E 8 instantons on typeA ALE spaces and supersymmetric field theories
HJE
E8 instantons on typeA
Noppadol Mekareeya 0 1 2 5
Kantaro Ohmori 0 1 2 3
Yuji Tachikawa 0 1 2 4
Gabi Zafrir 0 1 2 4
0 Kashiwa , Chiba 2778583 , Japan
1 Princeton , NJ 08540 , U.S.A
2 Piazza della Scienza 3 , I20126 Milano , Italy
3 School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study
4 Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo
5 Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita` di MilanoBicocca , and INFN, sezione di MilanoBicocca
We consider the 6d superconformal field theory realized on M5branes probing the E8 endoftheworld brane on the deformed and resolved C2/Zk singularity. We give an explicit algorithm which determines, for arbitrary holonomy at infinity, the 6d quiver gauge theory on the tensor branch, the typeA class S description of the T 2 compactification, and the starshaped quiver obtained as the mirror of the T 3 compactification.
Supersymmetry and Duality; Field Theories in Higher Dimensions; Field

3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
1 Introduction and summary
2 Geometric preliminaries
3 Sixdimensional description
2.1
Topological data of the instanton configuration
2.2 Dimension of the instanton moduli space
The general structure of the quiver
The algorithm
A subtlety concerning the 6d θ angle
3.4 Anomalies and the inflow
4 Lower dimensional incarnations
5 Examples
Fivedimensional braneweb description
Fourdimensional class S description
Threedimensional starshaped quiver description
Enhanced flavor symmetries from 3d quivers
Theories differing by the 6d θ angle
Massive Estring theories Higgsing the SU(k) flavour symmetry
One of the many surprises during the second superstring revolution was the realization
that the construction of SU(N ) instantons on R4 by AityahDrinfeldHitchinManin [1] and
on asymptotically locally Euclidean (ALE) spaces by KronheimerNakajima [2, 3] have a
physical realization in terms of Dpbranes probing D(p+4)brane on R4 [4] and/or ALE
spaces [5]. There, we have a gauge theory with eight supercharges on Dpbranes such that
its Higgs branch is given by the corresponding instanton moduli spaces: the equations of
the ADHM and KronheimerNakajima construction are the Fterm and Dterm conditions
of the supersymmetric gauge theory.
As a variation of this construction, we can consider M5branes probing the E8
endoftheworld brane of the Mtheory, either on R4 or on ALE spaces.
The lowenergy
worldvolume theory on these M5branes is a 6d N = 1 supersymmetric theory whose Higgs
– 1 –
branch is intimately related to the E8 instanton moduli spaces. These theories were studied
already in the heyday of the second revolution, see e.g. [6], We did not, however, have many
methods to understand the properties of these theories back then, since these theories
are intrinsically stronglycoupled. Therefore we could not say anything new regarding
the mathematics of the E8 instanton moduli spaces on R4 or ALE spaces, for which no
constructions analogous to ADHM or KronheimerNakajima are known even today.
The situation has changed drastically since then, thanks to our improved understanding
of stronglycoupled supersymmetric theories. Among others, we can count the class S
construction in four dimensions initiated by [7], the determination of the chiral ring of the
Coulomb branch in three dimensions starting with [8], and a new method to study N = 1
theories in six dimensions pioneered by [9]. Combining these developments, we believe
there might be a chance that the physics might shed new lights on the mathematics of the
structure of the E8 instanton moduli spaces on ALE spaces.
The main target of our study in this paper is the 6d N = 1 theory on M5branes probing
the E8 9brane on the Atype ALE singularity C2/Zk. Such a system can be labeled by the
M5brane charge Q and the asymptotic holonomy ρ : Zk → E8. For some simple choices
of ρ, the structure of the 6d theory on generic points on its tensor branch was already
determined in [10, 11], which was further extended in [12–14].
space C^2/Zk is given by
Our first aim is to determine the tensor branch structure for an arbitrary choice of the
asymptotic holonomy ρ. We give a complete algorithm determining the gauge group and
the matter content in terms of ρ. Along the way, we encounter a subtle feature that there
are two distinct ways to gauge su(2n + 8) symmetry of so(4n + 16) flavor symmetry of an
usp(2n) gauge theory with Nf = 2n+8 flavors, due to the fact that the outer automorphism
of so(4n + 16) is not a symmetry of the latter gauge theory.
The Higgs branch MQ,ρ of our theory TQ6,dρ is not directly the instanton moduli space.
In particular, MQ,ρ has an action of SU(k), which we do not expect for the instanton
moduli space. Rather, by a small generalization of the argument in [15], we see that the
E8 instanton moduli space MiQn,sρt,ξ of charge Q and asymptotic holonomy ρ on the ALE
MiQn,sρt,ξ = (MQ,ρ × Oξ)///SU(k)
(1.1)
where ξ = (ξC, ξR) ∈ su(k) ⊗ (C ⊕ R) is an element in the Cartan of su(k) tensored by
R3 specifying the hyperka¨hler deformation parameter of the ALE space, Oξ is the orbit
of ξC in su(k)C with the hyperka¨hler metric specified by ξR as in [16], and the symbol ///
denotes the hyperka¨hler quotient construction. This means that the space MQ,ρ knows the
structure of the instanton moduli on the ALE space for arbitrary deformation parameter
ξ. The existence of such a generating space was conjectured by one of the authors in [17],
based on a study of SO(8) instantons on the ALE spaces.
We then study the 4d theory which arises from the T 2 compactification of the 6d
theory as in [15]. We find that they always correspond to a class S theory of type A,
given by a sphere with three punctures. The 3d mirror of its S1 compactification is a
starshaped quiver, whose structure can be deduced from the class S description by the
methods of [18]. We find that they have the form of an overextended E8 quiver. In 3d,
– 2 –
the relation (1.1) can be physically implemented by realizing Oξ as the Coulomb branch of
the T [SU(k)] theory. Using this, we will find that MiQn,sρt,ξ is the Higgs branch of an affine
E8 quiver where ξ is now the mass parameter of an SU(k) flavor symmetry. For ξ = 0 this
was already conjectured by mathematicians [19, 20] and by physicists [21, 22].
Organization of the paper.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We start
by recalling the geometric data characterizing our system in section 2. Then in section 3,
we provide the algorithm determining the 6d quiver theory in terms of the asymptotic
holonomy. In section 4, we discuss its dimensional reduction to 5d, 4d and 3d in turn.
In 5d and 4d, we translate the Kac labels to the three Young diagrams characterizing the
brane web and the class S description. In 3d, we give the starshaped quiver. Finally in
section 5, we provide many examples illustrating our discussions.
Accompanying Mathematica file. The paper comes with a Mathematica file which
implements the algorithm to produce the 6d quiver given the asymptotic E8 holonomy. In
addition, it allows the user to determine the 4d class S theory, and compute the anomalies
from three different methods, namely the 6d field theory, the Mtheoretic inflow, and the
4d class S technique.
Summary of notations.
• The asymptotic holonomy ρ : Zk → E8 is given by an element w ∈ e8 in the Cartan
subalgebra, or equivalently in terms of the Kac label
n :=
,
a set of nonnegative integers arranged on the affine E8 Dynkin diagram. For more
details, see section 2.1.
• We have closely related quantities Ninst, N3, NS, N6, and Q, which are all essentially
the number of M5branes or equivalently the instanton charge on the ALE space.
They all increase by one when we add one M5brane to the system. Their constant
parts are however different. We could have used just one out of them, but any choice
would make at least one of the formulas quite unseemly. We therefore decided to
keep them and provide a summary here.
– The integer Ninst is defined in terms of the instanton number as
Z
C^2/Γ
tr F ∧ F ∝ Ninst −
parameterize the ranks of groups in the 3d quiver, see (4.3).
– Another integer NS defined by NS = N3 + n1 + · · · + n6 is useful to parameterize
the class S data, see (3.5).
– 3 –
(1.2)
(1.3)
section 3.2.
and satisfies
see (3.12).
– The integer N6 is the number of tensors of the 6d quiver. The difference between
NS and N6 is determined by the Kac label and is described in the algorithm in
– A rational number Q is the M5charge which appears in the inflow computation,
Q = Ninst −
Topological data of the instanton configuration
resolution C]2/Γ, where Γ ∈ SU(2).
Here we recall the topological data necessary to specify a Ginstanton on C2/Γ or its
On C2/Γ, we first need to specify the holonomy at the origin and at the infinity. They
determine the representation ρ0,∞ : Γ → G, which we consider as a linear action on the
complexified adjoint representation g.
On C]2/Γ, we specify the holonomy at infinity ρ∞. In addition, we need to specify the
class in H2(C]2/Γ, π1(G)). This is the first Chern class when G = U(N ) and the second
StiefelWhitney class when G = SO(N ).
Finally we need to specify the instanton number, defined as the integral of tr F ∧F over
the ALE space. Unless otherwise mentioned, we normalize the trace so that the instanton
on R4 of the smallest positive instanton number satisfies
Z
tr F ∧ F = 1.
