IASSNS–HEP–00/56

PUPT-1944

Supergravity and a Confining Gauge Theory:

Duality Cascades
and
χSB–Resolution of Naked Singularities
arXiv:hep-th/0007191v4 11 Sep 2000

Igor R. Klebanova and Matthew J. Strasslerb

a Department of Physics, Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
b School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Studies,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA

October 18, 2007

Abstract

We revisit the singular IIB supergravity solution describing M fractional 3-

branes on the conifold [hep-th/0002159]. Its 5-form flux decreases, which we ex-
plain by showing that the relevant N = 1 SUSY SU (N +M )×SU (N ) gauge the-
ory undergoes repeated Seiberg-duality transformations in which N → N − M .
Far in the IR the gauge theory confines; its chiral symmetry breaking removes
the singularity of hep-th/0002159 by deforming the conifold. We propose a
non-singular pure-supergravity background dual to the field theory on all scales,
with small curvature everywhere if the ‘t Hooft coupling gs M is large. In the
UV it approaches that of hep-th/0002159, incorporating the logarithmic flow
of couplings. In the IR the deformation of the conifold gives a geometrical re-
alization of chiral symmetry breaking and confinement. We suggest that pure
N = 1 Yang-Mills may be dual to strings propagating at small gs M on a warped
deformed conifold. We note also that the standard model itself may lie at the
base of a duality cascade.
1 Introduction
A fruitful extension of the basic AdS/CFT correspondence [1, 2, 3] stems from study-
ing branes at conical singularities [4, 5, 6, 7]. Consider, for instance, a stack of
D3-branes placed at the apex of a Ricci-flat 6-d cone Y6 whose base is a 5-d Einstein
manifold X5 . Comparing the metric with the D-brane description leads one to con-
jecture that type IIB string theory on AdS5 × X5 is dual to the low-energy limit of
the world volume theory on the D3-branes at the singularity.
A useful example of this correspondence has been to study D3-branes on the coni-
fold [6]. When the branes are placed at the singularity, the resulting N = 1 supercon-
formal field theory has gauge group SU(N) × SU(N). It contains chiral superfields
A1 , A2 transforming as (N, N) and superfields B1 , B2 transforming as (N, N), with
superpotential W = λǫij ǫkl TrAi Bk Aj Bl . The two gauge couplings do not flow, and
indeed can be varied continuously without ruining conformal invariance.
For many singular spaces Y6 there are also fractional D3-branes which can exist
only within the singularity [8, 9, 10, 11]. These fractional D3-branes are D5-branes
wrapped over (collapsed) 2-cycles at the singularity. In the case of the conifold, the
singularity is a point. The addition of M fractional branes at the singular point
changes the gauge group to SU(N + M) × SU(N); the four chiral superfields remain,
now in the representation (N + M, N) and its conjugate, as does the superpotential
[10, 11]. The theory is no longer conformal. Instead, the relative gauge coupling
g1−2 −g2−2 runs logarithmically, as pointed out in [11], where the supergravity equations
corresponding to this situation were solved to leading order in M/N. In [12] this
solution was completed to all orders; the conifold suffers logarithmic warping, and
the relative gauge coupling runs logarithmically at all scales. The D3-brane charge,
i.e. the 5-form flux, decreases logarithmically as well. However, the logarithm in
the solution is not cut off at small radius; the D3-brane charge eventually becomes
negative and the metric becomes singular.
In [12] it was conjectured that this solution corresponds to a flow in which the
gauge group factors repeatedly drop in size by M units, until finally the gauge groups
are perhaps SU(2M) × SU(M) or simply SU(M). It was further suggested that the
strong dynamics of this gauge theory would resolve the naked singularity in the metric.
Here, we show that this conjecture is correct. The flow is in fact an infinite series
of Seiberg duality transformations — a “duality cascade” — in which the number of
colors repeatedly drops by M units. Once the number of colors in the smaller gauge
group is fewer than M, non-perturbative effects become essential. We will show that
these gauge theories have an exact anomaly-free Z2M R-symmetry, which is broken

1
dynamically, as in pure N = 1 Yang-Mills theory, to Z2 . In the supergravity, this
occurs through the deformation of the conifold.1 In short, the resolution of the naked
singularity found in [12] occurs through the chiral symmetry breaking of the gauge
theory. The resulting space, a warped deformed conifold, is completely nonsingular
and without a horizon, leading to confinement. If the low-energy gauge theory has
fundamental matter, a horizon appears and leads to screening.

2 Branes and Fractional Branes on the Conifold

2.1 The Conifold
The conifold is described by the following equation in C4 :
4
zn2 = 0 .
X
(1)
n=1

Equivalently, using zij = √12 n σijn zn , where σ n are the Pauli matrices for n = 1, 2, 3
P

and σ 4 is i times the unit matrix, it may be written as

det zij = 0 . (2)

i,j

This is a cone whose base is a coset space T 11 = (SU(2)×SU(2))/U(1), with topology

S 2 × S 3 and symmetry group SU(2) × SU(2) × U(1). As discussed in [10], fractional
D3 branes at the singularity zn = 0 of the conifold are simply D5-branes which are
wrapped on the S 2 of T 11 . The Einstein metric of T 11 may be written down explicitly
[14]:
2 2 2 
1 1X
 
2
dθi2 + sin2 θi dφ2i .
X
dsT 11 = dψ + cos θi dφi + (3)
9 i=1 6 i=1
It will be useful to employ the following basis of 1-forms on the compact space [15]:

e1 − e3 e2 − e4
g1 = √ , g2 = √ ,
2 2
e1 + e3 e2 + e4
g3 = √ , g4 = √ ,
2 2
g 5 = e5 , (4)
1
For a five-dimensional supergravity approach to chiral symmetry breaking, see [13].

2
where

e1 ≡ − sin θ1 dφ1 , e2 ≡ dθ1 ,

e3 ≡ cos ψ sin θ2 dφ2 − sin ψdθ2 ,
e4 ≡ sin ψ sin θ2 dφ2 + cos ψdθ2 ,
e5 ≡ dψ + cos θ1 dφ1 + cos θ2 dφ2 . (5)

In terms of this basis, the Einstein metric on T 11 assumes the form

4
1 5 2 1X
ds2T 11 = (g ) + (g i)2 , (6)
9 6 i=1

and the metric on the conifold is

ds26 = dr 2 + r 2 ds2T 11 . (7)

2.2 The Gauge Theory

If we place N D3-branes and M fractional D3-branes on the conifold, we obtain an
SU(N + M) × SU(N) gauge group. The two gauge group factors have holomor-
phic scales Λ1 and Λ̃1 . The matter consists of two chiral superfields A1 , A2 in the
(N + M, N) representation and two fields B1 , B2 in the (N + M, N) representation.
The superpotential of the model is

W = λ1 tr (Ai Bj Ak Bℓ )ǫik ǫjℓ . (8)

The model has a SU(2) × SU(2) × U(1) global symmetry; the first (second) factor
rotates the flavor index of the Ai (Bi ), while the “baryon” U(1) sends Ai → Ai eiα ,
Bi → Bi e−iα .2 There are also two spurious U(1) transformations, one an R-symmetry
and one a simple axial symmetry, under which λ1 , Λ1 and Λ̃1 are generally not invari-
ant. The charges of the matter and the couplings under the symmetries (excepting
the SU(2) flavor symmetries) are given in Table 1. Although U(1)A and U(1)R are
anomalous, there is a discrete Z2M R-symmetry under which the theory is invariant.
In particular, if we let

[Ai , Bj ] → [Ai , Bj ]e2πin/4M , n = 1, 2, . . . , 2M , (9)

and rotate the gluinos by e2πin/2M , then the superpotential rotates by e2πin/M with
λ1 , Λ1 and Λ̃1 unchanged.
2
The question of whether this U (1) is actually gauged is subtle. We believe that it is global, and
arguments for this were given in [6, 7, 16].

3
 SU(N+ ) SU(N) SU(2) SU(2) U(1)B U(1)A U(1)R

1 1 1
A1 , A2 N+ N 2 1 2N+ N 2N+ N 2

B1 , B2 N+ N 1 2 − 2N1+ N 1
2N+ N
1
2

3N+ −2N 2
Λ1 0 N+
2M

3N −2N+ 2
Λ̃1 0 N
−2M

λ1 0 − N+2 N 0

Table 1. Quantum numbers in the SU(N + M) × SU(N) model; we have written

N+ ≡ N + M for concision.

The classical field theory is well aware that it represents branes moving on a
conifold [6, 7]. Let us consider the case where the Ai and Bk have diagonal expectation
(1) (N ) (1) (N )
values, hAi i = diag(ai , · · · , ai ), hBi i = diag(bi , · · · , bi ). The F-term equations
for a supersymmetric vacuum

B1 Ai B2 − B2 Ai B1 = 0 , A1 Bk A2 − A2 Bk A1 = 0 (10)
(r)
are automatically satisfied in this case, while the D-term equations require |a1 |2 +
(r) (r) (r)
|a2 |2 − |b1 |2 − |b2 |2 = 0. Along with the phases removed by the maximum abelian
subgroup of the gauge theory, the D-terms leave only 3N independent complex vari-
(r) (r) (r)
ables. Define nik = ai bk ; then the D-term and gauge invariance conditions are
(r)
satisfied by using the nik as coordinates. These 4N complex coordinates satisfy the
condition, for each r,
(r)
det nik = 0 . (11)
i,k

(r)
This is the same as equation (2). Thus, for each r = 1, · · · , N, the coordinates n11 ,
(r) (r) (r)
n12 , n21 , n22 , are naturally thought of as the position of a D3-brane moving on a
conifold.
There are various combinations of the fields and parameters which are invariant

4
under the global symmetries. One is
3N −2(N +M )
Λ̃1
I1 ∼ λ3M
1 3(N +M )−2N
[tr (Ai Bj Ak Bℓ ǫik ǫjℓ )]2M (12)
Λ1
In addition, there are simple invariants such as

(1) tr [Ai Bj ]tr[Ak Bℓ ]ǫik ǫjℓ

R1 = ; (13)
tr (Ai Bj Ak Bℓ ǫik ǫjℓ )

there are many other similar invariants, in each of which the same number of A
and B fields appear in numerator and denominator but with color and flavor indices
contracted differently. Finally there is a constant invariant
(N +M )+N 3(N +M )−2N 3N −2(N +M )
J1 ≡ λ1 Λ1 Λ̃1 (14)

which plays the role of a dimensionless complex coupling analogous to τ in N = 4

Yang-Mills.
The superpotential of the model will be renormalized and takes the general form
(s)
W = λ1 tr (Ai Bj Ak Bℓ )ǫik ǫjℓ F1 (I1 , J1 , R1 ) (15)

where F1 is a function which we will not fully determine.

