format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

CALT-68-2428 HUTP-03/A014 hep-th/0302109

The $`C`$-Deformation of Gluino and Non-planar Diagrams

Hirosi Ooguri1 and Cumrun Vafa1,2

1 California Institute of Technology 452-48, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

2 Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

We consider a deformation of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions, which we call the $`C`$-deformation, where the gluino field satisfies a Clifford-like algebra dictated by a self-dual two-form, instead of the standard Grassmannian algebra. The superpotential of the deformed gauge theory is computed by the full partition function of an associated matrix model (or more generally a bosonic gauge theory), including non-planar diagrams. In this identification, the strength of the two-form controls the genus expansion of the matrix model partition function. For the case of pure $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills this deformation leads to the identification of the all genus partition function of $`c=1`$ non-critical bosonic string at self-dual radius as the glueball superpotential. Though the $`C`$-deformation violates Lorentz invariance, the deformed $`F`$-terms are Lorentz invariant and the Lorentz violation is screened in the IR.

1. Introduction

Topological strings  and its connection to superstrings \[2,,3\] have proven to be rather important for a better understanding of the dynamics of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions. In particular, the open/closed topological string duality conjectured in  and proven in  leads to some non-perturbative predictions for $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories in 4 dimensions constructed as low energy limits of superstring theory . Some of these predictions (coming from genus 0 computations on the closed string side) relate to the superpotential for the glueball fields . This relation has recently been better understood and has led to a striking connection between a wide class of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories and planar diagrams of matrix models (or more generally the associated bosonic gauge theories) .

However the open/closed string duality suggests an even more extensive insight into the dynamics of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. In particular the closed string side is an $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric theory, deformed to $`𝒩=1`$ by turning on fluxes. The topological string computes F-terms for the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric closed string dual of the form \[2,,3\]

$$d^4xd^4\theta (𝒲_{\alpha \beta }𝒲^{\alpha \beta })^gF_g(S_i)$$

where $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta }`$ denotes the $`𝒩=2`$ graviphoton superfield, and the $`d^4\theta `$ denotes a superintegral over half of the $`8`$ super-directions of the $`𝒩=2`$ superspace, and $`S_i`$ denote vector multiplets of $`𝒩=2`$. Let us write the four $`𝒩=2`$ super-directions of (1.1) by exhibiting its $`𝒩=1`$ content as $`(\theta ^\alpha ,\widehat{\theta }^\alpha )`$. As pointed out in  turning on fluxes deforms this to an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory by giving vev to an auxiliary field of $`S_i`$ of the form

$$S_i(\theta ,\widehat{\theta })=S_i(\theta )+N_i\widehat{\theta }^2$$

where $`S_i(\theta )`$ can now be viewed as an $`𝒩=1`$ chiral superfield, which in the gauge theory context will be interpreted as a glueball superfield. To write the content of (1.1) in purely $`𝒩=1`$ terms we can do one of two things: We can absorb two $`\widehat{\theta }`$’s by expanding $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta }`$ to obtain the $`𝒩=1`$ gravitino multiplet $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, or we can use the auxiliary field vev of the $`S_i`$ above to absorb them. Turning on the graviphoton field $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ (now viewed as a parameter in the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory), leads to two terms in the action

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_1=gd^4xd^2\theta 𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(F_{\delta \zeta }F^{\delta \zeta })^{g1}F_g(S_i),\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_2=d^4xd^2\theta (F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^gN_i\frac{F_g}{S_i}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that the first term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ exists even if we do not break the supersymmetry from $`𝒩=2`$ to $`𝒩=1`$. In particular it is present even if $`N_i=0`$. The second term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is more in tune with breaking supersymmetry to $`𝒩=1`$. If we turn off the Lorentz violating term $`F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ then we only have the $`g=1`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, giving terms of the form $`d^4xR^2`$ (with appropriate index contractions), or the $`g=0`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, giving the superpotential term for the glueball field.

The main question is to give an interpretation of turning on the Lorentz violating graviphoton background $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ in purely $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theoretic terms.1 This question was raised in  where it was proposed that it may be related to making space non-commutative. Here we find a different interpretation. We will find a satisfactory answer to this question in this paper. In particular we find that deforming the classical anti-commutativity of the gluino fields by making it satisfy the Clifford algebra, dictated by the vev of $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the form,

$$\{\psi _\alpha ,\psi _\beta \}=2F_{\alpha \beta },$$

leads to the $`𝒩=1`$ realization of the string deformation. We will see how this arises in string theory and field theory context. The string theory derivation follows the setup of  and the more general field theory derivation follows the setup introduced in . Even though the field theory argument is more general (and in particular includes field theories that are not known to be constructible in string theory context), the intuition and ideas coming from the string derivation are crucial for field theory derivation. We in particular find a simple map between the superspace part of these two computations. This leads to the statement that the gradient of the full partition function of the matrix model (not just its planar limit) with potential equal to the superpotential of the gauge theory, computes the superpotential of the associated supersymmetric gauge theory, where the $`|F|`$ gets identified with the genus counting parameter of the matrix model.2 This can be generalized to the deformation of the $`U(1)`$ coupling constants in a straight-forward manner. This completes the interpretation of the meaning of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ from the gauge theory side. The interpretation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ should follow a similar derivation.

The organization of this paper is as follows: In section 2 we motivate and define $`C`$-deformation by studying string theory diagrams with graviphoton turned on. In section 3 we show how the relevant part of the topological string computation works with graviphoton turned on. In section 4 we discuss the field theory limit and how to obtain the same results using the more general field theory setup á la . In section 5 we discuss the physical interpretation of this deformation.

2. The $`C`$-deformation

It has been shown in \[2,,3\] that the partition functions of topological closed string on a Calabi-Yau three-fold $`M`$ compute the $`F`$-terms of the four dimensional theory obtained by compactifying Type II superstring on $`M`$. A similar statement holds when we add D branes \[2,,10,,6\]. The partition functions of topological string ending on D branes wrapping on $`n`$-dimensional cycles on $`M`$ give the $`F`$-terms for the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory in four dimensions which is defined as the low energy limit of Type II superstring with D($`n+3`$) branes wrapping on these cycles and extending in four dimensions. The $`F`$-terms take the form

$$N\underset{g,h}{}d^4xd^2\theta (𝒲_{\alpha \beta }𝒲^{\alpha \beta })^ghS^{h1}F_{g,h},$$

where $`N`$ is the rank of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group, $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the supergravity multiplet whose bottom component is the self-dual part of the graviphoton field strength

$$𝒲_{\alpha \beta }=F_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{},$$

with $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$ being spinor indices in four dimensions, $`S`$ is the glueball superfield,

$$S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}𝒲_\alpha 𝒲_\beta ,$$

where $`𝒲_\alpha `$ is the chiral superfield with gluino $`\psi _\alpha `$ as its bottom component,

$$𝒲_\alpha =\psi _\alpha +\mathrm{}.$$

The topological string computes the coefficients $`F_{g,h}`$ as the partition function for genus $`g`$ worldsheet with $`h`$ boundaries.

In particular the terms in (2.1) with $`g=0`$, namely the sum over the planar worldsheets, gives the effective superpotential for $`S`$ as $`Nd_0/dS`$ where

$$_0(S)=\underset{h}{}S^hF_{0,h}.$$

Combining this with the fact  that the partition function for the topological string on the D$`(n+3)`$ brane can be computed using the Chern-Simons theory (or its dimensional reduction) leads to the statement that the effective action is computed by a sum over planar diagrams of the Chern-Simons theory, or its reduction to the matrix model for specific class of D5 branes wrapping 2-cycles .

The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of the sum over non-planar diagrams. Among terms that are generated by the flux we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(S,F)=N\underset{g}{}d^4x(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^gd^2\theta \frac{}{S}F_g\left(S(\theta )\right),$$

where

$$F_g(S)=\underset{h}{}S^hF_{g,h}.$$

This gives the effective action for the glueball superfield $`S`$ when the graviphoton field strength is non-zero. The question is whether there is a purely $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theoretical interpretation of the same quantity without invoking the coupling to the $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity field. Does the graviphoton deform the gauge theory in a way similar to the Neveu-Schwarz two form $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ generating noncommutativity of coordinates on D branes \[11,,12\]?

The relation for the topological string amplitudes and the $`F`$-terms for the type II string compactification was originally derived using the NSR formalism, where the graviphoton vertex operator in the Ramond-Ramond sector is constructed in terms of the spin field. It was observed in  that it generates the topological twist on the worldsheet, which gives the connection between the type II string computation and the topological string computation. A precise derivation of the connection is rather nontrivial, involving a sum over spin structure and nontrivial identities of theta functions . A more economical derivation was found in  making use of the covariant quantization of type II superstring compactified on a Calabi-Yau three-fold, which was developed in .

Compared with the covariant quantization of superstring in ten dimensions , the formalism is substantially simpler for superstring compactified on a Calabi-Yau three-fold since the supersymmetry we need to make manifest is smaller. In fact, the four-dimensional part of the worldsheet Lagrangian density that is relevant for our discussion is simply given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}X^\mu \overline{}X_\mu +p_\alpha \overline{}\theta ^\alpha +p_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{}\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}+\overline{p}_\alpha \overline{\theta }^\alpha +\overline{p}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }},$$

where $`p`$’s are $`(1,0)`$-forms, $`\overline{p}`$’s are $`(0,1)`$-forms, and $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$’s are $`0`$-forms. The remainder of the Lagrangian density consists of the topologically twisted $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric sigma-model on the Calabi-Yau three-fold and a chiral boson which is needed to construct the R current. It is useful to note that the worldsheet theory defined by (2.1) (excluding the fermionic fields with dotted indices) can be regarded as a topological B-model on $`R^4`$. The topological BRST symmetry is defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }}\theta _\alpha +\overline{ϵ}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }_\alpha ,\hfill \\ & \delta \theta _\alpha =0,\delta \overline{\theta }_\alpha =0,\hfill \\ & \delta p_\alpha =ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\delta \overline{p}_\alpha =\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{}X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu X_\mu `$ with $`\sigma ^0=1`$ and $`\sigma ^{1,2,3}`$ being the Pauli matrices, and raising and lowering of spinor indices are done by using the anti-symmetric tensors $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta },ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$ as usual. We recognize that this topological symmetry is closely related to the spacetime supersymmetry. In fact, modulo some shift of $`X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ by $`\theta _\alpha \theta _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_\alpha \overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$, (2.1) is identical to transformations generated by the anti-chiral components $`Q_{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ of the $`𝒩=2`$ supercharges in the bulk.

