HTML conversions sometimes display errors due to content that did not convert correctly from the source. This paper uses the following packages that are not yet supported by the HTML conversion tool. Feedback on these issues are not necessary; they are known and are being worked on.

  • failed: colonequals
  • failed: suffix

Authors: achieve the best HTML results from your LaTeX submissions by following these best practices.

License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2312.00242v2 [hep-th] 23 Dec 2023

Trace relations and open string vacua

Abstract

We study to what extent, and in what form, the notion of gauge-string duality may persist at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. It is shown, in the half-BPS sector, that the states of D3 giant graviton branes in AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are holographically dual to certain auxiliary ghosts that compensate for finite N𝑁Nitalic_N trace relations in U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 super Yang-Mills. The complex formed from spaces of states of bulk D3 giants is observed to furnish a BRST-like resolution of the half-BPS Hilbert space of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 SYM at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. We argue that the identification between the states of certain bulk D-branes and the auxiliary ghosts in the boundary holds rather generally at vanishing ’t Hooft coupling λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0. We propose that a complex, which furnishes a BRST-like resolution of the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N Hilbert space of a boundary U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory at λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0, should be identified as the space of states of the dual string theory in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit. The Lefschetz trace formula provides the holographic map in this regime, where bulk observables are computed by taking the alternating sum of the expectation values in an ensemble of states built on each open string vacuum. The giant graviton expansion is recovered and generalized in a limit of the resolution.

1 Introduction

A central theme in our study of holography and gauge-string duality is the idea that the Feynman diagrams of a large N𝑁Nitalic_N gauge theory reorganize into the genus expansion of some string theory [1, 2, 3, 4]. A particularly striking aspect of ’t Hooft’s proposal is its generality: any theory of gauged large N𝑁Nitalic_N matrices exhibits such a topological expansion at weak coupling.

This work investigates to what extent, and in what form, the notion of gauge-string duality may persist at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N.

At finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, one is confronted with conceptual issues regarding the spectrum of the bulk and boundary theories related via holographic duality. In the boundary gauge theory, the total number of states—at fixed values of the conserved charges and the ’t Hooft coupling λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ—decreases as the rank N𝑁Nitalic_N of the gauge group is decreased. This occurs because states formed by exciting the vacuum with single trace operators are orthogonal at large N𝑁Nitalic_N but become constrained by trace relations when N𝑁Nitalic_N is finite. On the other hand, in the bulk string theory, non-perturbative states such as black holes and D-branes become lighter at finite string coupling gssubscript𝑔𝑠g_{s}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Such objects, which are present in addition to the perturbative string states, would naively result in many more states at finite gssubscript𝑔𝑠g_{s}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT compared to those at small gssubscript𝑔𝑠g_{s}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, at fixed charges and L4/α2superscript𝐿4superscript𝛼2L^{4}/\alpha^{\prime 2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

How does one reconcile these differing expectations? The correct resolution of the apparent conflict is to posit that non-perturbative objects in string theory represent highly redundant descriptions of the same set of quantum states: a state composed of N𝑁Nitalic_N fundamental strings may admit a description as a brane, and a state composed of N𝑁Nitalic_N D-branes admits a description in terms of the backreacted geometry. The intuition that non-perturbative effects in string theory place an upper bound on the single-string spectrum is known as the stringy exclusion principle [5, 6, 7]. While this principle is thought to be a generic feature of string theory, there is little quantitative understanding of the mechanism underlying the principle.

The giant graviton expansion, a recently-proposed formula that relates the BPS sectors of gauge theories and their string duals, suggests how the stringy exclusion principle is realized in the spectrum of the bulk string field theory [8, 9, 10]:111There exist different but compatible versions of the formula that are related by wall-crossing [8, 11]. We write a simple form of the formula which is a special case of the relation proposed in the current work.

ZN(q)=Z(q)k=0qkNZ^k(q).subscript𝑍𝑁𝑞subscript𝑍𝑞superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑞Z_{N}(q)=Z_{\infty}(q)\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}q^{kN}\hat{Z}_{k}(q).italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) . (1.1)

The formula expresses ZN(q)subscript𝑍𝑁𝑞Z_{N}(q)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ), the superconformal index [12] of a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory, as a sum over BPS indices qkNZ(q)Z^k(q)superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁subscript𝑍𝑞subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑞q^{kN}Z_{\infty}(q)\hat{Z}_{k}(q)italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) of the bulk string theory on backgrounds labelled by k𝑘kitalic_k giant graviton branes. Z(q)subscript𝑍𝑞Z_{\infty}(q)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) is the index of Kaluza-Klein modes and qkNZ^k(q)superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑞q^{kN}\hat{Z}_{k}(q)italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ) is the index of k𝑘kitalic_k giant graviton branes and their open-string excitations. Giant gravitons are BPS branes on ×Sm2AdSn×Smsuperscript𝑆𝑚2subscriptAdS𝑛superscript𝑆𝑚\mathbb{R}\times S^{m-2}\subset\mathrm{AdS}_{n}\times S^{m}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that are supported via a large angular momentum induced from the background Ramond-Ramond potential [7, 13, 14]. See, for example, [11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26] for related works.

A salient feature of the giant graviton expansion is the absence of explicit contributions from gravitational saddles, even in the 116116\frac{1}{16}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 end_ARG-BPS sector of IIB string theory and 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 super Yang-Mills where supersymmetric black holes are present. That the asymptotic degeneracies of bulk configurations of strings and branes in (1.1) reproduce the entropy of large BPS black holes in AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT was demonstrated recently [19, 24].

The following property of the formula realizes the stringy exclusion principle: BPS spectra on string backgrounds labelled by different numbers of giant graviton branes exhibit large cancellations to reproduce the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N index. This occurs even in sectors of gauge theory that are purely bosonic, such the half-BPS sector of 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM:

1n=1N(1xn)=1n=1(1xn)k=0(1)kxkNxk(k+1)/2m=1k(1xm).1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁1superscript𝑥𝑛1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑥𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑥𝑘𝑘12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑥𝑚\frac{1}{\prod_{n=1}^{N}(1-x^{n})}=\frac{1}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-x^{n})}\sum% _{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}x^{kN}\frac{x^{k(k+1)/2}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-x^{m})}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_k + 1 ) / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (1.2)

Observe that each summand, supplemented with the half-BPS Kaluza-Klein spectrum, overcounts the half-BPS spectrum of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM. The overcounting is saved only by the overall minus signs (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that appear with odd numbers of D3 giants. Motivated by this observation, we suggested in [11] that the bulk BPS Hilbert space possesses an extra 2subscript2\mathbb{Z}_{2}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-grading, on top of the usual fermion number grading (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the gauge theory, that labels open string vacua associated to different D-brane backgrounds.

Natural questions are then, what is the bulk origin of this grading? How does the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory reflect the extra bulk grading if the grading is not manifest in its physical Hilbert space? Most importantly, how is the presence of the extra grading consistent with holography?

In Section 2, we show in the half-BPS sector that the space of states of k𝑘kitalic_k giant graviton branes on AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is holographically dual to the space 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘\mathcal{V}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of certain “heavy” ghosts in 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM that compensate for null states due to finite N𝑁Nitalic_N trace relations, with total ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k. That is, open strings on bulk D-branes are not dual to any physical states of a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory, but rather are objects that systematically cancel out the redundancies among states that arise at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. We find that normalizable states of the worldvolume theory of k𝑘kitalic_k D3 giants are gauge-invariant differential k𝑘kitalic_k-forms constructed from worldvolume scalars and that such states survive in the large curvature limit of AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT due to a localization mechanism. We identify the form degree k𝑘kitalic_k of these states as the extra grading in the bulk that labels open string vacua. The spectrum of normalizable states of half-BPS D3 giants are recovered by that of finite N𝑁Nitalic_N trace relations, whose generating function is the determinant operator det(zX)𝑧𝑋\det(z-X)roman_det ( italic_z - italic_X ) in the gauge theory. Due to the grading, the normalizable states are identified with auxiliary heavy ghosts that compensate for finite N𝑁Nitalic_N null states.222There exist previous proposals for the holographic dual of open strings on D3 giants in terms of physical operators in the boundary [27, 28, 29]. Note, however, that the spectrum of normalizable excitations of half-BPS D3 giants are reproduced by the spectrum of auxiliary ghosts that compensate for trace relations.

We use the term D-brane states to refer to the states of bulk D-branes obtained by quantizing the open string fields.

Based on the above identification, we show that the spaces of half-BPS D-brane states form a complex that furnishes a BRST-like resolution of the half-BPS Hilbert space Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. The resolution indicates that open strings on bulk D-branes are encoded in the relations between the single-trace generators that arise in the boundary gauge theory at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. The giant graviton expansion (1.2) in the half-BPS sector is recovered using the fact that the alternating sum of the Hilbert series of modules in a resolution vanishes. Thus, we identify the complex formed from spaces of D-brane states as the half-BPS Hilbert space of IIB string theory in the large curvature limit of AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

While the bulk computations in the half-BPS sector rely on supersymmetry and the presence of a weakly-curved gravity limit, we argue that the identification between D-brane states and heavy ghosts is quite general and holds independently of those properties. Trace relations between gauge-invariant operators are present in any finite N𝑁Nitalic_N gauge theory with adjoint fields, and such a theory may be rewritten as a N=𝑁N=\inftyitalic_N = ∞ gauge theory supplemented with auxiliary ghosts for trace relations that are present in the original theory, at least when λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0.

Let us state our main proposal here, leaving a review of the mathematical background to Section 3: Consider a four-dimensional U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT possessing only fields in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, at zero ’t Hooft coupling λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0. Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be the ring of polynomials of traces of fields and their derivatives (before accounting for trace relations). The space of states Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the gauge theory is the quotient of =R|0subscript𝑅ket0{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}=R|0\ranglecaligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R | 0 ⟩ by the submodule generated by the set of all trace relations at a given value of N𝑁Nitalic_N.

Our proposal is that the complex 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

𝒱3NQ^𝒱2NQ^𝒱1NQ^0,superscriptsubscript𝒱3𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱2𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁^𝑄subscript0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {% \mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}\ % \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow 0,⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 , (1.3)

which furnishes a Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over the ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, should be identified as the space of states of the dual string theory in the αnormal-→superscript𝛼normal-′\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit. The homology of 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is concentrated at heavy ghost number 00 and coincides with N=/Q^𝒱1Nsubscript𝑁subscript^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}/\widehat{Q}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is, in a sense that is elaborated, the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit of the bulk space of states on a string background with k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes. The observables of the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory are related to those of its string dual via the Lefschetz trace formula

TrN𝒪=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kN𝒪subscriptTrsubscript𝑁𝒪superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁𝒪{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}{\mathcal{O}}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}{\mathcal{O}}roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_O = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_O (1.4)

which provides the holographic map in the regime of λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0 and finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. Bulk observables are computed by taking the alternating sum of the expectation values in an ensemble of states built on each open string vacuum.

In Section 3.3.1, we show how the giant graviton expansion of [8] is recovered and generalized in a certain limit of the complex 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In Section 3.3.2, we place a lower bound on the degeneracies of D-brane states using the uniqueness of minimal resolutions. In Section 4, we discuss Koszul-Tate resolutions in simple physical examples.

Many questions are left open in our work. For instance, while our proposal suggests how gauge-string duality at weak ’t Hooft coupling can be generalized to the regime of finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, there remains the difficult problem of finding a consistent bulk string theory with the features suggested by our proposal. We hope that this work contributes to the understanding of some kinematical properties of this theory.

We conclude with a partial list of open questions in the Discussion.

2 D-branes as heavy ghosts

In this section, we argue that the normalizable states of half-BPS D3 giant gravitons in the bulk are holographically dual to certain auxiliary “ghosts” in U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 super Yang-Mills that compensate for null states due to finite N𝑁Nitalic_N trace relations. That is, open strings on D3 giants are not dual to any physical states of the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory, but rather are objects that systematically cancel out the redundancies among states that arise at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N.

Indeed, giant gravitons were conceived in order to provide a bulk explanation for the truncation of the single trace spectrum at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, in terms of the polarization of large charge gravitons into branes. The goal in this section is to understand precisely why the identification between open strings on giants and ghosts for trace relations should be made.

2.1 A twist on the worldvolume

Let us show that the background Ramond-Ramond potential induces a twist of the stress tensor on the worldvolume of a D3 giant. The sign of the twist on the D3 worldvolume will later have an important consequence: normalizable states that describe transverse fluctuations of branes in S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT become valued in gauge-invariant combinations of differential forms constructed from worldvolume scalars.

Let us work in AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT coordinates

ds2=(1+ρ2L2)dt2+(1+ρ2L2)1dρ2+ρ2dΩ^S32+L2L2r2dr2+r2dθ2+(L2r2)dΩS32𝑑superscript𝑠21superscript𝜌2superscript𝐿2𝑑superscript𝑡2superscript1superscript𝜌2superscript𝐿21𝑑superscript𝜌2superscript𝜌2𝑑superscriptsubscript^Ωsuperscript𝑆32superscript𝐿2superscript𝐿2superscript𝑟2𝑑superscript𝑟2superscript𝑟2𝑑superscript𝜃2superscript𝐿2superscript𝑟2𝑑superscriptsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆32ds^{2}=-\left(1+\frac{\rho^{2}}{L^{2}}\right)dt^{2}+\left(1+\frac{\rho^{2}}{L^% {2}}\right)^{-1}d\rho^{2}+\rho^{2}d\hat{\Omega}_{S^{3}}^{2}+\frac{L^{2}}{L^{2}% -r^{2}}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\theta^{2}+(L^{2}-r^{2})d\Omega_{S^{3}}^{2}italic_d italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ( 1 + divide start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( 1 + divide start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over^ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_d italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2.1)

covering half of the five-sphere, with Ramond-Ramond 4-form potential

C4=ρ4LdtdΩ^S3+(L2r2)2dθdΩS3.subscript𝐶4superscript𝜌4𝐿𝑑𝑡𝑑subscript^Ωsuperscript𝑆3superscriptsuperscript𝐿2superscript𝑟22𝑑𝜃𝑑subscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3C_{4}=\frac{\rho^{4}}{L}dt\wedge d\hat{\Omega}_{S^{3}}+(L^{2}-r^{2})^{2}d% \theta\wedge d\Omega_{S^{3}}.italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_d italic_t ∧ italic_d over^ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_θ ∧ italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (2.2)

The coordinate r[0,L)𝑟0𝐿r\in[0,L)italic_r ∈ [ 0 , italic_L ) is the radius on the transverse plane to S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT inside S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The maximal D3 solution sits at r=0𝑟0r=0italic_r = 0 with θ˙=1L˙𝜃1𝐿\dot{\theta}=\frac{1}{L}over˙ start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG and has energy E=NL𝐸𝑁𝐿E=\frac{N}{L}italic_E = divide start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG and angular momentum R=N𝑅𝑁R=Nitalic_R = italic_N.333The angular velocity at r=0𝑟0r=0italic_r = 0 arises because the maximal D3 solution is a limit of stable solutions as r0𝑟0r\to 0italic_r → 0 and θ˙1L˙𝜃1𝐿\dot{\theta}\to\frac{1}{L}over˙ start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG → divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG. Despite wrapping a topologically trivial cycle, giant gravitons are stable BPS solutions because they possess a large angular momentum induced from the background Ramond-Ramond potential C4subscript𝐶4C_{4}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We are interested in half-BPS transverse fluctuations of a giant on a maximal S3S5superscript𝑆3superscript𝑆5S^{3}\subset S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fixed under the U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT isometry generated by R=iθ𝑅𝑖subscript𝜃R=-i\partial_{\theta}italic_R = - italic_i ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The bosonic DBI+++CS action on the worldvolume of a single D3 brane is

SD3=N2π2L4(d4xgD3P[C4]).subscript𝑆D3𝑁2superscript𝜋2superscript𝐿4superscript𝑑4𝑥subscript𝑔D3𝑃delimited-[]subscript𝐶4S_{\mathrm{D3}}=-\frac{N}{2\pi^{2}L^{4}}\int\left(d^{4}x\sqrt{-g_{\mathrm{D3}}% }-P[C_{4}]\right).italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x square-root start_ARG - italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_P [ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) . (2.3)

It will be instructive to first work in the stationary frame with respect to AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to note some properties of the corresponding hamiltonian. The quadratic action SD3Φsuperscriptsubscript𝑆D3ΦS_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\Phi}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for transverse fluctuations in S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the stationary frame is

SD3Φsuperscriptsubscript𝑆D3Φ\displaystyle S_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\Phi}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =12π2L4𝑑t𝑑ΩS3(|Φ˙|2|Φ|2+3L2|Φ|2+2iL(Φ¯Φ˙Φ¯˙Φ))absent12superscript𝜋2superscript𝐿4differential-d𝑡differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3superscript˙Φ2superscriptΦ23superscript𝐿2superscriptΦ22𝑖𝐿¯Φ˙Φ˙¯ΦΦ\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}L^{4}}\int dt\ d\Omega_{S^{3}}\left(|\dot{\Phi}% |^{2}-|\nabla\Phi|^{2}+\frac{3}{L^{2}}|\Phi|^{2}+\frac{2i}{L}(\bar{\Phi}\dot{% \Phi}-\dot{\bar{\Phi}}\Phi)\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ italic_d italic_t italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | over˙ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | ∇ roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 2 italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG over˙ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG - over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG end_ARG roman_Φ ) )
=12π2L4𝑑t𝑑ΩS3(|t(e2it/LΦ)|2|Φ|21L2|Φ|2)absent12superscript𝜋2superscript𝐿4differential-d𝑡differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3superscriptsubscript𝑡superscript𝑒2𝑖𝑡𝐿Φ2superscriptΦ21superscript𝐿2superscriptΦ2\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}L^{4}}\int dt\ d\Omega_{S^{3}}\left(|\partial_{% t}(e^{-2it/L}\Phi)|^{2}-|\nabla\Phi|^{2}-\frac{1}{L^{2}}|\Phi|^{2}\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ italic_d italic_t italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_i italic_t / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | ∇ roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (2.4)

in local complex coordinates Φ=12reiθΦ12𝑟superscript𝑒𝑖𝜃\Phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}re^{i\theta}roman_Φ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_r italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Φ¯=12reiθ¯Φ12𝑟superscript𝑒𝑖𝜃\bar{\Phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}re^{-i\theta}over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_r italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The potential term 1L2|Φ|21superscript𝐿2superscriptΦ2-\frac{1}{L^{2}}|\Phi|^{2}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is present in the second line because of the nonvanishing Ricci scalar on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. As was observed in [9], the stationary frame action of a D3 giant is equivalent to the usual action of 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 SYM on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where its fields possess a time-dependent phase

(field)e2itLR(field)fieldsuperscript𝑒2𝑖𝑡𝐿𝑅field(\mathrm{field})\to e^{-\frac{2it}{L}R}(\mathrm{field})( roman_field ) → italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 2 italic_i italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_field ) (2.5)

proportional to the relevant worldvolume R-charge, which we can identify with their charge R𝑅Ritalic_R under the background U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT R-isometry. The scalars Φ,Φ¯Φ¯Φ\Phi,\bar{\Phi}roman_Φ , over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG have charge ±1plus-or-minus1\pm 1± 1 under U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The resulting worldvolume theory is a U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 SYM with a modified potential for fields that carry nonzero R𝑅Ritalic_R. Let us take gauginos with SU(4)𝑆𝑈4SU(4)italic_S italic_U ( 4 ) indices ψA=1,2superscript𝜓𝐴12\psi^{A=1,2}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A = 1 , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ψB=3,4superscript𝜓𝐵34\psi^{B=3,4}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B = 3 , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to have R-charges +1212+\frac{1}{2}+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG and 1212-\frac{1}{2}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG, respectively, and let 𝒜=1,,4𝒜14\mathcal{A}=1,\cdots,4caligraphic_A = 1 , ⋯ , 4 be the usual SU(4)𝑆𝑈4SU(4)italic_S italic_U ( 4 ) index. Then under (2.5), the fermion lagrangian acquires the mass terms

+1Lψ¯AψA1Lψ¯BψB.1𝐿subscript¯𝜓𝐴superscript𝜓𝐴1𝐿subscript¯𝜓𝐵superscript𝜓𝐵+\frac{1}{L}\bar{\psi}_{A}\psi^{A}-\frac{1}{L}\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi^{B}.+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (2.6)

With these fermion masses, one finds that supersymmetry transformations require conformal Killing spinors ζαsubscript𝜁𝛼\zeta_{\alpha}italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that depend on time [30]. Therefore, the supercharges depend on time in the stationary frame with respect to the AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT background, i.e. the generator of time translations in this system is not supersymmetric.

