HL ≠ HS
There’s a nice new paper by Kang et al, who point out something about class-S theories that should be well-known, but isn’t.
In the (untwisted) theories of class-S, the Hall-Littlewood index, at genus-0, coincides with the Hilbert Series of the Higgs branch. The Hilbert series counts the operators that parametrize the Higgs branch (each contributes to the index). The Hall-Littlewood index also includes contributions from operators (which contribute to the index). But, for the untwisted theories of class-S, there is a folk-theorem that there are no operators at genus-0, and so the Hilbert series and Hall-Littlewood index agree.
For genus , the gauge symmetry1 cannot be completely Higgsed on the Higgs branch of the theory. For the theory of type , there’s a unbroken at a generic point on the Higgs branch2. Correspondingly, the SCFT contains multiplets which, when you move out onto the Higgs branch and flow to the IR, flow to the multiplets3 of the free theory.
What Kang et al point out is that the same is true at genus-0, when you include enough -twisted punctures. They do this by explicitly calculating the Hall-Littlewood index in a series of examples.
But it’s nice to have a class of examples where that hard work is unnecessary.
Consider the theory. The punctures in the -twisted sector are labeled by nilpotent orbits in . The twisted full puncture is and the twisted simple puncture is . Consider a 4-punctured sphere with 2 twisted full punctures and two twisted simple punctures. The manifest symmetry is enhanced to . In a certain S-duality frame, this is a Lagrangian field theory: with hypermultiplets in the vector representation. That matter content is insufficient to Higgs the completely. At a generic point of the Higgs branch, there’s an unbroken.
We can construct the corresponding operator, where . Organize the scalars in the hypermultiplets into complex scalars , where is an vector index, and span the -dimensional defining representation of . Let be the complex scalar in the adjoint of . Then the superconformal primary of the multiplet with is
(1)
which we see is in the traceless, completely anti-symmetric rank- tensor representation of (the representation with Dynkin labels ). This has and contributes to the Hall-Littlewood index.
The above statement takes a little bit of work. At zero gauge coupling, the formula obviously holds. We need to worry that, at finite gauge coupling this operator recombines with other operators to form a long superconformal multiplet (whose conformal dimension is not fixed). The relevant recombination formula is
where we denote a long multiplet by . One can check that the free theory has no candidate operator transforming in the appropriate representation of the flavour symmetry. So (1) necessarily remains in a short superconformal multiplet and is independent of the gauge coupling.
Similarly, you can replace one of the twisted full punctures with . The resulting SCFT has a Lagrangian description
as SO(2N−1)+(2N−3)(V)+(N−1)(1)SO(2N-1)+(2N-3)(V) + (N-1)(1). Again, this matter content leaves an unbroken U(1)U(1) at a generic point on the Higgs branch. The D R(0,0)D_{R(0,0)} multiplet (for R=(2N−3)/2R=(2N-3)/2) in the traceless rank-(2N−3)(2N-3) completely anti-symmetric tensor representation of Sp(2N−3)Sp(2N-3), constructed by the analogue of (1), has Δ=2N−2\Delta=2N-2 and contributes −τ 2N−1χ(0,…,0,1)-\tau^{2N-1}\chi(0,\dots,0,1) to the Hall-Littlewood index.
These examples were rather special, in that they had an S-duality frame in which they were Lagrangian field theories. Generically that won’t be the case. But there’s no reason to expect that theories, with an S-duality frame in which they are Lagrangian, should be distinguished in this regard. And, indeed, Kang et al find that the presence of D R(0,0)D_{R(0,0)} operators in the spectrum persists in examples with no Lagrangian field theory realization.
Posted by distler at July 15, 2022 12:34 PM
TrackBack URL for this Entry: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/3405