2.3 The conformal case: M = 0

If there are no fractional D3-branes, then the U(1)R is anomaly-free, and the theory
is superconformal (or if the couplings g1 , g2 , λ are chosen completely arbitrarily, it will
flow until it becomes conformal in the infrared.) There are two dimensionless global
invariants λ2 Λ1 Λ̃1 , the overall coupling τ1 +τ2 , and Λ̃1 /Λ1 , the relative coupling τ1 −τ2 ,
which are built purely from the parameters and may be chosen arbitrarily. Thus
[17, 18, 6] there are two exactly marginal operators in the theory which preserve the
continuous global symmetries. (There are other marginal operators which partially
preserve these symmetries.) This was the case studied in [6], where it was shown the
supergravity dual of this field theory is simply AdS5 × T 11 .
In order to match the two couplings to the moduli of the type IIB theory on
AdS5 × T 11 , one notes that the integrals over the S 2 of T 11 of the NS-NS and R-R
2-form potentials, B2 and C2 , are moduli. In particular, the two gauge couplings are
determined as follows [6, 7]:
1 1
2
+ 2 ∼ e−φ , (16)
g1 g2

5
 1 1
Z  
2
− 2 ∼ e−φ B2 − 1/2 , (17)
g1 g2 S2

where ( S 2 B2 ) is normalized in such a way that its period is equal to 1.3 The matching
R

between the moduli is one of the simplest checks of the duality. It is further possible
to build a detailed correspondence between various gauge invariant operators in the
SU(N) × SU(N) gauge theory and modes of the type IIB theory on AdS5 × T 11
[6, 19, 20].
In [21, 22], it was noted that there exists a type IIA construction [23] which is
T-dual to N D3-branes at the conifold. It involves two NS5-branes: one oriented in
the (12345) plane, and the other in the (12389) plane. The coordinate x6 is com-
pactified on a circle of circumference l6 , and there are N (1236) D4-branes wrapped
around the circle. If the NS5-branes were parallel, then the low-energy field theory
would be the N = 2 supersymmetric SU(N) × SU(N) gauge theory with bifunda-
mental matter (this type IIA configuration is T-dual to N D3-branes at the N = 2
Z2 orbifold singularity). Turning on equal and opposite masses for the two adjoint
chiral superfields corresponds to rotating one of the NS5-branes. Under this relevant
deformation the Z2 orbifold field theory flows to the N = 1 supersymmetric conifold
field theory [6, 22].
In terms of the type IIA brane construction, the two gauge couplings are deter-
mined by the positions of the NS5-branes along the x6 circle. If one of the NS5-branes
is located at x6 = 0 and the other at x6 = a, then [22]

1 l6 − a 1 a
= , = . (18)
g12 gs g22 gs
The couplings are equal when the NS5-branes are located diametrically opposite each
R
other (in the type IIB language this corresponds to S 2 B2 being equal to half of
its period). As the NS5-branes approach each other, one of the couplings becomes
strong. This simple geometrical picture will be useful for analyzing the RG flows in
the following sections.

2.4 The RG cascade: M > 0

Now let us consider the effect of adding M fractional D3-branes, which as shown in
[10] corresponds to wrapping M D5-branes over the S 2 of T 11 . The D5-branes serve
as sources of the magnetic RR 3-form flux through the S 3 of T 11 . Therefore, the
3
These equations are crucial for relating the SUGRA background to the field theory beta functions
when the theory is generalized to SU (N + M ) × SU (N ) [11, 12].

6
supergravity dual of this field theory involves M units of the 3-form flux, in addition
to N units of the 5-form flux:
Z Z
F3 = M , F5 = N . (19)
S3 T 11

In the SUGRA description the 3-form flux is the source of conformal symmetry break-
ing. Indeed, now B2 cannot be kept constant and acquires a radial dependence [11]:
Z
B2 ∼ Meφ ln(r/r0 ) , (20)
S2

while the dilaton stays constant at least to linear order in M. Since the AdS5 radial
coordinate r is dual to the RG scale [1, 2, 3], (17) implies a logarithmic running of
1
g12
− g12 in the SU(N + M) × SU(N) gauge theory. This is in accord with the exact
2
β-functions:
d 8π 2
dlog(Λ/µ) g12
∼ 3(N + M) − 2N(1 − γ) , (21)
d 8π 2
dlog(Λ/µ) g22
∼ 3N − 2(N + M)(1 − γ) , (22)

where γ is the anomalous dimension of operators TrAi Bj . A priori, the conformal

invariance of the field theory for M = 0 requires that γ = − 21 + O(M/N). Taking
the difference of the two equations in (21) we then find

8π 2 8π 2
− 2 ∼ M ln(Λ/µ)[3 + 2(1 − γ)] , (23)
g12 g2
in agreement with (20) found on the SUGRA side. The constancy of the dilaton φ to
order M is consistent with the field theory only if γ = − 12 + O[(M/N)2 ]. Fortunately,
the field theory in Table 1 has an obvious symmetry M → −M, N → N + M, which
to leading order in M/N is M → −M with N fixed. Clearly γ is even under this
symmetry and so cannot depend on M/N at first order.
The SUGRA analysis of [11] was carried out to the linear order in M/N. Luckily,
it is possible to construct an exact solution taking into account the back-reaction of
H3 and F3 on other fields [12]. In this solution eφ = gs is exactly constant, which
translates into the vanishing of the β-function for g12 + g12 in the dual field theory. As
1 2
in [11], 4
F3 = Mω3 , B2 = 3gs Mω2 ln(r/r0 ) , (24)
1
H3 = dB2 = 3gs M dr ∧ ω2 , (25)
r
4
We are not keeping track of the overall factor multiplying M , which is determined by the flux
quantization.

7
where
1 1
ω2 = (g 1 ∧ g 2 + g 3 ∧ g 4) = (sin θ1 dθ1 ∧ dφ1 − sin θ2 dθ2 ∧ dφ2 ) , (26)
2 2
1
ω3 = g 5 ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 2 + g 3 ∧ g 4 ) . (27)
2
The relative factor of 3 in (24), which is related to the coefficients in the metric (3),
appears to be related to the factor of 3 in the N = 1 beta function (23). This gives
the correct value of beta function from a purely geometrical point of view.
Both ω2 and ω3 are closed. Note also that

gs ⋆6 F3 = −H3 , gs F3 = ⋆6 H3 , (28)

where ⋆6 is the Hodge dual with respect to the metric ds26 . Thus, the complex 3-form
G3 satisfies the self-duality condition
i
⋆6 G3 = iG3 , G3 = F3 + H3 . (29)
gs

This is consistent with G3 being either a (0, 3) form or a (2, 1) form on the conifold.
The Calabi-Yau form carries U(1)R charge equal to 2, while G3 does not transform
under the U(1)R . Hence, the only consistent possibility appears to be that G3 is a
harmonic (2, 1) form.5
It follows from (28) that
gs2F32 = H32 , (30)
which implies that the dilaton is constant, φ = 0. Since F3µνλ H3µνλ = 0, the RR scalar
vanishes as well. The 10-d metric is

ds210 = h−1/2 (r)dxn dxn + h1/2 (r)(dr 2 + r 2 ds2T 11 ) , (31)

where
gs N + a(gs M)2 ln(r/r0 ) + a(gs M)2 /4
h(r) = b0 + 4π (32)
r4
and a is a constant of order 1. Note that, for the ansatz (31), the solution for h may
be determined from the trace of the Einstein equation:6

h−3/2 ∇26 h ∼ gs2F32 + H32 = 2gs2F32 , (33)

5
We are grateful to S. Gubser and E. Witten for discussions on this issue.
6
We are grateful to A. Tseytlin for explaining this to us.

8
where ∇26 is the Laplacian on the conifold. Since F32 ∼ M 2 r −6 h−3/2 , the solution (32)
follows directly.
An important feature of this background, which is not visible to linear order in
M, is that F5 acquires a radial dependence [12]. This is because

F5 = dC4 + B2 ∧ F3 , (34)

and ω2 ∧ ω3 ∼ vol(T 11 ). Thus, we may write

F5 = F5 + ∗F5 , F5 = K(r)vol(T11 ) , (35)

and
K(r) = N + ags M 2 ln(r/r0 ) . (36)
The novel phenomenon in this solution is that the 5-form flux present at the UV scale
r = r0 may completely disappear by the time we reach a scale r = r̃ where K(r̃) = 0.
R
This is related to the fact that the flux S 2 B2 is not a periodic variable in the SUGRA
solution: as this flux goes through a period, K(r) → K(r) − M which has the effect
of decreasing the 5-form flux by M units. We will shortly relate this decrease, which
we refer to for now as the “RG cascade”, to Seiberg duality.
In order to eliminate the asymptotically flat region for large r we use the well-
known device of setting b0 = 0 (this corresponds to choosing the special solution of
sec. 5 in [12]). In terms of the scale r̃, we then have
4πgs
K(r) = ags M 2 ln(r/r̃) , h(r) = 4
[K(r) + ags M 2 /4] (37)
r
This solution has a naked singularity at r = rs where h(rs ) = 0. Writing
L4
h(r) = ln(r/rs ) , L2 ∼ gs M , (38)
r4
we then have a purely logarithmic RG cascade:
q
r2 L2 ln(r/rs ) q
ds2 = q dxn dxn + dr 2 + L2 ln(r/rs )ds2T 11 . (39)
L2 ln(r/rs ) r2

This is essentially the metric of sec. 5 in [12] expressed in terms of a different radial
coordinate. Since T 11 expands slowly toward large r, the curvatures decrease there
so that corrections to the SUGRA are negligible. Therefore, there is no obstacle
for using this solution as r → ∞ where the 5-form flux diverges. The field theory
explanation of the divergence is that the RG cascade goes on forever as the scale is
increased, generating bigger and bigger N in the UV.

9
 As the theory flows to the IR, the cascade must stop, however, because negative
N is physically nonsensical. Thus, we should not be able to continue the solution
√
(39) to r < r̃ where K(r) is negative. The radius of T 11 at r = r̃ is of order gs M .
The gauge group at this scale is essentially SU(M), and it is satisfying to see the
appearance of gs M, which is the ‘t Hooft coupling. As usual, if the ‘t Hooft coupling
is large then the SUGRA solution has small curvatures. Nevertheless, the fact that
the solution of [12] is singular tells us that it has to be modified, at least in the IR.
After understanding the RG cascade, we will study the dynamics of the corresponding
field theory, and will see how this singularity is removed.