When the worldsheet is ending on D branes and extending in four dimensions, the boundary conditions for the worldsheet variables are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (\overline{})X^\mu =0,\hfill \\ & \theta ^\alpha =\overline{\theta }^\alpha ,p_\alpha =\overline{p}_\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we assume that the boundary is located at $`\mathrm{Im}z=0`$. These boundary conditions preserve one half of the supersymmetry generated by $`Q+\overline{Q}`$.

Let us turn on the graviphoton field strength $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ and the gluino superfield $`𝒲_\alpha `$, both of which we assume to be constant. They couple to the bulk and the boundaries of the string worldsheet as

$$F^{\alpha \beta }𝒥_\alpha \overline{𝒥}_\beta +𝒲^\alpha 𝒥_\alpha ,$$

where $`𝒥_\alpha ,\overline{𝒥}_\beta `$ are the worldsheet currents for the spacetime supercharges $`Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_\beta `$ . We find it convenient to work in the chiral representation of supersymmetry,3 Our convention in this paper is related to that of \[13,,14\] by redefinition of the worldsheet variables by
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p_\alpha & p_\alpha ^{}=p_\alpha i\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{1}{4}\theta ^2\theta _\alpha ,\hfill \\ \hfill p_{\dot{\alpha }}& p_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}=p_{\dot{\alpha }}+i\theta ^\alpha X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{1}{2}\theta ^2\theta _{\dot{\alpha }}+\frac{1}{4}\theta _{\dot{\alpha }}\theta ^2,\hfill \\ \hfill X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}& X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{}=X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+i\theta _\alpha \theta _{\dot{\alpha }}+i\overline{\theta }_\alpha \overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}.\hfill \end{array}$$
See also  for a related discussion.  in which they are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒥_\alpha =p_\alpha ,\hfill \\ & 𝒥_{\dot{\alpha }}=p_{\dot{\alpha }}2i\theta ^\alpha X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ in the second line represents terms containing $`\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\theta ^2=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta `$. The second set of supercharges $`\overline{Q}_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ are defined by replacing $`p,\theta `$ by $`\overline{p},\overline{\theta }`$. In this convention, the coupling (2.1) of the graviphoton and the gluino to the worldsheet becomes

$$F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta +𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha .$$

This simplifies our analysis in this section. In the field theory limit, the supercharges in this convention take the form,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha },\hfill \\ & Q_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}}+2i\theta ^\alpha \frac{}{x^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The boundary conditions (2.1) identify the supercurrents $`𝒥=\overline{𝒥}`$, reducing the supersymmetry to $`𝒩=1`$.

2.1. Deformed superspace

Let us analyze the effect of the graviphoton in the bulk. We will find it useful to keep track of mass dimensions of operators, so we introduce the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$, which has dimension $`2`$. As usual $`\theta ^\alpha `$ has dimension $`1/2`$ and its conjugate $`p_\alpha `$ has dimension $`+1/2`$. The gluino $`𝒲_\alpha `$ has dimension $`+3/2`$. For the graviphoton field strength $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$, we assign dimension $`+3`$. One might have thought that dimension $`+2`$ would be canonical for the field strength. Here we assign dimension $`+3`$ to $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ so that the higher genus contributions to the superpotential (2.1) remain finite in the field theory limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. For example, as we will see later, the genus $`g`$ contribution to the superpotential in the pure $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory is of the form $`N(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^gS^{22g}`$ and it has dimension $`3`$ (which is the correct dimension for the superpotential in four dimensions) for all $`g`$ only if we assign the same dimension to $`F`$ and $`S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}𝒲_\alpha 𝒲_\beta `$. With this assignment of mass dimensions, the relevant part of the Lagrangian density is expressed as

$$=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}X^\mu \overline{}X_\mu +p_\alpha \overline{}\theta ^\alpha +\overline{p}_\alpha \overline{\theta }^\alpha +\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta .$$

As we mentioned, we are working in the chiral representation where supercharges are defined by (2.1).

It is useful to note that the self-dual configuration of the graviphoton, namely

$$F_{\alpha \beta }0,F_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=0,$$

gives an exact solution to the string equation of motion. This can be seen clearly from the fact that the perturbed action (2.1) does not break the conformal invariance on the worldsheet. From the target space point of view, we see that the energy-momentum tensor for the graviphoton vanishes for (2.1), so there is no back-reaction to the metric.4 The energy-momentum tensor for the non-zero field strength can vanish since the self-dual field strength becomes complex valued when analytically continued to Minkowski space.

Now let us add boundaries to the worldsheet. For the moment, we turn off the gluino field $`\psi _\alpha =0`$ and discuss effects due to the graviphoton field strength. In the presence of graviphoton, the equations of motion for $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ are deformed to

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \overline{}\theta ^\alpha =\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }\overline{p}_\beta \hfill \\ & \overline{\theta }^\alpha =\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Before turning on $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$, the only nontrivial operator product is that between $`p_\alpha `$ and $`\theta ^\alpha `$ (and between $`\overline{p}_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\theta }^\alpha `$) as

$$p_\alpha (z)\theta ^\beta (w)\frac{\delta _\alpha ^\beta }{2\pi i(zw)}.$$

The relation (2.1) modifies this. If we write

$$\theta ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha +\eta ^\alpha ,\overline{\theta }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha \eta ^\alpha ,$$

so that the boundary condition is $`\eta =0`$, the relation (2.1) together with the short distance singularity (2.1) imply

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha (z)\mathrm{\Theta }^\beta (w)& \frac{1}{2\pi i}\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{z\overline{w}}{\overline{z}w}\right],\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Theta }^\alpha (z)\eta ^\beta (w)& \frac{1}{4\pi i}\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{(zw)(\overline{z}\overline{w})}{(z\overline{w})(\overline{z}w)}\right],\hfill \\ \hfill \eta ^\alpha (z)\eta ^\beta (w)& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, on the boundary we have

$$\theta ^\alpha (\tau +ϵ)\theta ^\beta (\tau )+\theta ^\beta (\tau )\theta ^\alpha (\tau ϵ)=2\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }.$$

Therefore a correlation function of operators $`\theta =\overline{\theta }`$ on the boundary with the time-ordering along the boundary obey the Clifford algebra

$$\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}=2\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta },$$

rather than the standard Grassmannian algebra. Such deformation of the superspace has been studied earlier \[18,,19,,20\], and it is interesting that it is realized in the context of string theory.5 The result of this subsection has been generalized to other dimensions in a recent work .

The presence of the factor $`\alpha ^2`$ in (2.1) means that the deformation of the superspace does not survive the field theory limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ unless we simultaneously take $`F^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}`$ so that $`\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }`$ remains finite. It may be possible to make sense of such a limit since the constant graviphoton field strength is an exact solution to the string equation of motion for any large value of $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ as we explained earlier. It turns out, however, if one wants to preserve the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, we will need to make another modification to the theory, which we call the $`C`$-deformation. We will find that this restores the anticommutativity of $`\theta `$’s and undoes the deformation of the superspace. These effects survive the field theory limit without taking $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ to be large.

2.2. $`C`$-deformation of gluino and undeforming of superspace

Since we work in the chiral representation where $`Q_\alpha =p_\alpha `$, the supercharges in the field theory limit takes the form,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }\hfill \\ & Q_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}}+2i\theta ^\alpha \frac{}{x^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The deformation of the superspace by (2.1) would then modify the supersymmetry algebra as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \{Q_\alpha ,Q_{\dot{\beta }}\}=2i\frac{}{x^{\alpha \dot{\beta }}},\hfill \\ & \{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=0,\hfill \\ & \{Q_{\dot{\alpha }},Q_{\dot{\beta }}\}=8\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }\frac{^2}{x^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}x^{\beta \dot{\beta }}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

A closely related issue arises on the string worldsheet, where the constant graviphoton field strength breaks supersymmetry on the D branes. When $`F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, there are two sets of supercharges $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$, which are identified on the boundary $`Q=\overline{Q}`$ by the boundary conditions (2.1). It turns out that the graviphoton vertex operator $`F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta `$ is not invariant under the supersymmetry but transforms into a total derivative on the worldsheet. Let us consider the combination $`ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}\left(Q_{\dot{\alpha }}+\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\right)`$, which preserves the boundary conditions. We find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \left[\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta \right]& =2i\alpha ^{}ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}F^{\alpha \beta }d\left[Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(p_\beta +\overline{p}_\beta )\right]\hfill \\ & =\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}4\alpha ^{}ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}F^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}p_\beta ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$Y_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}=X_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}+i\theta _\alpha \theta _{\dot{\alpha }}+i\overline{\theta }_\alpha \overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}.$$

and $`\gamma _i`$’s are boundaries of the worldsheet. Therefore, as it is, the supersymmetry is broken on the boundaries of the worldsheet. Unlike the deformation of the superspace (2.1), which disappears in the field theory limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, the amount of supersymmetry breaking is comparable to the gluino coupling $`\alpha ^{}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha `$ and therefore is not negligible in this limit.

On the other hand, if the gluino fields $`𝒲_\alpha `$ are constant Grassmannian variables taking value in the diagonal of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group, its coupling to the worldsheet does not break the topological invariance since

$$\delta _\gamma 𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha =2iϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}𝒲^\alpha _\gamma 𝑑Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=0.$$

It turns out that there is a natural way to modify this assumption so that the variation of the gluino coupling precisely cancels the boundary term generated by the graviphoton in the bulk. That is to assume that the gluino fields make the Clifford algebra

$$\{\psi _\alpha ,\psi _\beta \}=2F_{\alpha \beta }.$$

Note that the mass dimensions of the both sides of this equation match up without introducing the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$, so this relation survives the field theory limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ without making $`F`$ large. In the following computation, we continue to assume that $`\psi _\alpha `$ is constant and takes value in the diagonal of $`U(N)`$. In a more general situation, we interpret (2.1) as saying that

$$\{𝒲_\alpha (x),𝒲_\beta (x)\}_j^i=F_{\alpha \beta }\delta _j^i\mathrm{mod}\overline{D},$$

where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and the product $`𝒲_\alpha 𝒲_\beta `$ in the left-hand side includes the matrix multiplication with respect to these $`U(N)`$ indices. Note that the identity is modulo $`D_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ since that is all we need to cancel the boundary term. Therefore (2.1) should be regarded as a relation in the chiral ring. We call this the $`C`$-deformation of the gluino.

This deformation also undoes the deformation of the superspace (2.1). The analysis of the previous section changes because the gluino is turned on, and it affects the boundary condition of $`\theta `$ and $`p`$. One can easily show that the $`C`$-deformation of the gluino compensates the effect of the graviphoton on correlation functions of $`\theta `$’s on the boundaries and restores the anticommutativity of $`\theta `$’s there. Namely, $`\theta `$’s remain ordinary Grassmannian variables and the superspace is undeformed. This eliminates the $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ dependent term in (2.1) and recovers the standard supersymmetry algebra. This is consistent with the fact that the $`C`$-deformation of the gluino restores the spacetime supersymmetry in the graviphoton background.

