Page 1
arXiv:1002.3638v1 [hep-th] 18 Feb 2010
2d Wall-Crossing, R-twisting, and a
Supersymmetric Index
Sergio Cecotti1∗, and Cumrun Vafa2†
1Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati via Beirut 2-4 I-34100 Trieste, ITALY
2Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Abstract
Starting from N = 2 supersymmetric theories in 2 dimensions, we formulate a
novel time-dependent supersymmetric quantum theory where the R-charge is twisted
along the time. The invariance of the supersymmetric index under variations of the
action for these theories leads to two predictions: In the IR limit it predicts how
the degeneracy of BPS states change as we cross the walls of marginal stability. On
the other hand, its equivalence with the UV limit relates this to the spectrum of the
U(1) R-charges of the Ramond ground states at the conformal point. This leads to a
conceptually simple derivation of results previously derived using tt* geometry, now
based on time-dependent supersymmetric quantum mechanics.
February, 2010
∗e-mail: cecotti@sissa.it
†e-mail: vafa@physics.harvard.edu
Page 2
Contents
1 Introduction2
2The Basic Setup5
3A Time-Dependent SQM: Formulation of an Index7
3.1 The index Ik. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parisi–Sourlas supersymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
3.210
3.3 Time-dependent supersymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
3.4 The underlying time–dependent TFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
4Evaluation of the Index 14
4.1 UV limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.2 IR limit: path–integral analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.3Extensions to Two–dimensions and More General N = 2 Theories . .19
5Conclusion 21
A The case of collinear vacua22
A.1 The 1/n rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
B Evalutation in the Schroedinger picture: Links to tt* Geometry24
1
Page 3
1Introduction
Supersymmetric quantum field theories often lead to exactly computable quantities.
This arises from the fact that quantum corrections for many amplitudes can be
shown to vanish. A well known example of this is the Witten index which counts
the net number of ground states of the theory. With more supersymmetry there
are other quantities that can also be computed exactly. For example with N = 2
supersymmetry in d = 2 at the IR limit one can compute both the mass and the
spectrum of BPS states, or at the UV limit one can compute the spectrum of R-
charges of Ramond ground states exactly. In particular the masses of the BPS state
interpolating between vacua a and b is given by
mab= |Zab|
where Zab∈ C is the central charge of the supersymmetric algebra in the ab sector
(for an N = 2 Landau-Ginzburg theory Zab= Wa−Wbwhere Wadenotes the value
of the superpotential at the critical point corresponding to the a-th vacuum). The
number of such BPS states is given by an integer Nab (which can be positive or
negative, depending on the fermion number of the kink).
There is an interesting subtlety in this ‘exact’ prediction of BPS masses and
degeneracies: As we change the coupling constants of the theory it can happen
that the phases of central charges of BPS states can align. Passing through such a
configuration, the number of BPS states can jump. In particular suppose Zaband
Zbcalign. Then the number of BPS states in the ac sector jumps according to
Nac→ Nac± NabNbc
where the ± in the above formula depends on the orientation of the crossing of the
phases. This fact was derived in the case of LG theories by explicit computation [1]
and can be explained in full generality using the continuity of contribution of BPS
particles to certain computation as one crosses the wall [2].
On the other hand one can consider the UV limit of such theories, where the BPS
masses go to zero, and we obtain a conformal theory. One would naturally ask what
is the conformal theory imprint of the solitons and their degeneracies. It was shown
in [1] by studying the solutions to tt* equations and comparing the corresponding
2
Page 4
monodromy data from UV to IR that the spectrum of the N = 2 U(1) R-charges of
the Ramond ground states are captured by the soliton degeneracies1. In particular
for each sector ab consider the operators acting on the space of vacua given by
Sab= I + NabTab
(1.1)
where I is the identity operator, and Tab is the ‘upper/lower triangular’ operator
which takes the a-th vacuum to the b-th vacuum, and Nab is the net number of
solitons in that sector. One considers
M = T
??
ab
Sab
?
