfill \end{array},$$
(68)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}s=0\hfill \\ T>T_r\hfill \end{array}\right)F_\nu ^{(ic)}\{\begin{array}{cc}T^1\hfill & \nu <\gamma _i^2\nu _i\hfill \\ T^{(9p11)/8}\hfill & \gamma _i^2\nu _i<\nu <\gamma _c^2\nu _c\hfill \\ T^{(9p10)/8}\hfill & \gamma _c^2\nu _c<\nu \hfill \end{array},$$
(69)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}s=2\hfill \\ T<T_r\hfill \end{array}\right)F_\nu ^{(ic)}\{\begin{array}{cc}T^{5/3}\hfill & \nu <\gamma _c^2\nu _c\hfill \\ T^0\hfill & \gamma _c^2\nu _c<\nu <\gamma _i^2\nu _i\hfill \\ T^{(p1)}\hfill & \gamma _i^2\nu _i<\nu \hfill \end{array},$$
(70)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}s=2\hfill \\ T>T_r\hfill \end{array}\right)F_\nu ^{(ic)}\{\begin{array}{cc}T^{1/3}\hfill & \nu <\gamma _i^2\nu _i\hfill \\ T^p\hfill & \gamma _i^2\nu _i<\nu <\gamma _c^2\nu _c\hfill \\ T^{(p1)}\hfill & \gamma _c^2\nu _c<\nu \hfill \end{array}.$$
(71)
For external media that are not denser than assumed so far, the IC emission is weaker than synchrotron, even in soft X-rays. As shown in the upper left panel of Figure 3, for $`n_{}>10\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`A_{}>1`$ the up-scattered radiation can dominate the synchrotron emission at times $`T>10^1`$ day, diminishing the decay rate of the X-ray emission. This is due to that the flux at the IC peak (eq. ) depends strongly on the external medium density: $`F_{\nu _{ic}}^{(ic)}n_{}^{5/4}`$ for $`s=0`$ and $`F_{\nu _{ic}}^{(ic)}A_{}^{5/2}`$ for $`s=2`$. The afterglow flattening is strongly dependent on the observing frequency, being absent in the optical and below.

## 5 Conclusions

Using the analytical results given in equations (B4) – (C21), the afterglow light-curve can be calculated at any frequency and at observing times up to the onset of the non-relativistic phase. As illustrated in Figure 3, the largest differences between the afterglow emission in the two models for the external medium is seen at low frequencies (lower panels). However, the scintillation due to the local interstellar medium (Goodman 1997), may hamper the use of the radio light-curves to identify the type of external medium and geometry of the ejecta (Frail et al. 2000).

Figure 4 shows that, for various model parameters, the rate of change of the afterglow emission at $`\nu 10^{12}`$ Hz and at early times (when the jet effects are negligible, provided that the jet is initially wider than a few degrees) exhibits a strong dependence on the type of external medium. If the external medium is homogeneous the sub-millimeter afterglow should rise slowly at times between $`1`$ hour and $`1`$ day, while for a pre-ejected wind the emission should fall off steeply, followed by a plateau222The light-curves presented in the upper left panel of Figure 4 show that this criterion for determining the type of external medium fails only if the particle density of the homogeneous medium exceeds $`10\mathrm{cm}^3`$. In this case the X-ray emission may help to distinguish between the two models of external medium, as the absence of a flattening of the high energy emission is compatible only with a pre-ejected wind with $`A_{}`$ less than a few.. Therefore observations made at sub-millimeter frequencies with the SCUBA (James Clerk Maxwell Telescope) or with the MAMBO (IRAM Telescope) instruments would be very powerful in determining if the medium which the remnant runs into is homogeneous or follows a $`r^2`$ law.

We note that if turbulence in the shocked fluid does not lead to a significant mixing, then the inhomogeneous electron distribution will alter the afterglow spectrum below the absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$ as described by Granot, Piran & Sari (2000). The result is that the afterglow emission at $`\nu <\nu _a`$ rises more slowly than calculated here. For instance, the $`T^2`$ rise exhibited by the $`\nu =10^{12}`$ Hz light-curves shown in Figure 4 for the wind model at early times becomes a $`T^1`$ rise. Nevertheless, the basic difference mentioned above between the temporal behaviors of the sub-millimeter light-curves at $`10^2\mathrm{day}<T<1\mathrm{day}`$ remains unchanged.

The IC losses alter the evolution of the cooling break $`\nu _c`$ if the electrons injected with minimal energy are adiabatic and if the Compton parameter is above unity (i.e. the magnetic field parameter is weaker than that given in eq. ). In the case of a homogeneous external medium, the cooling break frequency decreases as $`T^{1/2}`$ if the electrons are radiative. When the electrons become adiabatic, this break evolves as $`T^{\frac{3p8}{82p}}`$ for $`p<3`$ and increases as $`T^{1/2}`$ for $`p>3`$. For an external wind the change is from $`\nu _cT^{1/2}`$ to $`\nu _cT^{\frac{3p4}{82p}}`$ for $`p<3`$, and to $`\nu _cT^{5/2}`$ for $`p>3`$. Consequently the power-law decay of the afterglow emission at frequencies above the cooling break flattens by up to $`1/2`$ if the external medium is homogeneous and by up to $`1`$ if the medium is a wind. For an electron index $`p<3`$, the flattening is mild and likely to be seen only in the optical emission from a remnant interacting with a pre-ejected wind.

The IC emission itself is generally weaker than the synchrotron emission. Nevertheless, if the external medium is sufficiently dense (i.e. $`n_{}>10\mathrm{cm}^3`$ or $`A_{}>`$ few), a flattening of the soft X-ray light-curve should be seen few hours after the main event, at fluxes well above the threshold of BeppoSAX (see Figure 3, upper left panel). The flattening of the afterglow emission due to the up-scattered radiation is a chromatic feature, appearing only at high frequencies, and its strength is moderately dependent on the remaining model parameters.

Finally, another possible signature of the interaction with the wind ejected by a Wolf-Rayet star should be found during the GRB emission in the form of smooth pulses of increasing duration. Such pulses are generated in internal shocks when the decelerating outermost shell is hit from behind by shells ejected at later times. This phenomenon is more likely to be seen in the wind model, for which the deceleration radius is smaller than for a homogeneous medium.

AP acknowledges the support received from Princeton University through the Lyman Spitzer, Jr. Fellowship. We thank Bohdan Paczyński for useful discussions.

APPENDIX

The observer time calculated with equation (12) is the time when photons emitted by the shocked gas moving precisely toward the observer arrive at detector. Photons emitted by the fluid moving at a non-zero angle relative to the direction toward the observer are less boosted by the relativistic motion of the source and arrive at the observer later. The effect of the remnant spherical curvature on the afterglow emission can be reduced to a correction factor that must be applied to the light-curve obtained analytically using the remnant parameters at laboratory frame time $`t`$ related to the observer time $`T`$ through equation (12). This correction factor is dependent on the observing frequency, as described below.

## A Correction Factors for Analytical Light-Curves

The flux received by the observer at time $`T`$ can be calculated by integrating the remnant emission over the equal arrival-time surface (Panaitescu & Mészáros 1998). This surface is defined by $`cT=ctr\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle measured relative to the observer’s line of sight toward the remnant center. Using the equation for dynamics of relativistic remnants ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }r^{(3s)/2}`$), the integral can be written as

$$F_\nu (T)=\frac{A(cT)^2}{2(3s)D^2}_0^{R(T)}\frac{(P_\nu ^{}^{})_er^{4s}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3(x+1)^2}dr,$$
(A1)
where $`x(3s)(r/R)^{4s}`$, and $`R`$ is the radius for which photons emitted at $`\theta =0`$ arrive at $`T`$, i.e. the maximal radius on the equal arrival-time surface. In equation (A1) $`(P_\nu ^{}^{})_e`$ is the co-moving frame power per electron, taking into account the spectrum of the emission. For the synchrotron spectra given in equations (65) and (66), one can write generically $`(P_\nu ^{}^{})_e=\sqrt{3}\varphi _p(e^3B/m_ec^2)(\nu ^{}/\nu _a^{})^{\alpha _a}(\nu ^{}/\nu _i^{})^{\alpha _i}(\nu ^{}/\nu _c^{})^{\alpha _c}`$, where $`\nu ^{}`$ is the co-moving frame observing frequency. The integral in equation (A1) is determined by the the values at of the integrand at $`r<R`$.