On the ALE space, the instanton number is in general fractional.
Our main interest lies in the case G = E8 and Γ = Zk. Since π1(E8) is trivial, we do
not have to specify the class in H2.
A holonomy ρ : Zk → E8 can be nicely encoded by its Kac label
n :=
g of the generator of Zk in E8 be
where
g = e2πiw/k ∈ E8
w =
X niwi ∈ e8.
i6=0
– 4 –
(2.1)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)
where wi are the fundamental weights of E8. Since g is of order k, ni are integers. We
define n0 so that P dini = k, where the Dynkin marks d are given by
d =
It is known that by the Weyl reflections and the shifts, we can arrange ni ≥ 0 for all i and
then the result is unique. This is the Kac label of the holonomy.
The subalgebra of e8 left unbroken by the holonomy ρ can be easily read off from its
Kac label. Namely, it is given by the subalgebra corresponding to the nodes i of the Dynkin
diagram where ni = 0, together with an Abelian subalgebra making the total rank 8.
On C^2/Zk, the instanton number modulo one is given by the classical ChernSimons
invariant evaluated on S3/Zk at infinity. One way to compute it is to introduce coordinates
on S3/Zk using polar coordinates θ, φ on S2 and the angle ψ along the S1 fiber. The
connection itself is ∝ w(dψ + · · · ). One finds that
Z
dimH MC^2/Γ,ρ∞ = 30Ninst − hw, ρi.
Z
Z
– 5 –
(2.5)
(2.6)
(2.7)
(2.8)
2.2
Dimension of the instanton moduli space
In this subsection we derive the formula (2.7) of the dimension of the moduli space. Those
readers who trust the authors can skip this subsection. This computation is of course not
new. It is provided here to make this paper more selfcontained.
The basic tool is the AtiyahPatodiSinger index theorem. Its explicit form on the
orbifold of C2 was worked out e.g. in [24] for Γ ⊂ U(2). Here we quote the form used in
KronheimerNakajima [2] for Γ ⊂ SU(2). The formula for the orbifold is:
dimH MC2/Γ,ρ∞,ρ0 = h∨(G)
Here, h∨(G) is the dual Coxeter number of G, and the second and the third terms are the
contributions from the η invariant of S3/Γ at the asymptotic infinity and at the origin,
respectively, and Q is the standard twodimensional representation of Γ from the defining
embedding Γ ⊂ SU(2),
On the ALE space C]2/Γ, we have:
dimH MC^2/Γ,ρ∞ = h∨(G)
,
dimH MC^2/Γ,ρ∞ = h∨(G)
Z
reflecting the fact that if the holonomy at the origin of an instanton on C2/Γ is trivial, we
can resolve/deform the instanton and the ALE at the same time to be on C]2/Γ. In the
end, we find the formula
e2πiw/k with the Kac label n. The eta invariant is
Let us evaluate this formula when G = E8 with the holonomy ρ∞ specified by g =
Δη =
1
X (χρ∞ (γ) − dim g)
since 0 ≤ hα, wi ≤ k for positive roots α. Now we use
and find
X
α:positive roots
α = 2ρ,
X
α:positive roots
hv1, αihα, v2i = h∨hv1, v2i
h∨
2k
Δη =
hw, wi − hw, ρi.
To compute the dimension, we now plug in to (2.12) the formula for Δη found just
above and the formula for the instanton number (2.6). The term proportional to hw, wi
cancels out, and we indeed have the desired result (2.7).
– 6 –
(2.10)
(2.11)
(2.12)
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(2.16)
(2.17)
(2.18)
(2.19)
Sixdimensional description
After these geometrical preliminaries, we move on to the field theoretical analysis. We start
with the sixdimensional quiver descriptions. As already mentioned in the introduction, for
various simple choices of ρ, the sixdimensional quivers were already determined in [10–14].
By a series of trials and errors, and following the principle that the quiver should be
determined in terms of the Kac label, the authors found the following algorithm.
The general structure of the quiver
Our 6d SCFT on the generic points on its tensor branch consists of a collection of N6
tensors, corresponding to a linear quiver of the form
G1 × SU(m2) × SU(m3) × · · · × SU(mN6) × [SU(k)]
where G1 is on the −1 curve, the rest is on −2 curves, and the final SU(k) is a flavor
symmetry. In the notation of [11], we have
1
2
G1 su(m2) su(m3)
2
· · ·
su(mN6)
2
[SU(k)].
Below, we slightly abuse the notation and refer by G1 the combination of the group
and the nonfundamental hypermultiplets on the −1 curve. The choices are:
(3.1)
(3.2)
(3.3)
• G1 = USp(m1),
• G1 = SU(m1) with an antisymmetric hyper, or
• G1 = SU(m1 = 6) with a rank 3 antisymmetric halfhyper.
We consider the rank 1 Estring theory as USp(0), and furthermore, the rank 2 Estring
theory is considered as a USp(0) connecting to an SU(
1
) group.
We have m1 ≤ m2 ≤ · · · ≤ mN6, and we define a1, . . . , a9 by
as = #{i  mi+1 − mi = s}.
We can reconstruct the whole of mi from m1, N6 and a1, . . . a9. For example, when the
quiver is
SU(3) × SU(9) × SU(13) × SU(17) × SU(18) × SU(19) × SU(20)
(3.4)
we have a8 = a7 = a5 = a3 = a2 = 0, a6 = 1, a4 = 2, a1 = 3.
There are bifundamentals between two consecutive groups in the quiver, and finally
fundamental hypers are added such that each group is anomaly free, that is:
• Nf = 2N for SU(N ),
• Nf = N + 8 for USp(N ) or SU(N ) with an antisymmetric hyper, and
• Nf = 15 for SU(6) with a rank 3 antisymmetric halfhyper.
– 7 –
Now we present the algorithm to determine the structure of the quiver given the Kac label
n and the number N6 of the groups. Along the way, we also define the quantity NS which
will be used in the following. We will also need the quantity
The algorithm is implemented in the accompanying Mathematica file, so that the reader
can easily try it around.
In general we have
ai = ni for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
To specify a7,8,9, we need to consider various cases as summarized below:
(3.5)
(3.6)
HJEP09(217)4
n′4 ≥ n′3
n′3 ≥ n′4
−→
−→
(n′4 − n′3 = even −→ Case 1,
n′4 − n′3 = odd
−→ Case 2,
n′2 < (n′3 − n′4)/2 −→ Case 4,
n′2 ≥ (n′3 − n′4)/2 −→
(n′3 − n′4 = odd
−→ Case 3,
n′3 − n′4 = even −→ Case 5.
For each case, the output of the algorithm is (a7,8,9, G1, NS) as shown below:1
1. n′4 ≥ n′3, n′4 − n′3 = even:
• a7 = n′3, a8 = n′4−n′3 , a9 = 0.
2
• G1 = USp(2n′2).
• NS = N6 − n′4+2 n′3 .
2. n′4 ≥ n′3 + 1, n′4 − n′3 = odd:
• a7 = n′3, a8 = n′4−n′3−1 , a9 = 0.
2
• G1 = SU(2n′2 + 4) group with an antisymmetric hyper.
• NS = N6 − n4+n′3−1 .
′
2
3. n′3 ≥ n′4 + 1, n′3 − n′4 = odd, n′2 ≥ n′3−n′4−1 :
2
• a7 = n′4, a8 = n′3−n′4−1 , a9 = 0.
2
• G1 = SU(2n′2 + n′4 − n′3 + 4) group with an antisymmetric hyper.
• NS = N6 − n′4+n′3−1 .
2
1When more than two cases apply to the same Kac label, they produce the same quiver.
– 8 –
4. n′3 > n′4 + 2n′2 + ℓ, n′3 − n′4 − 2n′2 = 3x + ℓ, x ∈ Z, ℓ = 0, 1, 2:
• a7 = n′4, a8 = n′2, a9 = n′3−n′4−2n′2−ℓ .
3
• G1 is
– SU(3) for ℓ = 1,
• NS = N6 − n′3+2n′4+n′2−l .
3
5. n′3 ≥ n′4, n′3 − n′4 = even, n′2 ≥ n′3−n′4 :
2
• a7 = n′4, a8 = n′3−n′4 , a9 = 0.
2
• G1 = USp(2n′2 + n′4 − n′3).
• NS = N6 − n′4+n′3 .
2
– empty for ℓ = 0, in which case this node corresponds to a rank1 Estring,
– SU(6) with a halfhyper in the rank 3 antisymmetric for ℓ = 2.
3.3
A subtlety concerning the 6d θ angle
Note that the quivers produced in Case 5 are the same ones as the ones produced by Case 1,
as far as the data we described so far are concerned. This is perfectly fine when n′4 = n3,
′
since in this case we are just applying the different cases to the same Kac label. However,
when n′4 6= n′3, or equivalently when a8 6= 0, the resulting quivers should however be subtly
different, since e.g. they reduce to different 4d class S theories and 3d starshaped quivers.
