Anomaly matching on the Higgs branch

Journal of High Energy Physics, Dec 2017

We point out that we can almost always determine by the anomaly matching the full anomaly polynomial of a supersymmetric theory in 2d, 4d or 6d if we assume that its Higgs branch is the one-instanton moduli space of some group G. This method not only provides by far the simplest method to compute the central charges of known theories of this class, e.g. 4d E 6,7,8 theories of Minahan and Nemeschansky or the 6d E-string theory, but also gives us new pieces of information about unknown theories of this class.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FJHEP12%282017%29127.pdf

Anomaly matching on the Higgs branch

HJE Anomaly matching on the Higgs branch Hiroyuki Shimizu 0 Yuji Tachikawa 0 Gabi Zafrir 0 0 Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo We point out that we can almost always determine by the anomaly matching the full anomaly polynomial of a supersymmetric theory in 2d, 4d or 6d if we assume that its Higgs branch is the one-instanton moduli space of some group G. This method not only provides by far the simplest method to compute the central charges of known theories of this class, e.g. 4d E6,7,8 theories of Minahan and Nemeschansky or the 6d E-string theory, but also gives us new pieces of information about unknown theories of this class. Anomalies in Field and String Theories; Supersymmetric Gauge Theory 1 Introduction 2 Basic idea 3 Summary of results 4 Six-dimensional theories G is one of the exceptionals G is SU(2) G is SU(3) Cases with pure gauge anomalies and/or gauge-R anomalies Instantons of classical groups can be described in terms of the ADHM construction [1], gauge groups, and if we probe them by lower-dimensional branes, we get supersymmetric theories whose Higgs branch equals to the instanton moduli spaces of exceptional groups. Among them we can count the 4d theories of Minahan and Nemeschansky [4, 5] for E6,7,8 instantons and the 6d E-string theory [6, 7]. The theories obtained this way do not usually have any conventional Lagrangian descriptions, and were therefore rather difficult to study. Even their anomaly polynomials, or equivalently the conformal central charges assuming that they become superconformal in the infrared, needed to be computed first with stringy techniques [8, 9] and then with rather lengthy field theoretical arguments on the Coulomb branch in 4d or on the tensor always allows us to determine the full anomaly polynomial, when the theory is 6d N = (1, 0), 4d N = 2, or 2d N = (4, 0), and when the Higgs branch is assumed to be the one-instanton moduli space of some group G. This is because on the generic point of the Higgs branch the theory becomes free and the unbroken symmetry still knows the SU(2)R symmetry at the origin. This method provides the simplest way to compute the anomaly polynomials of 4d theories of Minahan and Nemeschansky and the 6d E-string theory. But more importantly, this method gives us new pieces of information about a theory whose Higgs branch is the one-instanton moduli space of the group G, even when no string/M/F theory construction is known. For example, in [13], the conformal bootstrap method was used to determine the conformal central charges of the 4d theory whose Higgs branch is the one-instanton moduli space of G2 or F4. Our method reproduces the values they obtained, and not only that, we find a strong indication that the F4 theory does not exist because of a field theoretical inconsistency. Similarly, we will see that there cannot be any 6d E6,7 theory. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we describe in more detail how the anomaly matching on the Higgs branch works if the Higgs branch is the oneinstanton moduli space of some group G. In section 3, we summarize the results which we obtained in this paper. Then in section 4, 5, 6, we study the 6d N = (1, 0) theories, the 4d N = 2 theories, and the 2d N = (4, 0) theories in turn. In appendix A, we collect the formulas for characteristic classes used throughout in this paper. 2 Basic idea We consider a theory with 6d N = (1, 0) or 4d N = 2 or 2d N = (4, 0) supersymmetry has a Higgs branch given by the one-instanton moduli space MG of a group G. Geometric data. Let us first recall some basic information on MG, whose detail can be found e.g. in [14] and the references therein. The quaternionic dimension of MG is h∨(G) − 1. We note that for G = Sp(n), the one-instanton moduli space is simply Hn/Z2, where H is the space of quaternions. Furthermore, the moduli space is smooth on a generic point, and the symmetry SU(2)R × G acting on MG is broken to SU(2)D × G′, where SU(2)X × G′ ⊂ G is a particular – 2 – SU(n) SO(n) Sp(n) E6 E7 E8 F4 G2 h ∨ n n − 2 n + 1 12 18 30 9 4 SU(6) SO(12) E7 Sp(3) SU(2)F U(1)F × SU(n − 2) (n − 2)−n ⊕ (n − 2)+n SU(2)F × SO(n − 4) Sp(n − 1) 2F ⊗ (n − 4) 2n − 2 14′ 4 short comment 3-index antisym. chiral spinor. 