If the effect of the remnant geometrical curvature on the photon arrival-time were ignored, then the observed flux would be

$$F_\nu ^{(0)}(R)=\frac{1}{4\pi D^2}\left[(P_\nu ^{}^{})_e\mathrm{\Gamma }N_e\right]_{R(T)},$$
(A2)
which can be calculated based on equations (63), (65) and (66). The $`r`$-dependent quantities in equation (A1) can be expressed in terms of their values at $`r=R`$, so that the flux $`F_\nu `$ can be written as $`F_\nu ^{(0)}`$ times a correction factor

$$K=2(4s)^{2(\alpha _a+\alpha _i+\alpha _c)}_0^1u^{f(s)}\left[1+(3s)u^{4s}\right]^{\alpha _a+\alpha _i+\alpha _c2}du,$$
(A3)
where $`f(s)=72.5s2\alpha _a(q3s)+\alpha _i(20.5s)\alpha _c(2+0.5s)`$, with $`q=1,2`$ for radiative, radiative electrons, respectively. The $`K`$ factor depends on $`\nu `$ and also on $`p`$ if $`\nu >\nu _i`$. Table 1 gives its values for various cases.

## B Homogeneous External Medium ($`s=0`$)

By substituting the equations for the break frequencies and equation (64) in equations (65) and (66), and taking into account the above correction factors for the remnant curvature, the following fluxes are obtained

$$F_\nu \stackrel{(1)}{=}0.3D_{28}^2(Y_r+1)^1n_{,0}^1\epsilon _{B,1}^1\nu _{9.7}^2T_{d,1}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B4)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(2)}{=}10D_{28}^2(Y_r+1)^{2/3}E_{53}^{7/6}n_{,0}^{5/6}\epsilon _{B,2}\nu _{14.6}^{1/3}T_{d,2}^{1/6}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B5)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(3)}{=}40D_{28}^2(Y_r+1)^1E_{53}^{3/4}\epsilon _{B,1}^{1/4}\nu _{14.6}^{1/2}T_{d,2}^{1/4}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B6)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(4)}{=}10^{2.10.6p}D_{28}^2(Y_r+1)^1E_{53}^{\frac{p+2}{4}}\epsilon _{e,1}^{p1}\epsilon _{B,1}^{\frac{p2}{4}}\nu _{14.6}^{\frac{p}{2}}T_d^{\frac{3p2}{4}}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B7)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(5)}{=}30D_{28}^2E_{53}^{1/2}n_{,0}^{1/2}\epsilon _{e,1}\nu _{9.7}^2T_{d,1}^{1/2}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B8)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(6)}{=}1D_{28}^2E_{53}^{5/6}n_{,0}^{1/2}\epsilon _{e,1}^{2/3}\epsilon _{B,4}^{1/3}\nu _{14.6}^{1/3}T_{d,2}^{1/2}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B9)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(7)}{=}10^{2.11.3p}D_{28}^2E_{53}^{\frac{p+3}{4}}n_{,0}^{1/2}\epsilon _{e,1}^{p1}\epsilon _{B,4}^{\frac{p+1}{4}}\nu _{14.6}^{\frac{p1}{2}}T_d^{\frac{3}{4}(p1)}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B10)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(8)}{=}10^{2.40.8p}D_{28}^2E_{53}^{\frac{p+2}{4}}\epsilon _{e,1}^{p1}\epsilon _{B,2}^{\frac{p2}{4}}\nu _{14.6}^{\frac{p}{2}}T_d^{\frac{3p2}{4}}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(B11)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(8a)}{=}10^{\frac{2p^27.7p+0.8}{4p}}D_{28}^2\left[E_{53}^{\frac{1}{4}(12p^2)}n_{,0}^{\frac{1}{2}(p2)}\epsilon _{e,1}^{(p1)(3p)}\epsilon _{B,4}^{\frac{1}{4}(p^2+2p+4)}\right]^{\frac{1}{4p}}\nu _{17.5}^{\frac{p}{2}}T_{d,1}^{\frac{3p}{4}+\frac{1}{4p}}\mathrm{mJy}(2<p<3).$$
(B12)
The case given in equation (B12) and labeled $`(8a)`$ corresponds to the same frequency ordering as for case $`(8)`$, but the cooling break $`\nu _c`$ evolution (eq. ) is determined by the IC losses, i.e. $`T_r<T<T_y`$ and $`Y_a>1`$.

## C Wind External Medium ($`s=2`$)

Following the same exercise as above and using the relevant equations, the following results can be obtained for the wind model:

$$F_\nu \stackrel{(1)}{=}0.03D_{28}^2(Y_r+1)^1E_{53}A_{}^2\epsilon _{e,1}^1\epsilon _{B,2}^1\nu _{9.7}^2T_{d,1}^2\mathrm{mJy},$$
(C13)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(2)}{=}70D_{28}^2(Y_r+1)^{2/3}E_{53}^{1/3}A_{}^{5/3}\epsilon _{B,2}\nu _{12}^{1/3}T_{d,1}^{2/3}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(C14)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(5)}{=}0.07D_{28}^2E_{53}A_{}^1\epsilon _{e,1}\nu _{9.7}^2T_{d,1}^1\mathrm{mJy},$$
(C15)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(6)}{=}9D_{28}^2E_{53}^{1/3}A_{}\epsilon _{e,1}^{2/3}\epsilon _{B,3}^{1/3}\nu _{12}^{1/3}T_d^0\mathrm{mJy},$$
(C16)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(7)}{=}10^{2.31.2p}D_{28}^2E_{53}^{\frac{p+1}{4}}A_{}\epsilon _{e,1}^{p1}\epsilon _{B,4}^{\frac{p+1}{4}}\nu _{14.6}^{\frac{p1}{2}}T_d^{\frac{3p1}{4}}\mathrm{mJy},$$
(C17)
$$F_\nu \stackrel{(8a)}{=}10^{\frac{1.9p^28.6p+5.4}{4p}}D_{28}^2E_{53}^{\frac{p+2}{4}}\left[A_{}^{(p2)}\epsilon _{e,1}^{(p1)(3p)}\epsilon _{B,4}^{\frac{1}{4}(p^2+2p+4)}\right]^{\frac{1}{4p}}\nu _{17.5}^{\frac{p}{2}}T_{d,1}^{\frac{3p}{4}+\frac{p}{2(4p)}}\mathrm{mJy}(2<p<3).$$
(C18)
For the remainder of the cases it can be shown that the fluxes for the wind model differ from those for obtained in the $`s=0`$ model only by a constant factor:

$$\frac{F_\nu (s=2)}{F_\nu (s=0)}\stackrel{(3)}{=}0.60\frac{Y_r(s=0)}{Y_r(s=2)},$$
(C19)
$$\frac{F_\nu (s=2)}{F_\nu (s=0)}\stackrel{(4)}{=}1.24\left(\frac{17}{72}\right)^{p/4}\frac{Y_r(s=0)}{Y_r(s=2)},$$
(C20)
$$\frac{F_\nu (s=2)}{F_\nu (s=0)}\stackrel{(8)}{=}1.35\left(\frac{17}{72}\right)^{p/4}.$$
(C21)
This means that observations made at frequencies above the cooling break are unable to distinguish between the two models for the external medium, with the exception of the case where the electron cooling is dominated by IC losses (case $`8a`$).

The reference frequency in the equations above was chosen $`\nu =4\times 10^{14}`$ Hz whenever this optical frequency falls in one of the cases labeled in equations (65)–(66), for the model parameters given in Figures 1 and 2. The observer time was scaled to a value at which each case is more likely to occur.