We argue that the difference between them is how one embeds the SU(2N + 8) group into
the SO(4N + 16) global symmetry group of USp(2N ).
A relatively simple case is the following. Let us first consider the cases when n′4 =
2, n′3 = 0, n′2 = 0 versus n′4 = 0, n′3 = 2, n′2 = 1, with the rest of labels being zero n1,...,6 = 0.
Both theories have the form of a long SU(8) quiver gauging an SU(8) subgroup of the
rank 1 E8 theory. The two differ by the embedding of SU(8) inside E8 and in fact have
different global symmetries. To see this, consider embedding SU(8) inside SO(
16
) ⊂ E8.
The adjoint of E8 decomposes under its SO(
16
) maximal subgroup as 248 → 120 + 128.
Now consider decomposing SO(
16
) to its U(
1
) × SU(8) maximal subgroup. Under this
embedding the spinors of SO(
16
) decompose to the rank x antisymmetric tensors of SU(8)
for x = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 for one spinor and x = 1, 3, 5, 7 for the other. However only one spinor
appears in the adjoint of E8, and therefore there are two different embedding of SU(8)
inside E8. In one of them the 128 contains gauge invariant contributions leading to the
larger global symmetry.
The general case corresponds to the situation where SU(2N + 8) is embedded in
SO(4N + 16). There is no distinction in the perturbative sector of the theory.
However the theory possesses instanton strings. The ones for USp groups will be in a chiral
spinor of the SO group and so will decompose differently depending on the embedding.
This then leads to theories with distinct spectrum of string excitations. Also note that
this only occurs if the entire SO symmetry is gauged leaving only a U(
1
) commutant. If
– 9 –
embedding. This agrees with the fact that the cases coincide when a8 = 0.
We can understand this distinction from the existence of the discrete θ angle in 6d,
due to the fact that π5(USp(2N ))5 = Z2. Suppose now that the USp group has 2n
halfhypermultiplets in the fundamental. Classically it has an O(2n) flavor symmetry, but the
parity part flips the discrete theta angle. Therefore the flavor symmetry is actually so(2n).
The two embeddings of su(n) into so(2n) are related exactly by the parity part of O(2n),
and therefore are inequivalent. The Ftheoretical interpretation of these two inequivalent
embeddings seems to be unknown. It would be interesting to work it out.2
Note that an analogous phenomenon exists in 5d, where given a pure USp group there
are two distinct 5d SCFTs associated with this theory differing by the instanton spectrum
of the 5d gauge theory. This is related to the existence of a Z2 valued θ angle originating
from the fact that π4(USp(2N ))4 = Z2.
3.4
Anomalies and the inflow
The anomaly of these 6d SCFTs can be computed from their quiver description using the
technique of [25, 26]. We should be able to match it to the anomaly computed from the
inflow using the Mtheory description.
The inflow computations of M5branes probing the E8 endoftheworld brane and of
M5branes probing the C2/Zk singularity was given in [27] and in an appendix of [25],
respectively. We can combine the two computations into one and one finds the following
contribution to the anomaly, excluding the most subtle contribution from the
codimension5 singularity where the C2/Zk singularity hits the endoftheworld brane:
where Q is the M5chage of the configuration,
I8 =
I4 =
J4 =
1
48
1
4
1
48
1
4
(p2(N ) + p2(T ) − (p1(N ) − p1(T ))2),
1
k
(p1(T ) − 2c2(R)),
(k −
)(4c2(R) + p1(T )) +
1
4
tr FS2U(k).
Here I8 comes from the Mtheory interaction R C ∧I8, I4 appears in the boundary condition
G = I4 at the E8 wall, and J4 is the interaction on the C2/Zk singular locus R C ∧ J4. In
this section the normalization of tr is as in [27].
Let n be the Kac label, and let w = P wini be the corresponding weight vector. By
performing computations for many choices of n, we find that
Iquiver(n, N3) = Iinnafliovwe(Q) + c(n)
2The authors thank D. R. Morrison for the correspondence on this point.
(3.7)
(3.8)
(3.9)
(3.10)
(3.11)
where c(n) is a constant depending on the Kac label n but independent of N3 and
Recall that the instanton number as defined by the integral of tr F ∧ F was given by
Q = N3 +
k +
1
2
1
k
−
,
see (2.6), and that k − 1/k is the Euler number of C]2/Γ, or equivalently of the integral of
−p1/4 there, see (2.10). Then, assuming that
Ninst = N3 + k,
we can rewrite the effective M5brane charge Q as
Z
Q =
tr F ∧ F +
Z
p1
C^2/Zk 4
which is what we expect from the curvature coupling on the E8 endoftheworld brane.
The authors made a guess of the formula for c(n) by trial and error. It has the form
c(n) = k (P0(n) + P2(n) + P4(n) + P6(n)) + 2 Ifree vector
1
where
1
384
1
11520
+
1
5760
1
288
P0 =
P2 =
P4 = −
P6 =
1
240
1
1
5760
(3.12)
(3.13)
(3.14)
(3.15)
(3.16)
(3.17)
(3.18)
(3.19)
(3.20)
(3.21)
Ifree vector =
(−240c2(R)2 − 120c2(R)p1(T ) − 7p1(T )2 + 4p2(T ))
is the anomaly polynomial of a free vector multiplet and Pi(n) is a homogeneous polynomial
of ni’s of degree i. Those polynomials are identified as
(−88c2(R)2 + 32c2(R)p1(T ) − 5p1(T )2 + 4p2(T ))
k2 2512c2(R)2 − 760c2(R)p1(T ) + 157p1(T )2 − 124p2(T )
(15hw, wi − khw, ρi) 112c2(R)2 − 40c2(R)p1(T ) + 7p1(T )2 − 4p2(T )
9hw, wi2 + 15k2hw, wi − 2k4 − k
4c2(R)2 − c2(R)p1(T )
X hw, αi3
α∈Δ+
5hw, wi3 + 15k2hw, wi2 − 5k4hw, wi + k6 − k
X hw, αi5 c2(R)2,
α∈Δ+
where Δ+ is the set of positive roots of E8. The authors have not been able to determine
how this formula come from the correct anomaly inflow calculation. It would be interesting
to understand it.
4.1
other way.
Lower dimensional incarnations
Fivedimensional braneweb description
We can reduce the 6d theory on a circle to 5d. Roughly speaking, there are two different
types of reductions. For example, starting from the Estring theory, one can obtain SU(2)
theory with eight flavors in one way, or the 5d SCFT with E8 flavor symmetry in the
First reduction.
Keeping the radius of the circle nonzero the lowenergy 5d theory is
sometimes a 5d gauge theory. Specifically, the class of 6d theories we are considering can
be realized by a brane construction involving a system of NS5branes and D6branes in
the presence of an O8−plane [28, 29]. Performing Tduality on this system results in a
brane configuration involving NS5branes and D6branes in the presence of an O8−plane.
Alternatively, the system can also be described as D4branes immersed in an O8−plane
and D8branes, in the presence of a C2/Zk singularity [30].
Either way, the system can sometimes be deformed so as to describe a 5d gauge theory.
Specifically, when compactifying we have a choice of the value of the radius as well as
the freedom to turn on holonomies for the global symmetries. These then become mass
parameters in the 5d theory. In specific ranges of these parameters the 6d theory may flow
at lowenergy to a 5d quiver gauge theory with the coupling constants of the gauge theory
identified with the mass deformations. In general, a given 6d SCFT may have several
different lowenergy 5d gauge theory descriptions depending on the specific deformations
used. Various 5d descriptions of 6d theories, including the type we are interested in, were
studied in [12, 14, 31, 32]. We will not consider this problem here.
Second reduction. Instead we shall take the limit of zero radius. In this case we argue
that the 6d theory flows in the IR to a 5d SCFT. Furthermore, we claim that the 5d SCFT
can be readily described in terms of the integer N and the Kac label n. To find the 5d
theory, we first write down the 6d quiver following the algorithm presented in the last
section.3 We realize this 6d quiver in type IIA using O8planes, D8branes, D6branes and
NS5branes as in [28, 29]. We then compactify it on S1, Tdualize it to type IIB, and
manipulate the branes. We will detail the procedure in slightly more detail below.
The result can be conveniently represented by a brane web, which has a star shape
form with a group of (
1, 0
), (
0, 1
) and (
1, 1
) 5branes all intersecting at a point. The
5branes end on the appropriate 7branes where some collection of 5branes end on the same
7brane. Specifying the configuration then is done by giving the distribution of 5branes on
the 7branes. This is conveniently done by a Young diagram where each column represents
a 7brane, and the number of boxes in it represents the number of 5branes ending on it.
3Purely field theoretically, the 6d quiver only contains the information on the low energy limit on the
generic points on the tensor branch of a given 6d SCFT. Therefore further manipulations of the quiver
such as dimensional reductions are not guaranteed to tell every detail of the original 6d SCFT. What we
do is, instead, to realize the quiver using branes, and apply string dualities. This way we can keep all the
ultraviolet information required in the process.