(1.2)
where the product is ‘T’ ordered, in the sense of ordered according to phases of Zab.
Then
eigenvalues of M = {exp(2πiqa)}
or, for k integer,
Ik= Tr Mk=
?
i
exp?2πikqa
?
(1.3)
where qaare the R-charges (i.e. N = 2 qa= qaL= qaRcharges) of the Ramond
ground states at the conformal point.2This relation can be used to derive the BPS
jumping phenomenon: The reason is that the RHS is fixed. Thus the LHS should
also remain fixed. However, as we change the couplings of the theory, the central
charges may change and when the phases of the central charges reorder, the fact
that the monodromy does not change implies that the BPS numbers should change
so that
SabSacSbc= SbcS′
acSab
where S,S′denote the corresponding operators before and after the wall-crossing
respectively. This leads to the degeneracy changing formula given above.3
1An alternative derivation of this result using D-branes was given in [5].
2For an N = 2 CFT in d = 2 to have deformations with mass gap all the ground states of the
Ramond sector should have equal left- and right-moving U(1) charges.
3This formula was originally derived under the assumption that only two central charges align
at the same time. The argument in the present paper does not require that assumption, since it is
directly expressed in terms of the group element Sφ,φ′, namely the phase–ordered product of the
contributions from all BPS states having phases in the interval (φ′,φ), which will be interpreted
3
Page 5
The basic aim of this paper is to formulate a supersymmetric path-integral which
computes Ik, and use the invariance of the path-integral, upon deformations, to get
from the R-charge computation in the UV to the soliton counting problem in the IR.
The form of (1.2) is very suggestive: The phase ordered product should arise as a
time ordered product in the physical theory, as was recently proposed in the context
of 4d wall-crossing [4]. On the other hand the phase of the BPS states correspond,
at the conformal point, to the R-charge rotation. Since R-charge is conserved at the
conformal point, it suggests that we compute the path integral with the insertion of
exp(2πikR)
Indeed if we compute
Tr
?
(−1)Fg exp(−βH)
?
where g is a symmetry (commuting with H) and which also commutes with the
supersymmetry charges, then as argued in [8] it receives contributions only from the
ground states, and moreover it does not change under compact deformations of the
theory commuting with g. This motivates one to consider in our case
g = (−1)kFexp(2πikR)
The inclusion of (−1)kFis to make sure supercharges, which have ±1/2 charge under
R, commute with g. Indeed at the conformal point this would precisely give us Ik
defined above (noting that the Ramond ground states have zero fermion number
because F = qL− qR).
Ik= Tr
?
(−1)(k+1)Fexp(2πikR)exp(−βH)
?
However this definition does not quite work away from the conformal fixed points, be-
cause R is not a symmetry! Thus our main challenge is to define an index away from
the CFT fixed points which reduces to the above definition at the fixed points. The
fact that the time ordered expression we are after is making jumps at specific times
(corresponding to phases for which BPS masses exist) in the IR suggests that we are
dealing with a time-dependent evolution operator. In other words it is not going to
in section 4 as a quantum evolution kernel. This is important since the situations encountered in
N = 2 theories in 4d involve the case where infinitely many phases align at the same time.
4
Page 6
be a conventional supersymmetric theory whose Hamiltonian is time independent.
The idea that this can be done is motivated by the simple observation that, if we
consider deformations of a conformal theory, we can always promote the parameters
to be time-dependent, thus compensating for the violation of R-symmetry. The re-
sulting supersymmetry turns out to be a far–reaching time–dependent generalization
of the Parisi–Sourlas one [10–13].
The organization of this paper is as follows: In section 2 we formulate the basic
setup in the context of Landau-Ginzburg theories. In section 3 we formulate a novel
supersymmetric system which is time-depedent. In section 4 we evaluate the path-
integral in the UV and IR limits and recover the formula (1.3). In section 5 we
present our conclusions. In Appendix A we discuss some subtleties arising in the
cases where many classical vacua are alligned in the W–plane. In Appendix B we
discuss some connections with tt* geometry.