The above light-curves must be corrected to account for cosmological effects. This is achieved by replacing $`T`$ with $`T/(1+z)`$ and $`\nu `$ with $`(1+z)\nu `$, where $`z`$ is the burst redshift.

REFERENCES

Blandford, R. D. & McKee, C. F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130

Bloom, J. et al. 1999, Nature, 401, 453

Chevalier, R.A. & Li, Z.-Y. 1999, ApJ, 520, L29

Chevalier, R.A. & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/9908272)

Dai, Z. & Lu, T. 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/9906109)

Fenimore, E.E. & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/9909299)

Frail, D. et al. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/9910060)

Frail, D., Waxman, E., & Kulkarni, S. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/9910319)

Galama, T. et al. 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/9907264)

Goodman, J. 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 449

Granot, J., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2000, 534, L163

Groot, P. et al. 1998, ApJ, 502, L123

Halpern, J., Kemp, J., Piran, T., & Bershady, M. 1999, ApJ, 517, L105

Harrison, F. et al. 1999, ApJ, 523, L121

Kulkarni, S. et al. 1999a, Nature, 398, 389

Kulkarni, S. et al. 1999b, ApJ, 522, L97

Kumar, P. & Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJL, submitted (astro-ph/0003264)

Mészáros , P. & Rees, M. J. 1997a, ApJ, 476, 232

Mészáros , P. & Rees, M. J. 1997b, ApJ, 482, L29

Paczyński, B. & Xu, G. 1994, ApJ, 427, 708

Paczyński, B. 1998, ApJ, 494, L45

Panaitescu, A. & Mészáros , P. 1998, ApJ, 493, L31

Piran, T. 1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575

Rees, M.J. & Mészáros , P. 1994, ApJ, 430, L93

Reichart, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, L111

Rhoads, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737

Rybicki, G.B. & Lightman, A.P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York : Wiley-Interscience)

Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17

Sari, R. & Piran, T. 1999, ApJ, 520, 641

Stanek, K., Garnavich, P., Kaluzny, J., Pych, W., & Thompson, I. 1999, ApJ, 522, L39

Waxman, E. 1997a, ApJ, 485, L5

Waxman, E. 1997b, ApJ, 489, L33

Wei, D. & Lu, T. 1998, ApJ, 505, 252

Wijers, R. & Galama, T. 1999, ApJ, 523, 177

Woosley, S. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the last years we have seen increasing evidences that string/M theory on AdS spaces are dual to large $`N`$ strongly coupled gauge theories . The most extensively studied cases are the dualities between Type IIB string theories on $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟓}\times M_5`$ for positively curved five dimensional Einstein manifolds and large $`N`$ strongly coupled four dimensional conformal gauge theories. The simplest example is $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟓}\times 𝐒^\mathrm{𝟓}`$. In this case, the dual field theory is $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. In , field theories with less supersymmetry have been studied as duals to string theory on orbifolds of $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟓}`$. In , Klebanov and Witten studied the Einstein manifold $`𝐓^{1,1}=(SU(2)\times SU(2))/U(1)`$. This was the first example of five dimensional spaces which are not orbifolds of $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟓}`$. Type IIB string theory compactified on this manifold is dual to an $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ gauge theory with a quartic superpotential for bifundamental fields. In the T-dual picture, D3 branes probing a metric cone over $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ (which is the conifold) is either a brane configuration with D4 branes together with orthogonal NS branes  or a brane box with D5 branes together with orthogonal NS branes . Other results on the conifold or the quotients of the conifold and their field theory duals were obtained in .

Another exciting development was study of the gravity dual of the field theory Renormalization group flow. The main point is that the radial coordinate of $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5`$ has the natural interpretation as an energy scale in field theory. Thus it becomes natural to consider type IIB supergravity interpolating solutions where the metric and the fields depend on the radial coordinate, and to interpret these solutions as RG flows in the dual field theory. Many ideas have emerged concerning different aspects of supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric RG flows for four dimensional theories .

Because the AdS/CFT involves the full string theory we should be able to go beyond the Supergravity approximation. In  Klebanov and Nekrasov have studied the gravity duals of fractional branes in supersymmetric conifold and orbifold theories where the presence of the fractional branes breaks the conformal invariance and introduces an RG flow in field theories. One of the models considered in  involves a large number of D3-branes at a conifold singularity whose near-horizon is a $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐓^{1,1}`$ background and the fluxes of $`B^{NS}`$ and $`B^{RR}`$ forms through the blow-up 2-cycle determine a difference in the coupling constants of the two group factors appearing on the world-volume of the D3 branes at singularities. The supergravity equations of motion together with the specific formulas for the 2-forms and 3-forms on $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ give a solution which reproduces the logarithmic flow of field theory beta function. Previous results were obtained in type 0B string where effective action uncertainties occur . In all the studies of RG flow from AdS/CFT, the RG flow was determined by turning on different operators in the field theory which break the conformal invariance. In supergravity this means turning on some of the supergravity scalar fields. Another way to break the conformal invariance is to introduce the twisted sectors of string theories.

In this paper we go one step further and study D3 branes on an orbifolded conifold which is the quotient of the conifold by $`𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$. Now the horizon $`X_5`$ will be singular along two disjoint, but linked circles and we need to resolve the singularities in order to obtain a smooth Einstein manifold $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$. We completely describe the resolution of the orbifolded conifold itself in two steps and discover that there are $`kl`$ isolated conifold singularities after the first step of the resolution. After the resolution we find a smooth Einstein manifold $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ containing $`kl+k+k2`$ two-cycles. As $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ approaches the exceptional fiber of the first resolution, $`kl`$ cycles are vanishing into the singular points, and $`k+l2`$ cycles deform to cycles in the fiber which separate the two circles of singularities. Near each singular point, $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ can be approximated by $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ and $`kl`$ two-cycles of $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ come from these $`𝐓^{1,1}`$’s. We then consider a large number of D3 branes probing this singularity, which corresponds to a brane box with D5 branes and orthogonal NS branes via T-duality . The D5 branes wrapped on 2-cycles of $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ vanishing into the singular points of the partially resolved orbifolded conifold are the fractional D3 branes. We study the $`B^{NS}`$ and $`B^{RR}`$ fluxes through different 2-cycles of $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ which give rise to a logarithmic flow for the field theory coupling constants. This agrees with the field theory expectations for the RG flow.

In section 2 we study the geometry of the orbifolded conifold and describe how to obtain a smooth horizon from the singular horizon $`𝐓^{1,1}/𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$. We also identify the different fractional D3 branes in the singularity picture with different components of brane interval or brane box configurations obtained by T-dualities. In section 3 we describe the supergravity dual to the field theory Renormalization Group flows.

## 2 Geometry and Brane Configurations of Orbifolded Conifolds

In this section we study the geometry of the orbifolded conifolds $`𝒞_{kl}`$ in detail and we make connections with brane configurations obtained by T-dualities. In particular, we study the resolutions of the orbifolded conifolds $`𝒞_{kl}`$ and the associated fractional branes in the T-dual picture. At the end of the section, we describe the homological cycles of the resolved horizon of $`𝒞_{kl}`$, and thus extends the results of . This play an important role in the study of fluxes in the next section.

Consider a singular Calabi-Yau threefold $`Y_6`$ which is a metric cone over a five dimensional Einstein manifold $`M_5`$. Then the metric near the apex of the cone will be

$$ds_{Y_6}^2=dr^2+r^2ds_{M_5}^2.$$
(2.1)
Here the apex is located at $`r=0`$ and $`M_5`$ is called the horizon of the cone $`Y_6`$. If $`N`$ parallel D3 branes are placed at the apex of the cone $`Y_6`$, the resulting ten dimensional spacetime has the metric

$$ds^2=R^2\left[\frac{r^2}{R^4}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+\frac{dr^2}{r^2}+ds_5^2\right],R^4g_sN(\alpha ^{})^2.$$
(2.2)
The near-horizon ($`r0`$) limit of the geometry is $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟓}\times M_5`$. Type IIB theory on this background is conjectured to be dual to the conformal limit of the field theory on the D3 branes.