The three Young diagrams for the SCFTs we are considering are given by:
Y1 = (NS − n6,
NS − n6 − n5,
NS − n6 − n5 − n4,
NS − n6 − n5 − n4 − n3,
NS − n6 − n5 − n4 − n3 − n2,
NS − n6 − n5 − n4 − n3 − n2 − n1,
2NS + n4′ + n2′ + n3′,
2NS + n4′ + n3′),
Y3 = (3NS + 2n4′ + n2′ + 2n3′,
3NS + 2n4′ + n2′ + n3′).
(4.1)
More detail of the second reduction. For cases 1, 2 and 3, these results can be
derived using the standard techniques. But there are some issues for cases 4 and 5. Case 4
naively does not have a brane construction of the type considered in [29] so this procedure
appears to be inapplicable in this case. However, a conjecture for the 5d theories that lift
to these types of 6d SCFTs was given in [12, 14], and we can use this conjecture to fill in
this step for case 4.
This leaves case 5. We can ask how does the 6d θ angle appears in the brane
construction. In fact a similar issue arises in the analogue 5d system: D5branes suspended
between NS5branes in the presence of an O7−plane. In that case it was observed by [33]
that accounting for the 5d θ angle seems to necessitate the introduction of two variants of
the O7−plane, where one is an SL(2, Z) Ttransform of the other. This in particular means
that they differ by their decomposition into a pair of 7branes. Note that the distinction
between the two cases vanishes when there are D7branes on the O7−plane. This becomes
clear after we decompose the O7−plane into 7branes which can be moved through the
monodromy lines of the 7branes which will change them by a Ttransformation. This of
course agrees with the unphysical nature of the 5d θ angle once flavors are present. There
should be a similar distinction for the O8−plane, and so can account for the apparent 6d
θ angle we observe. We will not pursue this here.
However once we perform Tduality we end with a system with two O7−planes, and
we expect that we can accommodate this in the observed difference in O7−planes. We
have a discrete choice for each O7−plane leading to four possibilities. However we are free
to perform a global Ttransformation. Since all the external branes are D7branes, this
will lead us to the same system, save for changing the types of both orientifolds. Thus
we conclude that there are only two distinct choices: the same or differing types. These
cases are expected to differ only when there are no 7branes on the O7−planes, and thus
no D8brane on the original O8−plane. This exactly agrees with the two cases, which
coincide once a8 = 0. We indeed find different 5d theories for these two choices, where the
former is identified with case 1 while the latter with case 5. In this manner we can apply
this procedure also to case 5.
We can compactify on an additional circle to 4d. Using the results of [34], it is
straightforward to write the 4d theory. It is just an A type class S theory given by the same set of
Young diagrams as the 5d description, given above in (4.1).
In fact it is also possible to motivate this class S description with the Young
diagrams (4.1) directly from the 4d description, and then use the preceding discussion to
connect the 6d quiver data to the Kac labels. We start from the observation that the class
S theory whose Young diagrams are (4.1) can be thought of as generated by modifying
the Young diagrams of the rank N E8 theory, which is given by a class S theory of type
SU(6N ) with Young diagrams Y1 = (N 6), Y2 = (2N 3), Y3 = (3N 2).
First the 4d theory needs to have the SU(k) global symmetry, coming from the C2/Zk
singularity. This is given by the k boxes attached to the Young diagram Y1 of the E8
theory. That this is the correct way to account for it can be seen by comparing anomalies.
For the type of 6d theories we are considering, there is a result due to [15] that allows for
the computations of the central charges of the 4d result of the compactification of the 6d
theory from the anomaly polynomial of the latter. Furthermore the anomaly polynomial
of the 6d theories of the type we considered was studied in [12]. When applied to our case
we find that kS4dU(k) = 2k + 12 independent of the details of the Kac label. This agrees with
the anomaly of the class S theory.
In addition to the SU(k) we also have the commutant of the orbifold in E8 as a global
symmetry, which depends on the Kac labels. The E8 global symmetry is accommodated
by the Young diagram structure of the starting E8 SCFT so it is natural to expect that
modifying this will give the required global symmetry and take into account the Kac labels.
The global symmetry which is manifest in the class S construction is SU(2)×SU(3)×SU(6)
which can be identified with the three legs of the affine Dynkin diagram. This becomes
more apparent once we compactify to 3d and consider the mirror dual, which we consider
more extensively in the next subsection.
The point is that we can associate a node in the legs of the affine E8 Dynkin
diagram roughly with the difference between neighboring columns. The central node can be
associated with the difference between the sum of the first columns of the three Young
diagrams and the the total number of boxes in any of them. When that difference is zero,
we get the E8 theory. It is now natural to associate that difference to the Kac label of the
corresponding node. By the Kac prescription, this ensures that we get the correct global
symmetry. This leads to the conjectured form. There is one ambiguity in determining the
total number of boxes which is related to the rank of the initial E8 theory. This should be
related to the number of tensors in 6d, but we need to determine the exact mapping. For
this we use the relation outlined in the previous sections between the 6d and 4d theories.
We can perform various consistency checks of this proposal. One check is to compare
anomalies. We already mentioned that these can be computed from the 6d anomaly
polynomial, and compare the SU(k) central charge. We can also compare the central charges a
and c, and the dimension of the Coulomb branch. These can then be calculated from the
6d quiver on one side, and from the class S theory on the other, in terms of the Kac labels
and NS. For the computations on the class S side, we use the standard results of [7, 35]
and reviewed e.g. in [36]. The results themselves are rather complicated and not very
illuminating, but we do find that all three objects agree between the two calculations. Any
interested reader can play around with the Mathematica file which comes with this paper
to confirm this point.
Threedimensional starshaped quiver description
Let us now move on to the three dimensions. We translate the Young diagrams Y1,2,3 given
in (4.1) which specify the class S punctures to the 3d mirror description using the results
of [18]. We find that the resulting theory is given by the quiver gauge theory
1
2
k
˜
N1
˜
N2
˜
N3
˜
N4
˜
N5
Xˆ := • − • − · · · − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • .
N˜4′
N˜2′
•N˜3′
˜
N6
Here, all nodes are unitary with the diagonal U(
1
) removed, and the gray and the black
blobs are used as a visual aid for the affine Dynkin part and the overextended part. The
ranks of the groups are specified by the vector
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)
(4.5)
(4.6)
(4.7)
(4.8)
N˜ = N3d + X niqi
q2 =
q5 =
q2′ =
3
3
1
(qi)j = didj − hwi, wj i
CN˜ =
k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
+ n
6 6 6 6 6 6 4 2
,
where
q1 =
q4 =
q4′ =
3
3
2
which is in fact given by a uniform formula
where wi is the weight vector for the node i 6= 1 and w1 = 0.
Another characterization of N˜ is
where C is the affine Cartan matrix of E8. This determines N˜ mod d, since d is the only
eigenvector of C of zero eigenvalue.
The dimension of the Coulomb branch Mˆ is then
dimH Mˆ = 30(N3 + k) − hw, ρi +
k(k + 1)
2
− 1
(4.9)
where w = P niwi is the Kac label as a weight vector and ρ = Pi wi is the Weyl vector.
The Coulomb branch Mˆ of this system Xˆ is closely related to the instanton moduli
space Minst on the ALE space C^2/Zk. To explain the relation, let us first recall that the
resolution and deformation parameters of the ALE space can be specified by a parameter
ξ = (ξC, ξR) ∈ su(k) ⊗ (C ⊕ R)
(4.10)
HJEP09(217)4
which takes values in the Cartan of su(k) tensored by R3. We now need an auxiliary
hyperka¨hler space Oξ, which is the SU(k)C orbit of ξC in su(k) with the hyperka¨hler
metric specified by ξR. Equivalently, Oξ is the Coulomb/Higgs branch of the T [SU(k)]
theory whose quiver realization is given by
T [SU(k)] = • − • − · · · − • −
1
2
k−1
k
where the rightmost square node is a flavor symmetry and ξ is the SU(2)R triplet of mass
parameters associated to it.
argument given in [15]:
We can now state the relation between Mˆ and and Minst by slightly modifying an
Minst = (Mˆ × Oξ)///SU(k).
This relation can be understood as follows. The resolution/deformation parameter ξ of the
ALE space can be identified with the scalar vacuum expectation values of the 7d super
SU(k) YangMills theory supported on the Mtheory singularity C2/Zk. The 6d SCFT on
the M5branes at the intersection of the E8 wall and the C2/Zk singularity couples to this
7d super YangMills, via the standard coupling where the triplet moment map field of the
6d theory is identified with the limiting value of the triplet of scalars of the 7d bulk. The
resulting hyperka¨hler manifold is then given by the hyperka¨hler reduction as in (4.12).
Now, our system Xˆ can also be written using the theory X˜
Indeed,
X˜ :=
k
− • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • .
˜
N1
˜
N2
˜
N3
˜
N4
˜
N5
N˜4′
N˜2′
Xˆ = (T [SU(k)] × X˜ )///SU(k)
•N˜3′
˜
N6
where the symbol T ///G means that we gauge the flavor symmetry G of the theory T .