3-index antisym. traceless. subgroup described in more detail below and SU(2)D is the diagonal subgroup of SU(2)R and SU(2)X . The subgroup SU(2)X is the SU(2) subgroup associated to the highest root of G and G′ is its commutant within G. The tangent space of MG at a generic point transforms under SU(2)X × G′ as a neutral hypermultiplet and a charged half-hypermultiplet in a representation R, with the rule g = g′ ⊕ su(2) ⊕ R. (2.1) Here R is always of the form of the doublet of SU(2)X tensored with a representation R′ of G′. The subgroup G′ and the representation R′ are given in the table 1. Strategy of the matching. Now let us explain how the anomaly matching on the Higgs branch works. At the origin, the theory has the symmetry SU(2)R × G where SU(2)R is (part of) the R-symmetry. On a generic point of the Higgs branch, we have a free theory whose unbroken symmetry is SU(2)D × G′, where SU(2)D is the diagonal subgroup of SU(2)R and SU(2)X . The theory is a collection of dH = h ∨ − 1 hypermultiplets. One, identified with changing the vev, is neutral under the unbroken global symmetry. Considering that the scalars in a halfhyper are doublets of SU(2)R, this hyper should just be a half-hyper in the 2 of SU(2)X . Additionally we have the remaining dH − 1 hypers which transform as a doublet of SU(2)X and in some representation R′ of G ′ given in table 1. Since SU(2)X and SU(2)R are ′ identified to be SU(2)D, this amounts to just dH − 1 free hypers in the representation R . The anomaly of G of the original theory can be found from the anomaly of G′ of the free theory in the infrared, if G′ is nonempty. This in turn determines the contribution of SU(2)X to the anomaly of SU(2)D, which then fixes the anomaly of SU(2)R of the original theory. Even if G′ is empty, this still constrains the anomaly of SU(2)R and G of the original theory. Along the way, we might find that the anomaly matching cannot be satisfied, in which case we conclude that such a theory cannot exist. There are cases – 3 – where the anomaly polynomials can be arranged to match but the global anomaly fails to match.1 We call this the global anomaly matching test. Finally, since the one-instanton moduli space of Sp(n) is Hn/Z2 as explained below, we should always be able to match the anomaly in this case by n free hypermultiplets gauged by Z2, or equivalently an O(1) − Sp(n) bifundamental gauged by O(1). This provides us a simple way to check the computations. Now that the strategy has been explained, we move on to the details. We first summarize the results in the next section, and then look at the three cases in turn, in the order 6d, 4d and 2d. 3 Summary of results In this section we summarize the results we obtain in each spacetime dimensions, postponing the computational details in the following sections. We assume that there are just free hypermultiplets on the generic point on the Higgs branch unless otherwise stated. 3.1 Six-dimensional theories First we consider 6d N = (1, 0) theories. We find that the anomaly polynomials on the Higgs branch can consistently be matched for SU(2), SU(3), Sp(n), E8, and G2. (3.1) • In the SU(2) case, we cannot completely determine the anomaly at the origin; we find a three-parameter family of solutions (4.9). The result is consistent with one known example, which is just a free hypermultiplet gauged by Z2. • In the SU(3) case, we can unambiguously determine the anomaly as in (4.12). But we do not know any example of 6d theories with this Higgs branch. • The Sp(n) case reproduces the anomaly polynomial of n free hypermultiplets gauged by Z2. • The E8 case reproduces the anomaly of the rank-1 E-string theory. • The G2 case does not pass the anomaly matching test of the global anomaly, as detailed in section 4.7 3.2 Four-dimensional theories Second we consider 4d N = 2 theories. We find that the anomaly polynomials on the Higgs branch can be consistently matched only for 1The mismatch of the global anomaly associated to πd(G) cannot be canceled by adding topological degrees of freedom. For details, see section 5 of [15]. – 4 – HJEP12(07) SU(2) SU(3) SO(8) Sp(n) E6 E7 E8 F4 G2 x + 1 k 3 4 1 6 8 12 5 10 3 nv x 2 3 0 5 7 4 7 3 11 nh x + 1 4 8 n 16 24 40 12 16 3 6x+1 3x+1 12 a 24 7 12 23 24 n 24 41 24 59 24 95 24 4 3 17 24 c 2 3 7 6 n 12 13 6 19 6 31 6 5 3 5 6 full symmetry. only for case suffers from the mismatch of the global anomaly. The data is summarized in table 2, using the standard notations. The list of the groups we found here is equal to the list of group compatible with the one-instanton moduli space as Higgs branches, determined using the conformal bootstrap in [13, 16].2 Note however that the F4 case does not pass the global anomaly matching test, as will be detailed in section 5.4. 