In , an example of such duality has been discussed in the case of a conifold whose horizon is $`𝐓^{1,1}=(SU(2)\times SU(2))/U(1)`$. The conifold is a three dimensional hypersurface singularity in $`𝐂^4`$ defined by:

$`𝒞:z_1z_2z_3z_4=0.`$ (2.3)
The conifold can be realized as a holomorphic quotient of $`𝐂^4`$ by the $`𝐂^{}`$ action given by

$`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)(\lambda A_1,\lambda A_2,\lambda ^1B_1,\lambda ^1B_2)\text{ for }\lambda 𝐂^{}.`$ (2.4)
Thus the charge matrix is the transpose of $`Q^{^{}}=(1,1,1,1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sigma `$ will be a convex polyhedral cone in $`𝐍_𝐑^{^{}}=𝐑^3`$ generated by $`v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4𝐍^{^{}}=𝐙^3`$ where

$`v_1=(1,0,0),v_2=(0,1,0),v_3=(0,0,1),v_4=(1,1,1).`$ (2.5)
The isomorphism between the conifold $`𝒞`$ and the holomorphic quotient is given by

$`z_1=A_1B_1,z_2=A_2B_2,z_3=A_1B_2,z_4=A_2B_1.`$ (2.6)
To identify the horizon from this point of view, note that we can divide by the scaling $`z_isz_i`$ (with real positive $`s`$) by setting $`|A_1|^2+|A_2|^2=|B_1|^2+|B_2|^2=1`$. This gives us $`𝐒^3\times 𝐒^3=SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. Then dividing by the $`U(1)`$ action

$`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)(e^{i\alpha }A_1,e^{i\alpha }A_2,e^{i\alpha }B_1,e^{i\alpha }B_2),`$ (2.7)
we obtain $`𝐓^{1,1}=(SU(2)\times SU(2))/U(1)`$.

The five dimensional manifold $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ has 2-cycles and 3-cycles. Besides the D3 branes orthogonal to $`𝐓^{1,1}`$, there are wrapped D3 branes over the 3-cycles of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ (which correspond to “dibaryon” operators ) and wrapped D5 branes over 2-cycles of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ (which to correspond to domain walls in $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟓}`$  and to fractional D3 branes ). Because $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ is $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\times 𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, we can identify the 2-cycle with $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the 3-cycle with $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. These two cycles are orthogonal so the D3 brane wrapped on $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is orthogonal to the D5 brane wrapped on $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, therefore when they cross each other a fundamental string is created as explained in  and the gauge group becomes $`SU(N+1)\times SU(N)`$.

The geometrical picture is T-dual to different types of brane configuration. By one T-duality one can obtain the brane interval picture with D4 branes wrapped on a circle and by two T-dualities one obtains the brane box picture with D5 branes wrapped on a 2-torus. The fractional branes have also been identified in the brane interval picture in . The idea was to interpret the conifold (2.3) as a $`𝐂^{}`$ fibration over the $`𝐂^2`$ parameterized by $`z_3,z_4`$. By performing T-duality along the $`U(1)`$-orbit in the $`𝐂^{}`$-fiber, we obtain from the degenerate fibers $`z_1=0`$ and $`z_2=0`$, two NS fivebranes extended, say, $`x^0x^1x^2x^3x^4x^5`$ and $`x^0x^1x^2x^3x^8x^9`$ directions which we denote by NS and NS’ branes. The D3 branes located at the singular point transform into D4 branes wrapping a circle which is transverse to the NS fivebranes. $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ has a $`U(1)`$-fibration over $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ and a two cycle $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ can be identified to the difference of two homologically distinct spheres coming from $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. After identifying $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ with the exceptional locus in the full resolution of the conifold, D5 brane wrapping the two cycle $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ will transform as a D4 brane wrapping on one interval between two NS-branes. This is a fractional brane in the interval model (Figure 1).

One of the goals of this paper is to study the fractional branes in the brane box model for a quotient of the conifold. To do this, we start by taking a further quotient of the conifold $`𝒞`$ by a discrete group $`𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$. Here $`𝐙_k`$ acts on $`A_i,B_j`$ by

$`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)(e^{2\pi i/k}A_1,A_2,e^{2\pi i/k}B_1,B_2),`$ (2.8)
and $`𝐙_l`$ acts by

$`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)(e^{2\pi i/l}A_1,A_2,B_1,e^{2\pi i/l}B_2).`$ (2.9)
Thus they will act on the conifold $`𝒞`$ by

$`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)(z_1,z_2,e^{2\pi i/k}z_3,e^{2\pi i/k}z_4)`$ (2.10)
and

$`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)(e^{2\pi i/l}z_1,e^{2\pi i/l}z_2,z_3,z_4).`$ (2.11)
Its quotient is called the orbifolded conifold (or the hyper-quotient of the conifold) and denoted by $`𝒞_{kl}`$.

Note that the action (2.8) leaves a complex two space $`A_1=B_1=0`$ fixed in $`𝐂^4`$ and this is isomorphic to $`𝐂^1`$ given by $`z_1=z_3=z_4=0`$ on the conifold $`𝒞`$ after dividing by the $`U(1)`$ action. Similarly, the action (2.9) leaves fixed a complex two space $`A_1=B_2=0`$ in $`𝐂^4`$ and it is isomorphic to $`𝐂^1`$ given by $`z_1=z_2=z_3=0`$ on the conifold $`𝒞`$ after dividing by the $`U(1)`$ action. Furthermore, the action (2.8) descends to the horizon $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ and leaves the following circle fixed:

$`|z_2|^2=1,z_1=z_3=z_4=0`$ (2.12)
or equivalently $`|A_2|^2=|B_2|^2=1,A_1=B_1=0(modU(1))`$. Similarly, the action (2.9) leaves the following circle fixed

$`|z_4|^2=1,z_1=z_2=z_3=0`$ (2.13)
or equivalently $`|A_2|^2=|B_1|^2=1,A_1=B_2=0(modU(1))`$. Hence the horizon $`X_5:=𝐓^{1,1}/𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$ of the orbifolded conifold is singular along these two circles. These two circles are separated but linked. The horizon $`X_5`$ has $`𝐀_{k1}`$ singularity along the circle (2.12) and $`𝐀_{l1}`$ singularity along the circle (2.13). String theory in the back ground $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times X_5`$ has massless fields which are localized along these two linked circles. As discussed in , these massless fields are the twisted modes and they propagate on $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐒^1\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐒^1`$ where $`𝐒^1𝐒^1`$ are the circles of singularities. As we shall see below, there are $`k+l2`$ 2-cycles which separate these two circles. The fluxes of the NSNS and RR two forms through these cycles give rise to scalars which live in the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐒^1`$ space and are the same as the scalars introduced in section 3 of .

To put the actions (2.6), (2.8) and (2.9) on an equal footing, consider the over-lattice $`𝐍=𝐍^{^{}}+\frac{1}{k}(v_3v_1)+\frac{1}{l}(v_4v_1)`$. Now the lattice points $`\sigma 𝐍`$ of $`\sigma `$ in $`𝐍`$ are generated by $`(k+1)(l+1)`$ lattice points as a semigroup. The discrete group $`𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l𝐍/𝐍^{^{}}`$ will act on the conifold $`𝐂^4//U(1)`$ and its quotient will be the symplectic reduction $`𝐂^{(k+1)(l+1)}//U(1)^{(k+1)(l+1)3}`$. The new toric diagram for $`𝒞_{kl}`$ will also lie on a plane at a distance from the origin and the toric diagram on the plane for $`𝒞_{23}`$ is shown in Figure 1.