So the theory X whose Coulomb branch is Minst in (4.12) is given by
X = (T [SU(k)] × T [SU(k)] × X˜ )///(SU(k) × SU(k))
But two T [SU(k)] gauged by a diagonal SU(k) is known to disappear, since it is the domain
wall of 4d N = 4 SYM implementing the Sduality [37]. So we have, in fact,
X = X˜
(4.11)
(4.12)
(4.13)
(4.14)
(4.15)
(4.16)
and the ALE deformation parameter ξ is now the mass parameter of the SU(k) flavor
symmetry. We have
dimH Minst = 30(N3 + k) − hw, ρi.
This nicely agrees with the computation from the geometry (2.7) by the identification
Ninst = N3 + k.
(4.17)
(4.18)
This relation between N3 and Ninst is also consistent with what we found from the inflow,
see (3.14).
We note that the theory X = X˜ is the theory whose Higgs branch is the U(k)
instanton moduli on C2/ΓE8 [2, 5]. From this reason, the Coulomb branch, at least when the
mass parameter is zero, has been conjectured to be the E8 instanton moduli space on the
singular space C2/Zk by various people. This follows, at least in a rough form, from the
string duality: consider the theory on M2branes on C2/Zk ×C2/ΓE8. It has two
supersymmetric branches of vacua, one describing E8 instantons on C2/Zk and another describing
U(k) instantons on C2/ΓE8. If the former is the Coulomb branch, then the latter is the
Higgs branch.
Note that we arrived at the quiver gauge theory X = X˜ from a totally different method,
by first studying the 6d quiver and then by reducing on successively on circles. Therefore,
this agreement can be thought of as an overall consistency check of our construction.
Now, applying [2] and [5] in our case, we see that the U(k) holonomy at infinity of
C2/ΓE8 is trivial, and the first Chern class c1 satisfies R
Ei c1 = ni which can be read off
from (4.8). It would be interesting to understand from Mtheory point of view why the first
Chern class on the C2/ΓE8 side is given by the asymptotic E8 holonomy on the C2/Zk. It
seems important for the full story to consider a more general case where C2/Zk is replaced
by the multicenter TaubNUT space, see e.g. [20, 38].
5
Examples
in the other sections.
5.1
The case of k = 2
Let us demonstrate the above general statement in various examples. In this section, we
take N to be the number of tensor multiplets in the 6d theory, which was denoted by N6
There are three possibilities. We label the cases with the Kac label n and the group H ⊂ E8
left unbroken by the Kac label. The choice k = 2 is somewhat special, since the ALE space
C^2/Z2, also known as the EguchiHanson space, has an exceptional isometry SU(2). Then
the generic flavor symmetry of the 6d SCFT should be H × SU(2)2, where one SU(2) comes
from the 7d gauge field on the singularity and another SU(2) comes from the isometry.
1. The first case is n = 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The corresponding 6d theory is
The T 3 reduction of this theory gives the following 3d N = 4 theory:
· · ·
N{−z3
[SU(2)].
• − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • .
1
2
N
2N
3N
4N
5N
6N
4N
2N
n =
0
· · ·
N{−z2
su(2)
2
}
[SU(2)]
2. The second case is
The corresponding 6d theory is
where the number of su(2) gauge groups in the quiver is N − 1. The Higgs branch
dimension of the UV fixed point of this theory is 29N + 4 + 4(N − 1) − 3(N − 1) =
30N + 3. The mirror of the T 3 compactification of this theory is
3. The third case is
The corresponding 6d theory is
The Coulomb branch dimension, which is the sum of the rank of the gauge groups
minus one, is indeed 30N + 3.
n =
· · ·
su(2)
2
}
[SU(2)]
where the number of SU(2) gauge groups associated with the (−2) curves is N − 1.
The Higgs branch dimension of the UV fixed point of this theory is 29N + 16 + 4 +
4(N − 1) − 3 − 3(N − 1) = 30N + 16. The mirror of the T 3 compactification of this
theory is
1
2
• − • − • −
N+2
2N+2
• −
3N+2
4N+2
• −
• −
5N+2
• −
−
• − • .
4N+1
2N
(5.9)
The Coulomb branch dimension, which is the sum of the rank of the gauge groups
minus one, is indeed 30N + 16. This is consistent with figure 45 of [12], namely the
T 2 compactification of (5.8) yields the class S theory whose Gaiotto curve is a sphere
with punctures:
0

2
[(3N + 1)2],
[(2N + 1)2, 2N ],
[N 6, 12] .
(5.10)
su(2)
2
}
•3N
Now let us comment on the flavor symmetry from the point of view of the 6d quiver.
Since an SU(2)SU(2) bifundamental has an SU(2) flavor symmetry, the three 6d quivers
presented above have order N copies of SU(2) symmetries on the generic points of the
tensor branch. In fact the same issue already appears in the case of N M5branes probing
the C2/Z2 singularity, which has the quiver
[SU(2)]
su(2)
2

· · ·
{z
N
su(2)
2
}
which naively has too many SU(2) flavor symmetries.
The issue can be resolved by recalling the fact derived in appendix A of [39] that the
basic 6d SCFT whose quiver on the tensor branch is given by SU(2) with Nf = 4 with a
naive SO(8) symmetry, only has an SO(7) symmetry under which the flavors transform in
the spin representation. In the quiver representation of the same theory as
this means the following: regard the bifundamental hypermultiplets on the left and on
the right of the gauge group as the trifundamental halfhypermultiplets. At the quiver
level there are therefore the flavor symmetry SU(2)1 × SU(2)′1 × SU(2)2 × SU(2)′2 ⊂ SO(8).
Under the SO(7) symmetry which is the flavor symmetry of the SCFT, only the diagonal
subgroup of SU(2)′1 and SU(2)′2 survives. Applying this argument at every su(2) node
in (5.2), (5.5), (5.8), and (5.12), we see that the number of SU(2) flavor symmetries is
There are also some interesting special cases with enhanced flavour symmetries when
reduced appropriately.
N is small:
1. N = 2, H = E8. In this case the quiver (5.2) degenerates to
[SU(2)1]
su(2)
2
[SU(2)2],
su(
1
)
2
[SU(2)]
which is just the rank2 Estring theory with three decoupled hypermultiplets. The
3d quiver in this case is (5.3) for N = 2:
1
2
2
4
6
8
10
• − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • .
8
4
•6

12
Its Coulomb branch is
H3 × (the reduced moduli space of 2 E8 instantons on C2)
and we indeed see the same decoupled structure. The explanation from the
perspective of the Coulomb branch operators will be described below.
2. N = 3 with H = E8. The 6d quiver is
The flavour symmetry is enhanced to G2 × E8. The explanation from the perspective
of the Coulomb branch operators will also be described below.
(5.16)
(5.17)
(5.18)
(5.19)
(5.20)
3. N = 2, H = E7 × SU(2). The 6d quiver for this case reduces to
su(2)
2
On the tensor branch, there is an SO(8) symmetry acting on the four flavors of SU(2)
gauge group. In the SCFT it is known that there is only SO(7). The total symmetry
is then SO(7) × E7. In fact this 6d theory is the (E7, SO(7)) minimal conformal
matter [10], which describes “half M5branes” on the E7 singularity.
The 3d quiver in this case is (5.6) for N = 2:
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
• − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • .
8
4
•6

12
This theory is the mirror of the S1 reduction of the class S theory whose Gaiotto
curve is a sphere with punctures
[24, 14],
[62],
In [12, 15] the T 2 compactification was also identified with a class S theory of the
E6 type associated with the sphere with punctures 0, 2A1 and E6(a1). For
consistency, these two class S theories should in fact be the same. Let us compute the
central charges of (5.20). We find that the effective numbers of vector multiplets and
hypermultiplets are nH = 112 and nV = 49, respectively. Thus,
1
24
a =
(5nV + nH ) =
c =
(2nV + nH ) =
(5.21)
119
8
,
1
12
35
2
.
This agrees with a and c of the aforementioned class S theory of the E6 type; see (7.1)
Enhanced flavor symmetries from 3d quivers
In fact the symmetry enhancement of each of the three cases above can be generalized to
other overextended Dynkin quivers in 3d, namely:
1. For the quiver consisting of a tail • − • attached to the affine Dynkin diagram of
type g with gauge groups being unitary groups of the ranks given by 2 times the dual
Coxeter labels, the Coulomb branch moduli space is H3 × Mf2,g, where Mf2,g denotes
the reduced twoinstanton moduli space of group g on C2. For example, the Coulomb
branch of the quiver
is H3 × Mf2, su(2), and the Coulomb branch of the quiver
is H3 × Mf2, so(8).
2. For the quiver consisting of a tail • − • attached to the affine Dynkin diagram of
type g with gauge groups being unitary groups of the ranks given by 3 times the
dual Coxeter labels, the Coulomb branch moduli space has a symmetry G2 × g. For
example, the Coulomb branch of the quiver
has a symmetry G2 × SU(2), and the Coulomb branch of the quiver
1
1
1
2
• − • − • = •
2
2
1
2
has a symmetry G2 × SO(8).