3 The N = 1 RG Cascade is a Duality Cascade

We now trace the jumps in the rank of the gauge group to a well-known phenomenon
in the dual N = 1 field theory, namely, Seiberg duality [24]. The essential observation
is that 1/g12 and 1/g22 flow in opposite directions and, according to (21), there is a scale
where the SU(N + M) coupling, g1 , diverges. To continue past this infinite coupling,
we perform a N = 1 duality transformation on this gauge group factor. The SU(N +
M) gauge factor has 2N flavors in the fundamental representation. Under a Seiberg
duality transformation, this becomes an SU(2N − [N + M]) = SU(N − M) gauge
group with 2N flavors, which we may call ai and bi , along with “meson” bilinears
Mij = Ai Bj . The fields ai and bi are fundamentals and antifundamentals of SU(N),
while the mesons are in the adjoint-plus-singlet of SU(N). The superpotential after
the transformation
(s) 1
W = λ1 tr Mij Mkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ F1 (I1 , J1 , R1 ) + tr Mij ai bj , (40)
µ
where µ is the matching scale for the duality transformation [17], shows the Mij are
actually massive. We may integrate them out
(s) 1
0 = 2λ1 Mkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ F1 (I1 , J1 , R1 ) − tr ai bj (41)
µ
leaving a superpotential
(s)
W = λ2 tr ai bj ak bℓ ǫik ǫjℓ F2 (I2 , J2 , R2 ) (42)
Here F2 , λ2 , I2 , J2 and R2 are defined similarly as in the original theory. Thus we
obtain an SU(N) × SU(N − M) theory which resembles closely the theory we started
with. 7
7
The fact that the quartic superpotential is left roughly invariant by the duality transformation
in theories of this type has long been considered of interest. It was first noted in [17], where it was

10
 Let us study the matching more carefully. We define, for reasons which will
become clear in a moment, the strong coupling scale of the SU(N − M) factor to be
Λ̃2 . The strong coupling scale of the SU(N) factor is not the same as it was before
the duality (since the number of flavors in the SU(N) gauge group has changed) and
its old scale Λ̃1 must be replaced with a new strong coupling scale Λ2 . The matching
conditions relating these scales are of the form
1
λ2 ∝ (43)
µ2 λ 1

and
3(N +M )−2N 3(N −M )−2N 3N −2(N +M ) −M 3N −2(N −M )
Λ1 Λ̃2 ∝ µ2N ∝ λM
1 Λ̃1 λ2 Λ 2 . (44)
It is easy to check that
I2 ∝ I1 and J2 ∝ 1/J1 . (45)
(Note that the inversion of J is a sign of electric-magnetic duality, the generalization
of τ → −1/τ .) Matching of baryon numbers in the Seiberg duality assures that
(s)
(A)(N +M ) ∼ (a)(N −M ) . We will not attempt to match the Ri .
With these matchings, the dual theory has the global charges given in Table 2.
Remarkably, this theory has the same form as the previous one with N → N −
M. Thus the renormalization group flow is self-similar: the next step is that the
SU(N) gauge group now becomes strongly coupled, and under a Seiberg duality
transformation the full gauge group becomes SU(N − M) × SU(N − 2M), and so
forth.

SU(N) SU(N− ) SU(2) SU(2) U(1)B U(1)A U(1)R

1 1 1
a1 , a2 N N− 2 1 2N N− 2N N− 2

b1 , b2 N N− 1 2 − 2N1N− 1
2N N−
1
2

3N −2N− 2
Λ2 0 N
2M

3N− −2N 2
Λ̃2 0 N−
−2M

2
λ2 0 − NN −
0

used to study duality in SO(3) gauge theories, and in [18], where its wider significance in Seiberg
duality transformations was established.

11
 Table 2. Quantum numbers of the dual SU(N) × SU(N − M) theory; we have
written N− = N − M for concision.

This flow will stop, of course, at or before the point where N − kM becomes zero
or negative. Note that the Seiberg duality transformation is the same in both the
so-called conformal window (3Nc > Nf > 32 Nc ) and in the free magnetic phase ( 32 ≥
Nf > Nc +1). Even for Nf = Nc +1 the effect on the superpotential described in [25] is
not essential, since it is accounted for in the function F . The first significant changes
occur when Nf = Nc , since for Nf ≤ Nc the classical moduli space is drastically
modified. Thus, the RG flow just described proceeds step by step until the gauge
group has the form SU(M + p) × SU(p), where 0 < p ≤ M. At this point we should
do a more careful analysis, which we will carry out in the next section.
It is instructive to consider the type IIA brane picture of the duality cascade of
SU(N + M) × SU(N) theories.8 To implement such theories we have to add M
D4-branes stretched only one way between the D4-branes, rather than all around the
circle [26, 23, 27, 32]. Such D4-branes are T-duals of the “fractional” branes which
are the D5-branes wrapped over the 2-cycle of T 11 . These new D4-branes violate
the balance of forces on the NS5-branes, and the latter undergo logarithmic bending
[27], which is the RG flow in this picture. Although the NS5 and NS5’ brane bend
along the circular x6 direction, this does not force them to intersect, because they
are oriented in perpendicular directions. However, their x6 positions become equal
somewhere away from the fractional branes, and it seems natural to interpret this
as a divergence of the SU(N + M) coupling. Under such circumstances it is natural
to move the NS branes so as to eliminate this divergence, moving one of them once
around the x6 circle. When the NS and NS’ brane cross during this motion, the
N + M fractional D4-branes shrink to zero size and then re-grow. In doing so, they
flip their orientation and become anti-D4-branes. Meanwhile, the other N fractional
branes stretch more than once around the circle, but where they are doubled they are
partially cancelled by the N + M anti-D4-branes. This leaves N − M D4-branes in
8
We should remind the reader that the classical IIA picture of Seiberg duality, introduced by
[26], has the feature that it is not a string duality but a motion which transforms one theory into
its dual, one which a priori need not leave the infrared physics invariant. In particular, there
is no direct relation between the classical brane motion, or semiclassical brane bending, and the
actual dynamics of the field theories. To see that the IIA story gives the right answer, one should
use its M theory generalization [27, 28, 29, 30], but even there, the M5-brane, about which only
holomorphic information is available, does not generally match the dynamics of the field theory,
which is not holomorphic. These issues have been studied and explained in detail; see especially
[31]. We mention this only to warn our readers not to take this paragraph for more than a heuristic
argument.

12
one segment and N in the other — exactly our starting point but with N → N − M.
After the crossing, the NS5-branes are still bent in the same directions as before, so
again their x6 positions become equal and we are led to repeat the motion around
the circle. Finally, the number N becomes of order M and something more drastic
should happen [33]. For this physics, the analysis of [28, 29, 30] becomes essential.

4 Chiral Symmetry Breaking and the Deformation

of the Conifold
The solution of [12] is well-behaved for large r but becomes singular at sufficiently
small r. The solution must be modified in such a way that this singularity is removed.
In this section we argue that the conifold (2) should be replaced by the deformed
conifold
4
zi2 = −2 det zij = ǫ2 ,
X
(46)
i,j
i=1

in which the singularity of the conifold is removed through the blowing-up of the S 3
of T 11 .
There are a number of arguments in favor of this idea. One suggestive observation
is that in the solution of [12], the source of the singularity can be traced to the infinite
energy in the F3 field. At all radii there are M units of flux of F3 piercing the S 3 of
T 11 , and when the S 3 shrinks to zero size this causes F32 to diverge. If instead the
S 3 remained of finite size, as occurs in the deformed conifold, this problem would be
evaded.
However, the most powerful argument that the conifold is deformed comes from
the field theory analysis, which shows clearly that the spacetime geometry is modified
by the strong dynamics of the infrared field theory. We will see that the theory has a
deformed moduli space, with M independent branches, each of which has the shape
of a deformed conifold. The branches are permuted by the Z2M R-symmetry, which
is spontaneously broken down to Z2 . This breaking of the R-symmetry is exactly
what we would expect in a pure SU(M) N = 1 Yang-Mills theory, although here it
proceeds through scalar as well as gluino expectation values. The theory will also
have domain walls, confinement, magnetic screening, and other related phenomena.
The complete analysis of the nonperturbative dynamics of the field theory in
Table 1 is mathematically intensive, and we have not attempted it. In this section we
present a simplified version of the analysis which captures the physics which we are
interested in. In an appendix we present more general (although still partial) results

13
that show our conclusions are robust.
In particular, our goal is to discover what happens in the far infrared of the flow,
where the D3 brane charge has cascaded (nearly) to zero and only the M fractional
D3 branes remain. If there are no D3 branes left, we expect we have pure N = 1
Yang-Mills in the far infrared, a theory which breaks its Z2M R-symmetry to Z2
and has M isolated vacua, domain walls, and confinement. However, while this may
be correct, we have no access to the supergravity background through this analysis.
What we need is a probe which can see if and how the fractional D3-branes have
modified the conifold itself.
The right choice, it turns out, is to probe the space with a single additional D3
brane. In this case the gauge group is SU(M + 1)דSU(1)” — in short, simply
SU(M + 1) — with fields Ci and Dj in the M + 1 and M + 1 representations, i, j =
1, 2, and with superpotential W = λCiDj Ck Dl ǫik ǫjl . Define Nij = Ci Dj , which is
gauge invariant. As in the discussion surrounding equation (11), the expectation
values of Nij specify the position of the probe brane; in the classical theory, we have
deti,j Nij = 0, indicating the probe is moving on the original, singular conifold. At
low energy the theory can be written in terms of these invariants and develops the
nonperturbative superpotential first written down by Affleck, Dine and Seiberg [34]
1
2Λ3M +1
" #
M −1
WL = λNij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ + (M − 1) . (47)
Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ

The equations for a supersymmetric vacuum are

 1 
2Λ3M +1
" #
M −1
0 = λ −  Nij . (48)
(Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ )M

The apparent solution Nij = 0 for all i, j actually gives infinity on the right-hand
side. The only solutions are then

2Λ3M +1
(Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ )M = . (49)
λM −1
As predicted, this equation has M independent branches, in each of which Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ
is a M th root of Λ3M +1 /λM −1 . The Z2M discrete non-anomalous R-symmetry rotates
Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ by a phase e2πi/M , and thus the M branches transform into one another
under the symmetry. In short, the Z2M is spontaneously broken down to Z2 . The
low-energy effective superpotential is
h i1/M
W = MλhNij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ i ∝ M 2λΛ3M +1 (50)

14
which reflects the M branches. Most importantly, on each of these branches the
classical condition on the Nij has been modified to read
!1/M
1 Λ3M +1
det Nij = Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ = (51)
i,j 2 [2λ]M −1