In suitable coordinates, the orbifolded conifold will be given by

$`𝒞_{kl}:xy=z^l,uv=z^k.`$ (2.14)
As we have seen above, the horizon $`X_5`$ is singular. To obtain a smooth Einstein manifold from $`X_5`$, we will resolve the singularities of $`𝒞_{kl}`$ itself. We resolve the singular threefold $`𝒞_{kl}`$ in two steps. In the first step, we choose a partial resolution, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$, of the orbifolded conifold $`𝒞_{kl}`$ for which the horizon will be smooth, but the Calabi-Yau threefold $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ will have $`kl`$ number of isolated singular points. Around each singular point, the Calabi-Yau space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ is locally a metric cone over an Einstein manifold $`𝐓^{1,1}`$. In terms of the toric diagram, the partial resolution we have chosen is obtained by adding all possible vertical and horizontal arrows to the toric diagram of $`𝒞_{kl}`$. For example, the toric diagram for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{23}}`$ is given as in Figure 3.

We are going to describe in detail each step but let us discuss first some features and make the connection of the result with the T-dual brane configurations. The partially resolved space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ is covered by $`kl`$ squares and each square in the toric diagram represents an ordinary conifold. Thus the metric near each singular point can be written locally as follows

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(d\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(d\theta _a^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _ad\varphi _a^2).`$ (2.15)
Note that $`𝒞_{kl}`$ can be regarded as a $`𝐂^{}\times 𝐂^{}`$ fibration over the $`z`$-plane via (2.14). By taking $`T`$-duality along $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ orbit in $`𝐂^{}\times 𝐂^{}`$, we will have two types of NS branes extended in, say, $`x^0x^1x^2x^3x^4x^5`$ and $`x^0x^1x^2x^3x^8x^9`$ directions, where $`x^4,x^8`$ are compact directions coming from the degenerate $`U(1)\times U(1)`$-orbit. The separation of the NS branes along the $`x^8`$ direction and similarly that of the NS’ branes along the $`x^4`$ direction can be achieved by partially resolving $`𝒞_{kl}`$. But there will be $`kl`$ intersections of the NS and NS’ branes on the $`x^4x^8`$ torus which correspond to the singular points of the partially resolved orbifolded conifold $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$. By replacing these singular points by $`𝐏^1`$’s, we resolve the singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$. In the field theory, the process of blowing-up and turning the NS-NS B-fluxes through the $`kl`$ $`𝐏^1`$ cycles means turning on gauge couplings. In brane box configurations it means replacing the intersection of NS and NS’ branes with ‘diamonds’ , the size of the diamonds being given by the fluxes of $`NSNS`$ fields through the blow-up cycles. In this T-duality, D3 branes become D5 branes which fill the $`x^4x^8`$ directions and the resulting brane configuration is as a brane box model shown in Figure 4 . Its components are diamonds and boxes and a stripe is an horizontal or vertical line of boxes (in Figure 4 we have represented an horizontal stripe).

In the second step we completely resolve the singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ by replacing each of the singular points by a copy of $`𝐏^1`$ as explained before, procedure called a small resolution. In terms of the toric diagram, this corresponds to joining a pair of the diagonal vertices (but not both pairs) by a line segment in each square. Let us denote this completely resolved threefold by $`\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}`$. For example, the toric diagram for $`\widehat{𝒞_{23}}`$ is given as in Figure 3.

Let

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}𝒞_{kl},\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ (2.16)
be the first and the second resolution discussed above. Let $`𝐨`$ be the apex of the cone $`𝒞_{kl}`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{X_5}=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(X_5).`$ (2.17)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ is covered by a $`kl`$ number of the ordinary conifolds corresponding to the squares in the toric diagram. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ has $`kl`$ isolated singular points corresponding to the apexes of these ordinary conifolds. These singular points lie on the fiber $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(𝐨)`$. Moreover, we will explicitly show that the exceptional fiber $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(𝐨)`$ consists of $`(k1)(l1)`$ copies of $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. The map $`\widehat{\pi }`$ modifies only the singular points of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ replacing each of them by a copy of the projective space $`𝐏^1`$. Thus $`\widehat{\pi }`$ is an isomorphism outside $`(\widehat{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\pi })^1(𝐨)`$. In particular, we have

$`\widehat{\pi }^1(\stackrel{~}{X_5})\stackrel{~}{X_5}.`$ (2.18)
and $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ is smooth. As we mentioned above, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ is smooth outside the $`kl`$ ordinary conifold singular points. Thus if we put a large number of D3 branes at one of $`kl`$ isolated singular points, denoted by $`x_{ij},1ik,1jl`$, then the near-horizon limit of the geometry will be $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐓^{1,1}`$.

The 5 dimensional manifold $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ can be regarded as a smoothing of the singular Einstein manifold $`X_5`$. As we will see later, there will be $`kl+k+l2`$ number of 2-cyles and 3-cycles in $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ where $`kl`$ is the number of the cycle coming from the horizon of each singular point of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ and $`k+l2`$ number of them comes by separating the above discussed two fixed circles in $`X_5=𝐓^{1,1}/𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$. As mentioned above, the first kind of these cycles corresponds to the ‘diamonds’ and the second kind corresponds to the ‘stripes’ in the brane box model. They correspond to stripes of boxes instead of individual boxes because we need to consider curves of either $`𝐀_{k1}`$ or $`𝐀_{l1}`$ singularity.

Before starting the actual discussion concerning the identification of the different 2-cycles, we present another proof for the fact that the Einstein manifold $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ is homeomorphic to $`𝐒^3\times 𝐒^2`$ . By changing coordinates

$`z_1=w_1+iw_2,z_2=w_1iw_2,z_3=w_3+iw_4,z_4=w_3iw_4,`$ (2.19)
we can rewrite the conifold equation (2.3) as:

$`w_1^2+w_2^2+w_3^2+w_4^2=0.`$ (2.20)
Since the Einstein manifold $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ can be realized as a horizon (link) of the the conifold singularity, $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ is described by the intersection of (2.20) and the seven sphere in $`𝐂^4`$ given by

$`|w_1|^2+|w_2|^2+|w_3|^2+|w_4|^2=1.`$ (2.21)
¿From (2.20) and (2.21), we see that $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ is given by

$`x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2=y_1^2+y_2^2+y_3^2+y_4^2=1/2,`$
$`x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3+x_4y_4=0,`$ (2.22)
where $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ are the real and imaginary parts of $`w_i`$. Thus the $`y_i`$’s describe a bundle of two spheres in the tangent bundle of $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ given by the coordinates $`x_i`$’s. Hence $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ is a sphere bundle $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ over $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Since $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is parallelizable , a sphere bundle $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ over $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is trivial and $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}\times 𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. In fact, the frame for the sphere bundle over $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ can be given by

$`\{(x_2,x_1,x_4,x_3),(x_3,x_4,x_1,x_2),(x_4,x_3,x_2,x_1)\}.`$ (2.23)
Next, we want to study the exceptional fiber $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(𝐨)`$. We will illustrate the general situation with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{23}}`$. To facilitate understanding, let us choose a basis for the lattice $`𝐍`$ so that the coordinates of the lattice points are as follows:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}v_1=(1,0,1),\hfill & v_2=(1,1,1),\hfill & v_3=(1,2,1),\hfill & v_4=(1,3,1),\hfill \\ v_5=(1,0,0),\hfill & v_6=(1,1,0),\hfill & v_7=(1,2,0),\hfill & v_8=(1,3,0),\hfill \\ v_9=(1,0,1),\hfill & v_{10}=(1,1,1),\hfill & v_{11}=(1,2,1).\hfill & v_{12}=(1,3,1).\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.25)
The Figure 6 shows the coordinate rings corresponding to the various squares of the toric diagram of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{23}}`$.

By tedious but direct computations from the Figure 6, one can see that the fiber $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(𝐨)`$ consists of a union of $`(k1)(l1)`$ numbers of $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Moreover the adjacent components of the fiber meet along $`𝐏^1`$. If we denote each $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ by a vertex and we join two of vertices if they meet, then we get a lattice of size $`(k1)`$ by $`(l1)`$. The Figure 7 shows what they look like for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{23}}`$.

