# On Inherited Duality in 𝒩=1 𝑑=4 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

## Appendix

In this appendix we show that the application of our techniques to the $`SU(2)`$ theory with two adjoints reproduces the results of  for $`SO(3)`$ with two triplets.

Consider $`SU(2)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills with gauge coupling $`\tau `$ deformed by $`𝒩=1`$–preserving masses, giving the superpotential

$$W=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{tr}\varphi _1[\varphi _2,\varphi _3]+m^{ij}u_{ij}$$

where classically $`u_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$. Denote the three eigenvalues of $`m^{ij}`$ by $`m_i`$, and define $`uu_{11}`$.

Our complexified flavor rotation trick implies that for $`m_1=0`$, the low-energy effective coupling $`\tau _L`$ on the Coulomb branch of this theory is equal to that of the $`SU(2)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ theory with a fundamental hypermultiplet of mass $`\widehat{m}^2=m_2m_3`$. In , $`\tau _L`$ is given as the modular parameter of the auxiliary torus

$$y^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(xe_i(q)\stackrel{~}{u}+\frac{1}{4}e_i^2(q)m_2m_3\right),$$
(8)   
where

$$\stackrel{~}{u}u+(1/8)e_1(q)m_2m_3,$$
(9)   
$`qe^{2\pi i\tau }`$, and the $`e_i(q)`$ are the usual modular forms associated with the torus, satisfying $`e_1+e_2+e_3=0`$, $`e_1e_2=[\theta _3(\tau )]^4`$, etc., with small-$`q`$ expansions

$`e_1(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+16q+𝒪(q^2),`$ (10)   
$`e_2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}8q^{1/2}8q+𝒪(q^{3/2}),`$ (11)   
$`e_3(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+8q^{1/2}8q+𝒪(q^{3/2}).`$ (12)   
For fixed $`m_2m_3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ the torus is $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ invariant. This follows from the modular properties of the $`e_i`$, which are interchanged with one another under $`SL(2,𝐙)`$. In particular, $`e_1e_2`$ under $`\tau 1/\tau `$, while $`e_2e_3`$ under $`\tau \tau +1`$. Note that with the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ given in Eq. (9), the Coulomb branch coordinate $`u`$ transforms under $`SL(2,𝐙)`$.

There is, however, an ambiguity involved in the definitions of $`u`$ and the masses. The symmetries of the theory permit non-perturbative redefinitions of the form

$$uk_1(q)u+qk_2(q)m_2m_3,k_i(q)=1+𝒪(q).$$
(13)   
and

$$m_i\mathrm{}_i(q)m_i,\mathrm{}_i(q)=1+𝒪(q).$$
(14)   
The reason is that $`u`$ and the bare masses are only defined in the weak coupling ($`q0`$) limit, which the above redefinitions preserve. (More generally, $`u_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$ and $`m^{ij}`$ can suffer such redefinitions, with $`u_{ij}`$ mixing at order $`q`$ with the subdeterminants of $`m^{ij}`$.)

It is convenient to use the above freedom to redefine the masses by

$$m_2m_39e_2(q)e_3(q)m_2m_3,$$
(15)   
which can be checked to be of the form of Eq. (14) using Eq. (10). The virtue of this redefinition is that, when used in Eq. (9), $`u`$ is $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ invariant. This is convenient for keeping manifest $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ invariance in our calculations when we integrate $`u`$ out, as we will do shortly.

We can now recover the results of  for the $`SO(3)`$ theory with two triplets and no superpotential. This is the limit of our theory in which $`m_3\mathrm{}`$, $`q0`$ keeping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_3\sqrt{q}`$ fixed. In  three descriptions of the theory were found, in terms of electric, magnetic, and dyonic states. The electric description has no superpotential; the magnetic (dyonic) description (upon integrating out some massive singlets used in the presentation of ) has superpotential

$$W=\frac{\eta }{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}\underset{j,k}{det}[\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _j\varphi _k)]$$
(16)   
where $`\eta =1`$ $`(1)`$ in the magnetic (dyonic) description.

Now, the $`SU(2)`$ theory with one massless and two massive adjoints has a superpotential which enforces the relation (8), with the substitution of Eq. (15), by way of a Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$

$$W=\lambda \left[y^2\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(xe_r\left[u+\frac{9}{8}e_1e_2e_3m_2m_3\right]+\frac{1}{4}e_r^2m_2m_3\right)\right].$$

Adding a mass for $`\varphi _1`$ takes $`WW+m_1u`$. Upon integrating $`u`$ out, one finds a low energy superpotential with three branches

$$W_{r,L}=m_1u_r(q,\widehat{m})|_{\frac{dW}{du}=0}=\frac{1}{8}m_1m_2m_3[9e_1(q)e_2(q)e_3(q)+2e_r(q)]$$
(17)   
where $`u_r`$ is one of the three values of $`u`$ at which the torus (8) becomes singular. (See also .)