Let us show that the $`C`$-deformation cancels the boundary terms (2.1) and restores the supersymmetry. Since $`\psi `$’s do not anti-commute with each other, we need to use the path-ordered exponential,

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}_\gamma 𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right),$$

along each boundary to define the gluino coupling. As we will see below such a term makes sense, $`i.e.`$ it does not depend on the origin of the path-ordering, as long as the $`p_\alpha `$ through each boundary is zero. Let us evaluate the variation of the boundary factor (2.1) and find

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta \left[𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}_\gamma 𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)\right]\hfill \\ & =2iϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}𝒫\left[_\gamma 𝒲^\alpha 𝑑Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}_\gamma 𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)\right]\hfill \\ & =2i\alpha ^{}ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}F^{\alpha \beta }𝒫\left[\left(_\gamma Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}p_\beta Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(o)_\gamma p_\beta \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}_\gamma 𝒲^\alpha p_\gamma \right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`o`$ is an arbitrarily chosen base point on the boundary $`\gamma `$ which is used to define the path-ordering.

This almost cancels the boundary terms (2.1) coming from the graviphoton variation, except for the term $`Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(o)p_\beta `$, which depends on the choice of the base point $`o`$. If $`p_\beta `$ through each boundary is zero, this definition of path-ordering is independent of the base point $`o`$, and its supersymmetry variation completely cancels the graviphoton variation. For the worldsheet with a single boundary, the condition that $`p_\beta `$ vanish is automatic, as the boundary is homologically trivial. If there are more boundaries $`h>1`$, we need to insert an operator which enforces $`p_\beta =0`$ to make the path-ordering well-defined. In particular, the dependence on the base point of path-ordering disappears if we compute a correlation function of $`2(h1)`$ gluino fields, which inserts

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}\left(\alpha ^{}_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)^2=\left(\alpha ^2ϵ^{\alpha \beta }𝒲_\alpha 𝒲_\beta \right)^{h1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta .$$

Note that for these insertion, which are not path-ordered, the Grassmannian property of $`p_\alpha `$ projects the $`𝒲`$ contribution on the antisymmetric part via $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$. There are no contributions from the graviphoton $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$, because $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$. Note that $`2(h1)`$ is the maximum number of gluino insertions we can make for a given number of boundaries if we take into account the global constraint

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha (\tau )=\frac{1}{2}d(p_\alpha +\overline{p}_\alpha )=0.$$

Since $`p_\alpha ,\overline{p}_\alpha `$ are fermionic, inserting $`2(h1)`$ gluino fields amounts to imposing a constraint

$$_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha (\tau )=0,$$

on each boundary and the $`o`$ dependent terms in (2.1) vanishes in this case, completely cancelling (2.1). Therefore we can compute the topological open string amplitude for worldsheet with $`h`$ boundaries if and only if we compute the correlation function of $`2(h1)`$ gluino superfields, consistently with the structure in (2.1). In other words, the only $`F`$-terms that make sense in this context involve insertions of $`(h1)`$ factors of $`S`$. As we will see in the next section, the path ordering of the gluino vertex on all the boundaries leads in the path-integral computation to a term involving $`(F^2)^g`$.

The fact that we can make sense of only such $`F`$-term amplitudes, which impose the vanishing of the fermionic momentum through each hole, strongly suggests that the rest of the amplitudes should be set to $`0`$. In some sense, those would be the analog of trying to obtain a non-gauge invariant correlator in a gauge invariant theory and finding it to be zero after integrating over the gauge orbit.

We have found that the string theory computation in the presence of the constant graviphoton field strength preserves the topological invariance on the worldsheet and compute the $`F`$-terms (2.1) of the low energy effective theory on the D branes if we turn on the $`C`$-deformation (2.1) of the gluino fields. The $`C`$-deformation also restores the anticommutativity of $`\theta `$’s, and thereby undeforms the superspace.

3. Topological string amplitudes

We found that the constant graviphoton background by itself does not preserve the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry on the D branes. We need to turn on the $`C`$-deformation of the gluino (2.1) in order to restore the supersymmetry. We can then compute the $`F`$-terms for this background by evaluating the topological string amplitude. The mechanism to absorb the zero modes of the worldsheet fermions works essentially in the same way as described in \[2,,13\] in the case of the closed string. The only nontrivial part of the topological string computation is the one that involves the zero modes of $`(p_\alpha ,\theta ^\alpha )`$ system.

Before evaluating the zero mode integral, it is useful to establish the following formula on a genus-$`g`$ worldsheet with $`h`$ boundaries,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}\alpha ^2ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta \times \mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta +\alpha ^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right]\hfill \\ & =\underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}\alpha ^2ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta \times \mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{2g}{}}c^{ab}_a(p_\alpha +\overline{p}_\alpha )_b(p_\alpha +\overline{p}_\alpha )\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we assume that $`p_\alpha `$ is holomorphic and $`\overline{p}_\alpha `$ is anti-holomorphic. The factor $`_iϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta `$ is due to the insertion of the glueball superfield $`S^{h1}`$. The gluino fields $`𝒲_\alpha `$ in the left-hand side are $`C`$ deformed as in (2.1), and $`\mathrm{exp}\left(𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)`$ is defined by the path-ordering. We choose homology cycles on the surface as $`\gamma _i`$ homologous to the boundaries and $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},2g`$ associated to the handles on the worldsheet, and $`c^{ab}`$ is the intersection matrix of these cycles. Since $`c^{ij}=0,c^{ai}=0`$, we can add $`\gamma _i`$ to $`a,b`$ without changing the intersection number. This does not change the value of the exponent thanks to the constraint $`_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha =0`$ imposed by the insertion of $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta `$.

The proof of the identity (3.1) consists of two parts. Let us first evaluate $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha ^{}_\gamma \psi ^\alpha p_\alpha \right]`$ with the path-ordering along a boundary $`\gamma `$. If $`\psi _\alpha `$ were ordinary Grassmannian variables, this would be equal to $`1`$ due to the momentum constraint $`_\gamma p_\alpha =0`$ on the boundary. To obtain a nontrivial answer, we need to use the anti-commutation relation (2.1). For example,

$$𝒫𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha 𝒲^\beta p_\beta =2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha (\tau )_o^\tau p_\beta ,$$

where we used $`p_\alpha =0`$ in the last line. By iteratively using this identity, we can show

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}_\gamma 𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\alpha ^2F_{\alpha \beta }_\gamma p_\alpha (\tau )_o^\tau p_\beta \right].$$

The second part of the proof is essentially the same as the proof of the Riemann bilinear identity. We start by writing

$$F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta =\frac{1}{2}F^{\alpha \beta }d\left[(p_\alpha (z)+\overline{p}_\alpha (\overline{z}))^z(p_\beta +\overline{p}_\beta )\right].$$

We then cut the worldsheet open along the cycles $`a,b`$ and also introduce cuts $`\widehat{\gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ between the boundaries $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}`$ so that we can perform the integration-by-parts in the resulting contractible domain (see Fig. 1). The surface integral in (3.1) is then transformed into contour integrals along the homology cycles $`a,b`$, the boundaries $`\gamma _i`$ and the cuts $`\widehat{\gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ connecting them. The integral along $`\widehat{\gamma }_{i,i+1}`$ vanishes since it intersects only with the boundaries $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}`$ and $`p_\alpha `$ vanishes for them. Thus we are left with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta & =\frac{1}{2}F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{2g}{}}c^{ab}_a(p_\alpha +\overline{p}_\alpha )_b(p_\beta +\overline{p}_\beta )\hfill \\ & 2F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha (\tau )_{o_i}^\tau p_\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining (3.1) with (3.1), we obtain (3.1).

Figure 1: The worldsheet can be made into a contractible region by cutting along cycles $`a,b`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_{1,2}`$.

Let us now evaluate the right-hand side of (3.1) with an explicit parametrization of the fermion zero modes. A genus-$`g`$ worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`h`$ handles can be constructed from a genus $`(2g+h1)`$ surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ with a complex conjugation involution $`Z_2`$ as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}/Z_2`$, where the boundaries of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are made of $`Z_2`$ fixed points of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. With respect to the $`Z_2`$ involution, we can choose the canonical basis of one forms on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ as $`\{\omega _a,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i\}_{a=1,\mathrm{},2g;i=1,\mathrm{},h1}`$ so that

$$\omega _a(z)=\overline{\omega }_{a+g}(\overline{w})_{|\overline{w}=z},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i(z)=\overline{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_i(\overline{w})_{|\overline{w}=z},$$

and normalized as $`_{\gamma _i}\omega _j=\delta _{ij}`$. We can then parametrize $`p_\alpha `$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& p_\alpha =\underset{a=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(\pi ^a\omega _a+\overline{\pi }^a\omega _{a+g}\right)+\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^i\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\hfill \\ & \overline{p}_\alpha =\underset{a=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(\overline{\pi }^a\overline{\omega }_a+\pi ^a\overline{\omega }_{a+g}\right)+\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^i\overline{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_i.\hfill \end{array}$$

The right-hand side of (3.1) is then expressed as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}\alpha ^2ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta \times \mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta +\alpha ^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}\alpha ^2ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{i\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{j\beta }\times \hfill \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}\left[2\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }(\pi _\alpha ^a+\overline{\pi }_\alpha ^a)\left(\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{a+g,b}\right)\pi _\beta ^b+\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a+g,b}\right)\overline{\pi }_\beta ^b\right)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

We can then integrate over the zero modes $`\pi _A,\stackrel{~}{\pi }_i`$ and obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha _{\gamma _i}p_\beta \times \mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta +\alpha ^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right]\hfill \\ & =\alpha ^{2(2g+h1)}(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^g\left[\mathrm{det}\mathrm{Im}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{a+g,b}\right)\right]^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The factor $`\alpha ^{2(2g+h1)}`$ and the determinant of the period matrix are cancelled by the integral over the bosonic zero modes of $`X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$, and we are simply left with $`(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^g`$. We have found that the contribution from the four-dimensional part of the worldsheet theory is to supply the genus counting factor $`(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^g`$ in addition to the standard $`S^{h1}`$ term. All the nontrivial $`g`$ and $`h`$ dependence of $`F_{g,h}`$ in the $`F`$-term should come from the topological string computation for the internal Calabi-Yau space described by a $`\widehat{c}=3`$, $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal field theory. This is consistent with the general statement  about the correspondence between the topological string amplitudes for the $`\widehat{c}=3`$ superconformal field theory and the $`F`$-term computation for the Calab-Yau compactification. Here we have shown explicitly that it works perfectly in the case of the open string theory if we take into account the $`C`$-deformation of the gluino that is necessary to preserve the supersymmetry in the graviphoton background.