In Figure 7, each square represents $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ and the singular points of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{23}}`$ are denoted by black dots. The fiber consists of two $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ and they meet along $`𝐏^1`$. ¿From this picture, one can see that the second betti number $`h_2(\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(𝐨))=k+l2`$. The D5 brane wrapping one of these $`k+l2`$ spheres corresponds the fractional D3 brane coming from the $`𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$ twisted sector of the type IIB supergravity on $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐓^{1,1}/𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$. In the brane box model, this type of a fractional D3 brane turns into a D5 brane living on a stripe (See Figure 4).

As we mentioned above, a full resolution $`\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}`$ of $`𝒞_{kl}`$ can be obtained by replacing the singular points of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ by copies of $`𝐏^1`$. Hence the exceptional fiber $`(\widehat{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\pi })^1(𝐨)`$ will acquire $`kl`$ copies of $`𝐏^1`$. This can be achieved by blowing up $`kl`$ points on $`\stackrel{~}{\pi ^1}(𝐨)`$. Thus the second betti number of the exceptional fiber $`(\widehat{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\pi })^1(𝐨)`$ will be $`k+l2+kl`$.

To study cycles on the Einstein manifold $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$, consider an inclusion map

$`i:\stackrel{~}{X_5}\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}.`$ (2.26)
First note that $`\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}`$ contacts to the exceptional fiber $`(\widehat{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\pi })^1(𝐨)`$, which we will denote by $`E`$. This contraction can be constructed by lifting a conical structure of $`𝒞_{kl}`$. We now regard $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ as a boundary of a smooth 6 dimensional manifold $`\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}`$. Consider a long sequence of homology groups with $`𝐐`$ coefficients:

$`H_4(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}},\stackrel{~}{X_5})\stackrel{}{}H_3(\stackrel{~}{X_5})\stackrel{i_{}}{}H_3(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}})\stackrel{j_{}}{}H_3(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}},\stackrel{~}{X_5})\stackrel{}{}H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5})\stackrel{i_{}}{}H_2(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}})`$ (2.27)
where $`j_{}`$ is induced by the inclusion $`j:\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}},\stackrel{~}{X_5})`$. Via the universal coefficient theorem and the Poincaré duality, we have

$`H_3(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}},\stackrel{~}{X_5})H^3(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}})H_3(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}})=0`$ (2.28)
since $`\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}`$ can be deformed to $`E`$. Hence in the following commutative diagram, the top horizontal arrow will be injective and the bottom horizontal arrow will be surjective.
Here the vertical arrows are isomorphisms because of the universal coefficient theorem and the Poincaré dualities. Therefore, we conclude that

$`H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5},𝐐)H_2(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}},𝐐).`$ (2.29)
Moreover, we want to see the origin of these two cycles. Let $`L_{ij}`$ be the horizon of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ at $`x_{ij}`$. Then $`L_{ij}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ and $`L_{ij}`$ does not change under the resolution $`\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$. From (2.29), we see that there is a natural inclusion

$`H_2(L_{ij})H_2(\widehat{𝒞_{kl}})H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5}).`$ (2.30)
Thus we may regard the 2-cycle of $`H_2(L_{ij})`$ as a 2-cycle of $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5})`$. We denote this 2-cycle by $`C_{ij}^2`$. By Poincaré duality, we may also regard the 3-cycle of $`H_3(L_{ij})`$ as a 3-cycle of $`H_3(\stackrel{~}{X_5})`$, which will be denoted by $`C_{ij}^3`$. Note that there are $`kl`$ contributions of 2-cycles from $`H_2(L_{ij})`$.

Moreover on each open neighborhood of $`x_{ij}`$ represented by a square, we can choose a basis for one-forms

$`e_{ij}^\psi =\frac{1}{3}\left(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\varphi _2\right)`$ (2.31)
$`e_{ij}^{\theta _1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}d\theta _1e_{ij}^{\varphi _1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\varphi _1`$ (2.32)
$`e_{ij}^{\theta _2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}d\theta _2e_{ij}^{\varphi _2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\varphi _2,`$ (2.33)
so that the harmonic representatives of the second and third cohomology groups can be written as

$`e_{ij}^{\theta _1}e_{ij}^{\varphi _1}e_{ij}^{\theta _2}e_{ij}^{\varphi _2}`$ $`H^2(L_{ij})`$ (2.34)
$`e_{ij}^\psi e_{ij}^{\theta _1}e_{ij}^{\varphi _1}e_{ij}^\psi e_{ij}^{\theta _2}e_{ij}^{\varphi _2}`$ $`H^3(L_{ij}).`$ (2.35)
On the other hand, from the inclusion of $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ into the partially resolved conifold $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$, we obtain a map

$`H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5})H_2(\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}).`$ (2.36)
Since we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ from $`\widehat{𝒞_{kl}}`$ by collapsing the blown-up two spheres which is a smooth deformation of the spheres in $`L_{ij}`$, we have the following exact sequence:

$`0{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l}{}}H_2(L_{ij})H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5})H_2(\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}})0.`$ (2.37)
Therefore we have obtained a concrete description of the cycles of $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ in terms of $`kl`$ cycles from $`H_2(L_{ij})`$ and the $`k+l2`$ cycles $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}})`$. The cycles in $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}})`$ are separating the singular points of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$. hence the corresponding cycles in $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5})`$ will separate the two fixed circles of $`X_5`$. This generalizes the results from the conifold and allows us to study the fluxes of NS-NS and R-R two forms in order to obtain logarithmic RG flow in the next section.

## 3 Fractional Branes and RG Flows

In this section we are going to extensively use the mathematical results of the previous section and identify the fractional branes as small perturbations of the string background. This will allow us to study the interpolation between the background with or without fractional D3 branes. This description will be shown to reproduce the logarithmic flow of gauge couplings,being in complete agreement with results of field theory.

We begin with a brief review of  where the RG flow determined by the fractional D3 branes was considered. Their result is a particular example of our case for $`k=l=1`$. The coupling constant of field theory are written in terms of the two-form charges on the vanishing sphere of the singularity:

$$\tau =C_0+i\frac{1}{g^2}=_{C^2}B^{RR}+i_{C^2}B^{NS}$$
(3.1)
where $`B^{RR},B^{NS}`$ are the R-R and NS-NS 2-form potentials. At the conifold point the values of the B-fields are fixed and the coupling constant is $`g^2e^\varphi /2`$. By wrapping $`M`$ D5 branes over the 2-cycle of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ in addition to $`N`$ regular D3 branes orthogonal to the conifold, the string background will contain $`M`$ units of RR 3-form flux through the 3-cycle of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$:

$$_{C^3}H^{RR}=M.$$
(3.2)
The equations of motion imply that $`H^{NS}`$ should be proportional to $`M`$ and to a product of the closed 2-form on $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ and a one form which involves $`dr`$ and taken to be $`\frac{df}{dr}dr=df(r)`$. Hence the two form potential $`B^{NS}`$ will be:

$$B^{NS}=e^\varphi f(r)\omega _2,\text{where}f(r)M\mathrm{log}r$$
(3.3)
where $`\omega _2`$ is the closed form on $`𝐓^{1,1}`$. The R-R scalar $`C_0=0`$ and the dilaton are set to have constant values.

The fractional D3 branes, obtained by wrapping D5 branes on the 2-cycle of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ represent domain walls in $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5`$ and are obtained by wrapping D5 branes on the 2-cycle of $`𝐓^{1,1}`$. The relation between the two coupling constants of the field theory on the D3 branes writes in the presence of M D5 branes wrapped on the 2-cycle as

$$\frac{1}{g_1^2}\frac{1}{g_2^2}e^\varphi (M\mathrm{log}r\frac{1}{2})e^\varphi M\mathrm{log}r$$
(3.4)
where the last relation is true in the large M approximation. This agrees with the field theory logarithmic RG flow equation in a non-conformal theory, the conformality being broken by the presence of the fractional D3 branes.