Comparing with equation (46) we see that the probe brane in the quantum theory
moves on the deformed conifold; the classical singularity at the origin of the moduli
space has been resolved through chiral symmetry breaking.
The above constraint on the expectation values for Nij implies that in the pertur-
bative region (where semiclassical analysis is valid) they can break the gauge group
only down to SU(M), with no massless charged matter. This gauge theory is thus in
the universality class of pure SU(M) Yang-Mills, and will share many of its qualita-
tive properties. However, the existence of massive matter Ci , Dj in the fundamental
representation of SU(M) (note that if hN11 i is large then C2 , D2 have mass λN11 ) im-
plies that confinement occurs only in an intermediate range of distances. As in QCD
with heavy quarks, pair production of the massive quarks breaks the confining flux
tubes, so√a linear potential between external sources exists only between the length
scales 1/ T and mq /T , where T is the string tension and mq is the dynamical quark
 1/2M
mass. For hN11 i ∼ hN22 i ∼ Λ3M +1 /λM −1 , their minimal values, we expect little
sign of a linear potential at any length scale, as in physical QCD. Only for p = 0 do
we expect confinement at all scales.
More generally, for 1 < p < M, one obtains a moduli space corresponding to p
probe branes moving on the deformed conifold. If p ≪ M, both the SU(p) gauge
coupling and its ’t Hooft coupling are small at the strong-dynamics scale of SU(M +p).
Furthermore, the SU(p) factor has vanishing beta function in the far IR, where it has
three adjoint chiral superfields (namely, three of the Nij ) and is essentially a copy
of N = 4 Yang-Mills. Consequently, we expect no strong dynamics from the SU(p)
sector, and the theory is very close to SU(M + p) with 2p light flavors. In this case
a similar analysis to the above is essentially correct. At large expectation values,
the gauge theory is broken to SU(M) N = 1 Yang-Mills times SU(p) N = 4 Yang-
Mills, with massive states in the bifundamental representation of the group factors.
Details of this analysis are given in the appendix. As before, pair production of these
massive states eliminates confinement at large distances; electric sources are screened
by massive states which leave them charged only under the nonconfining group SU(p).
The pattern of chiral symmetry breaking gives us another qualitative argument
why the conifold must be deformed. The original conifold has a U(1)R symmetry
under which the zij in (2) rotate by a phase. In Table 1 we saw this was broken by

15
instantons to Z2M , but for large M this is a 1/M effect and need not show up in the
leading order supergravity. However, if we expect the infrared theory to behave sim-
ilarly to pure N = 1 Yang-Mills, then we expect this symmetry to be spontaneously
broken to Z2 . This breaking is a leading-order effect and most definitely should be
visible in the supergravity. The only natural modifications of the conifold are its
resolution and its deformation; only the latter breaks the classical U(1)R symmetry,
and it indeed breaks it to Z2 , as is obvious from equation (46).
As a final argument, we consider expectations from the IIA/M brane construction.
Classically we have NS and NS’ branes filling four-dimensional space and extending
in the v = x4 + ix5 and w = x8 + ix9 directions respectively. They are separated along
the compact direction x6 by a distance a, which along with l6 sets the two classical
gauge couplings, as explained in (18). In one x6 segment between the NS and NS’
brane we suspend M + 1 D4 branes; in the other there is only one D4 brane. A single
complete wrapped D4-brane — our probe — is free to move anywhere in the v, w, x7
space, independently of the other branes, while the other M suspended D4-branes
are pinned to v = w = 0. To understand the quantum theory, we must move to M
theory [28, 29, 30], where we combine x6 with the new compact coordinate x10 using
6 10
t = ex +ix . Classically the equations for the NS and NS’ brane are w = 0, t = 1 and
v = 0, t = ea .
The M theory expectation is that, in the quantum theory, the probe brane will
become an independent M5 brane wrapped on the t directions, while the suspended
D4-branes join with the NS and NS’ branes to make a single M5-brane, which we
will refer to as our MQCD brane. This type of behavior was first seen in N = 2 and
N = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills [27, 28, 29, 30]. Indeed the MQCD brane which
appears in our case should be very similar to that of N = 1 super-Yang-Mills, since
in the limit the x6 direction becomes large they should become equal. The brane for
super-Yang-Mills fills the coordinates x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 and is embedded in the coordinates
6 10
v = x4 + ix5 , w = x8 + ix9 , t = ex +ix as a Riemann surface defined through the
equations
(vw)M = Λ2M L , v
M
=t. (52)
Notice classically the equations include vw = 0, corresponding to the presence of the
NS and NS’ brane. However, the quantum Yang-Mills M-brane has vw equal to a
nonzero constant, and has M possible orientations, one for each possible phase of a
condensate.
What is the connection with the deformed conifold? As shown in [35], a type IIA
NS-brane and NS’-brane satisfying the equation vw = 0, that is, intersecting at a
point, are T-dual to the conifold. This lifts without change to M theory. We saw this

16
equation appears in the construction of classical Yang-Mills, and it will appear in our
classical theory as well. Meanwhile, if the NS and NS’ branes are at the same t, that
is, if they intersect, then they can be deformed into a single object with equation
vw = constant 6= 0. This object is T-dual to the deformed conifold. Again this also
lifts without change to M theory. Now notice that the Yang-Mills M-brane has this as
one of its defining equations (52). This shows the NS and NS’ brane have been glued
together into a single object. Without the suspended D4-branes, this could only occur
if the joined NS and NS’-brane had equal t coordinates, but in the presence of the
suspended D4-branes, which extend along the t direction, the NS and NS’-branes can
be separated in t, as in (52). Thus the Yang-Mills M-brane shows that the suspended
D4-branes allow a quantum effect in M theory by which the conifold can be deformed
even when the two gauge couplings (18) are both finite.
In our case, we similarly expect the two Riemann surfaces — the probe and
the MQCD brane — to have M branches, with a continuous variable specifying
the position of the probe brane in the space, and a discrete variable labeling the
orientation of the MQCD brane. However, when the probe is far away and the x6
direction is large, our MQCD brane should closely resemble that of Yang-Mills. We
therefore expect the equations governing it to have the same qualitative form. In
particular, we expect that the Z2M discrete symmetry rotating the phase of t by 2π is
broken to Z2 , through the modification of the equation vw = 0 to (vw)M = constant.
By T-duality this indicates that the classical conifold is quantum deformed by the
fractional branes.

5 Back to Supergravity: The Deformed Conifold

Ansatz
The field theory analysis of the previous section shows that the naive U(1) (really
Z2M ) R-symmetry is actually broken to a Z2 . On the other hand, the SUGRA back-
ground (31) has an exact U(1) symmetry realized as shifts of the angular coordinate
ψ on T 11 . The presence of this unwanted symmetry in the IR may also be the reason
for the appearance of the naked singularity.
In this section we propose that the solution of this problem is to replace the
conifold by its deformation (46) in the ansatz (31). This indeed breaks the U(1)
symmetry zk → eiα zk , k = 1, . . . , 4, down to its Z2 subgroup zk → −zk . Another
reason to focus on the deformed conifold is that it gives the correct moduli space for
the field theory, as shown in the previous section.

17
 The metric of the deformed conifold was discussed in some detail in [14, 15, 36].
It is diagonal in the basis (4):
"
1 1 τ
 
ds26 = ǫ4/3 K(τ ) 3
(dτ 2 + (g 5 )2 ) + cosh2 [(g 3 )2 + (g 4 )2 ]
2 3K (τ ) 2
#
2 τ
 
1 2 2 2
+ sinh [(g ) + (g ) ] , (53)
2

where
(sinh(2τ ) − 2τ )1/3
K(τ ) = . (54)
21/3 sinh τ
For large τ we may introduce another radial coordinate r via

r 3 ∼ ǫ2 eτ , (55)

and in terms of this radial coordinate

ds26 → dr 2 + r 2 ds2T 11 . (56)

The determinant of the metric (53) is

g6 ∼ ǫ8 sinh4 τ , (57)

which vanishes at τ = 0. Indeed, at τ = 0 the angular metric degenerates into

1 1
dΩ23 = ǫ4/3 (2/3)1/3 [ (g 5 )2 + (g 3 )2 + (g 4 )2 ] , (58)
2 2
which is the metric of a round S 3 [14, 15]. The additional two directions, correspond-
ing to the S 2 fibered over the S 3 , shrink as
1 4/3
ǫ (2/3)1/3 τ 2 [(g 1)2 + (g 2 )2 ] . (59)
8
In what follows we will set ǫ = 121/4 , so that 21 ǫ4/3 (2/3)1/3 = 1.
The collapse of the S 2 implies that at τ = 0 F3 must lie within the remaining S 3 ,

F3 (τ = 0) = Mg 5 ∧ g 3 ∧ g 4 , (60)

which may be shown to be a closed 3-form. On the other hand, for large τ , F3 should
approach its value
M 5
g ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 2 + g 3 ∧ g 4 ) (61)
2

18
found in the UV ansatz (24). These two closed 3-forms differ by an exact one,

g 5 ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 2 − g 3 ∧ g 4 ) = d(g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4) (62)

Therefore, the simplest ansatz which interpolates smoothly between τ = 0 and large
τ is
n o
F3 = M g 5 ∧ g 3 ∧ g 4 + d[F (τ )(g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4 )]
n o
= M g 5 ∧ g 3 ∧ g 4 (1 − F )) + g 5 ∧ g 1 ∧ g 2F + F ′ dτ ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4 ) , (63)

with F (0) = 0 and F (∞) = 1/2. Note also that this ansatz preserves the Z2 symmetry
which interchanges (θ1 , φ1 ) with (θ2 , φ2 ).
A similarly Z2 -symmetric ansatz for B2 is

B2 = gs M[f (τ )g 1 ∧ g 2 + k(τ )g 3 ∧ g 4 ] . (64)

Using the identity

g 5 ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4 ) = −d(g 1 ∧ g 2 − g 3 ∧ g 4) , (65)

we find that
1
H3 = dB2 = gs M[dτ ∧ (f ′ g 1 ∧ g 2 + k ′ g 3 ∧ g 4 ) + (k − f )g 5 ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4 )] . (66)
2
We further have

F5 = B2 ∧ F3 = gs M 2 ℓ(τ )g 1 ∧ g 2 ∧ g 3 ∧ g 4 ∧ g 5 , (67)

where
ℓ = f (1 − F ) + kF . (68)

The most general radial ansatz for the 10-d metric, consistent with the symmetries
of the deformed conifold, is

ds210 = A2 (τ )dxn dxn + B 2 (τ )(dτ 2 ) + C 2 (τ )(g 5 )2 + D 2 (τ )[(g 3 )2 + (g 4 )2 ]

+E 2 (τ )[(g 1 )2 + (g 2 )2 ] . (69)

The reason we are allowed to assume that A, . . . , E depend only on τ is that before
the introduction of the 3-form fields, the metric has the form (69), and our ansatz for
F3 and H3 does not break this symmetry. The flux of F3 is distributed uniformly over
the S 3 near the apex of the deformed conifold; therefore, the M D5 branes wrapped
over the S 2 may be thought of as smeared over the S 3 .