That the generator HD3subscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of time translations is not supersymmetric has an interesting consequence. In the stationary frame, the hamiltonian is

HD3=dΩS3[\displaystyle H_{\mathrm{D3}}=\int d\Omega_{S^{3}}\bigg{[}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ |Π|2+|Φ|2+1L2|Φ|2+2iL(ΠΦΦ¯Π¯)superscriptΠ2superscriptΦ21superscript𝐿2superscriptΦ22𝑖𝐿ΠΦ¯Φ¯Π\displaystyle|\Pi|^{2}+|\nabla\Phi|^{2}+\frac{1}{L^{2}}|\Phi|^{2}+\frac{2i}{L}% (\Pi\Phi-\bar{\Phi}\bar{\Pi})| roman_Π | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | ∇ roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | roman_Φ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 2 italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( roman_Π roman_Φ - over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG over¯ start_ARG roman_Π end_ARG )
+iψ¯𝒜σ¯iiψ𝒜1Lψ¯AψA+1Lψ¯BψB]+\displaystyle+i\bar{\psi}_{\mathcal{A}}\bar{\sigma}^{i}\nabla_{i}\psi^{% \mathcal{A}}-\frac{1}{L}\bar{\psi}_{A}\psi^{A}+\frac{1}{L}\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi^{% B}\bigg{]}+\cdots+ italic_i over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + ⋯ (2.7)

where ellipses denote contributions from fields on the worldvolume SYM theory that do not possess U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT R-charges. The conjugate momenta Π=Φ¯˙+2iLΦ¯Π˙¯Φ2𝑖𝐿¯Φ\Pi=\dot{\bar{\Phi}}+\frac{2i}{L}\bar{\Phi}roman_Π = over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG end_ARG + divide start_ARG 2 italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG and Π¯=Φ˙2iLΦ¯Π˙Φ2𝑖𝐿Φ\bar{\Pi}=\dot{\Phi}-\frac{2i}{L}\Phiover¯ start_ARG roman_Π end_ARG = over˙ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 2 italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG roman_Φ and the fermionic counterpart satisfy the equal-time (anti-)commutation relations. Observe that HD3subscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has the shift +2LR2𝐿𝑅+\frac{2}{L}R+ divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R relative to the free 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 hamiltonian, where the worldvolume charge R𝑅Ritalic_R is

R=𝑑ΩS3[i(ΠΦΦ¯Π¯)12(ψ¯AψAψ¯BψB)].𝑅differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3delimited-[]𝑖ΠΦ¯Φ¯Π12subscript¯𝜓𝐴superscript𝜓𝐴subscript¯𝜓𝐵superscript𝜓𝐵R=\int d\Omega_{S^{3}}\left[i(\Pi\Phi-\bar{\Phi}\bar{\Pi})-\frac{1}{2}(\bar{% \psi}_{A}\psi^{A}-\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi^{B})\right].italic_R = ∫ italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_i ( roman_Π roman_Φ - over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG over¯ start_ARG roman_Π end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] . (2.8)

The hamiltonian HD3subscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT indicates that the energies of D3 worldvolume fields must be shifted by two units of their R𝑅Ritalic_R charges, relative to naive dimensional analysis based on a 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 action. That is, the background Ramond-Ramond potential C4subscript𝐶4C_{4}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT induced a twist of the stress tensor on the worldvolume of a D3 giant. The definition of R𝑅Ritalic_R here coincides with its previous definition as the background U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT isometry generator R=iθ𝑅𝑖subscript𝜃R=-i\partial_{\theta}italic_R = - italic_i ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT upon restricting to bosonic S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-zeromodes.

Due to the twist, the only worldvolume field satisfying the half-BPS condition

HD31LR=0subscript𝐻D31𝐿𝑅0H_{\mathrm{D3}}-\tfrac{1}{L}R=0italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R = 0 (2.9)

is the anti-holomorphic scalar Φ¯¯Φ\bar{\Phi}over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG with HD3L=R=1subscript𝐻D3𝐿𝑅1H_{\mathrm{D3}}L=R=-1italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L = italic_R = - 1. The negative mode is an artifact of the hamiltonian HD3subscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT not commuting with supercharges in this frame.

2.2 Localization at small radius

In this section, we find the half-BPS open string states on D3 giant gravitons.

In deriving the worldvolume twist, we considered the D3 action in the stationary frame relative to the AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT background. However, a maximal giant graviton rotates at the speed of light θ˙=1L˙𝜃1𝐿\dot{\theta}=\frac{1}{L}over˙ start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG, so expanding about the solution actually entails working in a frame that is rotating with the giant. The worldvolume action about the rotating D3 solution turns out to admit time-independent supercharges for the relevant chiral multiplet, i.e. the time translation generator commutes with these supercharges.

In the worldline quantum mechanics comprising of the lightest S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT modes, these supercharges will be identified with the Dolbeault differential ¯¯\bar{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG and its adjoint ¯superscript¯\bar{\partial}^{\dagger}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT deformed by an inverted Morse function hhitalic_h. The deformed Dolbeault laplacian Δh¯={¯h,¯h}superscriptsubscriptΔ¯subscript¯superscriptsubscript¯\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}=\{\bar{\partial}_{h},\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}\}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } can therefore be identified with the hamiltonian of this supersymmetric quantum mechanics. The BPS states are then the ground states of Δh¯superscriptsubscriptΔ¯\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We find that these states survive and localize to fixed points of R-isometries in the large curvature limit L0𝐿0L\to 0italic_L → 0 of AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This allows us to compare the spectrum of the string states with the spectrum of finite N𝑁Nitalic_N null states in the boundary gauge theory in Section 2.3.

Expanding the action SD3Φsuperscriptsubscript𝑆D3ΦS_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\Phi}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Φ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT around the on-shell value θ(t)=1Lt+δθ(t)𝜃𝑡1𝐿𝑡𝛿𝜃𝑡\theta(t)=\frac{1}{L}t+\delta\theta(t)italic_θ ( italic_t ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_t + italic_δ italic_θ ( italic_t ), we find

SD3ϕsuperscriptsubscript𝑆D3italic-ϕ\displaystyle S_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\phi}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =12π2L4𝑑t𝑑ΩS3(|ϕ˙|2|ϕ|2+iL(ϕ¯ϕ˙ϕ¯˙ϕ))absent12superscript𝜋2superscript𝐿4differential-d𝑡differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3superscript˙italic-ϕ2superscriptitalic-ϕ2𝑖𝐿¯italic-ϕ˙italic-ϕ˙¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}L^{4}}\int dt\ d\Omega_{S^{3}}\left(|\dot{\phi}% |^{2}-|\nabla\phi|^{2}+\frac{i}{L}(\bar{\phi}\dot{\phi}-\dot{\bar{\phi}}\phi)\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ italic_d italic_t italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | ∇ italic_ϕ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG - over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG italic_ϕ ) )
=12π2L4𝑑t𝑑ΩS3(|t(eit/Lϕ)|2|ϕ|21L2|ϕ|2).absent12superscript𝜋2superscript𝐿4differential-d𝑡differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3superscriptsubscript𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖𝑡𝐿italic-ϕ2superscriptitalic-ϕ21superscript𝐿2superscriptitalic-ϕ2\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}L^{4}}\int dt\ d\Omega_{S^{3}}\left(|\partial_{% t}(e^{-it/L}\phi)|^{2}-|\nabla\phi|^{2}-\frac{1}{L^{2}}|\phi|^{2}\right).= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ italic_d italic_t italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_t / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | ∇ italic_ϕ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | italic_ϕ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . (2.10)

The complex coordinates ϕ=12reiδθitalic-ϕ12𝑟superscript𝑒𝑖𝛿𝜃\phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}re^{i\delta\theta}italic_ϕ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_r italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_δ italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ϕ¯=12reiδθ¯italic-ϕ12𝑟superscript𝑒𝑖𝛿𝜃\bar{\phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}re^{-i\delta\theta}over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_r italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_δ italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are now defined in terms of the fluctuation angle δθ𝛿𝜃\delta\thetaitalic_δ italic_θ. The fields now possess the time-dependent phase

(field)eitLR(field)fieldsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑡𝐿𝑅field(\mathrm{field})\to e^{-\frac{it}{L}R}(\mathrm{field})( roman_field ) → italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_i italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_field ) (2.11)

compared to those in the usual action of 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 SYM on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This phase differs from that in the stationary frame by a unit of the R-charge.

We again take gauginos with SU(4)𝑆𝑈4SU(4)italic_S italic_U ( 4 ) indices ψA=1,2superscript𝜓𝐴12\psi^{A=1,2}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A = 1 , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ψB=3,4superscript𝜓𝐵34\psi^{B=3,4}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B = 3 , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to have R-charges +1212+\frac{1}{2}+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG and 1212-\frac{1}{2}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG, respectively, and let 𝒜=1,,4𝒜14\mathcal{A}=1,\cdots,4caligraphic_A = 1 , ⋯ , 4 be the usual SU(4)𝑆𝑈4SU(4)italic_S italic_U ( 4 ) index. Then the fermion lagrangian acquires the mass terms +12Lψ¯AψA12Lψ¯BψB12𝐿subscript¯𝜓𝐴superscript𝜓𝐴12𝐿subscript¯𝜓𝐵superscript𝜓𝐵+\frac{1}{2L}\bar{\psi}_{A}\psi^{A}-\frac{1}{2L}\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi^{B}+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The total action becomes

SD3=12π2L4𝑑t𝑑ΩS3subscript𝑆D312superscript𝜋2superscript𝐿4differential-d𝑡differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3\displaystyle S_{\mathrm{D3}}=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}L^{4}}\int dt\ d\Omega_{S^{3}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ italic_d italic_t italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [μϕ¯μϕ+iL(ϕ¯ϕ˙ϕ¯˙ϕ)\displaystyle\bigg{[}-\partial_{\mu}\bar{\phi}\partial^{\mu}\phi+\frac{i}{L}(% \bar{\phi}\dot{\phi}-\dot{\bar{\phi}}\phi)[ - ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG - over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG italic_ϕ )
iψ¯𝒜σ¯μμψ𝒜+12Lψ¯AψA12Lψ¯BψB]+\displaystyle-i\bar{\psi}_{\mathcal{A}}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}\psi^{% \mathcal{A}}+\frac{1}{2L}\bar{\psi}_{A}\psi^{A}-\frac{1}{2L}\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi% ^{B}\bigg{]}+\cdots- italic_i over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + ⋯ (2.12)

where ellipses denote fields that do not possess U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT R-charges. We will restrict attention to half of the supersymmetries

δϕ𝛿italic-ϕ\displaystyle\delta\phiitalic_δ italic_ϕ =2ζAψAabsent2subscript𝜁𝐴superscript𝜓𝐴\displaystyle=-\sqrt{2}\zeta_{A}\psi^{A}= - square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
δϕ¯𝛿¯italic-ϕ\displaystyle\delta\bar{\phi}italic_δ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG =2ζ¯Aψ¯Aabsent2superscript¯𝜁𝐴subscript¯𝜓𝐴\displaystyle=-\sqrt{2}\bar{\zeta}^{A}\bar{\psi}_{A}= - square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
δψαA𝛿subscriptsuperscript𝜓𝐴𝛼\displaystyle\delta\psi^{A}_{\alpha}italic_δ italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =i2(σμζ¯A)αμϕabsent𝑖2subscriptsuperscript𝜎𝜇superscript¯𝜁𝐴𝛼subscript𝜇italic-ϕ\displaystyle=-i\sqrt{2}(\sigma^{\mu}\bar{\zeta}^{A})_{\alpha}\partial_{\mu}\phi= - italic_i square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ
δψ¯Aα˙𝛿subscript¯𝜓𝐴˙𝛼\displaystyle\delta\bar{\psi}_{A\dot{\alpha}}italic_δ over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A over˙ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =+i2(ζAσμ)α˙μϕ¯absent𝑖2subscriptsubscript𝜁𝐴superscript𝜎𝜇˙𝛼subscript𝜇¯italic-ϕ\displaystyle=+i\sqrt{2}(\zeta_{A}\sigma^{\mu})_{\dot{\alpha}}\partial_{\mu}% \bar{\phi}= + italic_i square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over˙ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG (2.13)

that relate the complex scalars ϕ,ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ\phi,\bar{\phi}italic_ϕ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG for transverse fluctuations of S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with only half of the gauginos ψA,ψ¯Asuperscript𝜓𝐴subscript¯𝜓𝐴\psi^{A},\bar{\psi}_{A}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of positive R-charge. The corresponding conformal Killing spinors ζ,ζ¯𝜁¯𝜁\zeta,\bar{\zeta}italic_ζ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfy [30]

00\displaystyle 0 =tζAαabsentsubscript𝑡superscriptsubscript𝜁𝐴𝛼\displaystyle=\partial_{t}\zeta_{A}^{\alpha}= ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
00\displaystyle 0 =tζ¯α˙Aabsentsubscript𝑡subscriptsuperscript¯𝜁𝐴˙𝛼\displaystyle=\partial_{t}\bar{\zeta}^{A}_{\dot{\alpha}}= ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over˙ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
00\displaystyle 0 =iζAα+iL(ζAσ0i)αabsentsubscript𝑖superscriptsubscript𝜁𝐴𝛼𝑖𝐿superscriptsubscript𝜁𝐴subscript𝜎0𝑖𝛼\displaystyle=\nabla_{i}\zeta_{A}^{\alpha}+\frac{i}{L}(\zeta_{A}\sigma_{0i})^{\alpha}= ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
00\displaystyle 0 =iζ¯α˙AiL(ζ¯Aσ¯0i)α˙.absentsubscript𝑖subscriptsuperscript¯𝜁𝐴˙𝛼𝑖𝐿subscriptsuperscript¯𝜁𝐴subscript¯𝜎0𝑖˙𝛼\displaystyle=\nabla_{i}\bar{\zeta}^{A}_{\dot{\alpha}}-\frac{i}{L}(\bar{\zeta}% ^{A}\bar{\sigma}_{0i})_{\dot{\alpha}}.= ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over˙ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over˙ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (2.14)

The spinors ζ,ζ¯𝜁¯𝜁\zeta,\bar{\zeta}italic_ζ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG are time-independent unlike the previous case, so the hamiltonian of this worldvolume theory commutes with the supercharges from (2.2).

The new generator HD3superscriptsubscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\prime}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of time translations for the D3 solution

HD3=dΩS3[\displaystyle H_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\prime}=\int d\Omega_{S^{3}}\bigg{[}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∫ italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ |π|2+|π|2+iL(πϕϕ¯π¯)superscript𝜋2superscript𝜋2𝑖𝐿𝜋italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯𝜋\displaystyle|\pi|^{2}+|\nabla\pi|^{2}+\frac{i}{L}(\pi\phi-\bar{\phi}\bar{\pi})| italic_π | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | ∇ italic_π | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( italic_π italic_ϕ - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG )
+iψ¯𝒜σ¯iiψ𝒜12Lψ¯AψA+12Lψ¯BψB]+\displaystyle+i\bar{\psi}_{\mathcal{A}}\bar{\sigma}^{i}\nabla_{i}\psi^{% \mathcal{A}}-\frac{1}{2L}\bar{\psi}_{A}\psi^{A}+\frac{1}{2L}\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi% ^{B}\bigg{]}+\cdots+ italic_i over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + ⋯ (2.15)

has the shift +1LR1𝐿𝑅+\frac{1}{L}R+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R relative to the free 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 hamiltonian, where the definition of the R-charge

R=𝑑ΩS3[i(πϕϕ¯π¯)12(ψ¯AψAψ¯BψB)].𝑅differential-dsubscriptΩsuperscript𝑆3delimited-[]𝑖𝜋italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯𝜋12subscript¯𝜓𝐴superscript𝜓𝐴subscript¯𝜓𝐵superscript𝜓𝐵R=\int d\Omega_{S^{3}}\left[i(\pi\phi-\bar{\phi}\bar{\pi})-\frac{1}{2}(\bar{% \psi}_{A}\psi^{A}-\bar{\psi}_{B}\psi^{B})\right].italic_R = ∫ italic_d roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_i ( italic_π italic_ϕ - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] . (2.16)

remains invariant. The conjugate momenta π=ϕ¯˙+iLϕ¯𝜋˙¯italic-ϕ𝑖𝐿¯italic-ϕ\pi=\dot{\bar{\phi}}+\frac{i}{L}\bar{\phi}italic_π = over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG and π¯=ϕ˙iLϕ¯𝜋˙italic-ϕ𝑖𝐿italic-ϕ\bar{\pi}=\dot{\phi}-\frac{i}{L}\phiover¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG = over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_ϕ and the fermionic counterpart satisfy the equal-time (anti-)commutation relations. HD3superscriptsubscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\prime}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has the shift 1LR1𝐿𝑅-\frac{1}{L}R- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R relative to the stationary frame hamiltonian HD3subscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT upon relating the fields and momenta, so we recognize the new hamiltonian

HD3=HD31LRsuperscriptsubscript𝐻D3subscript𝐻D31𝐿𝑅H_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\prime}=H_{\mathrm{D3}}-\tfrac{1}{L}Ritalic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_R (2.17)

as the supersymmetric hamiltonian whose ground states are BPS states.