4. Field theory limit

The field theoretic computation of $`𝒩=1`$ glueball superpotential was performed in  using a suitable chiral superspace diagram technique developed in . Let us briefly recall the relevant part of the computation: As in , we consider the computation in the context of an adjoint $`U(N)`$ matter, with some superpotential, though the generalization to arbitrary cases admitting large $`N`$ description is straight-forward. One takes an anti-chiral superpotential $`\overline{m}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ and integrates the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ out to obtain a theory purely in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, given by

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2\overline{m}}\left(^2+𝒲^\alpha D_\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Phi }+W(\mathrm{\Phi })$$

where $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is the superpotential, $`^2`$ is the ordinary Laplacian. In the derivation of this result, it was assumed that $`𝒲_\alpha `$ is covariantly constant, $`i.e.`$ constant in spacetime and in an Abelian configuration taking value in the Cartan subalgebra. Moreover $`D_\alpha 𝒲^\alpha =0`$. By integrating the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ out, one obtains an effective superpotential for the glueball field $`S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}𝒲^\alpha 𝒲^\beta `$. The Feynman diagrams are dictated by the interaction of $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, from which one extracts the $`\frac{1}{2}m\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ term and puts it in the propagator as usual. For each internal line $`I`$ of the Feynman diagram, we have a propagator given by

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_I\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{s_I}{2\overline{m}}(P_I^2+𝒲^\alpha \pi _\alpha ^I+m\overline{m})\right],$$

where $`s_I`$ denotes the Schwinger time, $`P_I`$ and $`\pi ^I`$ are the bosonic and fermionic momenta along the line. Moreover $`𝒲^\alpha `$ acts as an adjoint action on the boundaries of the ‘t Hooft diagram. We can remove the $`\overline{m}`$ dependence by rescaling $`P_I(2\overline{m})^{\frac{1}{2}}P_I`$ and $`\pi ^I2\overline{m}\pi ^I`$ so that the propagator becomes

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_I\mathrm{exp}\left[s_I(P_I^2+𝒲^\alpha \pi _\alpha ^I+m)\right].$$

This rescaling keeps invariant the measure $`d^4Pd^2\pi `$ of the zero mode integral.

This piece of the Feynman diagram computation is exactly what one sees as the spacetime part of the superstring computation which we reviewed in the last section. In fact the propagator (4.1) is the zero slope limit of the open string propagator evaluated in the Hamiltonian formulation on the worldsheet, where the Schwinger parameters $`s_I`$ are coordinates in scaling regions near the boundaries of the moduli space of open string worldsheet where open string propagators become infinitely elongated and worldsheets collapse to Feynman diagrams. As pointed out in  and elaborated in more detail in , integrals over the moduli space of worldsheets which define topological string amplitudes localize to these regions. This is how the topological string amplitude computations discussed in the last section automatically give results in the field theory limit. In fact we saw explicitly the $`\alpha ^{}`$ dependence cancels out in the final expression of the topological amplitudes. To make the dictionary complete, the bosonic and fermionic momenta, $`P_{I\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\pi _\alpha ^I`$, are the zero mode of $`iX_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`p_\alpha `$ on the open string propagator. In the exponent of (4.1), $`P_I^2`$ is the zero slope limit of the worldsheet Hamiltonian $`L_0+\overline{L}_0`$, and and the term $`s_I𝒲^\alpha \pi _\alpha ^I`$ comes from the gluino coupling $`𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha `$ on the boundary of the string worldsheet. In this setup, the superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of the gauge theory encodes the information on the internal Calabi-Yau space.

For an $`l`$-loop Feynman diagram, the fermionic momenta $`\pi ^I`$ are parametrized by loop momenta $`\pi ^A`$ ($`A=1,\mathrm{},l`$) as

$$\pi _\alpha ^I=\underset{A=1}{\overset{l}{}}L_{IA}\pi _\alpha ^A,$$

where $`L_{IA}=\pm 1`$ if the $`I`$-th propagator is part of the loop $`A`$ (taking into account the relative orientation of $`I`$ and $`A`$) and $`L_{IA}=0`$ otherwise. Note that, if we view the ’t Hooft diagram as the zero slope limit of the open string worldsheet, we have the relation

$$l=2g+h1,$$

where $`g`$ and $`h`$ are the numbers of handles and boundaries of the worldsheet. From the field theory point of view, $`h`$ is also the number of ’t Hooft index loops.

The computation in  proceeds by noting that, in order to absorb the fermion zero modes $`\pi _\alpha ^A`$, we need to bring down $`2l`$ gluino fields $`𝒲_\alpha `$. Moreover, for corrections involving $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{tr}\left(𝒲_\alpha 𝒲_\beta \right)`$, each ’t Hooft index loop can contain at most two $`𝒲`$ insertions. Therefore, if $`𝒲`$’s are Grassmannian, it immediately follows that we need the number $`h`$ of index loops is $`l+1`$ or more in order to absorb the $`2l`$ fermion zero modes.6 We need $`h`$ to be $`l+1`$ or more rather than $`l`$ since each propagator is associated to a pair of index loops going in opposite directions and a sum over $`s_I\pi ^I`$ along all index loops vanish. Since $`l=2g+h1`$, this is possible only when $`g=0`$, namely the ’t Hooft diagram must be planar. In this case, the product of the propagators (4.1) in the Feynman diagram gives the factor

$$\underset{A=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(𝒲^\alpha \underset{I}{}s_IL_{IA}\pi _\alpha ^I\right)=\underset{A=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(𝒲^\alpha \underset{B}{}M_{AB}(s)\pi _\alpha ^B\right),$$

where $`M_{AB}(s)`$ is an $`l\times l`$ matrix defined by

$$M_{AB}(s)=\underset{I}{}s_IL_{IA}L_{IB}.$$

The integration over the fermionic momenta $`\pi ^A`$ produces the determinant $`\left(detM_{AB}(s)\right)^2`$. This $`s`$-dependent factor is cancelled out by the integral over the bosonic momenta $`P_I`$, which produces $`\left(detM_{AB}(s)\right)^2`$. Similarly one can extract the contribution to the $`U(1)`$ coupling constants $`\mathrm{Tr}𝒲_\alpha \mathrm{Tr}𝒲^\alpha `$, and see that they also come only from the planar diagrams.

For non-planar diagrams, we have $`l+1h=2g>0`$, and therefore we must have more than two $`𝒲`$’s on some loop in order to absorb all the fermion zero modes. This is not possible if $`𝒲`$’s are Grassmannian variables in the Abelian configuration relevant for . Therefore non-planar amplitudes vanish in this case by the fermion zero mode integral. This is precisely the part of the story that is going to change when we consider the $`C`$-deformation (2.1) of $`𝒲`$.

If $`𝒲`$ is not Grassmannian, we need to take into account their path-ordering along each index loop when we take a product of propagators as in (4.1). In the last section, we saw that the path-ordered exponential of $`𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha `$ integrated around a boundary $`\gamma _i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$) of the worldsheet gives the factor

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha ^{}_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha (\tau )_{o_i}^\tau p_\beta \right),$$

modulo $`_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha =0`$. In the field theory limit, we regard $`\gamma `$’s as ’t Hooft index loops and replace

$$_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha \underset{I}{}L_{Ii}s_I\pi _\alpha ^I,$$

where $`L_{Ii}`$ picks up internal lines $`I`$’s along the $`i`$-th index loop taking into account the relative orientation of $`i`$ and $`I`$. Thus we can write the exponent of (4.1) as

$$F^{\alpha \beta }_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha (\tau )_{o_i}^\tau p_\beta F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{I>J}{}s_IL_{Ii}\pi _\alpha ^Is_JL_{Ji}\pi _\beta ^J,$$

where the inequality $`I>J`$ is according to the path-ordering of the edges of the propagators $`I,J`$ along the $`i`$-th index loop.

Figure 2: The path-ordered gluino insertion receives contributions from pairs of edges $`I,J`$ if they are oriented as in case $`A`$. On the other hand, the contributions cancel in case $`B`$.

In fact the above expression can be evaluated by a simple set of rules when we have only one boundary as we will now discuss. If we have only one boundary every edge appears twice with opposite orientation (this is in particular consistent with the fact that $`p_\alpha =_Is_I\pi ^IL_{Ii}=0`$). Note that the expression (4.1) involves pairs of distinct edges (for the same edge $`F^{\alpha \beta }\pi _\alpha \pi _\beta `$ vanishes). Let us consider two distinct edges $`I`$ and $`J`$ of the boundary (see Figure 2). The contribution to the exponent of (4.1) vanishes in the case depicted as $`B`$ in the figure because the $`\pi ^J\pi ^I`$ terms appear twice with opposite sign, whereas in the case $`A`$ they appear twice with the same sign and so it survives. Note that in case $`A`$ if we had the ordering $`IJ^1I^1J`$ it would still survive, with an overall minus sign relative to the case depicted in the figure. Later we will use this rule to evaluate some examples.

Let us show that the product of exponential of (4.1) over all index loops, together with the usual $`2(h1)`$ insertions of gluino fields, absorbs all the fermion zero modes $`\pi _\alpha ^A`$ and the result of the zero mode integral cancels the $`s`$-dependent factor coming from the integral over the bosonic momenta. We have already seen that this is the case in the topological string computation in the last section. Here we will show how this works in the field theory limit. Two gluino fields inserted on each index loop $`\gamma _i`$ enforce that the sum over momenta along the loop vanishes,

$$\underset{I}{}L_{Ii}s_I\pi _I=0.$$

Under this condition, we can prove the following identity.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{I>J}{}s_IL_{Ii}\pi _\alpha ^Is_JL_{Ji}\pi _\beta ^J& =2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{I}{}s_IL_{Ia}\pi _\alpha ^I\underset{J}{}s_JL_{Jb}\pi _\beta ^J\hfill \\ & =2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }M_{aA}(s)\pi _\alpha ^AM_{bB}(s)\pi _\beta ^B.\hfill \end{array}$$

To show this, it is most convenient to go back to the identity (3.1) on the string worldsheet and take the zero slope limit of string theory, where we can set $`p_\alpha =\overline{p}_\beta `$ everywhere on the string worldsheet. In this limit, (3.1) reduces to

$$2F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha (\tau )_{o_i}^\tau p_\beta =2F^{\alpha \beta }c^{ab}_ap_\alpha _bp_\beta ,$$

since $`F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta =F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta =0`$ by the symmetry of $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ under exchange of $`\alpha ,\beta `$. The identity (4.1) can be obtained by expressing this in terms of the field theory quantities.7 More careful computation at the leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ shows
$$\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta =\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }_a(p_\alpha \overline{p}_\alpha )_b(p_\beta \overline{p}_\beta )=2\alpha ^2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{I,J}{}L_{Ia}L_{Jb}\pi _\alpha ^I\pi _\beta ^J,$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }_a(p_\alpha +\overline{p}_\alpha )_b(p_\beta +\overline{p}_\beta )=2\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }\underset{IJ}{}s_Is_JL_{Ia}L_{Jb}\pi _\alpha ^I\pi _\beta ^J.$$
In the zero slope limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, the right-hand side of (4.1) remains finite if we rescale $`s_Is_I/\alpha ^{}`$ (which infinitely elongate open string propagators) while (4.1) vanishes in this limit.