19
 It is not hard to check that F3µνλ H3µνλ = 0, which implies that the RR scalar
vanishes. It is not a priori clear whether the dilaton is constant for the deformed
solution, but in what follows we will assume that such a background does exist, i.e.
that
gs2F32 = H32 . (70)
Furthermore, guided by the simple form of the solution constructed in [12] and re-
viewed in section 2, we will assume that the 10-d metric takes the following form:

ds210 = h−1/2 (τ )dxn dxn + h1/2 (τ )ds26 , (71)

where ds26 is the metric of the deformed conifold (53). This is the same type of “D-
brane” ansatz as (31), but with the conifold replaced by the deformed conifold as
the transverse space. This form will also permit additional D3-brane probes to be
directly included in the ansatz.
The type IIB equations satisfied by the 3-form fields are

d(eφ ⋆ F3 ) = F5 ∧ H3 , d(e−φ ⋆ H3 ) = −gs2 F5 ∧ F3 . (72)

First, let us calculate

ℓ(τ )
⋆ F5 ∼ gs M 2 dx0 ∧ dx1 ∧ dx2 ∧ dx3 ∧ dτ . (73)
K 2 h2 sinh2 (τ )

To write down the first equation we need

"
τ
 
0 1 2 3 2
−1
⋆ F3 = Mh dx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ (1 − F ) tanh dτ ∧ g 1 ∧ g 2
2
#
τ
 
2
+F coth dτ ∧ g 3 ∧ g 4 + F ′ g 5 ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4 ) (74)
.
2

Assuming a constant φ and using (65) we find

d −1 ′ ℓ
(1 − F ) tanh2 (τ /2) − F coth2 (τ /2) + 2h (h F ) = α(k − f ) 2 , (75)
dτ K h sinh2 τ
where α is a normalization factor proportional to (gs M)2 .
Let us turn to the second of the equations (72). Since
"
τ
 
0 1 2 3 5 2
−1
⋆ H3 = −gs Mh dx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ dx ∧ g ∧ (k tanh ′
g1 ∧ g2
2
#
τ 1
 
2
′
+f coth g 3 ∧ g 4 ) − (f − k)dτ ∧ (g 1 ∧ g 3 + g 2 ∧ g 4 ) , (76)
2 2

20
we find
d −1 1 ℓ(1 − F )
h (h coth2 (τ /2)f ′ ) − (f − k) = α 2
dτ 2 K h sinh2 τ
d 1 ℓF
h (h−1 tanh2 (τ /2)k ′ ) + (f − k) = α 2 . (77)
dτ 2 K h sinh2 τ
where α is the same normalization factor as in (75).
We have been assuming that the dilaton is constant. The equation that guarantees
this is (70). Writing it out with our ansatz gives

(k ′ )2 (f ′ )2 2(f − k)2
+ +
cosh4 (τ /2) sinh4 (τ /2) sinh2 τ
(1 − F )2 F2 8(F ′)2
= + + . (78)
cosh4 (τ /2) sinh4 (τ /2) sinh2 τ

In order to complete the system of equations we need the Einstein equations for
the metric. In view of the simplified ansatz (71) for the metric it is sufficient to use
the trace of the Einstein equation:

h−3/2 ∇26 h ∼ gs2F32 + H32 = 2gs2F32 , (79)

where now ∇26 is the Laplacian on the deformed conifold. Using (53), we find that
the explicit form of this equation is
α (1 − F )2 F2 8(F ′ )2
" #
1 d ′ 2 2
(h K (τ ) sinh τ ) = − + + . (80)
sinh2 τ dτ 4 cosh4 (τ /2) sinh4 (τ /2) sinh2 τ

5.1 The First-Order Equations and Their Solution

In searching for BPS saturated supergravity backgrounds, the second order equations
should be replaced by a system of first-order ones (see, for instance, [37, 38]). Luckily,
this is possible for our ansatz. We have been able to find a system of simple first-order
equations, from which (75), (77), (78) and (79) follow:

f ′ = (1 − F ) tanh2 (τ /2) ,
k ′ = F coth2 (τ /2) ,
1
F′ = (k − f ) , (81)
2
and
f (1 − F ) + kF
h′ = −α . (82)
K 2 (τ ) sinh2 τ

21
 Note that the first three of these equations, (81), form a closed system and need to
be solved first. In fact, these equations imply the self-duality of the complex 3-form
with respect to the metric of the deformed conifold: ⋆6 G3 = iG3 .9 Inspection of these
equations shows that the small τ behavior is10

f ∼ τ3 , k∼τ , F ∼ τ2 . (83)

On the other hand, for large τ the 3-forms have to match onto the conifold solution
[12],
τ τ 1
f→ , k→ , F → . (84)
2 2 2
Remarkably, it is possible to find the solution with these boundary conditions in
closed form. Combining (81) we find the following second-order equation for F :
1
F ′′ = [F coth2 (τ /2) + (F − 1) tanh2 (τ /2)] . (85)
2
The solution is
sinh τ − τ
F (τ ) = , (86)
2 sinh τ
from which we obtain
τ coth τ − 1
f (τ ) = (cosh τ − 1) ,
2 sinh τ
τ coth τ − 1
k(τ ) = (cosh τ + 1) . (87)
2 sinh τ
Now that we have solved for the 3-forms on the deformed conifold, the warp factor
may be determined by integrating (82). First we note that
τ coth τ − 1
ℓ(τ ) = f (1 − F ) + kF = (sinh 2τ − 2τ ) . (88)
4 sinh2 τ
This behaves as τ 3 for small τ . It follows that, for small τ ,

h = a0 + a1 τ 2 + . . . . (89)

For large τ we impose, as usual, the boundary condition that h vanishes. The resulting
integral expression for h is
22/3 Z ∞ x coth x − 1
h(τ ) = α dx (sinh(2x) − 2x)1/3 . (90)
4 τ sinh2 x
9
We believe, according to a discussion in section 2.4, that G3 is a harmonic (2, 1) form on the
deformed conifold.
10
It is also possible to shift f and k by the same constant. The effect of this shift will be considered
in section 5.2.

22
We have not succeeded in evaluating this in terms of elementary or well-known special
functions. For our purposes it is enough to show that
3
h(τ → 0) → a0 ; h(τ → ∞) → 21/3 ατ e−4τ /3 . (91)
4
This is nonsingular at the tip of the deformed conifold and, from (55), matches the
form of the large-τ solution (38). The small τ behavior follows from the convergence
of the integral (90), while at large τ the integrand becomes ∼ xe−4x/3 .
Thus, for small τ the ten-dimensional geometry is approximately R3,1 times the
deformed conifold:
1 2 1
 
1/2
ds210 dτ + dΩ23 + τ 2 [(g 1 )2 + (g 2)2 ]
−1/2
→ a0 dxn dxn + a0 . (92)
2 4
Very importantly, for large gs M the curvatures found in our solution are small
everywhere. This is true even far in the IR. Indeed, since the integral (90) converges,

a0 ∼ α ∼ (gs M)2 . (93)

Therefore, the radius-squared of the S 3 at τ = 0 is of order gs M, which is the ‘t

Hooft coupling of the gauge theory found far in the IR. As long as this is large, the
curvatures are small and the SUGRA approximation is reliable.
We have now seen that the deformation of the conifold allows the solution to be
non-singular. Qualitatively, this is because the conserved F3 flux prevents the 3-cycle
from collapsing. This is why we expect to find a metric with a collapsing 2-cycle but
finite 3-cycle, and these are the properties of the deformed conifold.
It may be of further interest to consider more general metrics of the form (69),
and to allow the dilaton to vary. In that event it still seems likely that the qualitative
properties of the solution near the apex will not change.

5.2 Correspondence with the Gauge Theory

In this section we point out some interesting features of the SUGRA background
we have found and show how they realize the expected phenomena in the dual field
theory. In particular, we will now demonstrate that there is confinement and magnetic
screening, and argue that there are domain walls and baryon vertices with a definite
mass scale. In many ways our results resemble those found in the N = 1∗ theory [39],
but the specific details are quite different; the confining vacua of N = 1∗ involve a
spacetime with a spherical 5-brane sitting in it, while our present spacetime is purely
given by supergravity.

23
 First we should ask the question: how does the dimensional transmutation mani-
fest itself in supergravity? The answer is related to the presence of parameter ǫ in the
deformed conifold metric (53). Reinstating this parameter is accomplished through

ds26 → ǫ4/3 ds26 . (94)

We are then free to redefine h → hǫ−8/3 to remove the ǫ dependence from the trans-
verse part of the metric. Very importantly, the dependence then appears in the
longitudinal part, and the metric assumes the form

ds210 = h−1/2 (τ )m2 dxn dxn + h1/2 (τ )ds26 , (95)

so that m ∼ ǫ2/3 sets the 4-d mass scale. This scale then appears in all 4-d dimen-
sionful quantities.
Now let us see the theory has confining flux tubes. The key point is that in
the metric for small τ (92) the function multiplying dxn dxn approaches a constant.
This should be contrasted with the AdS5 metric where this function vanishes at the
horizon, or with the singular metric of [12] where it blows up. Consider a Wilson
contour positioned at fixed τ , and calculate the expectation value of the Wilson loop
using the prescription [41, 42]. The minimal area surface bounded by the contour
bends towards smaller τ . If the contour has a very large area A, then most of the
minimal surface will drift down into the region near τ = 0. From the fact that the
coefficient of dxn dxn is finite at τ = 0, we find that a fundamental string with this
surface will have a finite tension, and so the resulting Wilson loop satisfies the area
law. Since for large gs M the SUGRA description is reliable for all τ , we seem to have
found a “pure supergravity proof” of confinement in N = 1 gauge theory. A similar
result was found previously in [39] but involved a spacetime containing an NS5-brane
with D3-brane charge. A simple estimate shows that the string tension scales as

m2
Ts ∼ . (96)
gs M

To see that magnetic charge is screened, we must identify the correct massive
magnetically-charged source. The correct choice is a fractional D1-brane, that is,
a D3-brane wrapped on the S 2 of T 11 , attached to the boundary of the space at
τ = ∞. On the six-dimensional deformed conifold the S 2 is fibered over τ such
that the resulting three-dimensional bundle has only one boundary, at τ = ∞; near
τ = 0 the S 2 shrinks to zero size and the bundle locally has topology R3 . Therefore,
a D3-brane with a single boundary can be wrapped on this bundle, corresponding
to a fractional D1-brane attached at τ = ∞ which quietly ends at τ = 0. Strictly