Taking $`m_1m_2=det\stackrel{~}{m}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{m}^{jk}`$ for $`j,k=1,2`$ is the mass matrix for $`\varphi _{1,2}`$, and integrating the two adjoint fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ back in, as in , gives

$$W_r=\left[W_{r,L}\stackrel{~}{m}^{jk}u_{jk}\right]_{\frac{dW}{d\stackrel{~}{m}}=0}=\frac{2}{m_3[9e_1e_2e_3+2e_r]}\underset{j,k=1,2}{det}u_{jk}$$

The $`q0`$, $`m_3\mathrm{}`$ limit, for which $`u_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$, gives

$`W_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\underset{j,k}{det}u_{jk}}{m_3e_1(9e_2e_3+2)}}0,`$ (18)   
$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\underset{j,k}{det}u_{jk}}{m_3e_2(9e_1e_3+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j,k}{det}[\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _j\varphi _k)]}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}},`$ (19)   
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\underset{j,k}{det}u_{jk}}{m_3e_3(9e_1e_2+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j,k}{det}[\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _j\varphi _k)]}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}},`$ (20)   
matching to the electric, magnetic, and dyonic superpotentials of Eq. (16), respectively. In this way we see explicity how the $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ duality transformations $`\tau \frac{1}{\tau }`$ and $`\tau \tau +1`$ correspond to electric-magnetic duality and magnetic-dyonic duality. A $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ subgroup of $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ leaves the descriptions invariant, while $`SL(2,𝐙)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2S_3`$ permutes the three descriptions. These facts were already understood in  from the connection of the theory with the duality of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory; here we understand it as following from the $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ duality of the $`𝒩=1`$ theory itself. Furthermore, it is easy to check that redefining the fields and parameters by putting in arbitrary $`g(q)`$, $`k_i(q)`$, and $`\mathrm{}_i(q)`$ \[see Eqs. (4), (13), and (14)\] has no effect on the above calculation.

One could also attempt to start from the low energy superpotentials in Eq. (17) and integrate back in all three $`\varphi _j`$; we then expect to recover the $`𝒩=4`$ theory with coupling $`q`$. However, this is more difficult than in the above two-flavor case because we must introduce not only $`\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$ but also the the gauge invariant non-quadratic operator $`det(\varphi )`$. (Here $`\varphi `$ is a $`3\times 3`$ matrix in flavor and color.) So we instead consider going in the other direction, attempting to recover Eq. (16) in the theory with two adjoints by integrating massive $`\varphi _3`$ out of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory.

Consider the theory with three adjoints, superpotential $`W=\sqrt{2}\beta det\varphi `$, and coupling $`q`$. For $`\beta =1`$ the theory is conformal. For $`\beta 1`$ the theory has only $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, but flows until it reaches the IR attractive $`𝒩=4`$ fixed point where the physical (nonholomorphic) coupling $`\beta =1`$. As discussed in , the quantity $`t\beta ^4q`$ is invariant under this RG flow (more generally, $`\beta ^{2C_2(G)}q`$ is invariant), and the low-energy $`𝒩=4`$ conformal theory has coupling $`t`$. The theory is nowhere weakly coupled unless $`t1`$.

Adding $`\frac{1}{2}m_3u_{33}`$ to the superpotential and integrating out $`\varphi _3`$, we find that symmetries ensure that the low-energy superpotential is

$$W_L=\frac{\beta ^2s(t)}{m_3}\underset{i,j=1,2}{det}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j).$$
(21)   
where $`s(t)`$ is an unknown function. (The symmetries ensure that in this case $`u_{ij}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$ are proportional, differing by another function of $`t`$.) For $`\beta `$ fixed and $`q0`$, the theory is weakly coupled and we may integrate out $`\varphi _3`$ classically, which reveals that $`s(t=0)=1`$. At finite $`t`$, $`s(t)`$ is undetermined. However, we know the $`\beta =1,q0`$ theory is $`SL(2,𝐙)`$–dual to $`\beta =1,q1`$ and $`\beta =1,qe^{2\pi i}`$, which are the magnetic and dyonic descriptions. In these descriptions, where $`t1`$, the classical analysis is not valid, and $`s(t)`$ may differ from 1. We now determine $`s(1)`$ in the scheme used in .

Taking $`\beta =1`$, $`q0`$, $`m_3\mathrm{}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m_3q^{1/2}`$ held fixed, Eq. (21) obviously yields the expected electric low-energy superpotential, Eq. (16) with $`\eta =0`$. A magnetic description of the same theory should be obtained by studying the theory with $`\beta =1`$ and $`q1`$, but it is convenient instead to study a theory with the same infrared physics, namely one with $`\beta =q^{1/4}`$ and $`q0`$; both theories have $`t=1`$. The latter theory can be defined by holding the strong coupling scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_3q^{1/2}`$ fixed, as in . From Eq. (21) this limit has superpotential

$$W_L=\frac{s(1)}{m_3q^{1/2}}\underset{i,j=1,2}{det}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)$$

which agrees with Eq. (16) for $`\eta =1`$ provided $`s(1)=1/8`$. The dyonic description is given by taking $`qe^{2\pi i}`$, which changes the sign of the superpotential in agreement with Eq. (16).