2.2.1 Reduction to quantum mechanics

For the half-BPS sector, it actually suffices to consider the supersymmetric quantum mechanics given by consistent truncation to the lightest S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-modes related by (2.2), because the higher modes do not satisfy the BPS condition. See e.g. [31] for details on the S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT mode expansion of 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, though in our case the Killing spinors ζ,ζ¯𝜁¯𝜁\zeta,\bar{\zeta}italic_ζ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ζ end_ARG are time-independent. The fluctuation scalars and gauginos have S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT mode expansions

ϕ(t,Ω)italic-ϕ𝑡Ω\displaystyle\phi(t,\Omega)italic_ϕ ( italic_t , roman_Ω ) =j=0MϕjM(t)YjM(Ω)absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0subscript𝑀subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑀𝑡subscript𝑌𝑗𝑀Ω\displaystyle=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{M}\phi_{jM}(t)Y_{jM}(\Omega)= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω )
ψα𝒜(t,Ω)subscriptsuperscript𝜓𝒜𝛼𝑡Ω\displaystyle\psi^{\mathcal{A}}_{\alpha}(t,\Omega)italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t , roman_Ω ) =j=0κ=±MψjMκ𝒜(t)YjMακ(Ω).absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0subscript𝜅plus-or-minussubscript𝑀superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝑀𝜅𝒜𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑌𝑗𝑀𝛼𝜅Ω\displaystyle=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\kappa=\pm}\sum_{M}\psi_{jM\kappa}^{% \mathcal{A}}(t)Y_{jM\alpha}^{\kappa}(\Omega).= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ = ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_M italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_M italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) . (2.18)

j𝑗jitalic_j labels the irreps of the S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT isometry group SO(4)SU(2)L×SU(2)Rsimilar-to-or-equals𝑆𝑂4𝑆𝑈subscript2𝐿𝑆𝑈subscript2𝑅SO(4)\simeq SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}italic_S italic_O ( 4 ) ≃ italic_S italic_U ( 2 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S italic_U ( 2 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , which are (j2,j2)𝑗2𝑗2(\frac{j}{2},\frac{j}{2})( divide start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , divide start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) for scalars and (j+12,j2)𝑗12𝑗2(\frac{j+1}{2},\frac{j}{2})( divide start_ARG italic_j + 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , divide start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ), (j2,j+12)𝑗2𝑗12(\frac{j}{2},\frac{j+1}{2})( divide start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , divide start_ARG italic_j + 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) for the κ=±𝜅plus-or-minus\kappa=\pmitalic_κ = ± fermions, respectively. M𝑀Mitalic_M runs over the dimensions of the irreducible representation associated with j𝑗jitalic_j. We will be interested in the scalar S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT zeromode ϕϕ00(t)italic-ϕsubscriptitalic-ϕ00𝑡\phi\equiv\phi_{00}(t)italic_ϕ ≡ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 00 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) and the lightest gaugino mode ψψ0M+1(t)𝜓subscriptsuperscript𝜓1limit-from0𝑀𝑡\psi\equiv\psi^{1}_{0M+}(t)italic_ψ ≡ italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_M + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) with R=+12𝑅12R=+\frac{1}{2}italic_R = + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG, κ=+𝜅\kappa=+italic_κ = +, and M=(+12,0)𝑀120M=(+\frac{1}{2},0)italic_M = ( + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , 0 ).444A choice of fermion modes with R=12𝑅12R=-\frac{1}{2}italic_R = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG and κ=𝜅\kappa=-italic_κ = - would correspond to a different set of supersymmetries. The other choice M=(12,0)𝑀120M=(-\frac{1}{2},0)italic_M = ( - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , 0 ) or linear combinations thereof are equally valid. We may also include higher modes to generalize our computation to BPS sectors preserving fewer supersymmetries, but we leave this to future work.

The worldline action for half-BPS excitations of a D3 giant is

SQM=NL𝑑t[ϕ¯˙ϕ˙+iL(ϕ¯ϕ˙ϕ¯˙ϕ)+iψ¯ψ˙+1L(ψ¯ψψψ¯)].subscript𝑆QM𝑁𝐿differential-d𝑡delimited-[]˙¯italic-ϕ˙italic-ϕ𝑖𝐿¯italic-ϕ˙italic-ϕ˙¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ𝑖¯𝜓˙𝜓1𝐿¯𝜓𝜓𝜓¯𝜓S_{\mathrm{QM}}=\frac{N}{L}\int dt\bigg{[}\dot{\bar{\phi}}\dot{\phi}+\frac{i}{% L}\left(\bar{\phi}\dot{\phi}-\dot{\bar{\phi}}\phi\right)+i\bar{\psi}\dot{\psi}% +\frac{1}{L}(\bar{\psi}\psi-\psi\bar{\psi})\bigg{]}.italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_QM end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ∫ italic_d italic_t [ over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG - over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG italic_ϕ ) + italic_i over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG over˙ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG italic_ψ - italic_ψ over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ) ] . (2.19)

While this action is invariant under simple supersymmetries that descend from (2.2), the shift in the definition of conjugate momenta results in an interesting interpretation of the supercharges on the transverse plane to S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which is locally \mathbb{C}blackboard_C.555The S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-zeromode conjugate momenta are π=ϕ¯˙+iLϕ¯𝜋˙¯italic-ϕ𝑖𝐿¯italic-ϕ\pi=\dot{\bar{\phi}}+\frac{i}{L}\bar{\phi}italic_π = over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG and π¯=ϕ˙iLϕ¯𝜋˙italic-ϕ𝑖𝐿italic-ϕ\bar{\pi}=\dot{\phi}-\frac{i}{L}\phiover¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG = over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_ϕ, and the (anti-)commutation relations [ϕ,π]=i,[ϕ¯,π¯]=i,{ψ,ψ¯}=1formulae-sequenceitalic-ϕ𝜋𝑖formulae-sequence¯italic-ϕ¯𝜋𝑖𝜓¯𝜓1[\phi,\pi]=i,\qquad[\bar{\phi},\bar{\pi}]=i,\qquad\{\psi,\bar{\psi}\}=1[ italic_ϕ , italic_π ] = italic_i , [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ] = italic_i , { italic_ψ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG } = 1 (2.20) hold at the level of the relevant S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT modes. In particular, we can identify the supercharges

Q𝑄\displaystyle Qitalic_Q =iψ¯ϕ¯˙=ψ¯(iπ¯1Lϕ)absent𝑖¯𝜓˙¯italic-ϕ¯𝜓𝑖¯𝜋1𝐿italic-ϕ\displaystyle=i\bar{\psi}\dot{\bar{\phi}}=\bar{\psi}(i\bar{\pi}-\tfrac{1}{L}\phi)= italic_i over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG over˙ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG = over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ( italic_i over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG italic_ϕ )
Q¯¯𝑄\displaystyle\bar{Q}over¯ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG =iψϕ˙=ψ(iπ1Lϕ¯)absent𝑖𝜓˙italic-ϕ𝜓𝑖𝜋1𝐿¯italic-ϕ\displaystyle=-i\psi\dot{\phi}=\psi(-i\pi-\tfrac{1}{L}\bar{\phi})= - italic_i italic_ψ over˙ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG = italic_ψ ( - italic_i italic_π - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG ) (2.21)

as the Dolbeault differential and its adjoint666The adjoint of the Dolbeault differential ¯¯\bar{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG in one complex dimension is defined as ¯=\bar{\partial}^{\dagger}=-\star\partial\starover¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - ⋆ ∂ ⋆.

¯hsubscript¯\displaystyle\bar{\partial}_{h}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =eh/L¯eh/Labsentsuperscript𝑒𝐿¯superscript𝑒𝐿\displaystyle=e^{-h/L}\,\bar{\partial}\,e^{h/L}= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_h / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
¯hsuperscriptsubscript¯\displaystyle\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =eh/L¯eh/Labsentsuperscript𝑒𝐿superscript¯superscript𝑒𝐿\displaystyle=e^{h/L}\,\bar{\partial}^{\dagger}\,e^{-h/L}= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_h / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (2.22)

deformed by an inverted Morse function h=ϕ¯ϕ¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕh=-\bar{\phi}\phiitalic_h = - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ. The inverse radius L1superscript𝐿1L^{-1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT plays the role of the localization parameter. Then the hamiltonian H={Q,Q¯}𝐻𝑄¯𝑄H=\{Q,\bar{Q}\}italic_H = { italic_Q , over¯ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG } of this supersymmetric quantum mechanics

H=π¯π+1L2ϕ¯ϕ+iL(ϕπϕ¯π¯)1L[ψ¯,ψ]𝐻¯𝜋𝜋1superscript𝐿2¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ𝑖𝐿italic-ϕ𝜋¯italic-ϕ¯𝜋1𝐿¯𝜓𝜓H=\bar{\pi}\pi+\frac{1}{L^{2}}\bar{\phi}\phi+\frac{i}{L}(\phi\pi-\bar{\phi}% \bar{\pi})-\frac{1}{L}[\bar{\psi},\psi]italic_H = over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG italic_π + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( italic_ϕ italic_π - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG , italic_ψ ] (2.23)

is the deformed Dolbeault laplacian

Δh¯=¯h¯h+¯h¯h.superscriptsubscriptΔ¯subscript¯superscriptsubscript¯superscriptsubscript¯subscript¯\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}=\bar{\partial}_{h}\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}+% \bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}\bar{\partial}_{h}.roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (2.24)

We also identify the fermions with operations ψ¯=dϕ¯¯𝜓limit-from𝑑¯italic-ϕ\bar{\psi}=d\bar{\phi}\ \wedgeover¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG = italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG ∧ and ψ=i/ϕ¯𝜓subscript𝑖¯italic-ϕ\psi=i_{\partial/\partial\bar{\phi}}italic_ψ = italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ / ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on differential forms. The BPS states are the eigenstates of H=Δh¯𝐻superscriptsubscriptΔ¯H=\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}italic_H = roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with zero eigenvalue. This system was studied in the context of holomorphic Morse inequalities in [32].

The function hhitalic_h induces a vector field V𝑉Vitalic_V generating an isometry of \mathbb{C}blackboard_C with fixed points at the critical points of hhitalic_h. Near any fixed point, the Dolbeault laplacian deformed by hhitalic_h takes the form

Δh¯=Δ¯+1L2ϕ¯ϕ1LV+1L()superscriptsubscriptΔ¯superscriptΔ¯1superscript𝐿2¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ1𝐿subscript𝑉1𝐿\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}=\Delta^{\bar{\partial}}+\frac{1}{L^{2}}\bar{\phi}% \phi-\frac{1}{L}\mathcal{L}_{V}+\frac{1}{L}(\cdots)roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( ⋯ ) (2.25)

where Vsubscript𝑉\mathcal{L}_{V}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Lie derivative with respect to the vector field V𝑉Vitalic_V. The ellipses denote scalar terms that do not contain derivatives. For H𝐻Hitalic_H, the induced vector field V𝑉Vitalic_V is

V=(ϕϕϕ¯ϕ¯),𝑉italic-ϕitalic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕV=-\left(\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}-\bar{\phi}\frac{\partial}{\partial% \bar{\phi}}\right),italic_V = - ( italic_ϕ divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG ) , (2.26)

which coincides with the U(1)X𝑈subscript1𝑋U(1)_{X}italic_U ( 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT isometry generator up to a sign. The sign determines the types of states that have support at the fixed point p𝑝pitalic_p of V𝑉Vitalic_V as well as the orientation for the isometry action Vsubscript𝑉\mathcal{L}_{V}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that is appropriate for computing the R-charges of these states. We elaborate on this point shortly.

Let us discuss why it suffices to consider only the quadratic fluctuation action of the maximal D3 solution for the purpose of finding BPS states that survive in the small radius limit of AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Taking this limit is within the regime of validity of the worldline quantum mechanics on \mathbb{R}blackboard_R, because we take this limit after having decomposed fields into S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT harmonics. We also neglect the higher open string fields because they do not satisfy the BPS condition. First we note that since V𝑉Vitalic_V generates an isometry of the ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ-plane, we have

[Δh¯,V]=0.superscriptsubscriptΔ¯subscript𝑉0[\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}},\mathcal{L}_{V}]=0.[ roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0 . (2.27)

Therefore we can find the relevant BPS states by finding solutions to

Δh¯Ψ=0superscriptsubscriptΔ¯Ψ0\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}\Psi=0roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ = 0 (2.28)

in the small radius limit L0𝐿0L\to 0italic_L → 0, within each Vsubscript𝑉\mathcal{L}_{V}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-eigenspace

VΨ=mΨsubscript𝑉Ψ𝑚Ψ\mathcal{L}_{V}\Psi=m\Psicaligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ = italic_m roman_Ψ (2.29)

of fixed charge m𝑚mitalic_m. Then the dominant potential 1L2ϕ¯ϕ1superscript𝐿2¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ\frac{1}{L^{2}}\bar{\phi}\phidivide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ forces all BPS states of charge m𝑚mitalic_m to be localized near the fixed point, for any given m𝑚mitalic_m in the limit L0𝐿0L\to 0italic_L → 0. That is, BPS open string states of D3 giants localize to fixed points of bulk isometries in the small radius limit L0𝐿0L\to 0italic_L → 0 of AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The quadratic D3 action was sufficient because 1L2ϕ¯ϕ1superscript𝐿2¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ\frac{1}{L^{2}}\bar{\phi}\phidivide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ is the dominant potential at any zero of V𝑉Vitalic_V.

Our localization argument explains why dual D3 giant gravitons expanding in S3AdS5superscript𝑆3subscriptAdS5S^{3}\subset\mathrm{AdS}_{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT do not seem to appear in the giant graviton expansion. A dual giant with large R-charge does not sit at a fixed point of the R-isometry, so BPS states of dual giants do not survive the small radius limit.

2.2.2 Normalizable states

To find normalizable BPS states, we allow Δh¯superscriptsubscriptΔ¯\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to act on the space of differential forms.

Recall that the Morse index (for real manifolds) of a critical point p𝑝pitalic_p is the number of unstable directions at p𝑝pitalic_p with respect to the function hhitalic_h. The holomorphic analog npsubscript𝑛𝑝n_{p}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the Morse index [32] is the number of unstable complex directions at the critical point p𝑝pitalic_p (with respect to hhitalic_h), or equivalently the number of complex directions for which V𝑉Vitalic_V acts clockwise in local complex coordinates about the fixed point p𝑝pitalic_p. The holomorphic Morse index npsubscript𝑛𝑝n_{p}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT coincides with the anti-holomorphic form degree of the normalizable state supported near p𝑝pitalic_p.

As in [32], the Lie derivative Vsubscript𝑉\mathcal{L}_{V}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT acting on forms with respect to V𝑉Vitalic_V computes the R-charge of a BPS state at p𝑝pitalic_p, given a choice of the fugacity domain for which the charge spectrum converges. In particular, the operator Vsubscript𝑉\mathcal{L}_{V}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT computes directly the charge spectrum of states that is convergent in the fugacity domain by taking into account the orientation at p𝑝pitalic_p induced by hhitalic_h. For example, for a fixed point with np=1subscript𝑛𝑝1n_{p}=1italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, the normalizable states are anti-holomorphic 1-forms so Vsubscript𝑉\mathcal{L}_{V}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT comptues the R-charge with a reversed orientation for the isometry action.

For the problem at hand, p𝑝pitalic_p is the sole fixed point of V𝑉Vitalic_V at the origin of the ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ-plane and it has holomorphic Morse index np=1subscript𝑛𝑝1n_{p}=1italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1. The normalizable tower of BPS states is given by anti-holomorphic 1-forms

Ψm=ϕ¯meϕ¯ϕ/Ldϕ¯subscriptΨ𝑚superscript¯italic-ϕ𝑚superscript𝑒¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ𝐿𝑑¯italic-ϕ\Psi_{m}=\bar{\phi}^{m}e^{-\bar{\phi}\phi/L}d\bar{\phi}roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG (2.30)

that satisfy

¯hΨm=(ϕ1Lϕ¯)Ψm=0superscriptsubscript¯subscriptΨ𝑚italic-ϕ1𝐿¯italic-ϕsubscriptΨ𝑚0\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}\Psi_{m}=\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}-% \frac{1}{L}\bar{\phi}\right)\Psi_{m}=0over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( - divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 (2.31)

oder Δh¯Ψm=0superscriptsubscriptΔ¯subscriptΨ𝑚0\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}\Psi_{m}=0roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, for m=0,1,2,𝑚012m=0,1,2,\cdotsitalic_m = 0 , 1 , 2 , ⋯. In the half-BPS sector we are interested in the fugacity domain |x|<1𝑥1|x|<1| italic_x | < 1 where each BPS state is counted with weight xRsuperscript𝑥𝑅x^{R}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We can directly compute the charge spectrum that is convergent for |x|<1𝑥1|x|<1| italic_x | < 1:

VΨm=(m+1)Ψm.subscript𝑉subscriptΨ𝑚𝑚1subscriptΨ𝑚\mathcal{L}_{V}\Psi_{m}=(m+1)\Psi_{m}.caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_m + 1 ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (2.32)

This tower gives the half-BPS open string spectrum on a single giant

μxNm=0xm+1=μxNx1x,𝜇superscript𝑥𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑚0superscript𝑥𝑚1𝜇superscript𝑥𝑁𝑥1𝑥\mu\ x^{N}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}x^{m+1}=\mu\,x^{N}\frac{x}{1-x},italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x end_ARG , (2.33)

where xNsuperscript𝑥𝑁x^{N}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT accounts for R-charges carried by the D3 giant and we introduced a fugacity μ𝜇\muitalic_μ for the form degree. This coincides with the k=1𝑘1k=1italic_k = 1 term of the giant graviton expansion in the half-BPS sector with μ=1𝜇1\mu=-1italic_μ = - 1.