We now proceed to the case of the orbifolded conifold. The field theory on the world-volume of the $`N`$ coincident D3 branes probing the singularity $`𝒞_{kl}`$ has been obtained in . It is an $`𝒩=1`$ chiral supersymmetric gauge theory with the gauge group

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}}SU(N)_{i,j}\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}}SU(N)_{I,j}^{}`$ (3.5)
and with matter fields

| Field | Representation |
| --- | --- |
| $`(A_1)_{i+1,j+1;i,j}`$ | $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i+1,j+1},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i,j}^{})`$ |
| $`(A_2)_{i,j;i,j}`$ | $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i,j},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i,j}^{})`$ |
| $`(B_1)_{i,j;i,j+1}`$ | $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i,j}^{},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i,j+1})`$ |
| $`(B_2)_{i,j;i+1,j}`$ | $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i,j}^{},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i+1,j})`$ |

Moreover there is a quartic superpotential

$`W{\displaystyle }((A_1)_{i+1,j+1;i,j}(B_1)_{i,j;i,j+1}(A_2)_{i,j+1;i,j+1}(B_2)_{i,j+1;i+1,j+1}`$ (3.6)
$`(A_1)_{i+1,j+1;i,j}(B_1)_{i,j;i+1,j}(A_2)_{i+1,j;i+1,j}(B_2)_{i+1,j;i+1,j+1})`$
As explained in the section 2, by taking T-duality, we obtain the brane box configuration consisting of $`k`$ NS branes and $`l`$ NS’ branes whose intersections are smoothen out by diamonds. The singular point of $`𝒞_{kl}`$ splits into $`kl`$ ordinary conifold singularities $`x_{ij}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ under the resolution $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}𝒞_{kl}`$ as in equation (2.16). Hence if we put a large $`N`$ number of D3 branes at each singular point $`x_{ij}`$, the the near-horizon limit of the geometry of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_{kl}}`$ at $`x_{ij}`$ will be $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐓^{1,1}`$. If we wrap a D5 brane over the 2-cycle of $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ corresponding to the 2-cycle of $`L_{ij}`$, we obtain a fractional D3 brane which is a domain wall in $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5`$ since it lies in the orthogonal direction to the D3 branes placed on the singular point $`x_{ij}`$. When we put one fractional brane together with $`N`$ regular D3 branes, we will change the $`(i,j)`$-th copy of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group and the gauge group will change to $`SU(N+1)\times SU(N)^{kl1}\times SU(N)^{{}_{}{}^{}kl}`$ on the other side of the domain wall. The evidence for this claim is similar to the one of  i.e. by studying the behavior of wrapped D3-branes on 3-cycles of $`L_{ij}`$ when they cross domain walls.

Before going further, we need to make a crucial observation concerning the constraint imposed by the consistency of the field theory on the worldvolume of the D3 branes. Since our field theory is chiral and can have anomalies, it is important to be careful with the way we introduce the fractional D3 branes. ¿From the geometrical discussion, it appears that there is no restriction on introducing fractional D3 branes i.e. on wrapping D5 branes on different 2-cycles of the horizon. In the brane box picture this would mean that there is no restriction on the number of D5 branes on different diamonds. If there is no integer D3 brane in the theory, we can introduce any number of fractional D3 branes which correspond to D5 branes in a specific diamond. In the presence of D3 branes orthogonal to the conifold (integer D3 branes), we cannot put fractional D3 branes in only one diamond. This is because if we put one D5 brane in the $`(i,j)`$-th diamond, the gauge groups in the $`(i,j)`$-th and $`(i+1,j+1)`$-th boxes have one supplementary anti-fundamental field and the gauge groups in the $`(i,j1)`$-th and $`(i1,j)`$-th boxes have one supplementary fundamental field, these four gauge theories becoming anomalous. See Figure 8 where we represent the $`ij`$ diamond and fields which are in the fundamental or anti-fundamental representations. This determines a specific way to introduce fractional branes. We need to have either $`k`$ fractional D3 branes corresponding to D5 branes on a row of diamonds or $`l`$ fractional D3 branes corresponding to D5 branes on a column of diamonds. Then all the gauge groups in different boxes have the same number of fundamental and anti-fundamental fields and are anomaly free. When we discussed about the twisted sector in section 2, we saw that they also correspond to D5 branes on rows or columns of boxes so the filling of boxes and diamonds is similar.

We can now proceed to obtain the main goal of this section i.e. to compare the $`\beta `$-function calculation in field theory living on the world-volume of the integer D3 branes with the solution of supergravity equations of motion in the presence of fractional D3 branes. To start with, we need to discuss more about the “dibaryon” operators and the domain walls in $`AdS_5`$. Because $`\stackrel{~}{X_5}`$ contains $`kl`$ copies of Einstein manifolds $`𝐓^{1,1}`$, we can wrap D3 branes over the 3-cycle of each $`𝐓^{1,1}`$ to obtain $`kl`$ types of “dibaryons”. Besides we have integer D3 branes and D5 branes wrapped on each of the $`kl`$ blow-up 2-cycles at each of the $`kl`$ singular points, the latter ones being the domain walls. For $`M_{i_0j_0}`$ D5 branes wrapped around the $`(i_0,j_0)`$-th 2-cycle, the gauge group changes from $`SU(N)^{kl}\times SU(N)^{{}_{}{}^{}kl}`$ to

$$SU(N+M_{i_0j_0})\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}SU(N)_{ij}\times SU(N)^{{}_{}{}^{}kl}$$
(3.7)
where the pair $`(i,j)`$ does not take the value $`(i_0,j_0)`$. As discussed before, field theory results require D5 branes on either rows or columns of diamonds. and this means that we need to have $`M_{i_0j},j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ D5 branes wrapped around the $`i_0,j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ cycles, the gauge group changing to

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}SU(N+M_{i_0j})\underset{i=1,ii_0}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}SU(N)_{ij}\times SU(N)^{{}_{}{}^{}kl}$$
(3.8)
For $`M_{ij_0},i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ D5 branes wrapped around the $`i=1,\mathrm{},l;j_0`$ cycles the gauge group changes to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}SU(N+M_{ij_0})\underset{i}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1,jj_0}{\overset{l}{}}SU(N)_{ij}\times SU(N)^{{}_{}{}^{}kl}$$
(3.9)
We can now proceed to construct the Type IIB dual to the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric field theory with the gauge group (3.8) or (3.9). We have $`kl`$ fluxes of RR 3-form through the 3-cycles $`C_{ij}`$ which are Hodge duals to the 2-cycles surrounding the singular points $`x_{ij}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l`$:

$$_{C_{ij}^3}H^{RR}=M_{ij},i=1,\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l$$
(3.10)
Here we are identifying a 2-cycle of $`H_2(L_{ij})`$ with a 2-cycle of $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{X_5})`$. To obey the above observed rule, one needs to turn fluxes through all $`C_{i_0j}^3,j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ or all $`C_{ij_0}^3,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ cycles with fluxes equal to $`M_{i_0j}`$ or $`M_{ij_0}`$ respectively, $`i_0,j_0`$ being some fixed indices.

We can now use the results of our previous section where we have completely identified the 2-cycles and the 3-cycles so the result is that the $`H^{RR}`$ which we need to turn on are:

$`H^{RR}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}M_{i_0j}e_{i_0j}^\psi (e_{i_0j}^{\theta _1}e_{i_0j}^{\varphi _1}e_{i_0j}^{\theta _2}e_{i_0j}^{\varphi _2}),\text{for fixed}i_0\text{and}j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ (3.11)
or

$`H^{RR}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}M_{ij_0}e_{ij_0}^\psi (e_{ij_0}^{\theta _1}e_{ij_0}^{\varphi _1}e_{ij_0}^{\theta _2}e_{ij_0}^{\varphi _2}),\text{for fixed}j_0\text{and}i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ (3.12)
We now consider the Type IIB SUGRA equations of motion with the 2-form gauge potentials in the $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times X_5`$ background with constant $`\tau =C_0+ie^\varphi `$:

$`dG=iF_5G.`$ (3.13)
Here $`G`$ is the complex 3-form field strength,

$`G=H^{RR}+\tau H^{NSNS},`$ (3.14)
which satisfies the Bianchi identity $`dG=0`$.