3.3 Two-dimensional theories Third, we consider 2d N = (4, 0) theories. In two dimensions, the scalars always fluctuate all over the moduli space, and the continuous symmetry never breaks. Therefore, it is not technically correct to speak of the theory at the origin of the moduli space and compare the anomaly computed at the generic point. Rather, what we do is to match the anomaly polynomial as calculated using a semi-classical analysis at the generic point using the unbroken symmetry at that point, with the anomaly polynomial written in terms of the We find that the anomaly polynomials on the Higgs branch can consistently be matched and polynomial expanded as follows: 2Note that in table 4 of [13] Sp(n) is missing. This is because the authors of [13] assumed that the SU(2) Sp(n) SU(3) SO(8) F4 E6 E7 E8 G2 n 3 4 5 6 8 12 nv • The Sp(n) case gives us the anomaly of n free hypermultiplets gauged by Z2. • The SU(3), SO(8), E6,7,8, F4 cases reproduce the anomaly on a single string in 6d minimal gauge theories [17, 18]. These theories are also realized as compactifications of the corresponding 4d N = 2 theories on S2 [19]. • For the SU(2) case, we cannot completely determine the anomalies. • For the G2 case, we do not know any example of 2d theories with these values of anomalies. In two dimensions, we can slightly generalize the situation by allowing the massless Fermi multiplets on the Higgs branch. The inclusion of Fermi multiplets opens the possibility of matching the anomaly even for larger SU(n) and SO(n) groups. We analyze several examples with relatively simple Fermi multiplet spectrum and reproduce the anomaly of a single string in 6d non-anomalous gauge theory with various matter hypermultiplets, as we will show in detail in section 6. 3.4 Cases with pure gauge anomalies and/or gauge-R anomalies In two, four and six dimensions, we find that for larger SU(n) and SO(n) groups, we cannot consistently match the anomaly polynomial. Still, if we ignore the matching of the terms associated to U(1)F and SU(2)F (which are subgroups of unbroken flavor symmetries as given in table 1), we find that our method somehow reproduces the values of anomalies which one would naively associate to the ADHM gauge theories realizing the one-instanton moduli spaces of these groups. – 6 – In four dimension, these theories are infrared free, and have a mixed gauge-gauge-R anomaly. Moreover, for SO(odd), the gauge group has the global anomaly. In two and six dimensions, these theories have a gauge anomaly. We do not understand why the anomaly matching partially works for these cases. It seems that the anomalies involving the gauge fields plays the role. We hope to come back to study this case further. 4 Six-dimensional theories In this section we perform the analysis for 6d N = (1, 0) theories. First, let us specialize to the exceptional groups. Since there is no independent quartic Casimir for exceptional groups, the anomaly polynomial at the origin can be written as (4.1) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) Iorigin = αc2(R)2 + βc2(R)p1(T ) + γp1(T )2 + δp2(T ) 8 + 1 4 Tr FG2 κ4 Tr FG2 + λc2(R) + μp1(T ) , where c2(R) is the second Chern class of the SU(2) R-symmetry bundle and p1(T ), p2(T ) are the first and second Pontryagin classes of the tangent bundle respectively. We have also introduced the unknown coefficients α, β, γ, δ, κ, λ, μ to be determined below. On the generic point of the Higgs branch, using (A.2) we see that the anomaly polynomial (4.1) On the other hand, the anomaly of free hypers is given as In order to match (4.2) and (4.3), there should also be no independent quartic Casimir ′ invariant for G . This already excludes G = E6, E7, F4 and the remaining possibilities When G = E8. Since tr56 FE47 = 23 (Tr FE27)2 and T E7(56) = 6, the anomaly (4.3) Ihyper = 8 1 α = which coincides with the anomaly of rank-1 E-string theory determined in [9]. α = , β = − , γ = , δ = − , κ = , λ = − , μ = . (4.7) 41 108 5 72 4.2 Let us consider the SU(2) case, which is quite exceptional. In this case, the anomaly of the polynomial of this theory is consistent with (4.9) with α = β = λ = 0. 4.3 The case of SU(3) is also exceptional since the fourth Casimir of SU(3) is zero and we can take the SCFT anomaly polynomial to be of the form (4.1). Substituting the decomposition (A.10) to (4.1), we obtain Igeneric = (α + κ + λ)c2(D)2 + (β + μ)c2(D)p1(T ) + γp1(T )2 + δp2(T ) 8 − 3c1(U(1)F )2 (λ + 2κ)c2(D) + μp1(T ) − 3κc1(U(1)F )2 . (4.10) – 8 – In turn the anomaly polynomial of the free hypers is given by: To our knowledge, a 6d SCFT with this Higgs branch is not known. In this case, the anomaly of the free hypers is given by Ihypers = 1 8 48 trfund FS4p(n−1) + 2c2(D)2 + (2c2(D) + trfund FS2p(n−1))p1(T ) 96 + n 7p1(T )2 − 4p2(T ) Since the purely gravitational part of the anomaly can be reproduced from that of the free hypers, we focus on the R-symmetry and the flavor symmetry part written as Iorigin = αc2(R)2+βc2(R)p1(T )+x trfund FS4p(n)+y(trfund FS2p(n))2+trfund FS2p(n) κc2(R)+λp1(T ) . 