1
2
3. For the quiver consisting of a tail • − • attached to the affine Dynkin diagram of type
g with the affine node being U(3) and other gauge groups being unitary groups of the
ranks given by 2 times the dual Coxeter labels, the Coulomb branch has a symmetry
SO(7) × g˜, where g˜ is the commutant of su(2) in g. For example, the Coulomb branch
of the following quiver
2
3
4
6
1
• − • − • − • − • − • − •
4
2
has a symmetry SO(7) × SU(6), where SU(6) is the commutant of SU(2) in E6.
1
2
k
In each of the above examples, the quiver contains of a balanced affine Dynkin quiver
diagram as a subquiver. If we consider only this subquiver, the Rcharges of the monopole
operators in this theory vanish, and hence this subquiver is indeed a bad theory. By
attaching a quiver tail • − • − · · · − • to such a subquiver, the total quiver becomes good
or ugly.4 We would like to consider the contribution of this quiver tail to the Coulomb
branch of the total quiver.
1. For this case, the node •, which is the affine node in the affine Dynkin diagram,
2
1
2
2
is overbalanced in the sense of [37]. Following [37], we can split the quiver into
two parts, namely • − • − • and the rest of the Dynkin diagram. The Rcharge of
the monopole operators from the subquiver • − • − • receives the contribution from
the hypermultiplets and vector multiplets in the way described in [37], except that
there is no contribution from the vector multiplet of the rightmost node •, since this
1
1
2
2
2
T
2
1
2
2
T
2
1
1
2
2
3
T
3
1
2
T
4
was cancelled inside the affine Dynkin quiver. The contribution from the subquiver
is therefore the same as that of the quiver • − • − •, where ∩ denotes an adjoint
hypermultiplet of the U(2) rightmost node. The Coulomb branch of •−•− • contains
3 free hypermultiplets, which can be seen from the monopole operators with
SU(2)Rspin 1/2. This explains the H3 factor in (5.15). The reduced moduli space of two E8
instantons on C2 can be realised as in [21].
2. Similarly, for this case, the total quiver can be split into • − • − • and the rest of the
Dynkin diagram. The contribution to the Rcharge of the monopole operators from
1
2
3
the subquiver • − • − • can be realised from the quiver • − • − •, where ∩ denotes
an adjoint hypermultiplet of the U(3) rightmost node.5 Indeed, it was pointed out in
section 3.3.2 of [41] that the Coulomb branch of the latter model has a G2 symmetry.
(Note that the corresponding 4d class S theory had been studied in [40]. The G2
symmetry on the Higgs branch of such a theory had also been pointed out in that
reference.) This therefore explains the G2 symmetry in case 3. The E8 symmetry
follows from the Dynkin subquiver.
4
3. Finally, for this case, • is the unbalanced node in the quiver. There are two
contributions to the Coulomb branch operators with SU(2)Rspin 1. One contribution can
be realised using the quiver • − • − • − • in a similar fashion to the above discussion.
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
T
4
4
3
This quiver has a Coulomb branch symmetry SU(4) and thus gives 15 operators with
SU(2)Rspin 1 in the adjoint representation of SU(4). The other contribution can be
seen as follows. Since the node •, which was originally a part of the affine Dynkin
subquiver, now belongs to the tail •−•−•−•, we also need to take into account the
contribution that arises from the removal of this node from such an affine Dynkin diagram.
The second contribution thus comes from considering • − • − •. There are 6 Coulomb
branch operators with SU(2)Rspin 1 in the latter.
Therefore, we have in total
15+6 = 21 operators with SU(2)Rspin 1; this explains the enhancement to the SO(7)
symmetry. The remaining symmetry is thus the commutant of SU(2), which arises
from node •, in the original symmetry associated with the affine Dynkin diagram.
4See also [40] for a related consideration from the 4d point of view.
5The authors thank S. Cremonesi for this argument.
5.3
There are ten possibilities. The Ftheory quiver for the 6d theories are listed on page 73
of [11]. Here are the mirrors of the T 3 compactification of them.
and the 3d quiver is
2. The second case is
with the 6d quiver
The 3d quiver is
3. The third case is
with the 6d quiver
n =
0
n =
n =
0
sp(
1
) su(3) zsu(4) } su(4{)
[SO(14)]
1
2
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
29N + 2 + 6 + 12 + 4 + 16(N − 3) − 3 − 8 − 15(N − 3) = 30N + 10 .
(5.32)
• − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − •
1
2
3
4
N+1
2N
3N
4N
5N
6N
4N
2N
and the dimension of the Coulomb branch is 30N + 10.
(5.27)
(5.28)
(5.29)
(5.30)
(5.31)
(5.33)
(5.34)
(5.35)
HJEP09(217)4
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
The Coulomb branch dimension is 30N + 11.
n =
0
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
,
[SU(2)]
N−2
}
su(4)
{
29N + 8 + 8 + 16(N − 2) − 3 − 15(N − 2) = 30N + 11 .
• − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − •
1
2
3
4
N+2 2N
3N
4N
5N
6N
4N
2N
•3N

n =
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
,
H = SO(
16
)
sp(2) su(4)
z
2
N−1
}
su(4)
{
[SO(
16
)]
1
29N + 14 + 6 + 12 + 4 + 16(N − 2) − 3 − 8 − 15(N − 2) = 30N + 23 .
(5.36)
• −
• −
• −
• −
1
2
3
4
N+2 2N+2 3N+2 4N+2 5N+2 6N+2 4N+1 2N
−
• − •
(5.37)
and the Coulomb branch dimension is 30N + 23.
HJEP09(217)4
The 3d quiver is
4. The fourth case is
with the 6d quiver
The 3d mirror is
5. The fifth case is
with the 6d quiver
•3N+1

•
•3N+2
(5.38)
(5.39)
(5.40)
(5.41)
(5.42)
(5.43)
(5.44)
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
The 3d quiver is
29N + 32 + 16 + 16(N − 1) − 10 − 15(N − 1) = 30N + 37 .
1
2
3
4
N+4 2N+4 3N+4 4N+4 5N+4 6N+4 4N+2 2N
• −
• −
• −
• −
−
• − •
(5.45)
and the Coulomb branch dimension is 30N + 37.
6. The sixth case is
with the 6d quiver
n =
0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
,
H = SO(12) × SU(2) × U(
1
)
[SO(12)]
1
su(4)
2
[SU(2)]
N−1
}
su(4)
{
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
29N + 12 + 8 + 8 + 16(N − 1) − 3 − 15(N − 1) = 30N + 24 .
The 3d quiver is
1
2
3
4
•
2N+2
−
•
3N+2
−
•
4N+2
−
•
5N+2
−
The Coulomb branch dimension is 30N + 24.
•3N+1

•
6N+2
−
•
4N+1
− •
2N
7. The seventh case is
with the 6d quiver
The 3d mirror is
8. The eighth case is
with the 6d quiver
(5.46)
(5.47)
(5.48)
(5.49)
(5.50)
(5.51)
(5.52)
(5.53)
(5.54)
(5.55)
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
and the Coulomb branch dimension is 30N + 12.
29N + 6 + 12 + 4 + 16(N − 2) − 8 − 15(N − 2) = 30N + 12 .
2
3
1
•
2N+1
− • − • − • − • − • − •
3N
4N
5N
6N
4N
2N
•3N

n =
0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
,
H = E6 × SU(2) × U(
1
).
2
z
su(4)
2
N−2
}
su(4)
{
n =
1
,
H = SU(8) × U(
1
)
su(4)
{
z
su(4)
2
29N + 24 + 12 + 4 + 16(N − 1) − 8 − 15(N − 1) = 30N + 31 .
(5.56)
2
3
1
and the Coulomb branch dimension is 30N + 31.
The 3d quiver is
9. The ninth case is
with the 6d quiver
n =
0
,
H = SO(10) × SU(4)
su(4)
2
[SU(4)]
N−1
}
su(4)
{
[SO(10)] 1
29N + 16 + 16(N − 1) − 15(N − 1) = 30 + 15 .
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
The 3d quiver is
2
3
1
• − • − • − • − • − •
and the dimension of the Coulomb branch is 30N + 15.
10. The final tenth case is
with the 6d quiver
n =
0
,
H = SU(8) × SU(2),
[SU(8)]
su(4)
1
[antisym]
z
su(4)
2
}
su(4)
{
29N + 32 + 6 + 16N − 15N = 30N + 38 .
The dimension of the SCFT Higgs branch is
The 3d quiver is
2
3
1
• − • − • − • − • −
4
N+4 2N+4 3N+4 4N+4 5N+4 6N+4 4N+2 2N+1
• −
• −
• −
• −
−
• − •
(5.65)
•3N+2

•
and the dimension of the Coulomb branch is 30N + 38.