There is a shift

NN+1𝑁𝑁1N\to N+1italic_N → italic_N + 1 (2.34)

in the R-charge of the open string vacuum relative to the classical expectation of N𝑁Nitalic_N. This resulted from the fact that the open string vacuum on a single D3 giant is labelled by an anti-holomorphic 1-form.

Note that a naive count of the charges based on the background R-isometry (and without accounting for form-valued states) would have given the spectrum xN11x1superscript𝑥𝑁11superscript𝑥1x^{N}\frac{1}{1-x^{-1}}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, whose series expression converges for |x|>1𝑥1|x|>1| italic_x | > 1. This series is related to (2.33) by analytic continuation.

2.2.3 Generalization to k𝑘kitalic_k coincident giants

Let us generalize the analysis to k𝑘kitalic_k coincident giants. We could diagonalize the hamiltonian

Hksubscript𝐻𝑘\displaystyle H_{k}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =Tr[π¯π+1L2ϕ¯ϕ+iL(ϕπϕ¯π¯)1L[ψ¯,ψ]]absentTrdelimited-[]¯𝜋𝜋1superscript𝐿2¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ𝑖𝐿italic-ϕ𝜋¯italic-ϕ¯𝜋1𝐿¯𝜓𝜓\displaystyle={\rm Tr\,}\left[\bar{\pi}\pi+\frac{1}{L^{2}}\bar{\phi}\phi+\frac% {i}{L}(\phi\pi-\bar{\phi}\bar{\pi})-\frac{1}{L}[\bar{\psi},\psi]\right]= roman_Tr [ over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG italic_π + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( italic_ϕ italic_π - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG , italic_ψ ] ]
=Tr[ϕ¯ϕ+1L2ϕ¯ϕ+1L(ϕϕϕ¯ϕ¯)1L(ψ¯ψψψ¯)]absentTrdelimited-[]¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ1superscript𝐿2¯italic-ϕitalic-ϕ1𝐿italic-ϕitalic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ1𝐿¯𝜓𝜓𝜓¯𝜓\displaystyle={\rm Tr\,}\left[-\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}}\frac{% \partial}{\partial\phi}+\frac{1}{L^{2}}\bar{\phi}\phi+\frac{1}{L}\left(\phi% \frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}-\bar{\phi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}}% \right)-\frac{1}{L}(\bar{\psi}\psi-\psi\bar{\psi})\right]= roman_Tr [ - divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG italic_ϕ + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( italic_ϕ divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG italic_ψ - italic_ψ over¯ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG ) ] (2.35)

in the position representation where the operators are now k×k𝑘𝑘k\times kitalic_k × italic_k matrices, and then look for normalizable U(k)𝑈𝑘U(k)italic_U ( italic_k )-invariant ground states. We proceed instead via a shortcut, namely by finding form-valued and U(k)𝑈𝑘U(k)italic_U ( italic_k )-invariant solutions to the supersymmetry conditions

¯hΨ=¯hΨ=0subscript¯Ψsuperscriptsubscript¯Ψ0\bar{\partial}_{h}\Psi=\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}\Psi=0over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ = over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ = 0 (2.36)

under a suitable ansatz for the ground state wavefunction ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.

Let us first determine the local form of the Morse potential hhitalic_h in terms of the eigenvalues ϕa,ϕ¯bsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏\phi_{a},\bar{\phi}_{b}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the k×k𝑘𝑘k\times kitalic_k × italic_k matrices ϕ,ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ\phi,\bar{\phi}italic_ϕ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG. Let P𝑃Pitalic_P and Q𝑄Qitalic_Q be invertible matrices such that ϕij=PiaϕaPaj1subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝑗subscript𝑃𝑖𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝑃1𝑎𝑗\phi_{ij}=P_{ia}\phi_{a}P^{-1}_{aj}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ϕ¯ij=Qiaϕ¯aQaj1subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑖𝑗subscript𝑄𝑖𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝑄1𝑎𝑗\bar{\phi}_{ij}=Q_{ia}\bar{\phi}_{a}Q^{-1}_{aj}over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We have Q=P𝑄superscript𝑃Q=P^{\dagger}italic_Q = italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT since ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ and ϕ¯¯italic-ϕ\bar{\phi}over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG matrices are hermitian conjugates. The relevant part of the hamiltonian Hksubscript𝐻𝑘H_{k}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT containing the induced vector field V𝑉Vitalic_V is

1LTr[ϕϕϕ¯ϕ¯]=1Li,j=1k(ϕijϕijϕ¯ijϕ¯ij).1𝐿Trdelimited-[]italic-ϕitalic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ1𝐿superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑘subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝑗subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝑗subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑖𝑗subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑖𝑗\frac{1}{L}{\rm Tr\,}\left[\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}-\bar{\phi}\frac{% \partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}}\right]=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{i,j=1}^{k}\left(\phi_{ij% }\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{ij}}-\bar{\phi}_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial% \bar{\phi}_{ij}}\right).divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG roman_Tr [ italic_ϕ divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG ] = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) . (2.37)

We can express the derivatives with respect to matrices ϕ,ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ\phi,\bar{\phi}italic_ϕ , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG in terms of the eigenvalues

ϕij=a=1kPai1Pjaϕa,ϕ¯ij=a=1kQai1Qjaϕ¯a,formulae-sequencesubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscriptsuperscript𝑃1𝑎𝑖subscript𝑃𝑗𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscriptsuperscript𝑄1𝑎𝑖subscript𝑄𝑗𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{ij}}=\sum_{a=1}^{k}P^{-1}_{ai}P_{ja}\frac{% \partial}{\partial\phi_{a}},\qquad\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}_{ij}}=% \sum_{a=1}^{k}Q^{-1}_{ai}Q_{ja}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}_{a}},divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (2.38)

so we have

1LTr[ϕϕϕ¯ϕ¯]1𝐿Trdelimited-[]italic-ϕitalic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ¯italic-ϕ\displaystyle\frac{1}{L}{\rm Tr\,}\left[\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}-\bar% {\phi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}}\right]divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG roman_Tr [ italic_ϕ divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG end_ARG ] =1Li,j=1ka,b=1k[PiaϕaPaj1Pbi1PjbϕbQiaϕ¯aQaj1Qbi1Qjbϕ¯b]absent1𝐿superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑏1𝑘delimited-[]subscript𝑃𝑖𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝑃1𝑎𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑃1𝑏𝑖subscript𝑃𝑗𝑏subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑏subscript𝑄𝑖𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝑄1𝑎𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑄1𝑏𝑖subscript𝑄𝑗𝑏subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏\displaystyle=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{i,j=1}^{k}\sum_{a,b=1}^{k}\left[P_{ia}\phi_{a}P% ^{-1}_{aj}P^{-1}_{bi}P_{jb}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{b}}-Q_{ia}\bar{\phi}_% {a}Q^{-1}_{aj}Q^{-1}_{bi}Q_{jb}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}_{b}}\right]= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_b = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ]
=+a=1k(ϕaϕaϕ¯bϕ¯b).absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏\displaystyle=+\sum_{a=1}^{k}\left(\phi_{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{a}}-% \bar{\phi}_{b}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}_{b}}\right).= + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) . (2.39)

The local form of the vector field V𝑉Vitalic_V about the origin in the space ksuperscript𝑘\mathbb{C}^{k}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of eigenvalues, found by comparing the above expression with the Lie derivative 1LV1𝐿subscript𝑉-\frac{1}{L}\mathcal{L}_{V}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_L end_ARG caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Δh¯superscriptsubscriptΔ¯\Delta_{h}^{\bar{\partial}}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in (2.25), is

V=a=1k(ϕaϕaϕ¯bϕ¯b).𝑉superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏V=-\sum_{a=1}^{k}\left(\phi_{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{a}}-\bar{\phi}_{b% }\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\phi}_{b}}\right).italic_V = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) . (2.40)

V𝑉Vitalic_V is induced from the Morse function h=a=1kϕ¯aϕasuperscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎h=-\sum_{a=1}^{k}\bar{\phi}_{a}\phi_{a}italic_h = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in local coordinates. The holomorphic Morse index at this point is np=ksubscript𝑛𝑝𝑘n_{p}=kitalic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_k, so the state ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ is an anti-holomorphic k𝑘kitalic_k-form. Thus, the normalizable state ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ must have the expression

Ψ=G(ϕa,ϕ¯b)ea=1kϕ¯aϕa/Ldϕ¯1dϕ¯kΨ𝐺subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎𝐿𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ1𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑘\Psi=G(\phi_{a},\bar{\phi}_{b})e^{-\sum_{a=1}^{k}\bar{\phi}_{a}\phi_{a}/L}d% \bar{\phi}_{1}\wedge\cdots\wedge d\bar{\phi}_{k}roman_Ψ = italic_G ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧ ⋯ ∧ italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (2.41)

in local eigenvalue coordinates (ϕa,ϕ¯b)subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏(\phi_{a},\bar{\phi}_{b})( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). G(ϕa,ϕ¯b)𝐺subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏G(\phi_{a},\bar{\phi}_{b})italic_G ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is totally antisymmetric under exchanges of the anti-holomorphic eigenvalues ϕ¯bsubscript¯italic-ϕ𝑏\bar{\phi}_{b}over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The supersymmetry condition ¯hΨ=0superscriptsubscript¯Ψ0\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}\Psi=0over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ = 0 imposes further restrictions. Since

¯hΨa=1kGϕadϕ¯1dϕ¯a^dϕ¯k=0,proportional-tosuperscriptsubscript¯Ψsuperscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘𝐺subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ1^𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑘0\bar{\partial}_{h}^{\dagger}\Psi\propto\sum_{a=1}^{k}\frac{\partial G}{% \partial\phi_{a}}d\bar{\phi}_{1}\wedge\cdots\wedge\widehat{d\bar{\phi}_{a}}% \wedge\cdots\wedge d\bar{\phi}_{k}=0,over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ ∝ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_G end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧ ⋯ ∧ over^ start_ARG italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∧ ⋯ ∧ italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 , (2.42)

where we omit the hatted component, G𝐺Gitalic_G is independent of the holomorphic eigenvalues ϕasubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎\phi_{a}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As there are no further constraints, we can now write a U(k)𝑈𝑘U(k)italic_U ( italic_k )-invariant basis for the supersymmetric ground states of Hksubscript𝐻𝑘H_{k}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

Ψm1mk=1k!a1,,ak=1kϵa1akϕ¯1ma1ϕ¯2ma2ϕ¯kmakea=1kϕ¯aϕa/Ldϕ¯1dϕ¯ksubscriptΨsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑘1𝑘superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑘1𝑘subscriptitalic-ϵsubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑘superscriptsubscript¯italic-ϕ1subscript𝑚subscript𝑎1superscriptsubscript¯italic-ϕ2subscript𝑚subscript𝑎2superscriptsubscript¯italic-ϕ𝑘subscript𝑚subscript𝑎𝑘superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑘subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑎subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑎𝐿𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ1𝑑subscript¯italic-ϕ𝑘\Psi_{m_{1}\cdots m_{k}}=\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{a_{1},\cdots,a_{k}=1}^{k}\epsilon_{% a_{1}\cdots a_{k}}\bar{\phi}_{1}^{m_{a_{1}}}\bar{\phi}_{2}^{m_{a_{2}}}\cdots% \bar{\phi}_{k}^{m_{a_{k}}}e^{-\sum_{a=1}^{k}\bar{\phi}_{a}\phi_{a}/L}d\bar{% \phi}_{1}\wedge\cdots\wedge d\bar{\phi}_{k}roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ! end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧ ⋯ ∧ italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (2.43)

where 0m1<m2<<mk<0subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚𝑘0\leq m_{1}<m_{2}<\cdots<m_{k}<\infty0 ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞. These states have R-charges

VΨm1mk=(m1++mk+k)Ψm1mk,subscript𝑉subscriptΨsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑘subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑘𝑘subscriptΨsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑘\mathcal{L}_{V}\Psi_{m_{1}\cdots m_{k}}=(m_{1}+\cdots+m_{k}+k)\Psi_{m_{1}% \cdots m_{k}},caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_k ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (2.44)

so the half-BPS spectrum of k𝑘kitalic_k giants is

μkxkN0m1<<mk<xm1++mk+k=μkxkNxk(k+1)/2n=1k(1xn)superscript𝜇𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁subscript0subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑘superscript𝑥subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑘𝑘superscript𝜇𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑥𝑘𝑘12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑘1superscript𝑥𝑛\mu^{k}x^{kN}\sum_{0\leq m_{1}<\cdots<m_{k}<\infty}x^{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{k}+k}=% \mu^{k}x^{kN}\frac{x^{k(k+1)/2}}{\prod_{n=1}^{k}(1-x^{n})}italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_k + 1 ) / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG (2.45)

This is the k𝑘kitalic_k-th term of the giant graviton expansion in the half-BPS sector with μ=1𝜇1\mu=-1italic_μ = - 1.

There is again a shift

kNkN+12k(k+1)𝑘𝑁𝑘𝑁12𝑘𝑘1kN\to kN+\frac{1}{2}k(k+1)italic_k italic_N → italic_k italic_N + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_k ( italic_k + 1 ) (2.46)

in the R-charge of the open string vacuum relative to the classical expectation of kN𝑘𝑁kNitalic_k italic_N, which originates from the fact that the open string vacuum on k𝑘kitalic_k D3 giants is labelled by an anti-holomorphic k𝑘kitalic_k-form.

2.3 Ghosts for trace relations

In our bulk analysis, we have seen that the open string vacuum on k𝑘kitalic_k giant graviton branes is labelled by a differential k𝑘kitalic_k-form. The form degree of states resulted from the fact that the supersymmetry generators were identified to be Dolbeault differentials deformed by a Morse function hhitalic_h with k𝑘kitalic_k unstable complex directions at the fixed point of an isometry. The form degree equips the bulk open string Hilbert space with an extra grading associated to the number of branes in the background.

On the other hand, normalizable BPS states of the boundary 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 super Yang-Mills on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are scalar-valued because the corresponding Morse function does not admit any unstable direction. This essentially stems from the fact that the BPS hamiltonian HBPS=H𝒩=4Rsubscript𝐻BPSsubscript𝐻𝒩4𝑅H_{\mathrm{BPS}}=H_{\mathcal{N}=4}-Ritalic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_BPS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N = 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_R of the boundary gauge theory possesses an angular momentum term that is opposite in sign compared to that of HD3superscriptsubscript𝐻D3H_{\mathrm{D3}}^{\prime}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT D3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in (2.2). An analysis similar to that done in Section 2.2.3 shows that the following normalizable wavefunctions

Ψm1mN=1N!σSNX1mσ(1)X2mσ(2)XNmσ(N)ea=1NX¯aXa,subscriptΨsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑁1𝑁subscript𝜎subscript𝑆𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑋1subscript𝑚𝜎1superscriptsubscript𝑋2subscript𝑚𝜎2superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑁subscript𝑚𝜎𝑁superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑁subscript¯𝑋𝑎subscript𝑋𝑎\Psi_{m_{1}\cdots m_{N}}=\frac{1}{N!}\sum_{\sigma\in S_{N}}X_{1}^{m_{\sigma(1)% }}X_{2}^{m_{\sigma(2)}}\cdots X_{N}^{m_{\sigma(N)}}e^{-\sum_{a=1}^{N}\bar{X}_{% a}X_{a}},roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N ! end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( 1 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (2.47)

with 0m1m2mN<0subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚𝑁0\leq m_{1}\leq m_{2}\leq\cdots\leq m_{N}<\infty0 ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞, form a basis of half-BPS states for the boundary U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM. These states were written in terms of the eigenvalues (Xa,X¯b)subscript𝑋𝑎subscript¯𝑋𝑏(X_{a},\bar{X}_{b})( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of the N×N𝑁𝑁N\times Nitalic_N × italic_N scalars X𝑋Xitalic_X and X¯¯𝑋\bar{X}over¯ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG. They have R-charges

VΨm1mN=(m1++mN)Ψm1mNsubscript𝑉subscriptΨsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑁subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑁subscriptΨsubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑁\mathcal{L}_{V}\Psi_{m_{1}\cdots m_{N}}=(m_{1}+\cdots+m_{N})\Psi_{m_{1}\cdots m% _{N}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (2.48)

with V=+a=1N(XaXaX¯aX¯a)𝑉superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑁subscript𝑋𝑎subscript𝑋𝑎subscript¯𝑋𝑎subscript¯𝑋𝑎V=+\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left(X_{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial X_{a}}-\bar{X}_{a}\frac{% \partial}{\partial\bar{X}_{a}}\right)italic_V = + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - over¯ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ), and their counting reproduces the boundary half-BPS spectrum ZN=n=1N11xnsubscript𝑍𝑁superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁11superscript𝑥𝑛Z_{N}=\prod_{n=1}^{N}\frac{1}{1-x^{n}}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. This shows that the grading with respect to the form degree of states does not appear in the physical Hilbert space of the boundary gauge theory.

The obvious question is then, how can the presence of the extra grading in the bulk open string Hilbert space be consistent with holography? To answer this question, we need to identify the “states” in the boundary gauge theory that possess an extra grading and also reproduce the spectrum (2.45). Identifying such states is made subtle because, as demonstrated above, these states cannot belong to the physical Hilbert space of the gauge theory.