8 Decomposing the characteristic classes for Sp(n) to those for Sp(n − 1) using (A.3) and (A.4), we find that the anomaly becomes: Igeneric = (α + 2x + 4y + 2κ)c2(D)2 + (β + 2λ)c2(D)p1(T ) 8 + x trfund FS4p(n−1) + 4yc2(D) trfund FS2p(n−1) + y trfund FS2p(n−1) + trfund FS2p(n−1) κc2(D) + λp1(T ) . (4.15) Comparing (4.13) and (4.15), we find α = 0, β = 0, x = y = 0, κ = 0, λ = (4.16) 1 96 which coincides with the anomaly of O(1) × Sp(n) half-hyper when we include the purely gravitational part. This SCFT is the ADHM gauge theory for Sp(n). 1 48 , 2 – 9 – In this case, the anomaly of the hypermultiplet is given by 8 Ihypers = (n−4) trfund FF4 +6 trfund FF2 trfund FS2O(n−4)+2 trfund FS4O(n−4)+2c2(D)2 48 + ((n−4) trfund FF2 +2 trfund FS2O(n−4)+2c2(D))p1(T ) 96 +(n−3) 7p1(T )2−4p2(T ) 5760 −8xc1(U(1)F ) trfund FS3U(n−2)−4(6x+n(n−2)y)c1(U(1)F )2 trfund FS2U(n−2) −2(n−2)(nκ+4yn+6(n−2)x)c1(U(1)F )2c2(D)+2n(n−2)(x(n2−6n+12) +2yn(n−2))c1(U(1)F )4+(κ+4y)c2(D) trfund FS2U(n−2) +λ trfund FS2U(n−2)p1(T )−4n(n−2)λc1(U(1)F )2p1(T ). 4.6 G is of type SU 8 Ihypers = c2(D)2 24 + We only need to consider n ≥ 4. Then, the anomaly of the hypermultiplets is given by 48 4 6 − c2(D)p1(T ) n2(n − 2)c1(U(1)F )2p1(T ) 48 − − n2c1(U(1)F )2 trfund FS2U(n−2) + nc1(U(1)F ) trfund FS3U(n−2) + (n − 1) n4(n − 2)c1(U(1)F )4 24 We take the flavor and R-symmetry part of the anomaly to be given by (4.14) with the replacement Sp(n) → SU(n). Decomposing the characteristic classes of SU(n) into their U(1)F × SU(n − 2) counterparts using (A.7) and (A.8), we find: Igeneric = (α+2x+4y+2κ)c2(D)2+(β+2λ)c2(D)p1(T )+x trfund FS4U(n−2)+y(trfund FS2U(n−2)) 8 2 Since the purely gravitational part reproduces the anomaly at the origin, we concentrate on the part involving the R-symmetry and the flavor symmetry. We write the anomaly at HJEP12(07) the origin as Iorigin = αc2(R)2+βc2(R)p1(T )+x trfund FS4O(n)+y(trfund FS2O(n))2+trfund FS2O(n)(κc2(R)+λp1(T )). 8 We can use equations (A.5) and (A.6) to get: Igeneric = (α+4x+16y+4κ)c2(R)2+(β+4λ)c2(D)p1(T )+(x+4y)(trfund FF2 )2 8 +(12x+16y+2κ)c2(D) trfund FF2 +x trfund FS4O(n−4)+(16y+κ)c2(D) trfund FS2O(n−4) +y(trfund FS2O(n−4))2+4y trfund FF2 trfund FS2O(n−4)+λp1(T )(trfund FS2O(n−4)+2 trfund FF2 ). What we have to do is to match (4.17) and (4.20) and solve for α, β, x, y, κ, λ. We see that the SU(2)F independent terms can be matched by setting α = − 81 , β = − 116 , x = 214 , λ = 418 , y = κ = 0. These are the values one get for an SU(2) gauge theory with n half-hypermultiplets though it is anomalous in 6d. However it is not possible to much the remaining SU(2)F dependent terms so there is no solution in this case. Matching equations (4.20) and (4.21) we see that the U(1)F independent terms can be matched by setting α = −x = − 214 , β = −λ = − 418 , y = κ = 0. These are the values one get for a U(1) gauge theory with n hypermultiplets though it is anomalous in 6d. The U(1)F dependent terms only match if n = 2 for which this analysis does not apply. Therefore we conclude that there is no solution in this case. Finally we consider anomalies under large gauge transformations. These exist only for groups with π6(G) 6= 0 which are only SU(2), SU(3) and G2 for which π6(SU(2)) = Z12, π6(SU(3)) = Z6 and π6(G2) = Z3. These anomalies are mapped to one another under the embedding of SU(2) → SU(3) → G2. When embedded in groups with an independent fourth Casimir, the global anomaly can match the standard square anomaly. A hyper in the 7 of G2, one in the 3 of SU(3), and a half-hyper in the 2 of SU(2) both contribute to the anomaly as the generator of π6(G) for their respective groups [20]. Under the above mapping the 7 of G2 goes to the 3 + 3 of SU(3) and further to the 2 × 2 + singlets of SU(2). Therefore the anomaly is consistently mapped across the groups. The only non-excluded cases where the anomaly might be relevant are SU(2), SU(3) and G2. For SU(2) and SU(3) the anomaly doesn’t exist on the Higgs branch which implies that the anomaly vanishes in the SCFT. The situation for G2 is more involved as it is broken to SU(2) on the Higgs branch where both groups have the discrete anomaly. Let’s consider the 7 of G2. Under the SU(2)1 × SU(2)2 subgroup of G2, it decomposes as: 7 → (2, 2) ⊕ (1, 3). As the anomaly must be preserved, and using the fact that the 3 of SU(2) contribute to the anomaly like 8 half-hyper doublets [20], we determine that SU(2)1 has the same anomaly as G2 while SU(2)2 is non-anomalous. Therefore SU(2)2, which is the remaining global symmetry on a generic point on the Higgs branch, must be non-anomalous. However on a generic point on the Higgs branch we have an half-hyper in the 4 of SU(2)2 which does contribute to the anomaly. This can be readily seen by decomposing the 14 of G2 under the SU(2)1 × SU(2)2 subgroup. Thus it is apparent that we cannot match the SU(2) anomaly with the anomaly of G2. Therefore the G2 theory is inconsistent, since global anomaly associated to π6(G) cannot be canceled by adding topological degrees of freedom, as argued in e.g. section 5 of [15]. 