Combining the exponential of (4.1) with the $`2(h1)`$ insertions of the gluino fields, we find that the fermion zero mode integral is given by

$$d^{2l}\pi \underset{i=1}{\overset{h1}{}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }M_{iA}(s)\pi _\alpha ^AM_{iB}\pi _\alpha ^B\times \mathrm{exp}\left[2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }M_{aA}(s)\pi _\alpha ^AM_{bB}(s)\pi _\beta ^B\right].$$

To evaluate this, it is convenient to make the change of variables,

$$\pi _\alpha ^A\widehat{\pi }_{\alpha A}=M_{AB}(s)\pi _\alpha ^B.$$

The integral (4.1) then becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(detM_{AB}(s)\right)^2d^{2l}\widehat{\pi }_A\underset{i}{}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\pi }_{\alpha i}\widehat{\pi }_{\beta i}\times \mathrm{exp}\left[2c^{ab}F^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{\pi }_{\alpha a}\widehat{\pi }_{\beta b}\right]\hfill \\ & =(detM_{AB}(s))^2(F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta })^g.\hfill \end{array}$$

As in planar diagrams, the integral over bosonic momenta gives the factor of $`(detM(s))^2`$. So we are left with no $`s`$-dependent factor and we just have $`(F^2)^g`$ (with some factors of $`(2\pi )`$ which can be absorbed into the definition of $`F`$), in addition to the $`S^{h1}`$ factor. Moreover we have the combinatoric factore of $`Nh`$. The factor of $`N`$ comes from the loop with no glueball insertions and the factor of $`h`$ comes from the choice of which of the $`h`$ boundaries we choose not to put the glueball superfield on.

4.1. Examples

It is helpful to illustrate the general derivation in the field theory limit presented above by some examples. Here we will consider three examples. In the first example we show how the computation works for the case of a simple genus g diagram with one boundary, which in the field theory computation arises from a $`2g`$ loop Feynman diagram involving a single $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{4g}`$ interaction. In the second example we consider a genus 1 diagram with one boundary, involving two $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ vertices. In the third example we consider a diagram with $`g=1`$ and $`h=2`$ involving four $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ interactions. The last example is the most interesting one, in the sense that it involves both the glueball superfield and the $`F^2`$ term.

$`\mathrm{𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟏}`$:

From a single $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{4g}`$ vertex we can form a genus $`g`$ surface with a single boundary. The Feynman diagram for this interaction involves $`2g`$ loops. The boundary consists of $`2g`$ pairs of oppositely oriented edges each of which forms one loop. Along the boundary of the Riemann surface they are ordered according to the usual opening up of a genus $`g`$ surface in the form

$$I_1I_2I_1^1I_2^1I_3I_4I_3^1I_4^1\mathrm{}I_{2g1}I_{2g}I_{2g1}^1I_{2g}^1$$

According to the rule discussed before, for the path-ordered gluino insertions we get

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{I=1}{\overset{g}{}}s_{2I1}\pi _{2I1},s_{2I}\pi _{2I}\right)$$

where $`.,.`$ denotes the contraction with $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$. Integration over the fermionic loop momenta is the same as integration over the $`\pi _I`$ edge momenta as they are in one to one correspondence. To absorb the zero modes we have to bring down each term in the exponent exactly twice. This gives the factor

$$(F^2)^g\underset{I=1}{\overset{2g}{}}s_I^2$$

The bosonic momentum integral (up to factors of $`2\pi `$ which can be absorbed into the definition of $`F`$) gives $`1/s_I^2`$ for each loop and so the product over all the loops cancels the $`s`$ dependence, as expected, leading to $`(F^2)^g`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟐}`$:

As our next example we consider a genus 1 diagram with one boundary formed from two trivalent vertices (see Fig. 3). The edges along the boundary are ordered as $`\mathrm{1\; 2}^1\mathrm{3\; 1}^1\mathrm{2\; 3}^1`$. Thus the path ordered contribution gives

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(s_1\pi _1,s_2\pi _2s_2\pi _2,s_3\pi _3s_3\pi _3,s_1\pi _1\right)$$

Note that, as already explained, this factor can also be written as the product of integral of fermionic momenta around the two non-trivial cycles of the torus, denoted by $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Fig. 3. Namely

$$\pi _{\mathrm{along}A}=s_1\pi _1s_2\pi _2$$

$$\pi _{\mathrm{along}B}=s_2\pi _2s_3\pi _3$$

and we have

$$\pi _{\mathrm{along}A},\pi _{\mathrm{along}B}=s_1\pi _1,s_2\pi _2+s_2\pi _2,s_3\pi _3+s_3\pi _3,s_1\pi _1,$$

which is the same as (4.1), up to choice of orientation of cycles. Here we have used the fact that $`\pi _2,\pi _2=0`$, $`etc`$. Writing these in terms of the fermionic loop momenta $`\pi _A`$ and $`\pi _B`$ we have

$$\pi _1=\pi _A,\pi _2=\pi _B\pi _A,\pi _3=\pi _B$$

which leads to the path ordered contribution

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_1s_3)\pi _A,\pi _B\right]$$

and integration over the $`\pi _A`$ and $`\pi _B`$ leads to the factor

$$(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)^2F^2$$

The $`s`$ dependence cancels the bosonic momentum, as can be readily checked by computation of $`(detM)^2`$ where

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_1+s_2& s_2\\ s_2& s_2+s_3\end{array}\right).$$

Figure 3: The genus 1 Riemann surface with one boundary, constructed from two cubic interactions.

$`\mathrm{𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟑}`$:

For a more involved example consider the diagram in a theory with cubic interactions, drawn in Fig. 4. This corresponds to a diagram with genus 1 and 2 boundaries. Thus it will contribute a term $`2N(F)^2\times S`$, times the amplitude of the matrix model, to the superpotential. The factor $`2`$ comes from the fact that we can attach the two $`𝒲`$’s comprising the glueball field at either of the two holes, and the factor of $`N`$ comes from the trace over the hole where there are no glueball fields. This diagram has 6 edges with Schwinger parameters $`s_I`$ with $`I=1,\mathrm{},6`$. The three fermionic loop momenta we will denote by $`\pi _{A,B,C}`$. The two possible choices of the holes for attaching the glueball field both give the same contribution to the fermionic momentum integral, namely

$$(s_5(\pi _C\pi _B)+s_6\pi _C)^2=((s_5+s_6)\pi _Cs_5\pi _B)^2$$

where by square, we mean the $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$ contraction. Similarly the integral over the path ordered integral of $`𝒲`$ can be performed as follows: In this case only one of the two boundaries contribute because $`s_5\pi _5s_6\pi _6=0`$ (by the absorption of the fermion zero modes of the glueball insertion). The contribution for the larger boundary is given by the argument we outlined before, as we order the boundaries according to $`\mathrm{1\; 2}^1\mathrm{4\; 5\; 3\; 1}^1\mathrm{2\; 3}^16^14^1`$ and using the fact that $`s_5\pi _5=s_6\pi _6`$, by

$$\mathrm{exp}s_1\pi _1s_2\pi _2,s_2\pi _2s_3\pi _3s_5\pi _5s_4\pi _4.$$

This can also be viewed as the $`\mathrm{exp}\pi _{\mathrm{along}A},\pi _{\mathrm{along}B}`$, where $`A,B`$ are the two cycles of the torus (see Fig. 4). Substituting fermionic loop momenta

$$\pi _1=\pi _A,\pi _2=\pi _B\pi _A,\pi _3=\pi _B$$

$$\pi _4=\pi _B,\pi _5=\pi _C\pi _B,\pi _6=\pi _C$$

yields

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(A(s)\pi _A,\pi _B+B(s)\pi _A,\pi _C+C(s)\pi _B,\pi _C\right)$$

and

$$A(s)=s_1s_2+s_1s_3+s_2s_3+s_1s_5+s_2s_5+s_2s_4+s_1s_4$$

$$B(s)=s_1s_5s_2s_5$$

$$C(s)=s_2s_5$$

Figure 4: A Riemann surface with genus 1 and two boundaries made out of four cubic interactions.

We then need to integrate over the three fermionic loop momenta. To absorb the $`\pi _A`$ fermions, we can bring down two $`A`$ terms from the exponent, which also absorbs the $`\pi _B`$ integral and so we will have to pair it up with the $`(s_5+s_6)^2`$ in the $`S`$ contribution to absorb the $`\pi _C`$ integral. Or we can bring two $`B`$ terms which will have to be paired up with the $`s_5^2`$ term. Or we can bring down one $`A`$ and one $`B`$ term which will have to be paired with the cross term in the $`S`$ contribution of the form $`2(s_5+s_6)s_5`$ in the $`\pi _B\pi _C`$ term. Putting all these together we find the $`s_i`$ dependence is given by $`D^2`$, where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D& =A(s)(s_5+s_6)+B(s)s_5\hfill \\ & =s_1s_2s_5+s_1s_3s_5+s_2s_3s_5+s_1s_4s_5\hfill \\ & +s_2s_4s_5+s_1s_2s_6+s_1s_3s_6+s_2s_3s_6\hfill \\ & +s_1s_4s_6+s_2s_4s_6+s_1s_5s_6+s_2s_5s_6.\hfill \end{array}$$

The integration over the bosonic momentum gives the inverse square of determinant of $`M`$ where $`M_{AB}=_Is_IL_{IA}L_{IB}s_I`$ is given by

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s_1+s_2& s_2& 0\\ s_2& s_2+s_3+s_4+s_5& s_5\\ 0& s_5& s_5+s_6\end{array}\right)$$

and one easily checks that

$$D=detM$$

as expected.

5. Physical interpretation

We have seen that the connection between matrix model and $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions can be made more canonical, $`i.e.`$ be extended to all higher genus matrix amplitudes if we make the gluino fields in the path-integral not to be purely Grassmannian. This lack of anticommutativity breaks Lorentz invariance, but preserves $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. In this section we discuss possible physical implications of this idea.