We can obtain clues regarding the nature of these states by examining the “mode” expansion in z𝑧zitalic_z of the determinant operator det(zX)𝑧𝑋\det(z-X)roman_det ( italic_z - italic_X ) inserted at a point in U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 SYM. This operator is dual to a family of D3 giant graviton branes wrapped on S3S5superscript𝑆3superscript𝑆5S^{3}\subset S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with order N𝑁Nitalic_N units of an R-charge. The auxiliary parameter z𝑧zitalic_z has an interpretation as the bulk insertion point of the brane on the plane transverse to the S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. More explicitly, according to det(zX)𝑧𝑋\det(z-X)roman_det ( italic_z - italic_X ) the brane must reach its maximal size at z=0𝑧0z=0italic_z = 0 and shrink to zero size at z𝑧z\to\inftyitalic_z → ∞. We can therefore make the identification z=Φ1ΦΦ¯/L2𝑧Φ1Φ¯Φsuperscript𝐿2z=\frac{\Phi}{1-\Phi\bar{\Phi}/L^{2}}italic_z = divide start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG start_ARG 1 - roman_Φ over¯ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG / italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG in coordinates discussed in Section 2.1. The spacetime interpretation of z𝑧zitalic_z is useful even though we are working in a regime where stringy effects are large.

The fluctuation “modes” in z𝑧zitalic_z of the determinant operator are

det(zX)=zNen=11nznTrXn=zNn=0(1)nPnzn.𝑧𝑋superscript𝑧𝑁superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝑛11𝑛superscript𝑧𝑛Trsuperscript𝑋𝑛superscript𝑧𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑛0superscript1𝑛subscript𝑃𝑛superscript𝑧𝑛\det(z-X)=z^{N}e^{-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}z^{-n}{\rm Tr\,}X^{n}}=z^{N}% \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}P_{n}}{z^{n}}.roman_det ( italic_z - italic_X ) = italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . (2.49)

where Pn=Pn(TrX)subscript𝑃𝑛subscript𝑃𝑛Trsuperscript𝑋P_{n}=P_{n}({\rm Tr\,}X^{\bullet})italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) are defined in terms of the exponential generating function and where the expression is normal-ordered. The first few modes are

P1subscript𝑃1\displaystyle P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =TrXabsentTr𝑋\displaystyle={\rm Tr\,}X= roman_Tr italic_X
P2subscript𝑃2\displaystyle P_{2}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =12((TrX)2(TrX2))absent12superscriptTr𝑋2Trsuperscript𝑋2\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\left(({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}-({\rm Tr\,}X^{2})\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
P3subscript𝑃3\displaystyle P_{3}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =16((TrX)33(TrX)(TrX2)+2(TrX3))absent16superscriptTr𝑋33Tr𝑋Trsuperscript𝑋22Trsuperscript𝑋3\displaystyle=\frac{1}{6}\left(({\rm Tr\,}X)^{3}-3({\rm Tr\,}X)({\rm Tr\,}X^{2% })+2({\rm Tr\,}X^{3})\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 6 end_ARG ( ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 ( roman_Tr italic_X ) ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 2 ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )
P4subscript𝑃4\displaystyle P_{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =124((TrX)46(TrX)2(TrX2)+3(TrX2)2+8(TrX)(TrX3)6(TrX4))absent124superscriptTr𝑋46superscriptTr𝑋2Trsuperscript𝑋23superscriptTrsuperscript𝑋228Tr𝑋Trsuperscript𝑋36Trsuperscript𝑋4\displaystyle=\frac{1}{24}\left(({\rm Tr\,}X)^{4}-6({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}({\rm Tr\,% }X^{2})+3({\rm Tr\,}X^{2})^{2}+8({\rm Tr\,}X)({\rm Tr\,}X^{3})-6({\rm Tr\,}X^{% 4})\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG ( ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 3 ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 ( roman_Tr italic_X ) ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 6 ( roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) (2.50)

and so on. At any positive integer value N𝑁Nitalic_N, the tower of modes

det(zX)=(1)N+1[+PN+1zPN+2z2+PN+3z3+]𝑧𝑋superscript1𝑁1delimited-[]subscript𝑃𝑁1𝑧subscript𝑃𝑁2superscript𝑧2subscript𝑃𝑁3superscript𝑧3\det(z-X)=(-1)^{N+1}\left[\cdots+\frac{P_{N+1}}{z}-\frac{P_{N+2}}{z^{2}}+\frac% {P_{N+3}}{z^{3}}+\cdots\right]roman_det ( italic_z - italic_X ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ ⋯ + divide start_ARG italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_z end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ⋯ ] (2.51)

starting at PN+1subscript𝑃𝑁1P_{N+1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are but the trace relations between gauge-invariant operators that are present in any U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory. In other words, states constructed by acting with modes PN+1,PN+2,subscript𝑃𝑁1subscript𝑃𝑁2P_{N+1},P_{N+2},\cdotsitalic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ on the vacuum |0ket0|0\rangle| 0 ⟩ are the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N null states. Since these modes vanish automatically at any integer N𝑁Nitalic_N, the determinant operator det(zX)𝑧𝑋\det(z-X)roman_det ( italic_z - italic_X ) is a polynomial of degree N𝑁Nitalic_N in z𝑧zitalic_z.

While these null states yield the correct half-BPS spectrum xNx1xsuperscript𝑥𝑁𝑥1𝑥x^{N}\frac{x}{1-x}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x end_ARG of a single D3 giant, we should not identify the set of trace relations directly with the states of bulk D-branes. The reason is that one needs the states to possess an extra grading in order to explain the overall signs (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that appear in the BPS spectrum on k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D-branes, and no such grading distinguishes the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N null states from the physical states.

Instead, we identify the BPS D-brane states with auxiliary “heavy” ghosts χ𝜒\chiitalic_χ, with dimension and R-charge starting at N+1𝑁1N+1italic_N + 1, in a boundary U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) gauge theory that compensate for null states due to trace relations at a finite value of N𝑁Nitalic_N. The effect of introducing these anti-commuting ghosts along with a homological charge Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG acting as

[χNa,Q^]±subscriptsubscript𝜒𝑁𝑎^𝑄plus-or-minus\displaystyle[\chi_{-N-a},\widehat{Q}]_{\pm}[ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =PN+aabsentsubscript𝑃𝑁𝑎\displaystyle=P_{N+a}= italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
[Pa,Q^]±subscriptsubscript𝑃𝑎^𝑄plus-or-minus\displaystyle[P_{a},\widehat{Q}]_{\pm}[ italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =0,absent0\displaystyle=0,= 0 , (2.52)

where a=1,2,𝑎12a=1,2,\cdotsitalic_a = 1 , 2 , ⋯, is to reduce the U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) theory to a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory. We assign the “heavy” ghost number 1111 to χasubscript𝜒𝑎\chi_{a}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 11-1- 1 to the differential 𝒬^=[,Q^]±^𝒬subscript^𝑄plus-or-minus\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}=[\,\cdot\,,\widehat{Q}]_{\pm}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG = [ ⋅ , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The heavy ghosts should be distinguished from the BRST (anti-)ghosts that one introduces for gauge-fixing and to impose on-shell constraints in a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory. Rather, the role of the heavy ghost and the differential is to supplement the U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) theory with directions for systematically removing all but the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) degrees of freedom.

It is simple to compute the spectrum with ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k in the half-BPS sector, because this sector does not have ghosts-for-ghosts. The states with ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k are therefore multi-ghost states built out of χNasubscript𝜒𝑁𝑎\chi_{-N-a}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We can write a basis of k𝑘kitalic_k multi-ghost states as

χNa1χNa2χNak|0subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎2subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘ket0\chi_{-N-a_{1}}\chi_{-N-a_{2}}\cdots\chi_{-N-a_{k}}|0\rangleitalic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ (2.53)

where 1a1<a2<<ak<1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2subscript𝑎𝑘1\leq a_{1}<a_{2}<\cdots<a_{k}<\infty1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞, which yields the charge spectrum

μkxkNxk(k+1)/2n=1k(1xn)superscript𝜇𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑥𝑘𝑘12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑘1superscript𝑥𝑛\mu^{k}x^{kN}\frac{x^{k(k+1)/2}}{\prod_{n=1}^{k}(1-x^{n})}italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_k + 1 ) / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG (2.54)

that agrees with our bulk computation (2.45). Fugacity μ𝜇\muitalic_μ in the gauge theory now keeps track of the heavy ghost number.

Our findings suggest that the form degree k𝑘kitalic_k for the states of k𝑘kitalic_k D-branes in the bulk should be identified with the ghost number assigned to auxiliary ghosts that compensate for trace relations in the boundary gauge theory (as opposed to the fermion number F𝐹Fitalic_F in the gauge theory that is usually defined in terms of other quantum numbers). This is the extra grading in the bulk that is not seen in the physical Hilbert space of a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory if one works strictly at any positive integer value of N𝑁Nitalic_N.

3 Bulk Hilbert space as a resolution of finite N𝑁Nitalic_N modules

Thus far, we found the BPS states of coincident bulk D-branes by quantizing its open string modes. These states possess an additional grading, associated with the brane number k𝑘kitalic_k labelling the open string vacua, whose bulk origin is the form degree of states and whose boundary origin is the ghost number assigned to “heavy” ghosts that compensate for finite N𝑁Nitalic_N null states.

We have not yet discussed how the space of states built on different D-brane backgrounds are related to each other. That is, we should ask whether there is a natural way to organize the relationships among the perturbative Hilbert spaces built on various D-brane backgrounds.

In this section, we comment on global aspects of the bulk Hilbert space at vanishing ’t Hooft coupling λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ and finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, by employing the holographic map between D-brane states and heavy ghosts. Our proposal is that a complex formed from the spaces of states of certain bulk D-branes in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit furnishes a BRST-like resolution of the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N Hilbert space of the boundary gauge theory at λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0. Objects in the complex are labelled by the heavy ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k. The giant graviton expansion can be derived by computing the Hilbert series of the resolution.

As discussed in Section 2.2.1, taking the small radius limit L0𝐿0L\to 0italic_L → 0 of D-brane states is well-defined if they are the ground states of a supersymmetric hamiltonian of the worldline quantum mechanics on \mathbb{R}blackboard_R. Such states localize to fixed points of bulk isometries at large curvatures because the inverse radius L1superscript𝐿1L^{-1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT assumes the role of a localization parameter. The consideration of D-branes at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N is, of course, an extrapolation drawn from our computations at large N𝑁Nitalic_N. That the extrapolation from large to finite N𝑁Nitalic_N works in the giant graviton expansion is rather miraculous, and we discuss its implications in Section 3.3.1.

While the bulk computations of Section 2 relied on supersymmetry and the presence of a weakly-curved gravity limit, there are reasons to think that the identification between D-brane states and heavy ghosts is quite general and holds independently of those properties. Trace relations between gauge-invariant operators are present in any finite N𝑁Nitalic_N gauge theory with adjoint fields, and such a theory can be rewritten as a N=𝑁N=\inftyitalic_N = ∞ gauge theory supplemented with an auxiliary ghost for every trace relation in the original theory.777There can certainly be non-trivial relations between trace relations that necessitate ghosts-for-ghosts, and we discuss these cases thoroughly.

3.1 Half-BPS Hilbert space in the bulk

Here, we motivate our main proposal regarding the bulk Hilbert space by gathering the lessons of our bulk computations in the half-BPS sector. The half-BPS sector is rather special because the set of trace relations do not satisfy further non-trivial relations. Therefore, one does not need to introduce ghosts-for-ghosts. We generalize these lessons subsequently.

In Section 2.2, we found the states of D-branes responsible for the spectrum

μkxkNxk(k+1)/2m=1k(1xm)superscript𝜇𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑥𝑘𝑘12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑥𝑚\mu^{k}x^{kN}\frac{x^{k(k+1)/2}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-x^{m})}italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_k + 1 ) / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG (3.1)

on k𝑘kitalic_k giant graviton branes. The giant graviton expansion suggests that, to retrieve the half-BPS spectrum of boundary 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, we should simply sum up the open string spectra Z^k(x)subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑥\hat{Z}_{k}(x)over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) of k𝑘kitalic_k-brane sectors for all k𝑘kitalic_k, each in the presence of half-BPS closed strings Z(x)subscript𝑍𝑥Z_{\infty}(x)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) of the AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT background:

1n=1N(1xn)=1n=1(1xn)k=0(1)kxkNxk(k+1)/2m=1k(1xm).1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁1superscript𝑥𝑛1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑥𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑥𝑘𝑘12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑥𝑚\frac{1}{\prod_{n=1}^{N}(1-x^{n})}=\frac{1}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-x^{n})}\sum% _{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}x^{kN}\frac{x^{k(k+1)/2}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-x^{m})}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_k + 1 ) / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (3.2)

We also set the fugacity μ𝜇\muitalic_μ for the form degree grading to μ=1𝜇1\mu=-1italic_μ = - 1.

On the other hand, we identified its holographic dual as heavy ghosts χ𝜒\chiitalic_χ that compensate for the presence of finite N𝑁Nitalic_N trace relations. We can study the half-BPS sector at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N by equipping the U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) gauge theory with ghosts χ𝜒\chiitalic_χ and a homological differential 𝒬^=[,Q^]±^𝒬subscript^𝑄plus-or-minus\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}=[\,\cdot\,,\widehat{Q}]_{\pm}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG = [ ⋅ , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT acting on operators via the graded Leibniz rule

𝒬^(χNa1χNak)^𝒬subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘\displaystyle\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\chi_{-N-a_{1}}\cdots\chi_{-N-a_{k}})over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =i=1k(1)i+1(χNa1𝒬^(χNai)χNak)absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘superscript1𝑖1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎1^𝒬subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{k}(-1)^{i+1}(\chi_{-N-a_{1}}\cdots\widehat{\mathcal{% Q}}(\chi_{-N-a_{i}})\cdots\chi_{-N-a_{k}})= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
=i=1k(1)i+1PN+ai(χNa1χNai1χNai+1χNak)absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘superscript1𝑖1subscript𝑃𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{k}(-1)^{i+1}P_{N+a_{i}}(\chi_{-N-a_{1}}\cdots\chi_{-% N-a_{i-1}}\chi_{-N-a_{i+1}}\cdots\chi_{-N-a_{k}})= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) (3.3)

and 𝒬^2=0superscript^𝒬20\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}^{2}=0over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0. In particular, the ghosts χ𝜒\chiitalic_χ map to trace relations: 𝒬^(χNa)=PN+a^𝒬subscript𝜒𝑁𝑎subscript𝑃𝑁𝑎\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\chi_{-N-a})=P_{N+a}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then the space of multi-ghost states, with coefficients in the ring of polynomials of traces

R=[TrX,TrX2,TrX3,],𝑅Tr𝑋Trsuperscript𝑋2Trsuperscript𝑋3R=\mathbb{C}[{\rm Tr\,}X,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2},{\rm Tr\,}X^{3},\cdots],italic_R = blackboard_C [ roman_Tr italic_X , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋯ ] , (3.4)

is given by the complex

𝒱3Q^𝒱2Q^𝒱1Q^ 0,subscript𝒱3^𝑄subscript𝒱2^𝑄subscript𝒱1^𝑄subscript 0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V% }}_{2}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{1}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}% }\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\ \rightarrow\ 0,⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 , (3.5)

where 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the space of multi-ghost states of heavy ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k with coefficients in the ring R𝑅Ritalic_R. Also, 𝒱0=R|0subscript𝒱0subscript𝑅ket0{\mathcal{V}}_{0}\equiv{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}=R|0\ranglecaligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R | 0 ⟩ is the half-BPS Hilbert space of the gauge theory at infinite N𝑁Nitalic_N. The ghost degree k𝑘kitalic_k of the complex labels the open string vacuum associated to k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D3 branes in the bulk.

The complex (3.5) has non-vanishing homology only at zero ghost number. Since the image Q^𝒱1^𝑄subscript𝒱1subscript\widehat{Q}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}\subset{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the space of trace relations with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R, the homology at ghost number k=0𝑘0k=0italic_k = 0 is the Hilbert space

N=/Q^𝒱1.subscript𝑁subscript^𝑄subscript𝒱1{\mathcal{H}}_{N}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}/\widehat{Q}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}.caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (3.6)

in the half-BPS sector of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N.

Let us observe that each 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, k=0,1,2,𝑘012k=0,1,2,\cdotsitalic_k = 0 , 1 , 2 , ⋯ in the complex (3.5) is freely generated by the multi-ghost generators

χNa1χNa2χNak|0subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎2subscript𝜒𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘ket0\chi_{-N-a_{1}}\chi_{-N-a_{2}}\cdots\chi_{-N-a_{k}}|0\rangleitalic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ (3.7)

with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R. In other words, 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules. This means that, if we augment (3.5) with Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at the final step, the resulting exact sequence

𝒱3Q^𝒱2Q^𝒱1Q^N0subscript𝒱3^𝑄subscript𝒱2^𝑄subscript𝒱1^𝑄subscriptsubscript𝑁0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V% }}_{2}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{1}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}% }\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow{\mathcal{H}}_{N}\rightarrow 0⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 (3.8)

is a free resolution of the half-BPS Hilbert space Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. We will explain these notions in Section 3.2. For now, it suffices to realize that the resolution (3.8) gives a precise relationship between (1) the half-BPS Hilbert space Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N and (2) the complex (3.5) identified as the “bulk” half-BPS Hilbert space of IIB string theory on AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT via the holographic map between D-brane states and heavy ghosts. The resolution says that the open strings on bulk D-branes are encoded in the relations between the single-trace generators that arise in the boundary gauge theory at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N.

It is simple to use this observation to derive the giant graviton expansion (3.2) in the half-BPS sector. Since an alternating sum of the Hilbert series (graded by the R-charge) of modules in an exact sequence must vanish, we can express the charge spectrum of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in terms of an alternating sum of the charge spectra of 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over k=0,1,2,𝑘012k=0,1,2,\cdotsitalic_k = 0 , 1 , 2 , ⋯:

TrNxR=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kxR.subscriptTrsubscript𝑁superscript𝑥𝑅superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsubscript𝒱𝑘superscript𝑥𝑅{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}x^{R}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr\,}_{{% \mathcal{V}}_{k}}x^{R}.roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (3.9)

This yields the half-BPS giant graviton expansion (3.2). The closed string spectrum Z=n=111xnsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛111superscript𝑥𝑛Z_{\infty}=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-x^{n}}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG will factor out, because 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules and Zsubscript𝑍Z_{\infty}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Hilbert series of R𝑅Ritalic_R. This derivation shows that the resolution (3.8) “categorifies” the giant graviton expansion in the half-BPS sector.