(5.58)
(5.59)
(5.60)
(5.61)
(5.62)
(5.63)
(5.64)
HJEP09(217)4
In this subsection we look at the 4d and 3d theories generated from 6d SCFTs differing by
the choice of 6d θ angle. The first case where this possibility occurs is for k = 8, where the
two choices are given by Kac labels n′3 = 2, n′2 = 1 for one and n′4 = 2 for the other with
the rest zero. These can be generalized to k = 2l + 8 with Kac labels n′3 = 2, n′2 = 1 + l
for one and n′4 = 2, n′2 = l for the other with the rest zero. The 6d quiver in both cases is
given by:
1
2
[SU(8)]
usp(2l) szu(2l+8) } su(2l+8{)
N−1
. . .
2
(5.66)
where we identify the case n′4 = 2, n′2 = l with θ = 0 and n′3 = 2, n′2 = 1 + l with θ = π.
The associated 4d theories are different for the two cases. In the θ = 0 case we associate
the class S theory given by:
[(N − 1)6, 12l+8], [2N + l + 2, 2N + l, 2N ], [(3N + l + 1)2] ,
while the θ = π case is associated with:
[(N − 1)6, 12l+8], [(2N + l + 1)2, 2N ], [3N + l + 2, 3N + l] .
(5.67)
(5.68)

•
•3N+l+1
−
• − • ,
2N
(5.69)
•3N+l

•
−
•
− • ,
2N
(5.70)
The 3d quivers are:
for the θ = 0 case, and
1 2
for the θ = π case.
1 2
•−•−. . .− • − • −
2l+7
2l+8 N+2l+7 2N+2l+6 3N+2l+5 4N+2l+4 5N+2l+3 6N+2l+2 4N+l
2l+7
2l+8 N+2l+7 2N+2l+6 3N+2l+5 4N+2l+4 5N+2l+3 6N+2l+2 4N+l+1
We can now inquire as to how these theories differ from one another. In the l = 0
case they differ already at the level of the global symmetry, where the θ = 0 case has an
SU(8)2 × SU(2) × U(
1
) global symmetry while the θ = π case has an SU(8)2 × U(
1
)2 global
symmetry. In this case we have an SU(8) gauging of E8 and the two choices differ by their
commutant inside E8. We note that this difference is in accordance with the symmetry
expected from the Kac labels. When l > 0 the symmetries of the two theories agree.
We can calculate the 4d anomalies of the two theories and find that all of them agree
between the two theories. Again this is consistent with our interpretation as the 4d
anomalies can be computed from their 6d counterparts, which in turn are independent of the θ
angle. From our 6d interpretation we expect the two to differ slightly in their operator
spectrum. Particularly the θ angle should affect the USp gauge group instanton strings
changing their charges under the global and gauge symmetries. Upon compactification to
lower dimensions these should map to local operators.
We can observe this from the 3d quivers. We get a tower of monopole operators from
every node. The basic monopole operator from the balanced nodes leads to enhancement
of symmetry. We also have a basic monopole operator from the unbalanced nodes. These
provide operators with higher Rcharges, and we can read of their Rcharges and
nonabelian global symmetry charges from the quiver.
We have three unbalanced nodes. Two of them give the same contribution in both
theories: one operator of SU(2)R spin N2 in the bifundamental of the SU(2l + 8) × SU(8)
global symmetry, and one operator of SU(2)R spin 2 in the 28 of the SU(8) global symmetry.
These can be readily identified with gauge invariants in the 6d quiver, where the former is
the one made from N − 2 SU(2l + 8) × SU(2l + 8) bifundamentals and the flavors, and the
later is made from two SU(8) flavors and the USp(2l) × SU(2l + 8) bifundamental. The
last one differ slightly between the two theories.
In the θ = 0 case it is a flavor singlet with SU(2)R spin l+22 . Particularly for l = 0 this
gives the conserved current enhancing the U(
1
) to SU(2). In the θ = π case, however, it is in
the 8 of SU(8) with SU(2)R spin l+23 . We can interpret these states as coming from the USp
gauge group instanton strings wrapped on the circle. These are in the spinor of SO(4l +16),
and depending on the θ angle decompose to all the even or odd rank antisymmetric tensor
representations of the gauge SU(2l + 8) connected to the USp gauge group. In the θ = 0
case we get the even rank representations, which contain a gauge invariant part which is a
flavor symmetry singlet. In the θ = π case we get the odd rank representations, which do
not contain any gauge invariants. However we can combine it with one of the SU(2l + 8)
flavors to form an invariant. This should contribute a state in the 8 of SU(8) with SU(2)R
spin which is greater by 21 from that of the singlet. This agrees with what we observe. It
might be interesting to study more accurately the spectrum, particularly, the Higgs branch
chiral ring, and compare against the 6d expectations. We will not pursue this here.
5.5
Massive Estring theories
In this subsection, we consider the following 6d theory
TE6d(̟, m0, N ) : [E9−m0 ] 1
2
2
. . .
2
sum0 su2m0
su(̟−1)m0 su̟m0 su̟m0
2
[Nf =m0] 
2
· · · ,
N−{̟z−1
su̟m0
2
[SU(̟m0)].
(5.71)
These theories were studied in [10, 12, 13, 42]. They can be called the “massive Estring
theories” as in the last reference, since they correspond to NS5branes probing the O8D8
combination in the presence of the Romans mass.
The mirror of the T 3 compactification of (5.71) is
1
2
N+r1
2N+r2
3N+r3
4N+r4
5N+r5
4N+r4′ 2N+r2′
(5.72)
where the values of ri and the Kac labels for each m0 are given in table 1. Note that
•3N+r3′

•
6N+r6
−
X ri =
i
1
2
̟m0(m0 − 1) .
(5.73)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
E8
E7
E6
SO(10)
SU(5)
SU(3) × SU(2)
SU(2) × U(
1
)
SU(2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
The SCFT Higgs branch dimension of (5.71) is
dimSHCFT Higgs of TE6d(̟, m0, N ) = 30N +
̟m02(̟ + 1) − 1 ;
(5.74)
1
2
this is equal to the Coulomb branch dimension of (5.72).
Higgsing the SU(k) flavour symmetry
In the theories we have discussed so far, there is always an SU(k) flavour symmetry which
came from the gauge symmetry on the C2/Zk singularity. From the 3d quiver perspective,
this symmetry arises from the topological symmetry associated with the nodes in the tail
1
2
partition of k.
We can obtain another class of models by on nilpotent VEVs that Higgs the flavour
symmetry SU(k).6 Suppose that such VEVs are in the nilpotent orbit of SU(k) given by
Li Jsi where Js is a s × s Jordan block so that Y = [s1, s2, . . . , sℓ] is a corresponding
Assuming that the 6d quiver theory before the Higgsing has a sufficiently long plateau
of SU(k) gauge groups, this Higgsing can be performed exactly as in 4d class S theory
e.g. as described in section 12.5 of [43]. Its effect in 6d quiver was studied in [44, 45]. In
the end, we see that the tail on the righthand side of the quiver to have the form
· · · 2
su(k)
su(k−uℓ′ )
2
· · ·
su(u2+u1)
2
su(u1)
2
[Nf =uℓ′ ] [Nf =(uℓ′−1−uℓ′ )]
[Nf =(u2−u3)] [Nf =(u1−u2)]
,
(5.75)
6The authors thank Alessandro Tomasiello for the discussion about this class of theories.
HJEP09(217)4
dimSHCFT Higgs of (5.75) = 30(N3 + k) − hw, ρi +
k(k + 1) − 1 − dimH OY
(5.76)
where OY is the nilpotent orbit labeled by Y .
The mirror of the T 3 compactification of (5.75) is
TY (SU(k)) ×
− • − • − • − • − • − • − • − •
˜
N1
˜
N2
˜
N3
˜
N4
˜
N5
U(k)/U(
1
)
N˜4′
N˜2′ .
(5.77)
1
2
•N˜3′
˜
N6
(5.78)
(5.79)
(5.80)
(5.81)
HJEP09(217)4
In other words, we simply replace the tail • − • − · · · −
for the theories discussed in
the preceding sections by TY (SU(k)), where the latter is defined as in [37]. The Coulomb
1
2
branch dimension of (5.77) is
dimH Coulomb of (5.77)
1
2
1
2
= [30(N3 + k) − hw, ρi] +
{(k2 − 1) − (k − 1)} − dimH OY
+ (k − 1)
= 30(N3 + k) +
k(k + 1) − 1 − dimH OY − hw, ρi ,
where the terms in the second square brackets in the second line denote the Coulomb
branch dimension of TY (SU(k)). This result is indeed in agreement with (5.76).
As an example, let us consider TE6d(k, m0 = 1, N ) of the previous section and perform
the Higgsing with Y = [k − 1, 1]. The resulting 6d theory is
su(
1
) su(2)
su(k−1) su(k) su(k)N−2k su(k) su(k−1)
2
where the number of tensor multiplets is N . This theory is similar to that discussed in
(36) of [6], (5.2) of [29], except that we have only one (−1)curve in the quiver, instead of
two. The mirror of the T 3 compactification of this theory is
1
• − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • ,
N
2N
3N
4N
5N
6N
4N
2N
•3N

This quiver is a “good” theory in the sense of [37] if N + 1 ≥ 2k and k ≥ 2. In this case,
this quiver is the 3d mirror theory of the S1 reduction of the class S theory of type SU(6N )
associated a sphere with the punctures
[N 5, N − k, k − 1, 1], [(3N )2], [(2N )3] .