24
speaking, this only shows monopole charge is not confined; to show it is screened one
must go further and show this object does not couple to any massless modes.
As we showed in section 2, the field theory has an anomaly-free Z2M R-symmetry
at all scales. The UV limit of our background, which coincides with the solution
found in [12], has a U(1) R-symmetry associated with the rotations of the angular
coordinate ψ. For large M it is is somewhat difficult to distinguish between the U(1)
and its discrete subgroup Z2M . In fact, the anomaly in the U(1), which breaks it
down to Z2M , is an effect of fractional D-instantons, the euclidean D-string world
sheets propagating inside T 11 . The Wess-Zumino term present in the D-string action,
which is associated with the topologically non-trivial F3 , has to be quantized (this is
simply the F3 flux quantization). As a result, the phase in the D-string path integral
assumes Z2M rather than U(1) values.
Our metric provides a geometrical realization for the phenomenon of chiral sym-
metry breaking found in the field theory; the dynamical breaking of the Z2M down to
Z2 occurs via the deformation of the conifold. In the pure supergravity limit we have
discussed, the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking generates an η ′ -like Goldstone
boson (the zero mode in our solution corresponding to rotation of the coordinate ψ),
which must get a mass of order 1/M from these fractional instantons. To see how this
mass arises, and how it relates to the domain walls which we discuss in a moment,
would be very interesting.
It is by now clear why the conifold ansatz adopted in [12] and reviewed in section
2 is too restrictive: it has the U(1) symmetry everywhere. On the other hand, our
deformed conifold ansatz breaks it down to Z2 , with the U(1) symmetry becoming
asymptotically restored at large radius. Thus, the deformation of the conifold ties
together several crucial IR effects: resolution of the naked singularity found in [12],
breaking of the chiral symmetry down to Z2 , and quark confinement. At the same
time, the deformation does not destroy the logarithmic running of the couplings found
in [12] because it does not affect the geometry far in the UV.
Due to the deformation, the full SUGRA background has a finite 3-cycle. We now
interpret various branes wrapped over this 3-cycle in terms of the gauge theory. Note
that the 3-cycle has the minimal volume near τ = 0, hence all the wrapped branes will
be localized there. This should be contrasted with wrapped branes in AdS5 ×X5 where
they are allowed to have an arbitrary radial coordinate. A wrapped D3-brane plays
the role of a baryon vertex which ties together M fundamental strings. Note that for
M = 0 the D3-brane wrapped on the S 3 gave a dibaryon [10]; the connection between
these two objects becomes clearer when one notes that for M > 0 the dibaryon has
M uncontracted indices, and therefore joins M external charges. Meanwhile, a D5-

25
brane wrapped over the S 3 appears to play the role of the domain wall separating
two inequivalent vacua of the gauge theory. As we expect, flux tubes can end on this
object [40], and baryons can dissolve in it; as in [39], we may also build the domain
walls from the baryons. Indeed, D3 and D5-branes play the roles of baryon vertices
and domain walls in N = 1∗ ; however in that case they do not wrap a cycle but
instead have a boundary on the NS5-brane in the space [39]. Calculations using the
metric (95) show that the baryon mass is

Mb ∼ mM , (97)

while the D5-brane domain wall tension is

1 3
Twall ∼ m . (98)
gs
Additionally, one can obtain the glueball spectrum in this theory. To do so re-
quires finding the spectrum of eigenmodes of various supergravity fields in the metric
background we have constructed. Since the background is known explicitly as a func-
tion of τ , the calculation should be no more difficult than in [43, 44]. Unlike the case
of N = 1∗ , where the presence of a narrow throat near a single NS5-brane could make
the computation potentially unreliable for the lowest modes [39], there is no possi-
ble subtlety here, as the bulk space is large and everywhere nonsingular. Of course,
there will be Kaluza-Klein modes on the S 3 which are not present in the pure N = 1
Yang-Mills theory. These are analogous to the extra modes which appear in both [45]
and [39]; their presence is expected, since they are necessary whenever pure N = 1
Yang-Mills is embedded into a theory that is fully in the supergravity regime. Only
in the limit of pure N = 1 Yang-Mills, which we discuss below, can they be removed.
A simple estimate of the glueball and KK modes masses shows that, in the SUGRA
limit both scale as m/(gs M). Comparing with the string tension, we see that

Ts ∼ gs M(mglueball )2 . (99)

Thus, there is a large separation of scales between string tension and glueball mass
in supergravity (a similar problem was observed in [43, 44]) which goes away at small
gs M.
Finally, we should address the possibility that N is not a multiple of M. Note
that in our solution the 5-form flux vanishes for τ = 0:
Z
F5 = ℓ(τ ) ∼ τ 3 . (100)

This suggests that the IR solution given above describes a large number M of wrapped
D5-branes without any D3-branes. Therefore, for small τ the background should be

26
dual to SU(M) gauge theory (the SUGRA is reliable only if both M and gs M are
large). More generally, however, the field theory analysis tells us that theories that
may arise in the IR have gauge groups SU(M + p) × SU(p), with M > p ≥ 0. If M is
large and p is of order 1, then the dual supergravity background should be the same
as for p = 0, to leading order in M. The extra p colors should come from p actual
D3-branes, placed at various points in our background. Then the moduli space for
each D3-brane is essentially the deformed conifold, in agreement with the field theory
analysis. When far from τ = 0, the D3-branes represent the IR N = 4 SU(p) factor
in the theory. The ’t Hooft coupling on these branes is gs p ≪ 1, so when they are
brought to τ = 0 the theory represented is essentially SU(M + p) with 2p classically
massless flavors and a quartic superpotential. The nonperturbative analysis of this
theory, given in section 4 and in the appendix, then applies, giving chiral symmetry
breaking and a moduli space with M branches.
Note that confinement is lost in the presence of the D3-branes, in agreement with
the field theory. Strings hanging from the boundary can simply end on the D3-
branes, corresponding to the statement that external sources are screened by massive
dynamical quarks and end up carrying only SU(p) charge.11 The corresponding
Wilson loop will have a perimeter law. Of course if the quarks are heavy (i.e., if the
D3-branes are at large τ ) then relatively short flux tubes should be stable. It would
be interesting to actually demonstrate this fact, which follows not from topology but
from quantum dynamics.
On the other hand, if p is of the same order as M, then the flux due to the D3-
branes is large and should be included in the SUGRA solution. First, let us try to
change the boundary condition on F5 so that F5 no longer vanishes at τ = 0 but is
∼ p. We find a consistent solution for the 5-form by replacing ℓ(τ ) → ℓ(τ ) + C, where
C is a constant of order p/(gs M 2 ). From (82) we find that the effect of this on the
warp factor is h → h + h̃ where
∞ 1
Z
h̃(τ ) = αC dx . (101)
τ K 2 (x) sinh2 x

This yields a singular behavior of h̃ for small τ :

αC
h̃ ∼ . (102)
τ
11
Similar findings were also obtained in N = 1∗ [39]. Many of the N = 1∗ vacua have dynamical
massive W -bosons, whose pair production eliminates confinement. The representation of this gauge
theory physics in the string theory is closely related to the representation presented here and in the
last paragraph of this section.

27
 The new behavior of h does change significantly the physical interpretation of the
solution. Now the coefficient of the dxn dxn term scales as τ 1/2 for small τ ; hence, the
Wilson loop no longer satisfies the area law. Again, we find agreement with the field
theory. This gravity background corresponds to making the charged matter as light
as possible (that is, making the expectation values of the scalar fields all as small as
possible.) In this regime we expect no metastable flux tubes; the dynamical charges
in the fundamental representation of SU(M + p) will screen external electric sources,
until the sources are charged only under SU(p), which does not confine.
Thus, the new behavior of the metric (102) incorporates the loss of confinement
found upon addition of dynamical quarks. However, supergravity may receive large
corrections in the small τ region because curvatures blow up at τ = 0 where we find a
singular horizon.12 Thus, requiring that F5 does not vanish at τ = 0 actually causes
a singularity. Can we construct a non-singular SUGRA solution which incorporates
screening? We believe that the correct approach may be to add D3-brane sources
with total charge p (this way F5 may smoothly turn on from zero at τ = 0 to p at
some finite value of τ ). This idea also agrees with the incorporation of small p via
actual D3-branes. We postpone construction of such non-singular ‘Coulomb branch’
solutions until a later publication.

5.3 The Dual of Pure N = 1 Yang-Mills Theory

As we have shown above, supergravity serves as a reliable dual of a cascading SU(N +
M) × SU(M) gauge theory, provided that gs M is very large. We have also shown
that, under appropriate circumstances, at the bottom of the cascade, we essentially
have an SU(M) theory, with the other gauge group disappearing. An immediate
question that arises is: can our results be used to learn something about the pure
glue N = 1 theory?
To start answering this question, let us note that the field B2 is multiplied by gs M,
while the jumps in the cascade occur after B2 has changed by an amount of order 1.
Thus, the range of τ which describes any particular gauge group in the cascade is of
order 1/(gs M). This implies the supergravity regime is not sufficient for constructing
such a dual, because for large gs M the cascade jumps occur very frequently, and we
find the pure glue theory only for small τ . There, at the tip of the deformed conifold,
both B2 and F5 are very small, F3 is of order M, and the metric is approximately
given by (92).
To have a reliable dual of the pure glue theory, valid for a large range of τ , we
12
We are grateful to A. Tseytlin for useful discussions of this point.