5 Four-dimensional theories In this section we implement the strategy given in section 2 for 4d N = 2 theories. We perform the analysis assuming that the theories in question are superconformal. The analysis is slightly different depending on whether G is a group of type SU, SO or Sp and the exceptional groups. We next discuss each in turn. 5.1 G is of type Sp or one of the exceptionals When the group is of type Sp or the exceptionals then the symmetry G′ is a simple group. We take the anomaly polynomial of the theory to be: Iorigin = − dH 6 3 c1(R)3 + dH 12 p1(T )c1(R) − nvc1(R)c2(R) + kG 4 c1(R) Tr FG2 (5.1) HJEP12(07) T G(R) 14′ 5 2 4 5 2n 1 2 n 1 n 1 2 of the anomaly polynomial is dictated by N = 2 SUSY [21]. The constants dH and nv are related to the central charges a, c through: dH = 24(c − a), nv = 4(2a − c). The constant kG is the central charge of the flavor symmetry G. The anomaly polynomial of the free hypers is: 6 6 Next we need to decompose the G-characteristic classes to the SU(2)D ×G′ ones, where the relation is given in (A.2). By matching (5.1) and (5.2) we find: dH = dR′ + 2 2 , nv = ′ 2T G (R′) m ′ 2T G (R′) m . − 1, kG = (5.3) The values of the Dynkin index are in table 4. The complete results are summarized in For Sp(n) these are just the values of n free hypers. The SCFT consisting of an O(1) × Sp(n) half-hyper indeed has this space as its Higgs branch. 5.2 G is of type SO In this case the group G′ is SU(2)F × SO(n − 4) which is a semi-simple group. We again take (5.1) as the anomaly polynomial of the SCFT and decompose the SO(n) characteristic classes by (A.5), but now the half-hypers contribute: 6 Next we can proceed to match corresponding terms. Ignoring SU(2)F terms we found that: Interestingly these are exactly the values for an SU(2) gauge theory with n half-hypers which classically has this space as its Higgs branch. This is despite the fact that this theory has a global gauge anomaly for n odd and even for n even is not an SCFT unless n = 8. Finally we need to match the last SU(2)F dependent term. This leads to the constraint n − 4 = kSO(n) which is only obeyed if n = 8. 5.3 In this case the group G′ is U(1)F × SU(n − 2). We again take (5.1) as the anomaly polynomial of the SCFT, but now the half-hypers contribute: 6 Assuming n > 3 and ignoring U(1)F terms we find that: Interestingly these are exactly the values for a U(1) gauge theory with n hypers which classically has this space as its Higgs branch. This is despite the fact that this theory is not an SCFT. Indeed, to match the last U(1)F dependent term, we need the constraint n2(n − 2) = 2n(n − 2) which has the solution n = 2. This is incompatible with n > 3. When n = 3. For n = 3, we now only have U(1)F and so Tr(FS2U(n−2)) vanishes. Matching terms we find: dH = 2, nv = 2, kG = 3 . These are precisely the values of the AD SU(3) theory. When n = 2. For SU(2) we have only SU(2)D as a remaining global symmetry and so we only get the constraints: dH = 1, nv = kSU(2) − 1. These are obeyed for both the O(1) × SU(2) half-hyper and the SU(2) AD theory, which are the SCFTs known to have MSU(2) as their Higgs branch.3 Additionally it is obeyed for a U(1) gauge theory with two charge +1 hypermultiplets, even though it is not an SCFT. 5.4 Global anomalies So far we have used local anomalies to constraint properties of 4d N = 2 theories that have the one-instanton moduli space MG as their Higgs branch. We can put one additional constraint using anomalies under large gauge transformation of [23]. These exist only for groups with π4(G) 6= 0, which are only Sp groups for which π4(Sp(n)) = Z2. When Sp group is embedded in Sp group, the global anomaly should match the global anomaly. When Sp group is embedded in SU group, the global anomaly can match the standard triangle anomaly [24]. 