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Hiroyuki Shimizu for the collaboration at the early stages. NM
sincerely thanks Stefano Cremonesi, Amihay Hanany and Alessandro Tomasiello for a close
collaboration, invaluable insights, and several useful discussions. He also grateful to the
hospitality of the organisers of the Pollica Summer Workshop 2017, including Fernando
Alday, Philip Argyres, Madalena Lemos and Mario Martone. He is supported in part by
the INFN, the ERC Starting Grant 637844HBQFTNCER, as well as the ERC STG grant
306260 through the Pollica Summer Workshop. KO gratefully acknowledges support from
the Institute for Advanced Study. YT is partially supported in part byJSPS KAKENHI
GrantinAid (WakateA), No.17H04837 and JSPS KAKENHI GrantinAid (KibanS),
No.16H06335. YT and GZ are partially supported by WPI Initiative, MEXT, Japan at
IPMU, the University of Tokyo.
Open Access.
Attribution License (CCBY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Phys. Lett. A 65 (1978) 185 [INSPIRE].
Math. Ann. 288 (1990) 263.
[hepth/9511030] [INSPIRE].
instantons on ALE spaces, Nucl. Phys. B 473 (1996) 367 [hepth/9601162] [INSPIRE].
[4] E. Witten, Small instantons in string theory, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 541
[5] M.R. Douglas and G.W. Moore, Dbranes, quivers and ALE instantons, hepth/9603167
[6] P.S. Aspinwall and D.R. Morrison, Pointlike instantons on K3 orbifolds,
Nucl. Phys. B 503 (1997) 533 [hepth/9705104] [INSPIRE].
[7] D. Gaiotto, N = 2 dualities, JHEP 08 (2012) 034 [arXiv:0904.2715] [INSPIRE].
[8] S. Cremonesi, A. Hanany and A. Zaffaroni, Monopole operators and Hilbert series of Coulomb
branches of 3d N = 4 gauge theories, JHEP 01 (2014) 005 [arXiv:1309.2657] [INSPIRE].
[9] J.J. Heckman, D.R. Morrison and C. Vafa, On the Classification of 6D SCFTs and
Generalized ADE Orbifolds, JHEP 05 (2014) 028 [Erratum ibid. 1506 (2015) 017]
[arXiv:1312.5746] [INSPIRE].
[10] M. Del Zotto, J.J. Heckman, A. Tomasiello and C. Vafa, 6d Conformal Matter,
JHEP 02 (2015) 054 [arXiv:1407.6359] [INSPIRE].
Fortsch. Phys. 63 (2015) 468 [arXiv:1502.05405] [INSPIRE].
[11] J.J. Heckman, D.R. Morrison, T. Rudelius and C. Vafa, Atomic Classification of 6D SCFTs,
[12] G. Zafrir, Brane webs, 5d gauge theories and 6d N = (
1, 0
) SCFT’s, JHEP 12 (2015) 157
webs, JHEP 03 (2016) 024 [arXiv:1509.03195] [INSPIRE].
[13] K. Ohmori and H. Shimizu, S1/T 2 compactifications of 6d N = (
1, 0
) theories and brane
arXiv:1509.03300 [INSPIRE].
HJEP09(217)4
(1990) 473 [INSPIRE].
[17] Y. Tachikawa, Moduli spaces of SO(8) instantons on smooth ALE spaces as Higgs branches
of 4d N = 2 supersymmetric theories, JHEP 06 (2014) 056 [arXiv:1402.4200] [INSPIRE].
[arXiv:1007.0992] [INSPIRE].
theories, arXiv:1510.03908 [INSPIRE].
[19] H. Nakajima, Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3dimensional
N = 4 gauge theories, I, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 20 (2016) 595 [arXiv:1503.03676]
[20] H. Nakajima, Questions on provisional Coulomb branches of 3dimensional N = 4 gauge
[21] S. Cremonesi, G. Ferlito, A. Hanany and N. Mekareeya, Coulomb Branch and The Moduli
Space of Instantons, JHEP 12 (2014) 103 [arXiv:1408.6835] [INSPIRE].
[22] N. Mekareeya, The moduli space of instantons on an ALE space from 3d N = 4 field
theories, JHEP 12 (2015) 174 [arXiv:1508.06813] [INSPIRE].
[23] V.G. Kac, Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K.
(1994).
Invent. Math. 102 (1990) 267.
[24] H. Nakajima, Moduli spaces of antiselfdual connections on ALE gravitational instantons,
[arXiv:1408.6745] [INSPIRE].
JHEP 08 (2014) 002 [arXiv:1404.3887] [INSPIRE].
JHEP 03 (1998) 003 [hepth/9712143] [INSPIRE].
[25] K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu, Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura, Anomaly polynomial of general 6d
SCFTs, PTEP 2014 (2014) 103B07 [arXiv:1408.5572] [INSPIRE].
[26] K. Intriligator, 6d, N = (
1, 0
) Coulomb branch anomaly matching, JHEP 10 (2014) 162
[27] K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu and Y. Tachikawa, Anomaly polynomial of Estring theories,
[28] I. Brunner and A. Karch, Branes at orbifolds versus Hanany Witten in sixdimensions,
[29] A. Hanany and A. Zaffaroni, Branes and sixdimensional supersymmetric theories,
Nucl. Phys. B 529 (1998) 180 [hepth/9712145] [INSPIRE].
[30] O. Bergman and D. RodriguezGomez, 5d quivers and their AdS6 duals,
JHEP 07 (2012) 171 [arXiv:1206.3503] [INSPIRE].
[31] H. Hayashi, S.S. Kim, K. Lee, M. Taki and F. Yagi, A new 5d description of 6d Dtype
minimal conformal matter, JHEP 08 (2015) 097 [arXiv:1505.04439] [INSPIRE].
HJEP09(217)4
JHEP 10 (2016) 126 [arXiv:1512.08239] [INSPIRE].
JHEP 12 (2015) 163 [arXiv:1507.03860] [INSPIRE].
and class S theories: part II, JHEP 12 (2015) 131 [arXiv:1508.00915] [INSPIRE].
Three Dimensional Sicilian Theories, JHEP 09 (2014) 185 [arXiv:1403.2384] [INSPIRE].
JHEP 07 (2016) 082 [arXiv:1601.04078] [INSPIRE].
6D SCFTs, arXiv:1612.06399 [INSPIRE].
[1] M.F. Atiyah , N.J. Hitchin , V.G. Drinfeld and Yu. I. Manin , Construction of Instantons, [2] P.B. Kronheimer and H. Nakajima , YangMills instantons on ALE gravitational instantons , [14] H. Hayashi , S.S. Kim , K. Lee and F. Yagi , 6d SCFTs, 5d Dualities and Tao Web Diagrams, [15] K. Ohmori , H. Shimizu , Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura , 6d N = (1, 0) theories on T 2 and class S theories: Part I , JHEP 07 ( 2015 ) 014 [arXiv: 1503 .06217] [INSPIRE].
[16] P.B. Kronheimer , Instantons and the geometry of the nilpotent variety , J. Diff. Geom . 32 [18] F. Benini , Y. Tachikawa and D. Xie , Mirrors of 3d Sicilian theories , JHEP 09 ( 2010 ) 063 [36] Y. Tachikawa , A review of the TN theory and its cousins , PTEP 2015 ( 2015 ) 11B102 [32] H. Hayashi , S.S. Kim , K. Lee , M. Taki and F. Yagi , More on 5d descriptions of 6d SCFTs , [33] O. Bergman and G. Zafrir, 5d fixed points from brane webs and O7planes , [34] F. Benini , S. Benvenuti and Y. Tachikawa , Webs of fivebranes and N = 2 superconformal field theories , JHEP 09 ( 2009 ) 052 [arXiv: 0906 .0359] [INSPIRE].
[35] O. Chacaltana and J. Distler , Tinkertoys for Gaiotto Duality , JHEP 11 ( 2010 ) 099 [37] D. Gaiotto and E. Witten , Sduality of Boundary Conditions In N = 4 Super YangMills Theory , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 13 ( 2009 ) 721 [arXiv: 0807 .3720] [INSPIRE].
[38] M. Bullimore , T. Dimofte and D. Gaiotto , The Coulomb Branch of 3d N = 4 Theories , Commun. Math. Phys. 354 ( 2017 ) 671 [arXiv: 1503 .04817] [INSPIRE].
[39] K. Ohmori , H. Shimizu , Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura , 6d N = (1, 0 ) theories on S1/T 2 [40] D. Gaiotto and S.S. Razamat , Exceptional Indices, JHEP 05 ( 2012 ) 145 [arXiv: 1203 .5517]