2 The Basic Setup
We will be interested in 2 dimensional theories with N = 2 supersymmetry with
isolated vacua and mass gap. In such theories one can consider Hilbert spaces Hab
corresponding to real line, where on the left we approach the vacuum a at infinity
and on the right the vacuum b. The supersymmetry algebra will in general have a
central charge in this sector represented by the complex number Zab. This means
that
Eab≥ |Zab|
where Eabis the energy eigenvalue in this sector. The BPS kinks in this sector will
saturate this bound. One can view the RG flow as acting on the central charges by
Zab→ λZab, where the IR limit corresponds to λ → ∞. We will often assume that
the theory comes from deformations of an N = 2 CFT by relevant deformations.
The conformal theory is then recovered in the limit λ → 0.
The constructions of this paper can be done in full generality only assuming this
structure. However, for simplicity of presentation, it will be convenient to illus-
trate the construction in the context of N = 2 Landau-Ginzburg theories. We will
comment on the construction in the general setup later in the paper.
LG theories have chiral superfields, which we denote by Xi, and the action for
5
Page 7
them involves D-term (integrating over the full superspace) and F-terms (integrating
over half the superspace). D-term is characterized by a real function K(Xi,X
the F-term by the holomorphic superpotential W(Xi). The action is given by
i), and
S =
?
d4θd2xK(Xi,X
i) +
??
d2θd2xW(Xi) + c.c.
?
.
For most of our discussion we take K =?
iXiX
i. Our results will not depend on
this assumption. The bosonic part of the action can be written as
?
d2x
?
∂Xi∂Xi+ |∂iW|2?
.
This, in particular, implies that the vacua are given by the critical points of W,
which we assume to be isolated, and denote them by Xi
the ab sector is given by
Zab= W(Xi
a. Then the central charge in
a) − W(Xi
b).
When W is a quasi-homogeneous function of Xi, i.e.,
W(λqiXi) = λW(Xi),
it is expected that (with a suitable choice of K) this theory corresponds to a conformal
theory [17,18] with central charge
ˆ c =
?
i
(1 − 2qi).
In this case the R-charge of the field Xiis qi. The chiral ring of this theory is
identified with
R = C[Xi]/{dW = 0},
and its elements are in one to one correspondence with the ground states of the
Ramond sector (whose R-charges are shifted by ˆ c/2). In particular this leads to
TrRamond Ground StatetR= t−ˆ c/2?
i
(1 − t1−qi)
(1 − tqi).
6
Page 8
In this context we can compute the supersymmetric index
Ik= Tr
?
(−1)(k+1)Fexp(2πikR)exp(−βH)
?
and find
Ik=
?
kqi∈Z
(1 − qi)
qi
.
The formulation of Ikas the dimension of a cohomological problem at the conformal
fixed point, and its relation to LG orbifolds was studied in [6].
In general we will assume that W is a deformation away from quasi-homogeneous
form by relevant deformations, giving rise to isolated vacua. Rescaling W → λW
corresponds to the RG flow in this context, and the conformal point, where W is
quasi-homogeneous is the fixed point of this transformation.
In defining the relevant supersymmetric theory, we will be compactifying this
theory first on a circle. It turns out that the radius of the circle does not enter the
computation, and we can consider the case of the theory reduced to 1-dimension,
i.e. the quantum mechanics theory with 4 supercharges. Later in the paper we show
why our construction does not change when we go to the full 2d theory.
3A Time-Dependent SQM: Formulation of an In-
dex
3.1The index Ik
We consider the reduction of the LG theory to 1d. We first consider the quasi-
homogeneous case, where we have an N = 2 SQM system (4 supercharges) with an
R–symmetry with generator R, under which the supercharges have charges ±1
make this section self-contained, let us review the construction of the index Ikin this
context: Let k be an integer, and consider
2. To
Ik= Tr
?
e2πikR(−1)(k−1)Fe−βH?