3Other known examples of the SCFT whose Higgs branch is MSU(2)=C2/Z2 include the superconformal point of SO(4k + 2) SYM [22]. However, these theories do not fit within the class of theories considered in this paper. At the generic point on the Higgs branch, the spectrum we obtain is not free hypermultplets but the interacting SCFT without Higgs branch, i.e. the superconformal fixed point of SU(2k − 1) SYM. This can be readily seen by the class S description of the SCFTs. (5.7) HJEP12(07) (5.8) (5.9) In our case this implies a non-trivial constraint only for G = Sp(n), F4, G2. In the first case, G = Sp(n), the unbroken group on the Higgs branch is Sp(n − 1), and as the matter content is a single fundamental half-hyper, it suffers from this anomaly. This can be accommodated in the SCFT if the original Sp(n) also has the same anomaly. This again agrees with the expectation from the ADHM construction. Both G2 and F4 cannot have an anomaly. However, they break on the Higgs branch to groups that can, SU(2) for G2 and Sp(3) for F4. Therefore for these to be possible the anomaly must vanish on the Higgs branch. This is true for G2 as the 4 of SU(2) does not contribute to the anomaly. However, this is not true for F4 as the 14′ of Sp(3) does contribute to the anomaly. Thus this excludes F4, since global anomaly associated to π4(G) cannot be canceled by adding topological degrees of freedom; see e.g. section 5 of [15]. The existence of the G2 theory is still an open question. 6 Two-dimensional theories In this section we analyze the 2d N = (0, 4) theories. We denote the R-symmetry as SU(2)R × SU(2)I and the general form of the anomaly polynomial is written as where nV , dH , nF and kG are the unknown coefficients determined below. Note that the SU(2)I and the gravitational part of the anomaly can be matched directly on the Higgs branch. We also note that there are no global gauge anomalies in 2d since π2(G) = 0 for all Lie groups. In 2d, we can consider the slightly generalized situation: we can also have Fermi multiplets in addition to hypermultiplets on a generic point of the Higgs branch. Fermi multiplet consists of a single left-moving Weyl fermion transforming some representation RF under G.4 In this section, we also examine how the anomaly matching changes when we allow the Fermi multiplets as the massless spectrum.5 6.1 G is of type Sp or one of the exceptionals In this case, the unbroken subgroup G′ is simple. If we denote the representations of Fermi multiplets under G′ as Pm Nm, then the anomaly polynomial of free multiplets is given as Ifree = c2(D)+ 4 2 2+dR′ c2(I)+ 2+dR′ −Pm Nm 24 2T G (R′)−2 Pm T G (Nm) ′ 4 Tr(FG2′ ). On the other hand, by using (A.2) and (A.3), the anomaly (6.1) becomes Igeneric = (kG − nv)c2(D) + dH c2(I) + 4 where m is 3 for G2 and 1 for other cases. 4Some references (e.g. [25]) define a pair of left-moving Weyl fermions transforming in conjugate representations as a 2d N = (0, 4) Fermi multiplet. Here we choose not to use such a definition. ′ 5In this note, we only consider Fermi multiplets transforming non-trivially under G . The effect of neutral Fermi multiplets is to change the value of the gravitational anomaly. (6.2) (6.3) branch. the anomaly is given by Without Fermi multiplets. If we assume that there are no Fermi multiplets, the anomalies (6.2) and (6.3) can be matched by the data summarized in table 3. The cases with G = E8, E7, E6, F4 reproduce the anomaly on a single self-dual string6 in minimal 6d N = (1, 0) theories for n = 12, 8, 7, 5: Istring = −(n − 1)c2(R) + (3n − 7)c2(I) + 4 6d. To the best of our knowledge, we do not know an example of 2d N = (0, 4) SCFT with Higgs branch MG2 and no Fermi multiplets. With Fermi multiplets. Next we consider the cases with Fermi multiplets on the Higgs As examples, let us consider nf fundamental Fermi multiplets of G′. For the G = E7, Ifull = −(7 − nf )c2(R) + 17c2(I) + 4 17 − 3nf 12 where we included the SO(nf ) symmetry acting on Fermi multiplets. This anomaly precisely agrees with that of a single string in 6d E7 gauge theory with nf /2 hypermultplets. Similarly, G = E6, F4 cases reproduce the anomaly of a single string in 6d G = E6, F4 gauge theory with nf fundamental hypermultiplets. Finally, we consider G = G2. The anomaly can be matched by Ifull = − 4 7 − nf 3 c2(R) + 3c2(I) + where we included the SU(nf ) flavor symmetry acting on the Fermi multiplets. For nf = 1, 4, 7, (6.6) reproduces the anomaly of a string in the 6d G2 gauge theory with nf = 1, 4, 7 fundamental hypermultiplets. 