If we choose $`C_0=0`$ and a constant dilaton, it follows from (3.11), (3.12) and (3.13) that

$`e^\varphi H^{NSNS}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}df_{i_0j}(r)(e_{i_0j}^{\theta _1}e_{i_0j}^{\varphi _1}e_{i_0j}^{\theta _2}e_{i_0j}^{\varphi _2}),\text{for fixed}i_0`$ (3.15)
or

$`e^\varphi H^{NSNS}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}df_{ij_0}(r)(e_{ij_0}^{\theta _1}e_{ij_0}^{\varphi _1}e_{ij_0}^{\theta _2}e_{ij_0}^{\varphi _2}),\text{for fixed}j_0`$ (3.16)
are two solutions for the NS 3-form corresponding to the specific choice for $`H^{RR}`$. Since $`F_5=\text{vol}(\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5)+\text{vol}(X_5)`$ and $`dH^{RR}=e^\varphi F_5H^{NSNS}`$ , we conclude

$`F_5H^{NSNS}=0`$ (3.17)
and the real part of (3.13) is satisfied for all $`f_{ij}`$. ¿From the imaginary part we have either

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r^5{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}f_{i_0j}(r)\right)M_{i_0j},\text{for fixed}i_0`$ (3.18)
or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r^5{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}f_{ij_0}(r)\right)M_{ij_0},\text{for fixed}j_0`$ (3.19)
Thus we need to turn on an NS form as

$`B^{NSNS}e^\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}M_{i_0j}\omega _{i_0j}\mathrm{log}r,\text{for fixed}i_0`$ (3.20)
or

$`B^{NSNS}e^\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}M_{ij_0}\omega _{ij_0}\mathrm{log}r,\text{for fixed}j_0`$ (3.21)
The gauge couplings of the gauge theories are modified in the presence of the fluxes of the $`B^{NS}`$ through the various 2-cycles. The gauge coupling without B-flux is related to the string coupling constant as $`g^2=\frac{1}{2g_s}`$ where $`g_s`$ is the string coupling constant. If all the diamonds and boxes have the same area, then field theories corresponding to D5 branes on boxes and diamonds have the same coupling constant and this the meaning of $`g`$ in the previous formula. Since the B-fields (inverse of the gauge couplings) are areas on the torus, by changing the B-fluxes through the $`(i_0,j),j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ or $`(i,j_0),i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ cycles we change the areas of the diamonds. If we wrap D5 branes on the $`(i_0,j),j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ or $`(i,j_0),i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ cycles, the fluxes of B-field through the corresponding cycles modify and the gauge couplings change acoording to $`\frac{1}{g_s}_{C_{i_0j}^2}B^{NSNS},j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ or $`\frac{1}{g_s}_{C_{ij_0}^2}B^{NSNS},i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. The connection to the RG flow in field theory uses the relation:

$$\frac{1}{g_{i_0^2j}}\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{1}{g_s}(_{C_{i_0j}^2}B^{NSNS}1/2),\text{for fixed}i_0\text{and}j=1,\mathrm{},l$$
(3.22)
or

$$\frac{1}{g_{ij_0}^2}\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{1}{g_s}(_{C_{ij_0}^2}B^{NSNS}1/2),\text{for fixed}j_0\text{and}i=1,\mathrm{},k$$
(3.23)
The previous results for $`B^{NSNS}`$ allow us to rewrite (3.22) as

$$\frac{1}{g_{i_0j}^2}\frac{1}{g^2}M_{i_0j}\mathrm{log}r,\text{for fixed}i_0\text{and}j=1,\mathrm{},l$$
(3.24)
and (3.23) can be written as

$$\frac{1}{g_{ij_0}^2}\frac{1}{g^2}M_{ij_0}\mathrm{log}r,\text{for fixed}j_0\text{and}i=1,\mathrm{},k$$
(3.25)
Because the coordinate $`r`$ is seen as a field theory scale in the AdS/CFT conjecture, relations (3.24) and (3.25) give the supergravity dual of the scale dependence of the difference between the gauge couplings.

The above results are obtained by solving the supergravity equations of motion and we are now going to compare them with $`\beta `$-function calculations in $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric field theory which give:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{i_0j}^2}}`$ $``$ $`3(N+M_{i_0j})2N(1\gamma _A\gamma _B)`$ (3.26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}`$ $``$ $`3N2(N+M_{i_0j})(1\gamma _A\gamma _B),\text{for fixed}i_0\text{and}j=1,\mathrm{},l`$
For each diamond $`(i_0j)`$ which belongs to the $`i_0`$-th row, the fields $`A`$ and $`B`$ which enter in the previous equations correspond to the bi-fundamental representations $`(A_1)`$ in $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i_0,j},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i_01,j1}^{})`$ of $`SU(N+M_{i_0j})_{i_0,j}\times SU(N)_{i_01,j1}^{}`$, $`(A_2)`$ in $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i_0,j},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i_0,j}^{})`$ of $`SU(N+M_{i_0j})_{i_0,j}\times SU(N)_{i_0,j}^{}`$, $`(B_1)`$ in $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i_01,j}^{},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i_0,j})`$ of $`SU(N+M_{i_0j})_{i_0,j}\times SU(N)_{i_01,j}^{}`$ and $`(B_2)`$ in $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{i_0,j1}^{},\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{i_0,j})`$ of $`SU(N+M_{i_0j})_{i_0,j}\times SU(N)_{i_0,j1}^{}`$ where $`SU(N)_{i,j}^{}`$ represents the gauge group on the $`(i,j)`$ box and we use the fact that the $`(i_0,j),(i_0,j1),(i_01,j)`$ and $`(i_01,j1)`$ boxes are adjacent to the $`(i_0,j)`$ diamond. The same for the $`(i,j_0)`$ diamond, we obtain the formulas:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{ij_0}^2}}3(N+M_{ij_0})2N(1\gamma _A\gamma _B)`$ (3.27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}3N2(N+M_{ij_0})(1\gamma _A\gamma _B)`$
where $`\gamma `$ are the anomalous dimensions of the fields $`A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2`$ and near the fixed point $`\gamma `$ close to $`1/4`$. By subtracting the second equation from the first in both (3.26) and (3.27), we obtain either

$$\frac{1}{g_{i_0j}^2}\frac{1}{g^2}M_{i_0j}[3+2(1\gamma _A\gamma _B)]\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )$$
(3.28)
or

$$\frac{1}{g_{ij_0}^2}\frac{1}{g^2}M_{ij_0}[3+2(1\gamma _A\gamma _B)]\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )$$
(3.29)
We use the identification of the spacetime radial coordinate $`r`$ with the field theory scale and we see that the Type IIB supergravity solution has reproduced the field theoretic beta function, this establishing the gravity dual of the logarithmic RG flow in the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`_{i=1}^k_{j=1}^lSU(N+M_{ij})\times SU(N)^{{}_{}{}^{}kl}`$ gauge theory on $`N`$ regular and $`M_{ij},i=1\mathrm{},k,j=1,\mathrm{},l`$ fractional D3 branes. The agreement is between $`\frac{1}{g_{ij}^2N}\frac{1}{g^2N}`$ at order $`M/N`$ in the large $`N`$ limit.

In  the authors have obtained an analytic form for the gravitational RG flow in the gauged 5-d Supergravity in the case of $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐝𝐒}_5\times 𝐓^{1,1}`$. Their study concerned the back-reaction of the metric and 5-form fields. Their results could be generalized to our case with the difference that the local geometry around each of the $`kl`$ singular points should be used instead of the global geometry.

In the case $`l=1`$, the orbifolded $`𝐙_k\times 𝐙_l`$ conifold becomes a generalized $`𝐙_k`$ conifold. The horizon of the generalized conifold is singular and we need to partially resolve in order to obtain a smooth Einstein manifold horizon with $`k`$ singular points. The procedure is just a particular case of our general recipe but the field theory on the worldvolume of D3 branes is not chiral in this case.

## 4 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Keshav Dasgupta and Prabhakar Rao for stimulating discussions. The work of K. Oh is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-9970664.