Even though in this paper we have mainly concentrated on the chiral sector, corresponding to turning on $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$, we could also repeat this analysis for the anti-chiral sector, by turning on $`F_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$.8 In the string theory context this would lead to a gravitational back-reaction, which is irrelevant in the field theory limit we are considering. In this Euclidean context these are independent real numbers, but in the Minkowski context these are complex quantities and the reality ($`i.e.`$, unitarity) conditions dictate

$$F_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=(F_{\alpha \beta })^{}.$$

This in particular means that for the gluino fields $`\psi _\alpha `$ and $`\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ in the path-integral we require,

$$\{\psi _\alpha ,\psi _\beta \}=2F_{\alpha \beta }$$

$$\{\psi _{\dot{\alpha }},\psi _{\dot{\beta }}\}=2F_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}$$

In the case where $`F=0`$, $`i.e.`$ the standard gauge theory context, we know that the glueball superfield

$$S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}𝒲^\alpha 𝒲^\beta $$

is the right variable to describe the infrared physics. Similarly here, given the link between the full matrix model computation and gauge theory computation, it suggests that $`S`$ again is the right field in the IR to capture the relevant physics. We will assume that to continue to be the case even after introducing the $`C`$-deformation. In particular in the IR we will have an effective superpotential

$$W(S)=N\frac{F(S,\lambda ^2)}{S}+\tau S$$

where

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}F(S,\lambda ^2)\right]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(U(M))}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda }W(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]$$

and $`S=\lambda M`$ in the above expression. Moreover

$$\lambda ^2=ϵ^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}ϵ^{\beta \beta ^{}}F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}},$$

in the gauge theory interpretation. In the corresponding low energy physics we are instructed to minimize the physical potential

$$V=g^{S\overline{S}}|_SW|^2$$

where $`g_{S\overline{S}}=_S_{\overline{S}}K(S,\overline{S})`$ and $`K`$ is the (as yet to be computed) potential coming from D-term.

There is a surprise here: The IR physics appears to be Lorentz invariant! Namely both $`S`$ and $`\lambda ^2=F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$ are Lorentz invariant, and so the $`W(S)`$ is Lorentz invariant. So there is no hint in the IR that we are dealing with a theory which intrinsically breaks Lorentz-invariance. In other words, it appears that Lorentz invariance has been restored in the IR! Even though there are examples where the theory in the IR has more symmetries than in the UV, for example theories which have higher dimension operators violating some symmetry which becomes irrelevant in the IR, it is amusing that this is appearing also in our case where the fundamental fields have Lorentz-violating rules for the path-integral. Note that turning on $`F^2`$ does change the expectation value of $`S`$ at the critical point and the critical value of $`W`$, but in a Lorentz-invariant way. It is tempting to speculate about the potential realization of this idea in Nature. In particular this would be consistent with the macroscopic existence of Lorentz invariance, which could get violated at higher energies. This is even more tempting since from the viewpoint of the relation of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories and matrix model, the $`C`$-deformation is forced on us! It would be interesting to explore the signature of the $`C`$-deformation for potential observations in the accelerator physics or cosmology.

5.1. Pure $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills revisited

Let us consider the special case of pure $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills, deformed by turning on $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$. This will be a leading piece of the superpotential of many other theories, in the limit where $`S`$ is small and so higher powers of $`S`$ can be ignored in the glueball superpotential. In this case, the partition function of the matrix model (5.1) is entirely given by the measure factor, $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{vol}(U(M))`$, which has been shown  to give the partition function of $`c=1`$ at self-dual radius . We have (up to an addition of an irrelevant constant $`\frac{1}{12}\lambda ^2\mathrm{log}\lambda `$)

$$F(S,\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{2}S^2\mathrm{log}S\frac{1}{12}\lambda ^2\mathrm{log}(S/\lambda )+\underset{g>1}{}\frac{B_{2g}}{2g(2g2)}\frac{\lambda ^{2g}}{S^{2g2}}$$

This can be written in a more unified form, up to an addition of $`\frac{1}{2}S^2\mathrm{log}\lambda `$ which in the expression for the superpotential can be absorbed into redefining the coupling constant $`\tau `$,

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}F(S,\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{S^2}{\lambda ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{S}{\lambda }\right)\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{S}{\lambda }\right)+\underset{g>1}{}\frac{B_{2g}}{2g(2g2)}\left(\frac{\lambda }{S}\right)^{2g2}.$$

It is natural to define a rescaled dimensionless glueball field $`\mu =S/\lambda `$. In terms of this we have

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}F=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\mathrm{log}\mu \frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}\mu +\underset{g>1}{}\frac{B_{2g}}{2g(2g2)}\mu ^{22g}$$

This leads to the superpotential

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }W=N\left(\mu \mathrm{log}\mu \underset{g>0}{}\frac{B_{2g}}{2g}\mu ^{12g}\right)+\tau \mu $$

Note that this $`\tau `$ defers from the bare $`\tau _0`$ in the gauge theory by

$$\tau =\tau _0+N\mathrm{log}\lambda /\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the cutoff where the bare coupling $`\tau _0`$ is defined. Note that writing the superpotential in term of the new $`\tau `$, undoes the dimensional transmutation. In other words, we now have gotten rid of $`\lambda `$ and recaptured it in term of the coupling constant $`\tau `$ which does not run. Put differently, $`\tau `$ denotes the coupling constant of the gauge theory at the scale set by $`\lambda `$. It is interesting to note that $`(5.1)`$ is the generating function for the Euler character of moduli space of Riemann surfaces with one puncture \[24,,23\].

Note that the superpotential (5.1) is a generalization of the Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential , taking the $`C`$-deformation into account. The fact that many different powers of $`\mu `$ enter is because $`F`$ ‘carries’ an $`R`$ charge and with respect to that $`S/\lambda `$ is neutral and so in principle arbitrary powers of it can appear. Here we are predicting in addition very definite coefficients for these terms. We expect, as in the case of the Veneziano-Yankielowicz potential, the measure of the gauge theory should somehow dictate this structure, but we do not, at the present, have a direct gauge theory derivation of this.

Let us analyze the critical points of this superpotential. We need to solve $`dW=0`$ (again we reabsorb a constant term in the shift of $`\tau `$):

$$\frac{1}{N\lambda }\frac{dW}{d\mu }=\mathrm{log}\mu +\underset{g>0}{}\frac{(2g1)}{2g}B_{2g}\mu ^{2g}+\frac{\tau }{N}=0$$

(It is amusing to note that $`dW/d\mu `$ is the partition function of the Euler character of the moduli space of doubly punctured Riemann surfaces, up to addition of $`\tau /N`$.) If $`\tau 0`$ $`i.e.`$ if $`F`$ is much smaller than the physical scale of the original gauge theory, then we have

$$\mu e^{\tau /N}$$

This in particular is consistent with dropping the terms with negative powers of $`\mu `$ in (5.1) because $`\mu 1`$ (this is self-consistent, $`i.e.`$ $`SF`$). As we increase $`\tau `$ the correction terms to VY potential become more relevant. Let us define $`q=e^{\tau /N}`$ Then we expect, after minimization, to have an expansion

$$W(\mu )|_{\mathrm{min}}=N\lambda \left(q^1+\underset{n1}{}a_nq^{2n1}\right)$$

for some computable $`a_n`$. It would be interesting to see if this function has any interesting modular properties.

5.2. Non-perturbative completion of $`W`$ and baryons

From the definition of $`F(S,\lambda ^2)`$ (5.1) as the full free energy of the matrix model, it is clear that we cannot stop to all orders in perturbation theory, and in particular we have to have a full definition of the matrix integral, including its non-perturbative completion. This is unlike  where we could restrict attention simply to planar diagrams of the matrix model defined by Feynman perturbation theory. Thus it is natural to ask how do we give the full non-perturbative definition of $`F`$ or the associated physical superpotential (5.1).

In order to get insight into this question it is useful to trace back, within string theory, what turning on the graviphoton does. On the dual gravity side, the theory is an $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric theory broken down to $`𝒩=1`$ by some flux. The topological string amplitudes do not depend on the choice of flux . Thus we can ask how does turning on graviphoton field strength affect the $`𝒩=2`$ theory.

This question was studied at length in . The main idea is to relate the turning on of the graviphoton field strength, as giving rise to a correction to $`R^2`$ terms which are captured by Schwinger like computation. Recall that graviphoton couples to D-branes with charge proportional to their BPS mass. Motivated by this correspondence it is natural to write the superpotential $`W`$ as coming from such a computation. For example for the case of pure Yang-Mills we would be led to

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }W(\mu )=N_ϵ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s^2}\left(\frac{s/2}{\mathrm{sinh}(s/2)}\right)^2e^{s\mu }$$

This suggests a non-perturbative completion of the superpotential relevant for the cases with smaller values of $`\mu `$, including terms of the form $`e^{2n\pi i\mu }`$, as is familiar from the Schwinger computation. If $`\mathrm{Im}\mu =\mathrm{Im}(S/|F|)1`$ these effects are small. Note that for pure Yang-Mills, these corrections, on the matrix model side, would be invisible: Since $`\mu =S/F=\lambda _sM/\lambda _s=M`$ these terms correspond to $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iM)`$ which is $`1`$ and do not depend on $`M`$. Thus the ambiguity of the map between the matrix model and gauge theory data allow for such additions.

Recall that in the string theory realization the wrapped brane corresponds to baryons \[27,,28\] as the corresponding brane is pierced by $`N`$ units of RR flux. Even though in the $`𝒩=1`$ theory these are not as part of the excitations of the theory (as one would have to supply the quarks as probes) nevertheless it is striking that they can be used to reproduce the superpotential. Therefore it is natural to interpret the full superpotential $`W`$ (5.1) as obtainable from the baryon/anti-baryon pair production effect. It would be interesting to better understand this statement from the field theory side. It is amusing to note that this includes the Veneziano-Yankielowicz part of the superpotential as well, suggesting a new interpretation for it. For more general $`𝒩=1`$ theories one would expect that there would be similar completions of the perturbative computation, similar to that studied in  in the context of A-model topological strings.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to N. Berkovits for valuable discussion about the covariant quantization of superstring. We would also like to thank R. Dijkgraaf, M. Grisaru, S. Minwalla, Y. Okawa, J. Schwarz, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, N. Warner, E. Witten, and S.-T. Yau for useful discussions.

H.O. thanks the theory group at Harvard University for the hospitality. C.V. thanks the hospitality of the theory group at Caltech, where he is a Gordon Moore Distinguished Scholar.

The research of H.O. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG03-92-ER40701. The research of C.V. was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-9802709 and DMS-0074329.