. (3.1)
7
Page 9
This expression is an index receiving contributions only from the supersymmetric
vacua. Indeed, non–zero energy states appear in multiplets of R–charges (r,r +
1
2,r −1
2,r) and the factor e2πik R(−1)(k−1)Fis equal to
e2πikR(−1)(k−1)F=
?
±e2πikr
∓e2πikr
bosonic states
fermionic states
(3.2)
so that the total contribution of each non–trivial supermultiplet is zero. (The same
conclusion remains true even in presence of central charges in the supersymmetric
algebra).
Then
Ik=
?
vacua
(−1)(k−1)Fe2πikr. (3.3)
As in the last section we consider a LG model with superpotential W(Xi) which is
quasi–homogeneous in the chiral superfields Xiwith weights qi, that is, W(λqiXi) =
λW(Xi), with qi> 0.
The index Ikmay be represented by a path–integral with the boundary conditions
Xi(β) = e2πikqiXi(0)
ψi(β) = e2πikqiψi(0),
(3.4)
(3.5)
under which the superpotential is periodic
W(Xi(β)) = W(e2πikqiXi(0)) = e2πikW(Xi(0)) = W(Xi(0)).(3.6)
Using the periodicity of W, we may rewrite the action in the form
β
?
0
dt
?
˙Xi+ e−iα∂iW
??
˙X∗
i+ eiα∂iW
?
+ fermions,(3.7)
since the difference with the usual action is
2Re[eiα(W(β) − W(0))] = 0. (3.8)
8
Page 10
We may also rewrite the fields as
Xi(t) = e2πikqit/βYi(t)
ψi(t) = e2πikqit/βχi(t)
(3.9)
(3.10)
where Yi(t) and χi(t) are strictly periodic. In the new variables, the bosonic action
becomes
β
?
0
i
?
???˙Yi+2πikqi
β
Yi+ e−i(α+2πkt/β)∂iW(Yi)
???
2
dt(3.11)
and the fermionic part
β
?
0
dt
?
˜ χ¯i(dtχi+2πikqi
β
χi) + ˜ χi(dtχ¯i−2πikqi
β
χ¯i)+
+ ei(α+2πkt/β)(∂i∂jW(Y ))˜ χ¯iχ¯j+ e−i(α+2πkt/β)(∂¯i∂¯jW(¯Y ))˜ χiχj
?
.
(3.12)
Even though we were motivated to formulate the above path-integral starting
from the conformal case, where W is quasi-homogeneous, the path-integral we have
ended up in this formulation makes sense even when W is deformed by relevant
terms away from the quasi-homogeneous limit. We thus consider the above action
for arbitrary deformed W4.
The resulting path integral is an invariant index. This follows from the fact that
it has a supersymmetry, albeit not of the standard kind5. Rather, our path integral
is invariant under a generalized version of the Parisi–Sourlas supersymmetry [10–13].
The extension of the Parisi-Sourlas techniques to a time-dependent situation, which is
what we need for the present work, is novel. Let us briefly review how Parisi-Sourlas
supersymmetry works in the usual setting.
4Rewriting this action in terms of Xi,ψigives the usual LG Lagrangian with two differences: The
superpotential W is now time-dependent, and we have an additional term given by [−?dteiα ∂W
5The system is not invariant under time translations, so the square of a supersymmetric trans-
formation is not a translation in time.
∂t+
c.c.].
9
Page 11
3.2Parisi–Sourlas supersymmetry
Writing
hi=˙Yi+2πikqi
β
Yi+ e−i(α+2πkt/β)∂iW(Yi) (3.13)
the bosonic action (3.11) becomes simply
SB=
β
?
0
?
i
|hi|2dt, (3.14)
while the fermionic action is
SF=
β
?
0
?
˜ χj
˜ χ¯j
?
δh¯j
δYi
δhj
δYi
δh¯j
δY¯i
δhj
δY¯i
?