28
need to take the limit of small gs M (and thus small B2 , holding M fixed) which is
the opposite of the limit where supergravity has small corrections. In this limit the
S3 at the apex of the conifold becomes small and the space acquires large curvature.
This situation is familiar from previous studies aimed at finding a string theory dual
of a pure glue gauge theory [45, 39].
Nevertheless, our work does constitute progress towards formulating a stringy
dual because our SUGRA background captures the correct topology of the resulting
string background. Indeed we are led to conjecture that the type IIB string dual
of the pure glue N = 1 SU(M) theory is given by a gs M → 0 limit of a warped
deformed conifold background, with M units of the F3 flux piercing its 3-cycle, and
with B2 and F5 approaching zero at the apex. This would be the space generated
by the fractional D3-branes alone, with no admixture of regular D3-branes. Hence it
is relevant to pure SU(M) theory with no quark flavors. Of course, studying such a
theory for small gs M is difficult due to the well-known problems with RR flux and
large curvature. However, the self-dual 5-form flux, which brings in some additional
problems, is small, which raises hopes of a novel sigma model formulation.
We note also that the addition of a small number of D3-branes to this story will
permit the study of the SU(M + p) × SU(p) theory, which essentially reduces, for
small gs and p ≪ M, to SU(M + p) with 2p flavors and an all-important quartic
superpotential. It is far from certain that this construction can give any insight
into QCD, since the light charged scalars play such a central role in the dynamics.
However, if these scalars can easily be removed (along with the gauginos) through
explicit supersymmetry breaking, there might be additional interest in this approach.

6 Discussion
We have not addressed the question of how to compute field theory correlation func-
tions in this context, where our space does not approach Anti-de-Sitter space at large
r. However, it is easy to see this space still has a boundary, and from the behavior of
h(τ ) it is clear that the logarithm is a subleading effect at large r. Correspondingly,
at large N ≫ M, there is a sense in which the operators in the field theory have the
same spectrum that they have for M = 0, since γ ≈ − 21 . We therefore believe that
for low-lying supergravity modes, corresponding to operators of dimension much less
than M, the story will not be modified in a significant way from that discussed in
[2, 3]. For operators of dimension ∆ > 23 M, we expect more interesting effects. These
operators appear to exist at scales where 23 N > ∆, but should be eliminated when
3
2
N < ∆. In the gauge theory, it is known what should occur [46]; operators of high

29
dimension present classically are actually removed by quantum effects, which in the
low-energy dual theory appear as simple group theory. On the gravity side we may
speculate that high-lying bulk modes propagate in from the boundary until the region
where N ∼ 32 ∆; there T 11 has shrunk down such that these modes blow up into the
“giant gravitons” of [47]. Only modes with dimension ∆ < 23 M can propagate all the
way to τ = 0.
It is easy to see that our story of the duality cascade can be orientifolded. This
is obvious from the type IIA string theory brane construction. It is also clear from
the corresponding SO × Sp gauge theory, although we have not analyzed the field
theory dynamics to see how the orientifolded conifold is deformed. A number of
other modifications, including theories whose IIA version involves multiple NS and
NS’ branes, could potentially be interesting. This might be especially true for theories
which are qualitatively different in the infrared from pure Yang-Mills, such as those
studied in [48].
Another interesting choice would be to orbifold the theory along the lines of [39], so
that the low energy theory is non-supersymmetric SU(M)2 with a Dirac fermion in the
bifundamental representation. In contrast to the case studied in [39], the masslessness
of this fermion would be exact, as it is guaranteed by the Z2M R-symmetry, and
therefore chiral symmetry breaking and confinement in this QCD-like theory could
be exhibited in the supergravity regime.
Finally, it is interesting to resurrect a scenario discarded five years ago for its
apparent absurdity. Namely, it is conceivable that the standard model — a small
gauge group — itself lies at the base of a duality cascade. This is certainly possible,
since the addition of supersymmetry and some appropriately chosen massive matter
at the TeV scale easily could make the theory into one which could emerge from such
an RG flow. In [49] it was in fact pointed out that this was the natural scenario
if the standard model, with its very small gauge groups, is a low-energy Seiberg-
dual description of some other theory; every natural choice for an ultraviolet theory
has a larger gauge group than the standard model, and typically hits a Landau
pole below the Planck scale, requiring additional duality transformations, still larger
gauge groups, more Landau poles, and continuation ad nauseum. This was termed
the “duality wall” (since in some cases the duality transformations piled up so fast
that an infinite number were required in a finite energy range.) But now we see this
continuous generation of larger and larger gauge groups — ugly and unmotivated
within field theory, and driving the field theory into highly non-perturbative regimes
— can correspond to a perfectly natural spacetime background on which strings may
propagate. If we imagine that the ultraviolet of the duality cascade is cut off in

30
a compact space (along the lines of [50], following [51]) we may conjecture that the
standard model coupled to gravity is best described, at high energy, by a compactified
string theory on a space with a logarithmic (or otherwise warped) throat, with the
weakly coupled standard model emerging as a good description only at energies below,
say, 1–100 TeV. Such a model provides another possible way, somewhat related to
ideas of [50, 51, 52, 53, 54], to explain the hierarchy between the gravitational and
electroweak scales: it is perhaps given by TeV= mP l × e−cN/M , where M is of order
2 to 5, c is a number of order one, and N is the number of colors of the gauge group
at the Planck scale.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to K. Dasgupta, S. Frolov, S. Gubser, S. Gukov, J. Maldacena, J.
Polchinski, A. Tseytlin and E. Witten for useful discussions. The work of I.K. was
supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-9802484 and by the James S. McDonnell
Foundation Grant No. 91-48; that of M.J.S. was supported by NSF grant PHY95-
13835 and by the W.M. Keck Foundation.

7 Appendix
In this appendix we analyze the field theory in somewhat greater detail, confirming
and extending the results of section 3.
First, we may check the results of section 3 in another region of moduli space.
Consider first SU(M + 1) with two flavors. Suppose we permit C1 and D1 to have
equal expectation values v, so that N11 = v 2 . This breaks the SU(M + 1) to SU(M).
If λ were zero, this would leave SU(M) with one flavor C2 and D2 , plus two gauge
singlets hC1 iD2 = N12 and C2 hD1 i = N21 ; the corresponding strong coupling scale
would be ΛM +1 /v 2 . However, the presence of nonzero λ gives mass to these fields,
leaving the SU(M) gauge theory with a flavor of mass λv 2 . The effective Lagrangian
is then # 1
ΛM +1 /v 2 M −1
"
2
W = 2λv N22 + (103)
N22
which again leads to M branches with the correct values of Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ .
That our discussion of the SU(M + 1) theory in section 3 was only part of the
story can be seen by starting one step higher, with SU(2M + 1) × SU(M + 1), which
reduces after one duality transformation to the SU(M + 1) case. The SU(2M + 1)

31
gauge group has one more flavor than color, and therefore, as λ1 → 0, the theory is
governed by the results of [25]. For λ1 = 0 the superpotential must go over to
a
det Pijb a b
W → +1 − Cia Pijb Dj , (104)
Λ4M
1

where a, b are color indices of SU(M + 1), and P ∼ AB, C ∼ A2M +1 , D ∼ B 2M +1 .

(1)
From this we learn the function F1 (I1 , J1 , R1 ) is not equal toqone, and in fact, in the
(1) (1)
limit λ1 → 0, that is, I1 , J1 → 0, we have F1 (I1 , J1 , R1 ) → I1 /J1 f (R1 ). The low
energy theory is then SU(M + 1) with two flavors Ci , Di but with superpotential

W = λ2 Ci Dj Ck Dl ǫik ǫjl F2 (I2 , J2 ) (105)

Here (Ci Dj Ck Dl ǫik ǫjl ) is the only invariant involving C and D; there are no R2 ratios.
The low energy effective superpotential is now

WL = λNij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ F2 (I2 , J2 ). (106)

q
Note that F2 (I2 → 0, J2 → 0) = 1 + I2 /J2 ; some other limits can be studied but
will not be needed here. The vacuum equations are
" #
∂F (I2 , J2 )
0 = λ F (I2 , J2 ) + I2 Nij . (107)
∂I2

This gives an equation for I2 ∝ (Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ )2M , whose solution must be

I2 = G(J2 ) . (108)

The holomorphic function G(J2 ) is not zero everywhere (since for I2 → 0, J2 → 0

it is not zero) so it can only be zero at special points. Consequently Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ is
generally nonzero. Since the Z2M symmetry rotates Nij Nkℓ ǫik ǫjℓ by e2πi/M , we again
find M separate branches. Again there are no restrictions on the individual values
of the Nij , so each branch takes the form of a deformed conifold, with a nonzero
superpotential. Thus we obtain the same result as before; only the magnitude of the
deformation is modified from our previous analysis.
This analysis is too weak to rule out the possibility that there might be several
independent solutions for I2 given a single value of J2 . This would lead to several sets
of branches, each set consisting of M copies of a deformed conifold; the different sets
would have deformations of different magnitudes. In the limit Λ1 → ∞ only one set
would remain, as in our earlier analysis of the SU(M + 1) theory.
Next, we consider the case of SU(M +p)×SU(p), 0 < p < M. We will first perform
the analysis by taking the SU(p) coupling small. We define (Nij )αβ = (Ci )αa (Di )aβ ,

32
where α, β are SU(p) indices and a, b are SU(M + p) indices. If the SU(p) coupling
were set to zero, then we would have an SU(M + p) gauge theory with 2p flavors. An
Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential would be generated, giving
! M1−p
Λ3M
1
+p
W = λ(Nij )αβ (Nkℓ )βα ǫik ǫjℓ + (M − p) (109)
detij,αβ N

where in the determinant we treat N as a 2p × 2p matrix. A little algebra gives the

equations for a supersymmetric vacuum as
2
Λ3M +p !M
1
det[(Nij )αβ ] ∝ (110)
λM −p

and
λ(Nij )αβ (Nkℓ )βα ǫik ǫjℓ ∝ (λp Λ3M +p )1/M (111)
It is possible to show that these equations represent M branches, each of which is p
copies of the deformed conifold — in other words, the moduli space of p probe branes
moving on the deformed conifold. First, note that Nij0 ≡ (Nij )αα is a gauge invariant
operator. If we demand that the SU(p)-adjoint fields (Nij )αβ − p1 δβα (Nij )γγ vanish, then
the equations above become
2
Λ3M +p !M
1
det[(Nij0 )] ∝ (112)
λM −p

and
λNij0 Nkℓ
0 ik jℓ
ǫ ǫ ∝ (λp Λ3M +p )1/M (113)
which gives M branches, each of which is a single copy of the deformed conifold. This
region of moduli space corresponds to taking all p probe branes to have the same
positions on the conifold. As before the Z2M global symmetry is broken to Z2 ; it
is easy to see that the superpotential on the M branches rotates by a phase under
the broken ZM . Expectation values for elements of (Nij )αβ − p1 δβα (Nij )γγ correspond
to moving the p probe branes apart; taking the special cases where these fields are
diagonal, it is easy to show that each set of eigenvalues of (Nij )αβ , i, j = 1, 2, sweeps
out its own copy of the deformed conifold.
When the SU(p) gauge coupling is turned back on, the superpotential will include
unknown functions of the invariants I, J, and R. These can be generated by a
number of different physical phenomena, including instantons in regions where the
SU(p) group is partially broken. However, as before, these functions change the
quantitative features of the deformation of the conifold without altering the basic