6.2 G is of type SO In this case, the unbroken group is SU(2)F × SO(n − 4). If we denote the representation of the Fermi multiplets by Pm(nm, Nm), the anomaly of the free multiplets is given by Ifree = c2(D)+(n−3)c2(I)+ 4 2n−6−Pm nmNm 24 p1(T ) + n−4−2 Pm NmT SU(2)F (nm) 4 Tr(FF2 )+ 2−Pm nmT SO(n−4)(Nm) 2 Tr(FS2O(n−4)). (6.7) On the other hand, by using (A.5), the anomaly (6.1) becomes Igeneric = (kG−nv)c2(D)+dH c2(I)+ 4 2dH − nF 24 4 p1(T )+ kG Tr(FF2 )+ kG Tr(FS2O(n−4)). (6.8) 4 6We have subtracted the anomaly of the center-of-mass mode from the result presented in [18]. Without Fermi multiplets. Comparing (6.7) and (6.8) in the case of Fermi multiplets, the anomaly can be solved by if we ignore the SU(2)F part. This precisely agrees with the values of the SU(2) gauge theory with n half-hypers, though it is anomalous in 2d. If we include the matching of SU(2)F , the solution exists only for G = SO(8) and we obtain the anomaly of (6.4) for n = 4. Indeed, the worldsheet theory on a single string in minimal 6d N = (1, 0) SCFT for n = 4 has the Higgs branch MSO(8). With Fermi multiplets. Let us consider the cases with Fermi multiplets. The matching of SU(2)F puts a constraint An example of solution of these constraints is obtained by setting 1 ≤ m ≤ n − 8, Nm = 1 and nm = 2 for all m. The anomaly polynomial is Ifull = −3c2(R) + (n − 3)c2(I) + 4 5 12 p1(T ) + Tr(FS2O(n)) + 1 4 Tr(FS2p(n−8)), (6.11) where we have included the global symmetry acting on (n−8) free Fermi multiplets. This is precisely the anomaly of a single string in 6d SO(n) gauge theory with (n − 8) fundamental hypermultiplets. 6.3 G is of type SU If we denote the representation of the Fermi multiplets as ⊕m(Nm)nm under SU(n − 2) × U(1)F , the anomaly of the free multiplets is (6.12) (6.13) (6.14) Ifree = c2(D)+(n−1)c2(I)+ 4 − n2(n−2)− 2 m Igeneric = (kSU(n) − nv)c2(D) + dH c2(I) + 4 − kSU(n)n(n − 2)c1(U(1)F )2. On the other hand, by using the decomposition (A.7), we have the anomaly Without Fermi multiplets. Let us first consider the case n ≥ 4. If we ignore the U(1)F part, the matching between (6.12) and (6.13) can be solved by which precisely agrees with the values of the U(1) gauge theory with n hypermultiplets, though it is anomalous in 2d. The matching of U(1)F forces us to set n = 2, which contradicts with our assumption. When G = SU(2), the matching can be solved by Ifull = −(kSU(2) − 1)c2(R) + c2(I) + 4 1 12 p1(T ) + 4 kSU(2) Tr(FS2U(2)), where kSU(2) is an undetermined coefficient. If we set kSU(2) = 1, we reproduce the anomaly of the O(1) × SU(2) half-hyper as in 4d and 6d. When G = SU(3), the matching can be solved by which coincides with the anomaly (6.4) for n = 3. Indeed, the worldsheet theory of a single string in minimal 6d N = (1, 0) SCFT for n = 3 is the SCFT with Higgs branch MSU(3). With Fermi multiplets. Let us consider the case with Fermi multiplets for n ≥ 4. We consider two cases. When Nm≥1 = 1, the matching can be solved by as long as the U(1)F charges satisfy nV = 1, An example of solutions of (6.18) is obtained by setting 1 ≤ m ≤ 2n and nm = (n − 2) for all m. The full anomaly is Ifull = −c2(R) + (n − 1)c2(I) − 4 1 12 p1(T ) + 2 4 1 4 Tr(FS2U(n)) + Tr(FS2U(2n)F ), where we have included the contribution of the flavor symmetry SU(2n)F , acting on the Fermi multiplets of the same U(1)F charges. This is precisely the anomaly of a single string in 6d SU(n) gauge theory with 2n fundamental hypermultiplets. When N1 = (n − 2), Nm≥2 = 1, the matching can be solved by as long as the U(1)F charges satisfy nv = 0, An example of solutions of (6.21) is obtained by setting 1 ≤ m ≤ n + 9, n1 = (n − 4) and nm = (n − 2) for all m ≥ 2. The total anomaly is given by Ifull = (n − 1)c2(I) − 4 1 3 p1(T ) + 1 4 1 4 Tr(FS2U(n)) + Tr(FS2U(n+8)F ), where we have included the global symmetry SU(n + 8) acting on the Fermi multiplets of the same U(1)F charge. This precisely agrees with the anomaly of a single string in 6d SU(n) gauge theory with Nf = n + 8, NΛ2 = 1 hypermultiplets. (6.15) (6.16) (6.17) (6.18) (6.19) (6.20) (6.21) (6.22) Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Kantaro Ohmori and Kazuya Yonekura for useful discussions. HS is partially supported by the Programs for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan, via the Leading Graduate Course for Frontiers of Mathematical Sciences and Physics. HS is also supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists. The work of YT is partially supported in part by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 25870159. The work of YT and GZ are partially supported by WPI Initiative, MEXT, Japan at IPMU, the University of Tokyo. A Decomposition of characteristic classes ′ In this appendix, we collect the formulas relating the characteristic classes for G and G , used in the main body of the paper. We define the Tr by the trace in the adjoint representation, divided by the dual Coxeter number of G. The Dynkin index of the representation R of gauge group G relates the Tr FG2 via trR FG2 = T G(R) Tr FG2 , where trR is the trace in the representation R. We list the values of T G(R) relevant in this paper in table 4. When G is one of the exceptionals. Since there are no independent quartic Casimir invariants in this case, we only have to consider