χi
χ¯i
?
dt.(3.15)
A Parisi–Sourlas supersymmetric system is defined by an action of the form
S = SB+ SF
(3.16)
where hi= hi[Yj] is any functional map from the original bosonic fields Yito the
Gaussian fields hi(this map is also known as the Nicolai map [11,14]).
By construction, a general Parisi–Sourlas system with Lagrangian6
L =1
2hihi+ ¯ χiδhj
δYi
χj,(3.17)
is invariant under the tautological supersymmetry
δYi= ¯ χiǫ
δχi= −hiǫ
(3.18)
(3.19)
δ¯ χi= 0,(3.20)
where ǫ is a complex Grassmannian parameter. Here we have written the action in
6For generality, we write the Lagrangian in the real notation corresponding to a general
N = 1 SQM model. If the underlying model has N = 2 susy everything gets complexified as
in eqns.(3.14)(3.15).
10
Page 12
the case of real fields — our case can be recovered from this by viewing the index
of the fields to also label the complex conjugate fields (see §3.3). In the usual time–
independent setting the Lagrangian (3.17) is actually Hermitian; in that case the
model is invariant under a second supersymmetry, namely the Hermitian conjugate
of the above one. For special forms of the functionals hi[Y ] the supersymmetry
enhances further.
In any Parisi–Sourlas system [10–13], the Gaussian integral over the fermions
produces precisely the Jacobian determinant7for the functional change of variables
Yi→ hi, and then the full path integral takes in the new fields the Gaussian form
?
[dhi]exp
?
−1
2
?β
0
?
i
h2
idt
?
. (3.21)
Thus the hi(t) are Gaussian fields with exact correlation functions
?hi(t)hj(t′)? = δijδ(t − t′),(3.22)
also known as “white noise” fields. Then the Nicolai map hi[Yj] = hiis interpreted
as a stochastic differential equation with a white noise source. For instance, the map
in eqn.(3.13) with k = 0 (the corresponding index, I0, being the usual Witten index)
is the standard Langevin equation for a ‘drift potential’ equal to 2Re(eiαW). In
appendix B we shall relate the Fokker–Planck equation associated to such a Langevin
equation to the tt* geometry of the corresponding N = 2 model.
In 1d all supersymmetric LG models are, in particular, Parisi–Sourlas systems.
The same is true in 2d, provided the LG model has N = 2 supersymmetry [12,13].
However, in these dimensions, there are many Parisi–Sourlas supersymmetric systems
which are not equivalent to the standard ones. The models relevant for the present
paper are a special instance of such more general supersymmetric systems.
In a Parisi–Sourlas supersymmetric model, the Witten index ∆ is interpreted [11]
as the degree of the stochastic map
Yi→ hi≡ hi[Yj],(3.23)
7Up to a crucial sign. See discussion below.
11
Page 13
that is, ∆ is the number of the periodic solutions Yi(t) of the equation
hi[Yi(t)] = hi(t),
for a given generic periodic function hi(t). Indeed, ∆ = Tr[(−1)Fexp(−βH)] is
equal to the path–integral with all fields periodic, and hence, after the integration of
the fermions, it is given by the Gaussian integral (3.21). Since the Gaussian integral
(computed over the space of the periodic functions) is 1, the value of the original
path integral is given just by the net number of times that the space of periodic paths
Yi(t) covers, under the map Yi(t) → hi(t), the space of the periodic functions in the
functional hi–space [11], which is what is meant by the degree of the functional map.
Mathematically what this means is that we have a map from the infinite dimensional
space of loops in CNto itself, given by h, and we simply compute the degree of this
map8(3.23).
The degree, being the analog of the Witten index for the present theory, is invari-
ant under the continuous deformations of the superpotential which do not change its
leading behavior at infinity.