What is the physical interpretation of the differential Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG? It maps a half-BPS state of k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D3 giants to linear combinations of states of k1𝑘1k-1italic_k - 1 coincident D3 giants with coefficients in the traces (i.e. closed strings). Thus a natural interpretation for Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG is that it is an instanton that interpolates between a pair of open string vacua with a ghost number difference of 1111. An example with k=1𝑘1k=1italic_k = 1 would be a Euclidean D3 instanton on S3S5superscript𝑆3superscript𝑆5S^{3}\subset S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT described by the trajectory cosθ(τ)=eττ0𝜃𝜏superscript𝑒𝜏subscript𝜏0\cos\theta(\tau)=e^{\tau-\tau_{0}}roman_cos italic_θ ( italic_τ ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for <ττ0𝜏subscript𝜏0-\infty<\tau\leq\tau_{0}- ∞ < italic_τ ≤ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where 0θπ20𝜃𝜋20\leq\theta\leq\frac{\pi}{2}0 ≤ italic_θ ≤ divide start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG is a polar angle on S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that parametrizes the size of the wrapped S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It would be important to study the radiation due to such processes.

Our analysis here also clarifies why it is appropriate to describe half-BPS giant gravitons in terms of fermionic droplets, as is often done in the literature [33, 34, 35]. We can collect the heavy ghosts into a single “field”

χ(z)=nχnzn+N+1𝜒𝑧subscript𝑛subscript𝜒𝑛superscript𝑧𝑛𝑁1\chi(z)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\chi_{n}}{z^{n+N+1}}italic_χ ( italic_z ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG (3.10)

on the z𝑧zitalic_z-plane of ghost number 1111. This is an anti-commuting field in the local transverse z𝑧zitalic_z-plane of S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in S5superscript𝑆5S^{5}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT whose excitations are the states of D3 giants. It would be interesting to study the effective dynamics of giant gravitons along these lines.

The lessons from the half-BPS sector are the following: (1) we can identify the bulk space of states with the complex of auxiliary ghosts that compensate for finite N𝑁Nitalic_N trace relations, and (2) this complex furnishes a BRST-like resolution of the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N Hilbert space Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the boundary gauge theory. These lessons are quite general when taken as statements about string theories dual to weakly-coupled gauge theories. Namely, they do not depend explicitly on supersymmetry or the presence of a weakly-curved gravity regime. That the bulk Hilbert space is a resolution of the gauge theory counterpart only requires the latter to be a theory of gauged N×N𝑁𝑁N\times Nitalic_N × italic_N matrices.

3.2 Mathematical background

In this section, we develop the mathematical background required to generalize the lessons from the half-BPS sector. Some useful references are [36, 37, 38, 39]. We present the background in the context that is relevant for this work.

3.2.1 Finite N𝑁Nitalic_N modules and Koszul-Tate resolutions

Consider a free four-dimensional U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with fields only in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. We choose this manifold to avoid having topological sectors, but similar considerations apply to other manifolds as long as one works within a superselection sector for local operators.

In the limit N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞, the space of states of the gauge theory is the “vacuum” free module =R|0subscript𝑅ket0{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}=R|0\ranglecaligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R | 0 ⟩, given by the ring of gauge-invariant polynomials of fields and their derivatives

R=[TrX,TrXY,TrψF,TrX,].𝑅Tr𝑋Tr𝑋𝑌Tr𝜓subscript𝐹Trsubscriptsubscript𝑋R=\mathbb{C}[{\rm Tr\,}X,{\rm Tr\,}XY,{\rm Tr\,}\psi F_{\cdots},{\rm Tr\,}% \partial_{\cdots}\partial_{\cdots}X,\cdots].italic_R = blackboard_C [ roman_Tr italic_X , roman_Tr italic_X italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_ψ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Tr ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X , ⋯ ] . (3.11)

acting on the vacuum |0ket0|0\rangle| 0 ⟩. As an R𝑅Ritalic_R-module, subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consists only of the identity generator acting on |0ket0|0\rangle| 0 ⟩ with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R. subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is graded with respect to the quantum numbers of the single trace generators of R𝑅Ritalic_R. Following lessons from the half-BPS sector, we work over the “large N𝑁Nitalic_N” ring R𝑅Ritalic_R generated by all single traces before taking into account the trace relations. In particular, R𝑅Ritalic_R is independent of N𝑁Nitalic_N.

To find the space of states of a free gauge theory at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, one takes the quotient

N=/Nsubscript𝑁subscriptsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}/{\mathcal{I}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (3.12)

of subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by the submodule N=IN|0subscript𝑁subscript𝐼𝑁ket0{\mathcal{I}}_{N}=I_{N}|0\ranglecaligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ⟩, where the ideal over R𝑅Ritalic_R

IN=tracerelationsatNRsubscript𝐼𝑁subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩tracerelationsat𝑁𝑅I_{N}=\langle\mathrm{trace\ relations\ at}\ N\rangle_{R}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ roman_trace roman_relations roman_at italic_N ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (3.13)

is generated by the set of trace relations that are present at a given value of N𝑁Nitalic_N. For a single matrix X𝑋Xitalic_X, these relations are given by the set PN+1,PN+2,subscript𝑃𝑁1subscript𝑃𝑁2P_{N+1},P_{N+2},\cdotsitalic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ as provided explicitly in Section 2.3. We refer to the quotient module Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over R𝑅Ritalic_R as the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N module. What makes the study of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT difficult is that Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is in general not freely generated, i.e. it is not a Fock space built from single trace generators. This means that in general we can only describe Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at best in terms of a set of generators that have relations among themselves.

The half-BPS sector suggests that, in order to find the “bulk” space of states for the string dual on a background labelled by k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes, we should replace the quotient module N=/Nsubscript𝑁subscriptsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}/{\mathcal{I}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by an infinite sequence of free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that resolves Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The resulting complex is a free resolution of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, also known as the Koszul-Tate resolution.888We emphasize that this Koszul-Tate resolution, which implements trace relations as constraints on the large N𝑁Nitalic_N space of states, is distinct from the complex appearing in the BV-BRST quantization of gauge theories, where the resolution is used to implement the reduction to the on-shell surface. Therefore, the “heavy” ghosts that appear in this context are not the anti-ghosts of the BV-BRST formalism, although the mathematical tools are equivalent. It is important that the resulting complex is a resolution of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e. that the truncated complex as in (3.5) has homology only at ghost number 00. Since the extra ghost degree is not present in Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the boundary gauge theory, the presence of a non-vanishing homology at k0𝑘0k\neq 0italic_k ≠ 0 would be at odds with holography.

A Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an exact sequence of free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT equipped with a nilpotent linear differential Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG

𝒱3NQ^𝒱2NQ^𝒱1NQ^N0superscriptsubscript𝒱3𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱2𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁^𝑄subscriptsubscript𝑁0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {% \mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}\ % \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow{\mathcal{H}}_{N}\rightarrow 0⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 (3.14)

where Q^𝒱1N=N^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁subscript𝑁\widehat{Q}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}={\mathcal{I}}_{N}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e. the image Q^𝒱1N^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁\widehat{Q}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the submodule generated by the trace relations at a given value of N𝑁Nitalic_N. In addition to the grading by the quantum numbers induced from the generators of the ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, the complex itself has a “heavy” ghost degree hghhgh\mathrm{hgh}roman_hgh under which

hgh(𝒱kN)=k,hgh(Q^)=1.formulae-sequencehghsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁𝑘hgh^𝑄1\mathrm{hgh}({\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N})=k,\qquad\mathrm{hgh}(\widehat{Q})=-1.roman_hgh ( caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_k , roman_hgh ( over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ) = - 1 . (3.15)

The generators of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have quantum numbers that depend on N𝑁Nitalic_N, because the set of trace relations depends on the value of N𝑁Nitalic_N. The elements of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are termed heavy because the energies/charges of their generators start at order kNsimilar-toabsent𝑘𝑁\sim kN∼ italic_k italic_N.

Intuitively, the resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K “resolves” the highly-constrained finite N𝑁Nitalic_N module Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by replacing it with an infinite sequence of Fock spaces 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (starting at 𝒱0subscript𝒱0subscript{\mathcal{V}}_{0}\equiv{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) that better and better approximate Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT maps to Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the zeroth approximation to the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N module Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the large N𝑁Nitalic_N module subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The subsequent free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be understood as the space of relations among the generators of 𝒱k1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k-1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For example, 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the space of relations among the large N𝑁Nitalic_N Fock space generators999“Generators” here refer to the generators of the ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, rather than the identity generator of subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as an R𝑅Ritalic_R-module. But when referring to the generators of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for k1𝑘1k\geq 1italic_k ≥ 1, we mean the generators of the R𝑅Ritalic_R-module. of subscript{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e. the generators of 𝒱1subscript𝒱1{\mathcal{V}}_{1}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT map to trace relations under Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG. Then 𝒱2Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱2𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the space of relations among trace relations, and so on. Therefore, 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the space of k𝑘kitalic_k-th order relations among the single-trace generators of the large N𝑁Nitalic_N ring R𝑅Ritalic_R.

The resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consisting of free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can always be constructed. For a given set of (commuting) quantum numbers {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, the resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K truncates at finite length because there exists a value of k𝑘kitalic_k beyond which all generators of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱superscript𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k^{\prime}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with k>ksuperscript𝑘𝑘k^{\prime}>kitalic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > italic_k have quantum numbers that exceed {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. It is important that 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K has a notion of uniqueness despite having vanishing homology. We discuss its uniqueness properties in Section 3.2.3.

In physical terms, the Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K can be understood as the procedure of introducing heavy ghosts in a U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) theory that compensate for null states that would have arisen due to trace relations at a given value of N𝑁Nitalic_N. There may be non-trivial relations between trace relations that require higher ghosts to compensate for them. Doing so in iteration reduces the space of states of a U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) gauge theory to that of a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory.

Explicitly, let PARsubscript𝑃𝐴𝑅P_{A}\in Ritalic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_R be a trace relation at N𝑁Nitalic_N, where the label A𝐴Aitalic_A ranges over the (infinite) set of trace relations. For every PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we introduce a heavy ghost χAsubscript𝜒𝐴\chi_{A}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of hgh(χA)=1hghsubscript𝜒𝐴1\mathrm{hgh}(\chi_{A})=1roman_hgh ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 with opposite grassmann parity to that of PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The nilpotent differential 𝒬^=[,Q^]±^𝒬subscript^𝑄plus-or-minus\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}=[\,\cdot\,,\widehat{Q}]_{\pm}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG = [ ⋅ , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ] start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on operators acts as

𝒬^χA=PA,^𝒬subscript𝜒𝐴subscript𝑃𝐴\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}\chi_{A}=P_{A},over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (3.16)

which makes PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 𝒬^^𝒬\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG-exact.

The set of trace relations PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may not be linearly-independent over the ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, i.e. PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may satisfy

r1PA1+r2PA2++rsPAs=0subscript𝑟1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴1subscript𝑟2subscript𝑃subscript𝐴2subscript𝑟𝑠subscript𝑃subscript𝐴𝑠0r_{1}P_{A_{1}}+r_{2}P_{A_{2}}+\cdots+r_{s}P_{A_{s}}=0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 (3.17)

where risubscript𝑟𝑖r_{i}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are non-zero elements of R𝑅Ritalic_R. (3.17) is a relation between trace relations that needs to compensated via ghosts. Actually, there always exist relations between trace relations of the form

PA2PA1PA1PA2=0subscript𝑃subscript𝐴2subscript𝑃subscript𝐴1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴20P_{A_{2}}P_{A_{1}}-P_{A_{1}}P_{A_{2}}=0italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 (3.18)

where we set r1=PA2,r2=PA1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑟1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴2subscript𝑟2subscript𝑃subscript𝐴1r_{1}=P_{A_{2}},\,r_{2}=-P_{A_{1}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and assumed PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are grassmann even. This is a “trivial” relation because it simply states that the trace relations PA1,PA2subscript𝑃subscript𝐴1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴2P_{A_{1}},P_{A_{2}}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT commute. Trivial relations that result from the (anti-)commutation properties of trace relations are automatically accounted for by taking 𝒬^^𝒬\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG to act on products of ghosts via the graded Leibniz rule:

𝒬^(χA1χA2)^𝒬subscript𝜒subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴2\displaystyle\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\chi_{A_{1}}\chi_{A_{2}})over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =PA1χA2+(1)ε1PA2χA1absentsubscript𝑃subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴2superscript1subscript𝜀1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴2subscript𝜒subscript𝐴1\displaystyle=P_{A_{1}}\chi_{A_{2}}+(-1)^{\varepsilon_{1}}P_{A_{2}}\chi_{A_{1}}= italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
𝒬^(χA1χA2χA3)^𝒬subscript𝜒subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴2subscript𝜒subscript𝐴3\displaystyle\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\chi_{A_{1}}\chi_{A_{2}}\chi_{A_{3}})over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =PA1χA2χA3+(1)ε1PA2χA1χA3+(1)ε1+ε2PA3χA1χA2absentsubscript𝑃subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴2subscript𝜒subscript𝐴3superscript1subscript𝜀1subscript𝑃subscript𝐴2subscript𝜒subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴3superscript1subscript𝜀1subscript𝜀2subscript𝑃subscript𝐴3subscript𝜒subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴2\displaystyle=P_{A_{1}}\chi_{A_{2}}\chi_{A_{3}}+(-1)^{\varepsilon_{1}}P_{A_{2}% }\chi_{A_{1}}\chi_{A_{3}}+(-1)^{\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{2}}P_{A_{3}}\chi_% {A_{1}}\chi_{A_{2}}= italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (3.19)

and so on, where εi=0subscript𝜀𝑖0\varepsilon_{i}=0italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 if χAisubscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑖\chi_{A_{i}}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is grassmann even and εi=1subscript𝜀𝑖1\varepsilon_{i}=1italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 if χAisubscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑖\chi_{A_{i}}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is grassmann odd. Thus, the (anti-)commutation properties are implemented by the statement that the expression on the RHS of (3.2.1) are 𝒬^^𝒬\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG-exact. If there are only trivial relations, it is sufficient to consider all multi-ghost generators

χA1χA2χAk|0𝒱kNsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴1subscript𝜒subscript𝐴2subscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑘ket0superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁\chi_{A_{1}}\chi_{A_{2}}\cdots\chi_{A_{k}}|0\rangle\ \in\ {\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ∈ caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3.20)

with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R, and the procedure of finding the Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K terminates.

However, there may exist non-trivial relations (3.17) between trace relations PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that do not just amount to the (anti-)commutation properties of PAsubscript𝑃𝐴P_{A}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In this case, we must introduce ghosts-for-ghosts χ(2)superscript𝜒2\chi^{(2)}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of hgh(χ(2))=2hghsuperscript𝜒22\mathrm{hgh}(\chi^{(2)})=2roman_hgh ( italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 2 satisfying

𝒬^(χB(2))=r1χA1(1)+r2χA2(1)++rsχAs(1),^𝒬subscriptsuperscript𝜒2𝐵subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴11subscript𝑟2superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴21subscript𝑟𝑠superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑠1\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\chi^{(2)}_{B})=r_{1}\chi_{A_{1}}^{(1)}+r_{2}\chi_{A_{2}% }^{(1)}+\cdots+r_{s}\chi_{A_{s}}^{(1)},over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (3.21)

where χAi(1)χAisubscriptsuperscript𝜒1subscript𝐴𝑖subscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑖\chi^{(1)}_{A_{i}}\equiv\chi_{A_{i}}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This implements non-trivial relations between trace relations, and the subscript B𝐵Bitalic_B here labels the set of such relations. If there are no further non-trivial relations (again with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R) between the various relations (3.17), the procedure of finding the Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K terminates. If higher relations do exist, the process iterates until one has accounted for all non-trivial higher relations by making them 𝒬^^𝒬\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG-exact with respect to χ(h)superscript𝜒\chi^{(h)}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of hgh(χ(h))=hhghsuperscript𝜒\mathrm{hgh}(\chi^{(h)})=hroman_hgh ( italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_h.101010For example, if there exists a relation between relations between trace relations, then the compensating ghost χ(3)superscript𝜒3\chi^{(3)}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 3 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT maps to a linear combination of χB(2)superscriptsubscript𝜒𝐵2\chi_{B}^{(2)}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and χA1(1)χA2(1)superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴11superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴21\chi_{A_{1}}^{(1)}\chi_{A_{2}}^{(1)}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R. Given a set of quantum numbers {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, there are only finitely many generators and relations with charges less than or equal to {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }.

In general, the differential 𝒬^^𝒬\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG on operators acts as

𝒬^(χA1(h1)χA2(h2)χAn(hn))=i=1n(1)ε1+ε2++εi1χA1(h1)χA2(h2)𝒬^(χAi(hi))χAn(hn)^𝒬subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript1subscript𝐴1subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript2subscript𝐴2subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript𝑛subscript𝐴𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛superscript1subscript𝜀1subscript𝜀2subscript𝜀𝑖1subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript1subscript𝐴1subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript2subscript𝐴2^𝒬subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript𝑖subscript𝐴𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript𝑛subscript𝐴𝑛\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}\left(\chi^{(h_{1})}_{A_{1}}\chi^{(h_{2})}_{A_{2}}\cdots% \chi^{(h_{n})}_{A_{n}}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_% {2}+\cdots+\varepsilon_{i-1}}\chi^{(h_{1})}_{A_{1}}\chi^{(h_{2})}_{A_{2}}% \cdots\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\chi^{(h_{i})}_{A_{i}})\cdots\chi^{(h_{n})}_{A_{n}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (3.22)

where εi=0subscript𝜀𝑖0\varepsilon_{i}=0italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 if χAi(hi)superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑖subscript𝑖\chi_{A_{i}}^{(h_{i})}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is grassmann even and εi=1subscript𝜀𝑖1\varepsilon_{i}=1italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 if χAi(hi)superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑖subscript𝑖\chi_{A_{i}}^{(h_{i})}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is grassmann odd. The Koszul-Tate resolution is a complex built from multi-particling all such ghosts χAi(hi)superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴𝑖subscript𝑖\chi_{A_{i}}^{(h_{i})}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with coefficients in the large N𝑁Nitalic_N ring R𝑅Ritalic_R. States of total ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k

χA1(h1)χA2(h2)χAn(hn)|0𝒱kNsubscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript1subscript𝐴1subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript2subscript𝐴2subscriptsuperscript𝜒subscript𝑛subscript𝐴𝑛ket0superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁\chi^{(h_{1})}_{A_{1}}\chi^{(h_{2})}_{A_{2}}\cdots\chi^{(h_{n})}_{A_{n}}|0% \rangle\ \in\ {\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ∈ caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3.23)

generate the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where k=i=1nhi𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑖k=\sum_{i=1}^{n}h_{i}italic_k = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Once a resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K is constructed, we can consider the truncated complex 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

𝒱3NQ^𝒱2NQ^𝒱1NQ^0superscriptsubscript𝒱3𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱2𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁^𝑄subscript0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {% \mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}\ % \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow 0⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 (3.24)

whose homology is concentrated at heavy ghost number 00:

(KerQ^ImQ^)hgh=0=N.subscriptKer^𝑄Im^𝑄hgh0subscript𝑁\left(\frac{\mathrm{Ker}\,\widehat{Q}}{\mathrm{Im}\,\widehat{Q}}\right)_{% \mathrm{hgh}=0}=\,{\mathcal{H}}_{N}.( divide start_ARG roman_Ker over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG roman_Im over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_hgh = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (3.25)

So the complex 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules encodes the data of the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N module Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT via its homology. We also refer to the complex 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as a resolution of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We find evidence in Section 4 that higher ghosts are required even in rather simple settings, such as the free 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS sector and the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring of 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM. It would be important to understand the criteria for when they arise and, in situations where they exist, the holographic description of higher ghosts.