33
picture we have obtained. Furthermore, we expect no additional significant infrared
dynamics. Above the strong-dynamics scale for SU(M +p), the SU(p) gauge group is
infrared free. Below it, the SU(p) group contains three adjoint fields (Nij )αβ which have
a trilinear superpotential — in short, a copy of N = 4 Yang-Mills. The SU(p) sector
is therefore scale-invariant and nonconfining at low energy. Lastly, we expect that the
SU(p) dynamics plays no role in the supergravity regime for p ≪ M. Supergravity
requires we work at small gauge coupling and large ’t Hooft coupling for SU(M),
but in this regime SU(p) will have small ’t Hooft coupling and will be described by
weakly-coupled field theory. In the end, then, we again expect M branches, given by
equations of the same qualitative form as above.
The case p = M is the most subtle. For SU(2M) × SU(M), the SU(2M) theory
has equal numbers of flavors and colors, and consequently its moduli space is modified
quantum mechanically [25]. If we turn off the SU(M) coupling, the superpotential
becomes
W = λ(Nij )αβ (Nkℓ )βα ǫik ǫjℓ F1 (I1 /J1 ) + X(det[(Nij )αβ ] − BB̄ − Λ4M
2M ) , (114)
where the “baryon” B is the gauge invariant operator AM M
1 A2 , and the anti-baryon is
similarly constructed from Bi . Here the equations seem to have multiple solutions.
One solution is
X = 0 ; N = 0 ; B = B̄ = iΛ2M
2M . (115)
In this case, the SU(M) gauge group is unbroken and, when its coupling is restored,
it generates M distinct and isolated vacua via usual gaugino condensation. Alterna-
tively, we may have
B = B̄ = 0; det[(Nij )αβ ] = Λ4M α β ik jℓ
2M ; [(Nij )β (Nkℓ )α ǫ ǫ G1 (I1 /J1 )]
M
= Λ4M
2M , (116)
where we have not determined G1 . As before this leads to M branches, each of which
has M probe branes moving on a deformed conifold.
This suggests that the complete solution to a theory with gauge group SU(N +
M) × SU(N) might involve not one set of M branches but many. The smallest set
would consist of p ≡ N mod M D3-branes moving on the deformed conifold. The
next smallest set would consist of p + M D3-branes. Next would follow a branch with
p + 2M D3-branes, and so forth, growing in size without limit. To see whether this is
the case requires a more thorough and complete field theory analysis, which we have
not performed.
In any case, these partial results all support the main claims of the paper: that
all branches which appear are consistent with probe branes moving on a deformed
conifold, and that each branch is one of M identical branches which are rotated by
the spontaneously broken Z2M R-symmetry.

34
References
[1] J. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and super-
gravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231, hep-th/9711200.

[2] S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov, and A.M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from
noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109.

[3] E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2
(1998) 253, hep-th/9802150.

[4] S. Kachru and E. Silverstein, “4d conformal field theories and strings on orb-
ifolds,” hep-th/9802183; A. Lawrence, N. Nekrasov and C. Vafa, “On conformal
field theories in four dimensions,” hep-th/9803015.

[5] A. Kehagias, “New Type IIB Vacua and Their F-Theory Interpretation,” Phys.
Lett. B435 (1998) 337, hep-th/9805131.

[6] I.R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “Superconformal field theory on threebranes at a

Calabi-Yau singularity,” Nucl. Phys. B536 (1998) 199, hep-th/9807080.

[7] D. Morrison and R. Plesser, “Non-Spherical Horizons, I,” Adv. Theor. Math.
Phys. 3 (1999) 1, hep-th/9810201.

[8] E.G. Gimon and J. Polchinski, “Consistency Conditions for Orientifolds and D
Manifolds”, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1667, hep-th/9601038.

[9] M.R. Douglas, “Enhanced Gauge Symmetry in M(atrix) theory”, JHEP 007
(1997) 004, hep-th/9612126.

[10] S.S. Gubser and I.R. Klebanov, “Baryons and Domain Walls in an N=1 Super-
conformal Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 125025, hep-th/9808075.

[11] I.R. Klebanov and N. Nekrasov, “Gravity Duals of Fractional Branes and Loga-
rithmic RG Flow,” hep-th/9911096.

[12] I.R. Klebanov and A. Tseytlin, “Gravity Duals of Supersymmetric SU(N) ×

SU(N + M) Gauge Theories,” hep-th/0002159.

[13] J. Distler and F. Zamora, “Chiral symmetry breaking in the AdS/CFT corre-
spondence,” JHEP 0005 (2000) 005 [hep-th/9911040].

35
[14] P. Candelas and X. de la Ossa, “Comments on Conifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B342
(1990) 246.

[15] R. Minasian and D. Tsimpis, “On the Geometry of Non-trivially Embedded

Branes,” hep-th/9911042.

[16] I.R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “AdS/CFT Correspondence and Symmetry Break-
ing,” Nucl. Phys. B556 (1999) 89, hep-th/9905104.

[17] K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “Duality, monopoles, dyons, confinement and

oblique confinement in supersymmetric SO(Nc) gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys.
B444 (1995) 125 [hep-th/9503179].

[18] R. G. Leigh and M. J. Strassler, “Exactly marginal operators and duality in

four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B447 (1995)
95 [hep-th/9503121].

[19] S.S. Gubser, “Einstein Manifolds and Conformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev.
D59 (1999) 025006, hep-th/9807164.

[20] A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, R. D’Auria, and S. Ferrara, “Spectrum of Type IIB

Supergravity on AdS5 × T 11 : Predictions On N = 1 SCFT’s,” hep-th/9905226.

[21] A. Uranga, “Brane Configurations for Branes at Conifolds,” JHEP, 01 (1999)

022.

[22] K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, “Brane Constructions, Conifolds and M-Theory,”

hep-th/9811139.

[23] O. Aharony and A. Hanany, “Branes, superpotentials and superconformal fixed

points,” Nucl. Phys. B504 (1997) 239 [hep-th/9704170].

[24] N. Seiberg, “Electric-magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge the-

ories,” Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 129 [hep-th/9411149].

[25] N. Seiberg, “Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge
theories,” Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6857 [hep-th/9402044].

[26] S. Elitzur, A. Giveon and D. Kutasov, “Branes and N = 1 duality in string

theory,” Phys. Lett. B400 (1997) 269 [hep-th/9702014].

[27] E. Witten, “Solutions of four-dimensional field theories via M-theory,” Nucl.

Phys. B500 (1997) 3 [hep-th/9703166].

36
[28] K. Hori, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, “Strong coupling dynamics of four-dimensional
N = 1 gauge theories from M theory fivebrane,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1, 1
(1998) [hep-th/9706082].

[29] E. Witten, “Branes and the dynamics of QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B507 (1997) 658
[hep-th/9706109].

[30] A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, V. Kaplunovsky, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielow-

icz, “Comments on the M theory approach to N = 1 SQCD and brane dynamics,”
Phys. Lett. B410, 27 (1997) [hep-th/9706127].

[31] K. Hori, “Branes and electric-magnetic duality in supersymmetric QCD,” Nucl.

Phys. B540 (1999) 187 [hep-th/9805142].

[32] K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, “Brane Constructions, Fractional Branes and Anti-
deSitter Domain Walls,” hep-th/9904131.

[33] S. Elitzur, A. Giveon, D. Kutasov, E. Rabinovici and A. Schwimmer, “Brane

dynamics and N = 1 supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B505 (1997)
202 [hep-th/9704104].

[34] I. Affleck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, “Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking In

Supersymmetric QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B241 (1984) 493.

[35] M. Aganagic, A. Karch, D. Lust and A. Miemiec, “Mirror symmetries for brane
configurations and branes at singularities,” Nucl. Phys. B569 (2000) 277 [hep-
th/9903093].

[36] K. Ohta and T. Yokono, “Deformation of Conifold and Intersecting Branes,”

hep-th/9912266.

[37] D.Z. Freedman, S.S. Gubser, K. Pilch and N.P. Warner, “Renormalization Group
Flows from Holography–Supersymmetry and a c-Theorem,” hep-th/9904017.

[38] L. Girardello, M. Petrini, M. Porrati, A. Zaffaroni, “The Supergravity Dual of

N=1 Super Yang-Mills Theory,” hep-th/9909047.

[39] J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, “The string dual of a confining four-dimensional

gauge theory,” hep-th/0003136.

[40] G. Dvali and M. Shifman, “Domain walls in strongly coupled theories,” Phys.
Lett. B396, 64 (1997) [hep-th/9612128].

37
[41] J. Maldacena, “Wilson loops in large N field theories,” hep-th/9803002.

[42] S.J. Rey and J. Yee, “Macroscopic Strings as Heavy Quarks of Large N Gauge
Theory and Anti-de Sitter Supergravity,” hep-th/9803001.

[43] C. Csaki, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz and J. Terning, “Glueball mass spectrum from su-
pergravity,” JHEP 9901 (1999) 017 [hep-th/9806021].

[44] R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu and J. P. Nunes, “Evaluation of glue-

ball masses from supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 105009 [hep-th/9806125].

[45] E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in
gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 505 [hep-th/9803131].

[46] D. Kutasov, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, “Chiral Rings, Singularity Theory

and Electric-Magnetic Duality,” Nucl. Phys. B459 (1996) 455 [hep-th/9510222].

[47] J. McGreevy, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Invasion of the giant gravitons from
Anti de Sitter space,” JHEP 0006 (2000) 008 [hep-th/0003075].

[48] D. Kutasov and A. Schwimmer, “On duality in supersymmetric Yang-Mills the-

ory,” Phys. Lett. B354 (1995) 315 [hep-th/9505004].

[49] M.J. Strassler, “Duality in Supersymmetric Field Theory and an Application to

Real Particle Physics.” Talk given at International Workshop on Perspectives
of Strong Coupling Gauge Theories (SCGT 96), Nagoya, Japan. Available at
http://www.eken.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp/Scgt/proc/

[50] H. Verlinde, “Holography and compactification,” Nucl. Phys. B580 (2000) 264
[hep-th/9906182].

[51] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimen-
sion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370 [hep-ph/9905221].

[52] P. H. Frampton and C. Vafa, “Conformal approach to particle phenomenology,”

hep-th/9903226.

[53] W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, “Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,”

Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4922 [hep-ph/9907447].

[54] J. Polchinski, private communication.

38