References

relax E. Witten, “Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/9207094. relax M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 165, 311 (1994); arXiv:hep-th/9309140. relax I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K. S. Narain and T. R. Taylor, “Superstring threshold corrections to Yukawa couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B 407, 706 (1993); arXiv:hep-th/9212045. relax R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1415 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811131. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Worldsheet derivation of a large $`N`$ duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 641, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0205297. relax C. Vafa, “Superstrings and topological strings at large $`N`$,” J. Math. Phys. 42, 2798 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0008142. relax F. Cachazo, K. Intriligator and C. Vafa, “A large $`N`$ duality via a geometric transition,” Nucl. Phys. B 603, 3 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0103067. relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “Matrix models, topological strings, and supersymmetric gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0206255; “On geometry and matrix models,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 21 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0207106; “A perturbative window into non-perturbative physics,” arXiv:hep-th/0208048; “N=1 supersymmetry, deconstruction, and bosonic gauge theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0302011.. relax R. Dijkgraaf, M. T. Grisaru, C. S. Lam, C. Vafa and D. Zanon, “Perturbative computation of glueball superpotentials,” arXiv:hep-th/0211017. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot invariants and topological strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 577, 419 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9912123. relax M. R. Douglas and C. M. Hull, “D-branes and the noncommutative torus,” JHEP 9802, 008 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711165. relax N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “String theory and noncommutative geometry,” JHEP 9909, 032 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9908142. relax N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, “$`𝒩=4`$ topological strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 433, 123 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9407190. relax N. Berkovits, “Covariant quantization of the Green-Schwarz superstring in a Calabi-Yau background,” Nucl. Phys. B 431, 258 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9404162. relax N. Berkovits, “Super-Poincare covariant quantization of the superstring,” JHEP 0004, 018 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0001035. relax N. Berkovits, “Quantization of the superstring in Ramond-Ramond backgrounds,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 971 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9910251. relax L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa and R. Schiappa, “D-brane dynamics in constant Ramond-Ramond potentials and noncommutative geometry,” arXiv:hep-th/0209164.

relax J.H. Schwarz and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Speculations concerning a fermionic structure of space-time,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. 34,21 (1982). relax S. Ferrara and M.A. Lledo, “Some aspects of deformations of supersymmetric field theories,” JHEP 0005, 008 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002084. relax D. Klemm, S. Penati and L. Tamassia, “Non(anti)commutative superspace,” arXiv: hep-th/0104190. relax J. de Boer, P. A. Grassi, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Non-commutative superspace from string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0302078. relax M. T. Grisaru and D. Zanon, “Covariant supergraphs. 1. Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 252, 578 (1985). relax J. Distler and C. Vafa, “A critical matrix model at $`c=1`$,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 259 (1991). relax R. C. Penner, “Perturbative series and the moduli space of Riemann surfaces,” J. Diff. Geom. 27 (1988) 35. relax G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz, “An effective Lagrangian for the pure $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Phys. Lett. B 113, 231 (1982). relax R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “M-theory and topological strings. I,” arXiv:hep-th/9809187; “M-theory and topological strings. II,” arXiv:hep-th/9812127. relax E. Witten, “Baryons and branes in anti de Sitter space,” JHEP 9807, 006 (1998); arXiv:hep-th/9805112. relax D. J. Gross and H. Ooguri, “Aspects of large $`N`$ gauge theory dynamics as seen by string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 106002 (1998); arXiv:hep-th/9805129.


text:
# Time independent description of rapidly oscillating potentials

(16 July 2003)

## Abstract

The classical and quantum dynamics in a high frequency field are found to be described by an effective time independent Hamiltonian. It is calculated in a systematic expansion in the inverse of the frequency ($`\omega `$) to order $`\omega ^4`$. The work is an extension of the classical result for the Kapitza pendulum, which was calculated in the past to order $`\omega ^2`$. The analysis makes use of an implementation of the method of separation of time scales and of a quantum gauge transformation in the framework of Floquet theory. The effective time independent Hamiltonian enables one to explore the dynamics in presence of rapidly oscillating fields, in the framework of theories that were developed for systems with time independent Hamiltonians. The results are relevant, in particular, for exploration of the dynamics of cold atoms.

The classical and quantum dynamics of a particle in a field that oscillates rapidly relative to the motion of the particle will be studied. The variation of the field in space is smooth but otherwise arbitrary. Such fields are applied experimentally to cold atoms, where a very high degree of control is possible. The exploration of the dynamics of cold atoms in strong electromagnetic fields resulted in many novel, interesting experimental observations cornell02 ; tannudjibook2 ; faisal . The results of this letter long , are expected to enable further discoveries in this field as well as in related fields.

For atom optics, the effect of the internal degrees of freedom on the center of mass motion is important. The force on the center of mass due to the internal degrees of freedom that couple to the external field is given approximately by a dipole force tannudjibook2 . The motion of the atoms can be manipulated by fields with amplitudes which vary spatially, resulting in a force on the center of mass of the atoms. In the present work, the effect of the laser on the center of mass motion is modeled by a time dependent potential. For some situations of physical interest this simpler model still describes the dynamics of the center of mass without the need to specify the dynamics of the internal degrees of freedom or the quantum aspects of the light field. In the situation that is of interest for the letter the frequency of this potential is large compared to the inverse of the characteristic time scale of the center of mass dynamics. An example of such systems that was recently realized experimentally and that motivated the present work is of atomic billiards raizen01 ; davidson01 . The boundary of the billiards is generated by a laser beam that rapidly traverses a closed curve, which acts as the boundary of the billiard, approximated by the time average of this beam. The force applied by the boundary on the particles is approximately the mean force applied by the beam.

The influence of a high frequency field on a classical particle was derived by Landau and Lifshitz LL1  generalizing the work on the Kapitza pendulum kapitza , that is a classical pendulum with a periodically moving point of suspension. The motion was separated into a slow part and a fast part. The leading order (in the inverse frequency) of the slow motion was calculated. This mechanism is used to trap ions in electromagnetic fields. The most notable example is the Paul trap paul  that can be described approximately by a Hamiltonian of a time dependent harmonic oscillator glauber95 ; perelomov69 ; perelomovbook . It is of interest to solve more general problems even if only approximately. The work of Kapitza was first extended to quantum mechanical systems in a pioneering paper by Grozdanov and Raković GR . They introduced a unitary gauge transformation resulting in an effective Hamiltonian that describes the slow motion. In that paper the analysis is restricted to a driving potential that has a particularly simple time dependence. Moreover, the final results are restricted to forces that are uniform in space, a situation natural in standard spectroscopy, but too restrictive for the interesting problems in atom optics. These restrictions are avoided in the present work. Many investigations of periodically driven quantum systems were performed gavrila96 ; vorobeichik98 ; henseler01 ; maricq82 ; salzman87 ; fernandez90 ; gavbook ; costin .

In the present work, a coherent theoretical treatment of the dynamics of classical and quantum high frequency driven systems is presented. Classically the motion can be considered approximately as one that consists of a rapid oscillation around a slowly varying trajectory. Therefore for the classical problem the motion is separated into a “slow” part and a “fast” part and a systematic perturbation theory is developed for the motion of the “slow” part. This slow motion is computed to order $`\omega ^4`$ and demonstrated to result from an effective Hamiltonian. It is an extension of the order $`\omega ^2`$ (that is presented in Ref. LL1 ). Floquet theory is used to separate the slow and fast time scales in the corresponding quantum problem. An effective (time independent) Hamiltonian operator is defined following GR . The eigenvalues of this operator are the quasienergies of the system. This effective Hamiltonian is then computed perturbatively (to order $`\omega ^4`$). It is obtained by a gauge transformation that is simply related to the canonical transformation leading to the corresponding classical effective Hamiltonian.

A model Hamiltonian for the motion in a periodic field is

$$H=p^2/2m+V_0(x)+V_1(x,\omega t)$$
(1)
leading to Newton’s equation

$$m\ddot{x}=V_0^{}(x)V_1^{}(x,\omega t),$$
(2)
where $`V_1`$ is a $`2\pi `$ periodic function of $`\omega t`$ and its average over a period vanishes. (We denote $`\dot{X}=\frac{dX}{dt}`$, $`V_0^{}=\frac{dV_0}{dx}`$, etc.) An instructive example of such a system is

$$V_0=0,V_1=\gamma e^{\beta x^2}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t).$$
(3)
The system is of particular interest since: (a) the time average of the potential vanishes, consequently any interesting effect is due to the rapidly oscillating potential; (b) when $`x\mathrm{}`$ the potential vanishes and therefore one expects to find scattering quasienergy states.

We look for a solution of (2) that has the form

$$x(t)=X(t)+\xi (X,\dot{X},\omega t)$$
(4)
where $`X`$ is the slow part, $`\dot{X}=\frac{dX}{dt}`$ while $`\xi `$ is the fast part which is periodic (in the variable $`\omega t`$) with vanishing average. This determines uniquely the functions $`X`$ and $`\xi `$. One could use a different functional dependence of $`\xi `$ on $`X`$ and its time derivatives, but such a change cannot affect the dependence of the solution for $`\xi `$ on time. Our method of solution is to choose $`\xi `$ so that (2) leads to an equation for $`X`$ which is explicitly time independent. An exact solution using (4) is too complicated to obtain in general. However, at high frequencies, one can determine $`\xi `$ order by order in $`1/\omega `$, using

$$\xi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\omega ^i}\xi _i.$$
(5)
The $`\xi _i`$ are chosen so that the equation for $`X`$ does not depend on $`\tau \omega t`$. One may also expand $`X`$ in powers of $`1/\omega `$ as $`X=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}X_i/\omega ^i`$. When one does so the equation of motion for $`X`$ is replaced by a series of equations for $`X_i`$. In this series of equations, each $`X_i`$ can be determined from the lower order terms $`X_j`$, where $`j<i`$. This is the standard method of separation of time scales averaging . These equations are equivalent, in any order, to the equation of motion of the (unexpanded) $`X`$ which will be used in what follows. At a given order $`\omega ^n`$ of the present calculation all contributions that are found by the method of separation of time scales are included, but some of the higher order terms are included as well.