3.2.2 Thermal partition function and correlators

Given a Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K, the Lefschetz trace formula [36] tells us how to relate physical quantities computed over Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and over its resolution 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

TrN𝒪=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kN𝒪subscriptTrsubscript𝑁𝒪superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁𝒪{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}{\mathcal{O}}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}{\mathcal{O}}roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_O = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_O (3.26)

where 𝒪𝒪{\mathcal{O}}caligraphic_O is an operator of heavy ghost number 00 in the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory that we also take to act on 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. To compute the trace, we need the concept of a dual module (𝒱kN)*superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁\left({\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}\right)^{*}( caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT * end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, whose elements are related to those of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by the hermitian adjoint and carry opposite heavy ghost number hghhgh\mathrm{hgh}roman_hgh and quantum numbers {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } to those of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We work in an orthonormal basis for (𝒱kN)*superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁\left({\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}\right)^{*}( caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT * end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of definite energy and charge eigenvalues.

The Lefschetz trace formula will provide the holographic map in our proposal of Section 3.3, in the regime of λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0 and finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. Bulk observables are computed by taking the alternating sum of the expectation values in an ensemble of states built on each open string vacuum. For instance, the free thermal partition function of a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory on S1×S3superscript𝑆1superscript𝑆3S^{1}\times S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equal to the alternating sum of the free thermal partition functions over 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the resolution 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

TrNeβH=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kNeβH.subscriptTrsubscript𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}e^{-\beta H}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}e^{-\beta H}.roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (3.27)

The thermal correlation functions are related as

TrNsubscriptTrsubscript𝑁\displaystyle{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [eβH𝒪1(τ1,x1)𝒪2(τ2,x2)𝒪n(τn,xn)]delimited-[]superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻subscript𝒪1subscript𝜏1subscript𝑥1subscript𝒪2subscript𝜏2subscript𝑥2subscript𝒪𝑛subscript𝜏𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛\displaystyle\left[e^{-\beta H}\,{\mathcal{O}}_{1}(\tau_{1},x_{1}){\mathcal{O}% }_{2}(\tau_{2},x_{2})\cdots{\mathcal{O}}_{n}(\tau_{n},x_{n})\right][ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋯ caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ]
=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kN[eβH𝒪1(τ1,x1)𝒪2(τ2,x2)𝒪n(τn,xn)]absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻subscript𝒪1subscript𝜏1subscript𝑥1subscript𝒪2subscript𝜏2subscript𝑥2subscript𝒪𝑛subscript𝜏𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛\displaystyle=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}% \left[e^{-\beta H}\,{\mathcal{O}}_{1}(\tau_{1},x_{1}){\mathcal{O}}_{2}(\tau_{2% },x_{2})\cdots{\mathcal{O}}_{n}(\tau_{n},x_{n})\right]= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋯ caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] (3.28)

where 0τn<<τ2<τ1<β0subscript𝜏𝑛subscript𝜏2subscript𝜏1𝛽0\leq\tau_{n}<\cdots<\tau_{2}<\tau_{1}<\beta0 ≤ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_β. The hamiltonian on the right-hand side is defined in the U()𝑈U(\infty)italic_U ( ∞ ) theory supplemented with ghosts for trace relations at a value of N𝑁Nitalic_N.

For superconformal gauge theories with non-anomalous R-symmetry, we can write in addition the relation between the superconformal indices

TrN[(1)FeβΔq1𝒞1q2𝒞2]=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kN[(1)FeβΔq1𝒞1q2𝒞2]subscriptTrsubscript𝑁delimited-[]superscript1𝐹superscript𝑒𝛽Δsuperscriptsubscript𝑞1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑞2subscript𝒞2superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁delimited-[]superscript1𝐹superscript𝑒𝛽Δsuperscriptsubscript𝑞1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑞2subscript𝒞2{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}\left[(-1)^{F}e^{-\beta\Delta}q_{1}^{{\mathcal{C% }}_{1}}q_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}\left[(-1)^{F}e^{-\beta\Delta}q_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_% {1}}q_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β roman_Δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β roman_Δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] (3.29)

where Δ=12{𝒬,𝒬}=0Δ12𝒬superscript𝒬0\Delta=\frac{1}{2}\{{\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{Q}}^{\dagger}\}=0roman_Δ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG { caligraphic_Q , caligraphic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } = 0 is the BPS condition and 𝒞isubscript𝒞𝑖{\mathcal{C}}_{i}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are conserved charges dual to fugacities qisubscript𝑞𝑖q_{i}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that commute with the supercharge 𝒬𝒬{\mathcal{Q}}caligraphic_Q. In Section 3.3.1, we describe the conditions under which the dependence of the right-hand side on N𝑁Nitalic_N simplifies and (3.29) may be expressed as

ZN(x,yi)=Z(x,yi)k=0xkNZ^k(x,yi),subscript𝑍𝑁𝑥subscript𝑦𝑖subscript𝑍𝑥subscript𝑦𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑥subscript𝑦𝑖Z_{N}(x,y_{i})=Z_{\infty}(x,y_{i})\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}x^{kN}\hat{Z}_{k}(x,y_{i}),italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , (3.30)

which is the giant graviton expansion proposed in [8]. Various minus signs from both (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are hidden in the definition of Z^k(x,yi)subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑥subscript𝑦𝑖\hat{Z}_{k}(x,y_{i})over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). If the bulk has a supergravity regime, the indices on the right of (3.30) can also be computed directly in the bulk by counting the fluctuation modes of probe D-branes [9, 10].

3.2.3 (Non-)uniqueness and instantons

Here we comment on the uniqueness properties of a Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. First, we discuss why a Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT does not necessarily produce a unique set of free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then we explain that there nonetheless exists a notion of uniqueness for 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K, which we use to make physical statements about the bulk spectrum in Section 3.3.2.

It is not hard to understand why there exist infinitely many resolutions of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at any finite value of N𝑁Nitalic_N. Given a resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K, one may always introduce an additional pair of spurious heavy ghosts ξ(k)superscript𝜉𝑘\xi^{(k)}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ξ(k1)superscript𝜉𝑘1\xi^{(k-1)}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on which the differential 𝒬^^𝒬\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG act as

𝒬^ξ(k)=ξ(k1)^𝒬superscript𝜉𝑘superscript𝜉𝑘1\displaystyle\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}\xi^{(k)}=\xi^{(k-1)}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
𝒬^ξ(k1)=0.^𝒬superscript𝜉𝑘10\displaystyle\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}\xi^{(k-1)}=0.over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 . (3.31)

Contributions from such pairs cancel in the Lefschetz trace formula (3.26) due to the relative minus sign (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. So an arbitrary number of them can be introduced without affecting physical quantities computed by (3.26). However, doing so still changes the energy/charge spectra associated with individual pairs of free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒱k1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k-1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

This situation is analogous to the effect, on the instanton complex in supersymmetric quantum mechanics, of deforming the Morse function hhitalic_h on the target manifold such that the number of critical points of hhitalic_h changes [40]. Under generic deformations, the number of non-degenerate critical points changes by two, and the created/annihilated pair of critical points have Morse indices that differ by 1111. While the number of critical points of hhitalic_h with a given Morse index k𝑘kitalic_k may change by an arbitrary positive amount, the Euler characteristic remains invariant. The difference between the instanton complex and our resolution 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, however, is that the instanton complex may have non-trivial cohomology at any form degree while the homology of 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is concentrated only at heavy ghost number 00.

Following the analogy with the instanton complex, our interpretation of the situation as follows: At any positive integer N𝑁Nitalic_N, there is an inherent ambiguity in the spectrum associated to a string background labelled by a collection of k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes, due to the unphysical freedom to introduce spurious pairs of ghosts (3.2.3) between D-brane sectors 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒱k1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k-1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT whose ghost numbers differ by 1111. Thus, while the number of states with a given ghost degree k𝑘kitalic_k and quantum numbers {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } may change by an arbitrary positive amount, any physical quantity computed by the Lefschetz trace formula remains invariant.

It is still interesting to ask whether there are physical “invariants” of 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K that are non-trivial at each ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k. This is because in the bulk we can at best compute only on backgrounds with a fixed set of D-branes. One would like to be able to compare bulk quantities on a background with k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes with the trace over 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT found via the Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It turns out that there is indeed a sense in which the modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K are uniquely determined:

A minimal Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG (also known as a minimal graded free resolution) is that for which the number of generators of each free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K is minimal [37], i.e. a resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG for which there are no spurious ghosts. Though the modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT possess an infinite number of generators, there are only a finite number of generators with a given set of quantum numbers {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Therefore, the minimality of 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG is well-defined for any commuting set {𝒞i}subscript𝒞𝑖\{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}\}{ caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. A minimal Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is unique up to isomorphisms, and any other non-minimal resolution of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may be constructed by taking the direct sum of 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG with a trivial complex consisting of spurious ghosts.

3.3 Bulk space of states at λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0

In Section 3.1, we provided strong evidence for the following statement in the half-BPS sectors of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM and IIB string theory on AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

𝒱k=closedkopen(half-BPS).subscript𝒱𝑘tensor-productsuperscriptsubscriptclosedsuperscriptsubscript𝑘openhalf-BPS{\mathcal{V}}_{k}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{closed}}\otimes{\mathcal{H}}% _{k}^{\mathrm{open}}\quad(\textrm{half-BPS}).caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_closed end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_open end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( half-BPS ) . (3.32)

In words, (1) the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consisting of states of ghost degree k𝑘kitalic_k in a resolution (3.8) of the half-BPS Hilbert space Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0 is holographically dual to (2) the half-BPS open-closed Hilbert space closedkopentensor-productsuperscriptsubscriptclosedsuperscriptsubscript𝑘open{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{closed}}\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_{k}^{\mathrm{open}}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_closed end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_open end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of IIB strings on AdS5×S5subscriptAdS5superscript𝑆5\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\times S^{5}roman_AdS start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D3 giant graviton branes, in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit. It is possible to make a statement such as (3.32), where there exists a sharp semiclassical bulk description, because of special properties of the half-BPS resolution that we clarify in Section 3.3.1.

In more general circumstances, 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K generalizes the bulk interpretation associated with closedkopentensor-productsuperscriptsubscriptclosedsuperscriptsubscript𝑘open{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{closed}}\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_{k}^{\mathrm{open}}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_closed end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_open end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in a few important ways. In the limit where N𝑁Nitalic_N is large and all but one U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) charge is held fixed, the module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT asymptotes to (in a sense that will be made precise) the space of string states on k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D-branes fixed under the U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) bulk isometry. This regime includes non-BPS excitations of the half-BPS sector. In other regimes, such as when two or more charges are treated on an equal footing, 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ceases to have a “good” large N𝑁Nitalic_N limit: the number of elements of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of a given total charge or energy (minus the total background charge kN𝑘𝑁kNitalic_k italic_N) diverges as N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞. The module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT nonetheless remains well-defined at any finite value of N𝑁Nitalic_N where no semiclassical bulk description may exist, modulo unphysical ambiguities described in Section 3.2.3. It is in this sense that 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT generalizes the notion of the “large curvature limit of the space of string states on a background with k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes”.

The proposal

Consider a four-dimensional U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory on ×S3superscript𝑆3\mathbb{R}\times S^{3}blackboard_R × italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT possessing only fields in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, at zero ’t Hooft coupling λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0. Let R𝑅Ritalic_R be the ring of polynomials of traces of fields and their derivatives (before accounting for trace relations). The space of states Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the gauge theory is the quotient of =R|0subscript𝑅ket0{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}=R|0\ranglecaligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R | 0 ⟩ by the submodule generated by the set of all trace relations at a given value of N𝑁Nitalic_N.

Our proposal is that the complex 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

𝒱3NQ^𝒱2NQ^𝒱1NQ^0,superscriptsubscript𝒱3𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱2𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁^𝑄subscript0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {% \mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}\ % \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow 0,⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 , (3.33)

which furnishes a Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over the ring R𝑅Ritalic_R, should be identified as the space of states of the dual string theory in the αnormal-→superscript𝛼normal-′\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit. The homology of 𝒱Nsuperscript𝒱𝑁{\mathcal{V}}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is concentrated at heavy ghost number 00 and coincides with N=/Q^𝒱1Nsubscript𝑁subscript^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}/\widehat{Q}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is, in a sense that is elaborated, the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit of the space of string states on a background with k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes. The observables of the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory are related to those of its string dual via the Lefschetz trace formula

TrN𝒪=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kN𝒪subscriptTrsubscript𝑁𝒪superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁𝒪{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}{\mathcal{O}}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}{\mathcal{O}}roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_O = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_O (3.34)

which provides the holographic map in the regime of λ=0𝜆0\lambda=0italic_λ = 0 and finite N𝑁Nitalic_N. Bulk observables are computed by taking the alternating sum of the expectation values in an ensemble of states built on each open string vacuum.

There exist instanton-like ambiguities for the modules 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N that arise from the freedom to introduce spurious ghosts in the resolution without affecting physical quantities computed via (3.34). We can nonetheless place lower bounds on the spectrum of string states on D-brane backgrounds at any value of N𝑁Nitalic_N, using the uniqueness of minimal resolutions. In the limit where N𝑁Nitalic_N is large and all but one U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) charge is held fixed, we can determine exactly the string spectrum on certain D-branes in the large curvature limit from the counting of trace relations in a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory.

It is clear that various assumptions for the gauge theory may be relaxed to produce interesting outcomes. We comment on these possibilities in the discussion.

3.3.1 Semiclassics and large N𝑁Nitalic_N

Let us discuss the circumstances under which the module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acquires a sharp bulk description as the space of states of k𝑘kitalic_k coincident giant graviton-like branes. In this limit, the string spectrum on D-brane backgrounds in the large curvature limit can be determined from the counting of trace relations in the U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory.

We begin by stating some reasonable properties for this regime: For one, N𝑁Nitalic_N must be large. Moreover, as we saw in Section 2.2, the D-branes that contribute states in the large curvature limit L0𝐿0L\to 0italic_L → 0 wrap the fixed point of a U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) bulk isometry. They also possess large charges kNsimilar-toabsent𝑘𝑁\sim kN∼ italic_k italic_N under this U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) due to the induced potential. Therefore, 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is well-described as the space of string states on k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D-branes at a U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) fixed-point when N𝑁Nitalic_N is large and when all but one U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) charge are held fixed.

This limit corresponds to considering trace relations that contain an arbitrary number of a single adjoint field X𝑋Xitalic_X and fixed numbers of other adjoint “letters” W1,W2,subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2W_{1},W_{2},\cdotsitalic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯. For instance assuming all letters are bosonic, the set of trace relations for N=2𝑁2N=2italic_N = 2 and containing two letters W1,W2subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2W_{1},W_{2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT starts at

TrXW1W2+TrXW2W1TrXTrW1W2Tr𝑋subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2Tr𝑋subscript𝑊2subscript𝑊1Tr𝑋Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2\displaystyle{\rm Tr\,}XW_{1}W_{2}+{\rm Tr\,}XW_{2}W_{1}-{\rm Tr\,}X\,{\rm Tr% \,}W_{1}W_{2}roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_X roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
TrW1TrXW2TrW2TrXW1+TrXTrW1TrW2=0.Trsubscript𝑊1Tr𝑋subscript𝑊2Trsubscript𝑊2Tr𝑋subscript𝑊1Tr𝑋Trsubscript𝑊1Trsubscript𝑊20\displaystyle-{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{2}-{\rm Tr\,}W_{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_% {1}+{\rm Tr\,}X\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{2}=0.- roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + roman_Tr italic_X roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (3.35)

There is 1111 relation with W1,W2subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2W_{1},W_{2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and one X𝑋Xitalic_X. Next, we have

2TrX2W1W22TrXTrXW1W2TrX2TrW1W2+(TrX)2TrW1W2=02Trsuperscript𝑋2subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊22Tr𝑋Tr𝑋subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2Trsuperscript𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2superscriptTr𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊20\displaystyle 2\,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}W_{1}W_{2}-2\,{\rm Tr\,}X\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{1}W_{% 2}-{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}W_{2}+({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}W_{% 2}=02 roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 roman_Tr italic_X roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0
2TrX2W2W1+2TrXTrXW1W2TrX2TrW1W2(TrX)2TrW1W22Trsuperscript𝑋2subscript𝑊2subscript𝑊12Tr𝑋Tr𝑋subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2Trsuperscript𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2superscriptTr𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2\displaystyle 2\,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}W_{2}W_{1}+2\,{\rm Tr\,}X\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{1}W_{% 2}-{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}W_{2}-({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}W_{2}2 roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 roman_Tr italic_X roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
2TrXTrW1TrXW22TrXTrW2TrXW1+2(TrX)2TrW1TrW2=02Tr𝑋Trsubscript𝑊1Tr𝑋subscript𝑊22Tr𝑋Trsubscript𝑊2Tr𝑋subscript𝑊12superscriptTr𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1Trsubscript𝑊20\displaystyle-2\,{\rm Tr\,}X\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{2}-2\,{\rm Tr\,}X% \,{\rm Tr\,}W_{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{1}+2\,({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}\,{% \rm Tr\,}W_{2}=0- 2 roman_Tr italic_X roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 roman_Tr italic_X roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0
2TrXW1XW2+TrX2TrW1W2(TrX)2TrW1W22Tr𝑋subscript𝑊1𝑋subscript𝑊2Trsuperscript𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2superscriptTr𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2\displaystyle 2\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{1}XW_{2}+{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}W_{2}-% ({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}W_{2}2 roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
2TrXW1TrXW2TrX2TrW1TrW2+(TrX)2TrW1TrW2=0.2Tr𝑋subscript𝑊1Tr𝑋subscript𝑊2Trsuperscript𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1Trsubscript𝑊2superscriptTr𝑋2Trsubscript𝑊1Trsubscript𝑊20\displaystyle-2\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{1}\,{\rm Tr\,}XW_{2}-{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,% }W_{1}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{2}+({\rm Tr\,}X)^{2}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{1}\,{\rm Tr\,}W_{2}=0.- 2 roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_X italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( roman_Tr italic_X ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 . (3.36)

There are 3333 independent relations with W1,W2subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2W_{1},W_{2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and two X𝑋Xitalic_Xs, and so on with higher insertions of X𝑋Xitalic_Xs.