Tr FG2 . The unbroken subgroup G′ is simple. The formula is Tr(FG2 ) = 4c2(D) + m Tr FG2′ , where m = 3 for G2 and 1 for any other group. When G is of type Sp. The unbroken subgroup is Sp(n − 1) in this case. The Tr FS2p(n) is related that of Sp(n − 1) via The trfund FS4p(n) is related by Tr(FS2p(n)) = 4c2(D) + Tr FS2p(n−1). trfund FS4p(n) = 2c2(D)2 + trfund FS4p(n−1). When G is of type SO. The unbroken subgroup is SU(2)F × SO(n − 4) in this case. The Tr FS2O(n) is related via Tr FS2O(n) = 4c2(D) + Tr FF2 + Tr FS2O(n−4). The trfund FS4O(n) is related by trfund FS4O(n) = 4c2(D)2 + 2 trfund FF4 + 12c2(D) trfund FS2O(n−4) + trfund FS4O(n−4). (A.6) (A.1) (A.2) (A.3) (A.4) (A.5) HJEP12(07) When G is of type SU. First, we assume n ≥ 4. The Tr FS2U(n) becomes Tr FS2U(n) = 4c2(D) − 4n(n − 2)c1(U(1)F )2 + Tr(FS2U(n−2)), and trfund FS4U(n) becomes trfund FS4U(n) = trfund FS4U(n−2)−8c1(U(1)F ) trfund FS3U(n−2)−24c1(U(1)F )2 trfund FS2U(n−2) +2c2(D)2−12(n−2)2c1(U(1)F )2c2(D)+2n(n−2)(n2−6n+12)c1(U(1)F )4. The cases of SU(2) and SU(3) are quite exceptional since these groups have no indeHJEP12(07) pendent quartic Casimir and we only have to consider Tr F 2. For G = SU(2), SU(2)R is identified with the original G and we simply take For the case of SU(3), we use Tr FS2U(2) = 4c2(D) = 4c2(R). Tr FS2U(3) = 4c2(D) − 12c1(U(1)F )2. (A.7) (A.8) (A.9) (A.10) Open Access. Attribution License (CC-BY 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]. [hep-th/9511030] [INSPIRE]. [1] M.F. Atiyah, N.J. Hitchin, V.G. Drinfeld and Y.I. Manin, Construction of Instantons, [2] E. Witten, Small instantons in string theory, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 541 [3] M.R. Douglas and G.W. Moore, D-branes, quivers and ALE instantons, hep-th/9603167 [4] J.A. Minahan and D. Nemeschansky, An N = 2 superconformal fixed point with E6 global symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 482 (1996) 142 [hep-th/9608047] [INSPIRE]. [5] J.A. Minahan and D. Nemeschansky, Superconformal fixed points with En global symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 489 (1997) 24 [hep-th/9610076] [INSPIRE]. [6] O.J. Ganor and A. Hanany, Small E8 instantons and tensionless noncritical strings, Nucl. Phys. B 474 (1996) 122 [hep-th/9602120] [INSPIRE]. [7] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Comments on string dynamics in six-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 471 (1996) 121 [hep-th/9603003] [INSPIRE]. [8] O. Aharony and Y. Tachikawa, A Holographic computation of the central charges of D = 4, N = 2 SCFTs, JHEP 01 (2008) 037 [arXiv:0711.4532] [INSPIRE]. [9] K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu and Y. Tachikawa, Anomaly polynomial of E-string theories, JHEP 08 (2014) 002 [arXiv:1404.3887] [INSPIRE]. [10] A.D. Shapere and Y. Tachikawa, Central charges of N = 2 superconformal field theories in four dimensions, JHEP 09 (2008) 109 [arXiv:0804.1957] [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1710.04218] [INSPIRE]. JHEP 04 (2016) 004 [arXiv:1511.07449] [INSPIRE]. arXiv:1608.03919 [INSPIRE]. JHEP 11 (2016) 165 [arXiv:1608.05894] [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1609.00310] [INSPIRE]. in six-dimensions, hep-th/9703167 [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1402.5135] [INSPIRE]. [arXiv: 1408 .6745] [INSPIRE]. [11] K. Ohmori , H. Shimizu , Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura , Anomaly polynomial of general 6d SCFTs, Prog . Theor. Exp. Phys . 2014 ( 2014 ) 103B07 [arXiv: 1408 .5572] [INSPIRE]. [12] K. Intriligator , 6d, N = (1, 0) Coulomb branch anomaly matching , JHEP 10 ( 2014 ) 162 [13] C. Beem , M. Lemos , P. Liendo , W. Peelaers , L. Rastelli and B.C. van Rees , Infinite Chiral Symmetry in Four Dimensions, Commun. Math. Phys. 336 ( 2015 ) 1359 [arXiv: 1312 .5344] [14] D. Gaiotto , A. Neitzke and Y. Tachikawa , Argyres-Seiberg duality and the Higgs branch , Commun. Math. Phys. 294 ( 2010 ) 389 [arXiv: 0810 .4541] [INSPIRE]. [15] I. Garc´ıa- Etxebarria , H. Hayashi , K. Ohmori , Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura , 8d gauge anomalies and the topological Green-Schwarz mechanism , JHEP 11 ( 2017 ) 177 [16] M. Lemos and P. Liendo , N = 2 central charge bounds from 2d chiral algebras , [17] H.-C. Kim , S. Kim and J. Park , 6d strings from new chiral gauge theories , [18] H. Shimizu and Y. Tachikawa , Anomaly of strings of 6d N = (1, 0) theories , [19] M. Del Zotto and G. Lockhart , On Exceptional Instanton Strings, JHEP 09 ( 2017 ) 081


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FJHEP12%282017%29127.pdf

Hiroyuki Shimizu, Yuji Tachikawa, Gabi Zafrir. Anomaly matching on the Higgs branch, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017, 127, DOI: 10.1007/JHEP12(2017)127