The slow motion is found to be controlled by the Hamiltonian long

$$H_{eff}=\frac{P^2}{2m}+V_{eff}(X)+\frac{1}{\omega ^4}g(X)P^2+O(\omega ^5),$$
(6)
where $`g(X)=\frac{3}{2m^3}\overline{\left(^{(2)\tau }\left[V_1^{\prime \prime }\right]\right)^2}`$ and $`P`$ is the momentum conjugate to $`X`$. We define the integrals $`^{(j)\tau }\left[f\right]=\underset{j\text{ times}}{\underset{}{^\tau \left[\mathrm{}^\tau \left[f\right]\mathrm{}\right]}}`$, where $`f(x,\tau )=_{n0}f_n(x)e^{in\tau }`$ and $`^\tau \left[f\right]_{n0}\frac{1}{in}f_ne^{in\tau }`$. The effective potential is found to be

$$V_{eff}(X)V_0(X)+V_2(X)+V_4(X).$$
(7)
where $`V_2(X)=\frac{1}{2m\omega ^2}\overline{\left(^\tau \left[V_1^{}\right]\right)^2}`$ and $`V_4(X)=\frac{1}{2m^2\omega ^4}\left[\overline{V_1^{\prime \prime }\left(^{(2)\tau }\left[V_1^{}\right]\right)^2}+V_0^{\prime \prime }\overline{\left(^{(2)\tau }\left[V_1^{}\right]\right)^2}\right]`$. For example, for the system with the potential (3), at the order $`\omega ^0`$, where only the average of the potential over time is taken into account, $`V_{eff}=0`$. The effective potential $`V_{eff}`$ of (7) is plotted in the inset of Fig. 1. The leading order ($`\omega ^2`$) is $`V_2(x)=\frac{\beta ^2\gamma ^2x^2}{m\omega ^2}e^{2\beta x^2}`$, which is clearly a double barrier. It is obvious that it traps the particle. This potential is always positive since it is the mean kinetic energy of the rapid oscillation around the slow motion, an energy which is coordinate dependent. For this it is instructive to note that $`V_2=m\overline{\dot{\xi }^2}/2`$ in the leading order. In the order $`\omega ^4`$, on the other hand, the Hamiltonian cannot be expressed anymore in terms of an effective potential and terms that mix coordinates and momentum, like $`g(X)P^2`$ appear. Such terms result in corrections increasing with energy. It is also more complicated to understand terms of this order intuitively.

Consider a quantum system with a Hamiltonian that is periodic in time, $`\widehat{H}(t+T)=\widehat{H}(t)`$. Such a system can be treated using Floquet theory zeldovich67 ; shirley65 ; sambe73 . The symmetry with respect to discrete time translations implies that the solutions of the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi =\widehat{H}\psi $$
(8)
are linear combinations of functions of the form

$$\psi _\lambda =e^{i\frac{\lambda t}{\mathrm{}}}u_\lambda (x,\omega t)$$
(9)
where $`\lambda `$ are the quasienergies and the corresponding quasienergy (or Floquet) states are $`u_\lambda (x,\omega (t+T))=u_\lambda (x,\omega t)`$ with $`\omega =2\pi /T`$. This is the content of the Bloch-Floquet theorem in time. The states $`u_\lambda `$ are the eigenstates of the Floquet Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{}_F=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}+\widehat{H}.$$
(10)
These states have a natural separation into a “slow” part $`e^{i\frac{\lambda t}{\mathrm{}}}`$ (with the natural choice $`0\lambda /\mathrm{}\omega `$), which includes the information about the quasienergies, and a fast part $`u_\lambda (x,\omega t)`$ that depends only on the “fast” time $`\tau \omega t`$. In the following an equation of motion for the slow part of the dynamics is found as was done for classical systems. It establishes a natural link between the separation into fast and slow motion in classical mechanics, that can be formalised by the theory of separation of time scales, and Bloch-Floquet theory in quantum mechanics. For this purpose, following GR , we will look for a unitary gauge transformation $`e^{i\widehat{F}(t)}`$, where $`\widehat{F}(t)`$ is a Hermitian operator (function of $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$) defined at a certain time $`t`$, which is a periodic function of time with the same period as $`\widehat{H}`$, such that in the new gauge the Hamiltonian in the Schrödinger equation is time independent. In terms of the functions in the new gauge $`\varphi =e^{i\widehat{F}}\psi `$, the Schrödinger Eq. (8) is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\varphi =\widehat{G}\varphi $$
(11)
where the Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{G}=e^{i\widehat{F}}\widehat{H}e^{i\widehat{F}}+i\mathrm{}\left(\frac{e^{i\widehat{F}}}{t}\right)e^{i\widehat{F}}.$$
(12)
Assume that such an operator $`\widehat{F}`$ exists, so that $`\widehat{G}`$ is time independent. Its eigenfunctions $`v_\lambda (x)`$ evolve as

$$\varphi _\lambda (t,x)=e^{i\frac{\lambda t}{\mathrm{}}}v_\lambda (x).$$
(13)
These states, in the original gauge, correspond to

$$\psi _\lambda (t,x)=e^{i\widehat{F}}\varphi _\lambda =e^{i\frac{\lambda t}{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\widehat{F}}v_\lambda (x).$$
(14)
The function $`e^{i\widehat{F}}v_\lambda `$ is periodic in time with the period of $`\widehat{H}`$ and therefore $`\psi _\lambda `$ of (9) is a Floquet state with quasienergy $`\lambda `$ (mod $`\mathrm{}\omega `$) where $`u_\lambda =e^{i\widehat{F}}v_\lambda `$.

At high frequencies, $`\widehat{F}`$ is found to be small, of the order of $`1/\omega `$. We expand $`\widehat{G}`$ and $`\widehat{F}`$ in powers of $`1/\omega `$ and choose $`\widehat{F}`$, so that $`\widehat{G}`$ is time independent in any given order. The expansions are $`\widehat{G}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{G}_n/\omega ^n`$ and $`\widehat{F}=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{F}_n/\omega ^n`$. The calculation is performed by computing $`\widehat{G}_l`$ in terms of $`\widehat{F}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{F}_{l+1}`$ and then choosing $`\widehat{F}_{l+1}`$ so that $`\widehat{G}_l`$ is time independent. The terms in (12) are calculated with the help of the operator expansion,

$`e^{i\widehat{F}}\widehat{B}e^{i\widehat{F}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{B}+i[\widehat{F},\widehat{B}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}[\widehat{F},[\widehat{F},\widehat{B}]]\mathrm{}`$ (15)
where for the first term in (12) one takes $`\widehat{B}=\widehat{H}`$ while for the second $`\widehat{B}=\frac{}{\tau }`$.

The resulting time independent effective Hamiltonian is long

$`\widehat{G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}}+\widehat{V}_{eff}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega ^4}}(\widehat{p}^2g(x)+2\widehat{p}g(x)\widehat{p}`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`g(x)\widehat{p}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\omega ^4}}\widehat{V}_q+O(\omega ^5),`$
where $`V_{eff}(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ are the classical terms (see (6) and (7)), while $`\widehat{V}_q=\frac{1}{8m^3}\overline{\left(^{(2)\tau }\left[V_1^{(3)}\right]\right)^2}`$ is a quantum correction to the classical Hamiltonian that appears first in this order. The Hamiltonian (16) is presented in a form which is manifestly Hermitian.

The effective Hamiltonian (16) is the main result of this work. Its classical limit is the classical effective Hamiltonian (6) that can be obtained from (1) by the canonical transformation that is the classical limit of $`\mathrm{}F`$. It should be emphasized that in the derivation of (16) no semiclassical approximation was made.

The perturbation theory that was developed here enables one to calculate not only the quasienergies that are the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{G}`$ but also the corresponding quasienergy states. If the eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{G}`$ are known, then the quasienergy (or Floquet) states can be computed up to order $`\omega ^4`$ using equation (14) with

$$\widehat{F}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega }^\tau \left[V_1\right]+\frac{i}{m\omega ^2}^{(2)\tau }\left(\frac{1}{2}\left[V_1^{\prime \prime }\right]+\left[V_1^{}\right]\frac{}{x}\right)+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where the explicit expressions of terms of order $`\omega ^3`$ and $`\omega ^4`$ will be given elsewhere long .

The theory is demonstrated for the oscillating Gaussian (3). The system demonstrates trapping by an oscillating field, a phenomenon that is of physical interest. For this problem the effective potential (7), depicted in the inset of Fig. 1, is a double barrier therefore it exhibits resonances. Each resonance is characterized by a complex energy $`Ei\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$. (For a relevant review see nimrev .) For any resonance of (16) it is natural to look for the corresponding resonance of the original time dependent Hamiltonian (3). More precisely, one looks for the resonances of the Floquet Hamiltonian (10) with $`\widehat{H}`$ of (3). This is done numerically using a combination of the ($`t,t^{}`$) method and complex scaling nimrev .

The energy $`E_0`$ and the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ of the lowest (smallest real part $`E_0`$) quasienergy-resonance of (3) are compared with the lowest resonance of the corresponding effective Hamiltonian (16) in Fig. 1.

It is clear that for large frequencies there is excellent agreement. The results for the effective Hamiltonian truncated at orders $`\omega ^4`$ and $`\omega ^2`$ are comparable at large frequencies. At low frequencies the results of order $`\omega ^2`$ turn out to be more accurate, indicating that the series do not converge at those frequencies. For comparison the characteristic frequency for the slow motion of the particle is in the range $`0.10.3`$.

It was found that the perturbation theory leads to a time independent effective Hamiltonian. This effective Hamiltonian may give physical insight, based on experience with time independent systems, which is absent when examining the corresponding time dependent problem. For example, consider a system where the time averaged potential consists of two barriers in addition to some high frequency time dependent perturbation (with vanishing average). If the perturbation is mainly in the region of the barriers one expects that the perturbation slightly raises the barriers in the effective Hamiltonian. In contrast, if the perturbation is in the region between the barriers it tends to raise the energy of the resonance. Therefore one expects that applying a time dependent perturbation in the region of the barriers will tend to increase the lifetime of the resonance ($`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) while applying it in between the barriers will tend to decrease it. All the well developed techniques for time independent quantum systems can be used to compute the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{G}`$, in particular in the case where the eigenvalues and eigenstates of $`\widehat{G}_0=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+V_0(x)`$ are known. The effective Hamiltonian can also be used to predict trapping by oscillating potentials that were so far investigated mainly numerically bagwell92 .

We have investigated the dynamics of high frequency driven general classical and quantum systems. High frequency perturbation theory, which exploits the idea of separation of time scales, was used to obtain an effective time independent Hamiltonian for the slow part of the classical and quantum motion. The spectrum of the effective quantum Hamiltonian is the quasienergy spectrum of the time dependent system. This effective Hamiltonian is computed to order $`\omega ^4`$ in a perturbation theory. While in the order $`\omega ^2`$ the effect of the rapid oscillations around the slow motion could be expressed in terms of a classical scalar potential, the order $`\omega ^4`$ involves both coordinates and momentum. Quantum corrections to the Hamiltonian also appear at this order.

Some properties of the perturbation theory for $`\widehat{F}`$ and $`\widehat{G}`$, such as its convergence and validity, are not well understood and should be further studied. For instance, in one dimension the classical slow motion is integrable while the exact time dependent dynamics may have chaotic regions in phase space. This may hint that the perturbation theory may describe correctly only part of the phase space (whose fraction grows with $`\omega `$).

###### Acknowledgements.

It is our great pleasure to thank M. V. Berry, N. Davidson, N. Moiseyev, and V. Rom-Kedar for stimulating and inspiring discussions. We thank N. Moiseyev also for the involvement in many of the fine details of this work. This research was supported in part by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and by the Minerva Center of Nonlinear Physics of Complex Systems.