3.3Time-dependent supersymmetry
From the above discussion, it is obvious that the path integral of a Parisi–Sourlas sys-
tem is supersymmetric even if the functional hi[Yj] has an explicit time–dependence,
provided this dependence is periodic with the same period β appearing in the bound-
ary conditions for the bosonic/fermionic fields. This applies, in particular, to our
model, defined by eqns.(3.13)(3.14)(3.15) where the fields Yi(t), χj(t) are now strictly
periodic of period β.
Explicitly, the action S = SB+ SF is invariant under the supersymmetry
δYi= χiǫδY ¯i= χ¯iǫ
δ˜ χ¯j= h∗
(3.24)
δ˜ χj= hjǫ
¯jǫ (3.25)
δχj= 0δχ¯j= 0. (3.26)
8In general there may be subtleties [15] in defining the degree of this infinite dimensional map.
However, if the ‘drift prepotential’ W is holomorphic, or if our system is a compact deformation of
such a model, we do not have to worry about such pathologies.
12
Page 14
where hj(resp. h∗
¯j) stands for the rhs of eqn.(3.13) (resp. its complex conjugate).
We are thus led to study this novel time-dependent supersymmetric quantum
mechanical system.
Then our index Ikis the Witten index for the generalized Parisi–Sourlas system
defined by the modified Langevin equation (3.13) or, equivalently, the degree of this
stochastic map. In particular, this implies that Ikis an integer, a property that is
not immediately obvious from its definition (3.1).
3.4The underlying time–dependent TFT
In this paper we have adopted the language of the ‘physical’ theory. However many
of the manipulations in section 4 below could have been done equally well in the
framework of the (time–dependent) ‘topological’ QM theory [16]. The topological
version of the Parisi–Sourlas model (3.17) is given by the Lagrangian
L = Fihi[Y ] + ¯ χiδhj
δYi
χj
(3.27)
where now Fiis an independent (auxiliary) field9. The Lagrangian (3.27) is invariant
under the nilpotent topological supersymmetry
δYi= ¯ χiǫ
δχi= −Fiǫ
δFi= 0(3.28)
δ¯ χi= 0. (3.29)
The functional integral over the auxiliary field Fiproduces a delta–function enforcing
the differential equation hi[Y ] = 0. That is, in the topological theory the stochas-
tic Langevin equation gets replaced by the corresponding deterministic differential
equation obtained by setting the “noise” to zero. Indeed, in the old days [16] this
topological version was seen as a trick to give a path integral representation to the
solutions of classical deterministic systems.
Let O[Y ] be an observable depending on the bosonic fields Yi. Integrating away
9Of course, the auxiliary fields Fimay be introduced also in the ‘physical’ theory to make the
supersymmetry in eqns.(3.24)–(3.26) to be nilpotent off–shell.
13
Page 15
the fermions and the auxiliary field
?O[Y ]?
topologic=
?
[dYj]det
?δhi
?
?
δYj
?
δ
?
hi[Y ]
?
O[Y ] =
=
?
[dhi]
det
δhi
δYj
?
????
???det
δhi
δYj
δ[hi] O?Y [h]?=
?
classical
solutions
±O[Yclas.]. (3.30)
In particular, the path–integral with periodic boundary conditions gives
?
periodic
[dYj]det
?δhi
δYj
?
=
= net #
?
classical periodic solutions of
the differential equation hi= 0
?
≡ ∆,(3.31)
where by the net number of solutions we mean the difference between the num-
ber of positively and negatively oriented solutions. More generally, the transition
amplitudes
?Y(f),t′|Y(i),t?
topological=
Yj(t′)=Y(f)
?
Yj(t)=Y(i)
[dYj]det
?δhi
δYj
?
(3.32)
are given by the net number of classical solutions to the differential equations hi[Y ] =
0 satisfying the corresponding boundary conditions. Some of the manipulations of
section 4 may be easily rephrased in this topological language.
4 Evaluation of the Index
In the previous section we formulated a path–integral representation of the index Ik.
As discussed, its value does not depend on small deformations of the superpotential.
In particular, varying the parameters which flow the theory from UV to the IR limit
is such a deformation.
14
Download full-text