What do we mean by the large N𝑁Nitalic_N limit of the space of trace relations? Let us define

Z𝒱kN=Tr𝒱kN[x𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2]subscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}={\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}\left[x^{{\mathcal% {C}}_{X}}w_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] (3.37)

where 𝒞isubscript𝒞𝑖{\mathcal{C}}_{i}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are charges of the letters Wisubscript𝑊𝑖W_{i}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.111111The letters Wisubscript𝑊𝑖W_{i}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may also carry 𝒞Xsubscript𝒞𝑋{\mathcal{C}}_{X}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT charges. We can specialize wisubscript𝑤𝑖w_{i}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒞isubscript𝒞𝑖{\mathcal{C}}_{i}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT later as long as there are a finite number of Wisubscript𝑊𝑖W_{i}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with fixed charges. Since 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules, we can divide Z𝒱kNsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by the large N𝑁Nitalic_N partition function

Z=Tr[x𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2]subscript𝑍subscriptTrsubscriptdelimited-[]superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2Z_{\infty}={\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}}\left[x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w_{1}% ^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] (3.38)

to find the quantum numbers of the generators of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Since the module 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of a minimal Koszul-Tate resolution is isomorphic to the space of trace relations with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R, we are interested in the large N𝑁Nitalic_N behavior of the generators of 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that map to trace relations containing the letters W1,W2subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2W_{1},W_{2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As N𝑁Nitalic_N is increased, the number of such generators of the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT stabilizes up to an overall shift in 𝒞Xsubscript𝒞𝑋{\mathcal{C}}_{X}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by N𝑁Nitalic_N units:

Z𝒱1NZ|w1w2=xN1+3xN+5xN+1+7xN+2+9xN+3+11xN+4+13xN+5+\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N\to\infty}}}{Z_{\infty}}\bigg{\rvert}_{w_{1}w_{2}% }=\ x^{N-1}+3x^{N}+5x^{N+1}+7x^{N+2}+9x^{N+3}+11x^{N+4}+13x^{N+5}+\cdotsdivide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N → ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 3 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 5 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 7 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 9 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 11 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 13 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ (3.39)

where |w1𝒞1w2𝒞2\rvert_{w_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots}| start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes that we take the coefficient of w1𝒞1w2𝒞2superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2w_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdotsitalic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯. The first two coefficients of the power series in x𝑥xitalic_x agree with the counting of independent trace relations at N=2𝑁2N=2italic_N = 2 in the preceding paragraph, but the higher coefficients do not agree:

Z𝒱1N=2Z|w1w2=x+3x2+4x3+5x4+6x5+7x6+8x7+.\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N=2}}}{Z_{\infty}}\bigg{\rvert}_{w_{1}w_{2}}=\ x+3% x^{2}+4x^{3}+5x^{4}+6x^{5}+7x^{6}+8x^{7}+\cdots.divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x + 3 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 5 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 7 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ . (3.40)

Our claim is that these series coefficients converge to those of (3.39) as one considers modules 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in a sequence of minimal Koszul-Tate resolutions of increasing N𝑁Nitalic_N. As another example, we write the large N𝑁Nitalic_N limit of the number of independent trace relations that contain letters W1,W2,W3subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2subscript𝑊3W_{1},W_{2},W_{3}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

Z𝒱1NZ|w1w2w3=xN2+7xN1+19xN+37xN+1+61xN+2+91xN+3+.\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N\to\infty}}}{Z_{\infty}}\bigg{\rvert}_{w_{1}w_{2}% w_{3}}=\ x^{N-2}+7x^{N-1}+19x^{N}+37x^{N+1}+61x^{N+2}+91x^{N+3}+\cdots.divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N → ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 7 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 19 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 37 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 61 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 91 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ . (3.41)

The set of trace relations possesses degeneracies in the U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) charge that stabilizes at large N𝑁Nitalic_N, with other charges 𝒞isubscript𝒞𝑖{\mathcal{C}}_{i}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fixed. As such, we observe that

limN𝒱1N|𝒞i=𝒢1|𝒞i,\lim_{N\to\infty}{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}\Big{\rvert}_{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}}\ =\ {% \mathcal{G}}_{1}\Big{\rvert}_{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}},roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (3.42)

namely that the space 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of (ghosts for) trace relations converges in the large N𝑁Nitalic_N limit to another free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒢1subscript𝒢1{\mathcal{G}}_{1}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that depends trivially on N𝑁Nitalic_N. We conjecture that generators of 𝒢1subscript𝒢1{\mathcal{G}}_{1}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are holographically dual to states of a single D-brane on the U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) fixed locus in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit of the string dual.

This observation is actually just the first step at k=1𝑘1k=1italic_k = 1 of the giant graviton expansion [8]

ZN(x,wi)=Z(x,wi)k=0xkNZ^k(x,wi),subscript𝑍𝑁𝑥subscript𝑤𝑖subscript𝑍𝑥subscript𝑤𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑥subscript𝑤𝑖Z_{N}(x,w_{i})=Z_{\infty}(x,w_{i})\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}x^{kN}\hat{Z}_{k}(x,w_{i}),italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , (3.43)

for superconformal indices when all but one U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) charge are held fixed. But now we have an understanding of the k=1𝑘1k=1italic_k = 1 term of (3.43) at the level of trace relations and resolution thereof:

xNZ(x,wi)Z^1(x,wi)=Tr𝒢1[(1)Fx𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2].superscript𝑥𝑁subscript𝑍𝑥subscript𝑤𝑖subscript^𝑍1𝑥subscript𝑤𝑖subscriptTrsubscript𝒢1delimited-[]superscript1𝐹superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2x^{N}Z_{\infty}(x,w_{i})\hat{Z}_{1}(x,w_{i})=-{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{G}}_{1}}% \left[(-1)^{F}x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C% }}_{2}}\cdots\right].italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = - roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] . (3.44)

The minus sign on the right side compensates for an overall minus sign that arises from the definition of Z^1subscript^𝑍1\hat{Z}_{1}over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT due to an analytic continuation of the fugacity x𝑥xitalic_x. The identification (3.44) holds when the letters Wisubscript𝑊𝑖W_{i}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT preserve supersymmetries used the define the index. Note however that our definition (3.42) of 𝒢1subscript𝒢1{\mathcal{G}}_{1}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT based on trace relations does not require that Wisubscript𝑊𝑖W_{i}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are BPS letters.

An important property of the formula (3.43) is that the right hand side depends on N𝑁Nitalic_N only through the prefactor xkNsuperscript𝑥𝑘𝑁x^{kN}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, i.e. Z^k(x,wi)subscript^𝑍𝑘𝑥subscript𝑤𝑖\hat{Z}_{k}(x,w_{i})over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are independent of N𝑁Nitalic_N. This suggests that, if we add the number of generators of 𝒢1subscript𝒢1{\mathcal{G}}_{1}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to

1ZTrN[x𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2]1,1subscript𝑍subscriptTrsubscript𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞21\frac{1}{Z_{\infty}}{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}\left[x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w% _{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]-1,divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] - 1 , (3.45)

the remaining series starting at O(x2N)𝑂superscript𝑥2𝑁O(x^{2N})italic_O ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) also stabilizes in the large N𝑁Nitalic_N limit. We take the remaining series to count (up to overall sign) the number of generators of another free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒢2subscript𝒢2{\mathcal{G}}_{2}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For example, the generators of 𝒢2subscript𝒢2{\mathcal{G}}_{2}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT when the trace relations involve arbitrary numbers of X𝑋Xitalic_X and fixed numbers of letters W1,W2subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2W_{1},W_{2}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and W1,W2,W3subscript𝑊1subscript𝑊2subscript𝑊3W_{1},W_{2},W_{3}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT possess the series

Z𝒢2Z|w1w2\displaystyle\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{G}}_{2}}}{Z_{\infty}}\bigg{\rvert}_{w_{1}w_{2}}divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =x2N1+4x2N+9x2N+1+16x2N+2+25x2N+3+36x2N+4+absentsuperscript𝑥2𝑁14superscript𝑥2𝑁9superscript𝑥2𝑁116superscript𝑥2𝑁225superscript𝑥2𝑁336superscript𝑥2𝑁4\displaystyle=\ x^{2N-1}+4x^{2N}+9x^{2N+1}+16x^{2N+2}+25x^{2N+3}+36x^{2N+4}+\cdots= italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 9 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 16 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 25 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯
Z𝒢2Z|w1w2w3\displaystyle\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{G}}_{2}}}{Z_{\infty}}\bigg{\rvert}_{w_{1}w_{2}% w_{3}}divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =x2N3+6x2N2+22x2N1+56x2N+114x2N+1+202x2N+2+.absentsuperscript𝑥2𝑁36superscript𝑥2𝑁222superscript𝑥2𝑁156superscript𝑥2𝑁114superscript𝑥2𝑁1202superscript𝑥2𝑁2\displaystyle=\ x^{2N-3}+6x^{2N-2}+22x^{2N-1}+56x^{2N}+114x^{2N+1}+202x^{2N+2}% +\cdots.= italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 22 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 56 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 114 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 202 italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ . (3.46)

As the procedure may be continued iteratively, this suggests that there exists a non-minimal Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒢𝒢{\mathcal{G}}caligraphic_G of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

𝒢3Q^𝒢2Q^𝒢1Q^N0subscript𝒢3^𝑄subscript𝒢2^𝑄subscript𝒢1^𝑄subscriptsubscript𝑁0\cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{G}}_{3}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{G% }}_{2}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{G}}_{1}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}% }\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow{\mathcal{H}}_{N}\rightarrow 0⋯ → caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 (3.47)

at any value of N𝑁Nitalic_N (again understood within each 𝒞isubscript𝒞𝑖{\mathcal{C}}_{i}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-eigenspace), where the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒢ksubscript𝒢𝑘{\mathcal{G}}_{k}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT depend on N𝑁Nitalic_N only via an overall shift in the 𝒞Xsubscript𝒞𝑋{\mathcal{C}}_{X}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT charges of its generators.121212Note that in general 𝒢k|𝒞ilimN𝒱kN|𝒞i{\mathcal{G}}_{k}\big{\rvert}_{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}}\neq\lim_{N\to\infty}{% \mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}\big{\rvert}_{{\mathcal{C}}_{i}}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for k>1𝑘1k>1italic_k > 1.

The non-minimal resolution 𝒢𝒢{\mathcal{G}}caligraphic_G generalizes the expansion (3.43) from a statement about superconformal indices

TrN[(1)Fx𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2]=k=0(1)kTr𝒢k[(1)Fx𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2],subscriptTrsubscript𝑁delimited-[]superscript1𝐹superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsubscript𝒢𝑘delimited-[]superscript1𝐹superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}\left[(-1)^{F}x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w_{1}^{{% \mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1% )^{k}{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{G}}_{k}}\left[(-1)^{F}x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w_{1}^{{% \mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right],roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] , (3.48)

to that about the charge spectrum of free gauge theories at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N

TrN[x𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2]=k=0(1)kTr𝒢k[x𝒞Xw1𝒞1w2𝒞2],subscriptTrsubscript𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsubscript𝒢𝑘delimited-[]superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑤1subscript𝒞1superscriptsubscript𝑤2subscript𝒞2{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}\left[x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_% {1}}w_{2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right]=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{G}}_{k}}\left[x^{{\mathcal{C}}_{X}}w_{1}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{1}}w_{% 2}^{{\mathcal{C}}_{2}}\cdots\right],roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ] , (3.49)

because 𝒢ksubscript𝒢𝑘{\mathcal{G}}_{k}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be found only based on the analysis of trace relations. We conjecture that the generators of the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒢ksubscript𝒢𝑘{\mathcal{G}}_{k}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are holographically dual to states of k𝑘kitalic_k coincident D-branes on a fixed locus of the U(1)𝑈1U(1)italic_U ( 1 ) isometry in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit of the dual string theory.

3.3.2 A lower bound on D-brane states

At finite N𝑁Nitalic_N and generic charges, the bulk description of the module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as the space of string states on a background with k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes becomes less precise. A reflection of this fact on 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is that the number of states of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of a given total charge or energy (minus the total background charge kN𝑘𝑁kNitalic_k italic_N) necessarily diverges as N𝑁N\to\inftyitalic_N → ∞, in contrast to the situation in the previous section. So in general the space 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT does not have a “good” large N𝑁Nitalic_N limit.

Nevertheless, the space 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in a Koszul-Tate resolution of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT remains well-defined at any finite value of N𝑁Nitalic_N and energies, because 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is defined through the set of trace relations and their relations in a boundary U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory. It is therefore possible to put constraints on the “quantum” D-brane sectors based on our knowledge of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

According to our proposal, the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-module 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K gives the spectrum of string states on k𝑘kitalic_k D-brane background. Due to the freedom to add spurious pairs of ghosts between 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒱k1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k-1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, this spectrum is in principle subject only to the global constraint

TrNeβH=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kNeβH.subscriptTrsubscript𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}e^{-\beta H}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}e^{-\beta H}.roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (3.50)

We interpret this freedom as an indication that, at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N, there may exist different computational schemes in the bulk for computing the spectrum on D-brane backgrounds, where the different schemes are required only to satisfy the global constraint (3.50). We discussed an analogy of this situation to that of the instanton complex in Section 3.2.3.

Let us show that it is still possible to make useful statements about the spaces 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at each degree k𝑘kitalic_k. Recall from Section 3.2.3 that a minimal Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is unique, i.e. any non-minimal resolution 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may be constructed by adjoining to 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG spurious pairs of ghosts that decouple from 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG. Given the set of trace relations in a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory, we use the uniqueness of 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG to place lower bounds on the spectrum of string states on D-brane backgrounds in the string dual at αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ and finite N𝑁Nitalic_N.

Let 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG and 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K, respectively, be minimal and non-minimal Koszul-Tate resolutions of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

𝒦^^𝒦\displaystyle\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}\ over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG :𝒱^3NQ^𝒱^2NQ^𝒱^1NQ^N0:absentsuperscriptsubscript^𝒱3𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript^𝒱2𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript^𝒱1𝑁^𝑄subscriptsubscript𝑁0\displaystyle:\ \cdots\ \rightarrow\ \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{3}^{N}\ % \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{% \widehat{Q}}\ \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {% \mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow{\mathcal{H}}_{N}\rightarrow 0: ⋯ → over^ start_ARG caligraphic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW over^ start_ARG caligraphic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW over^ start_ARG caligraphic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0
𝒦𝒦\displaystyle{\mathcal{K}}\ caligraphic_K :𝒱3NQ^𝒱2NQ^𝒱1NQ^N0,:absentsuperscriptsubscript𝒱3𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱2𝑁^𝑄superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁^𝑄subscriptsubscript𝑁0\displaystyle:\ \cdots\ \rightarrow\ {\mathcal{V}}_{3}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{% \widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_{2}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{V}}_% {1}^{N}\ \xrightarrow{\widehat{Q}}\ {\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}\rightarrow{\mathcal% {H}}_{N}\rightarrow 0,: ⋯ → caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG end_OVERACCENT → end_ARROW caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 , (3.51)

where Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG are defined differently in 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG and 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K. The Lefschetz trace formula says that

TrNeβH=k=0(1)kTr𝒱^kNeβH=k=0(1)kTr𝒱kNeβH,subscriptTrsubscript𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript^𝒱𝑘𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}e^{-\beta H}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr% \,}_{\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}e^{-\beta H}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{% \rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}e^{-\beta H},roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG caligraphic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (3.52)

which may be further refined by global charges. If we define the Hilbert-Poincaré series

𝐏^(μ,q)^𝐏𝜇𝑞\displaystyle\widehat{\mathbf{P}}(\mu,q)over^ start_ARG bold_P end_ARG ( italic_μ , italic_q ) =k=0μkTr𝒱^kNeβHabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript𝜇𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript^𝒱𝑘𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻\displaystyle=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\mu^{k}\,{\rm Tr\,}_{\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{k% }^{N}}e^{-\beta H}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG caligraphic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
𝐏(μ,q)𝐏𝜇𝑞\displaystyle\mathbf{P}(\mu,q)bold_P ( italic_μ , italic_q ) =k=0μkTr𝒱kNeβHabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript𝜇𝑘subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻\displaystyle=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\mu^{k}\,{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}e^% {-\beta H}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3.53)

where q=eβ𝑞superscript𝑒𝛽q=e^{-\beta}italic_q = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then by the uniqueness of the minimal resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG, there exists 𝐐(μ,q)𝐐𝜇𝑞\mathbf{Q}(\mu,q)bold_Q ( italic_μ , italic_q ) with non-negative coefficients in the μ𝜇\muitalic_μ- and q𝑞qitalic_q-series such that the following holds:

𝐏(μ,q)𝐏^(μ,q)=(1+μ)𝐐(μ,q).𝐏𝜇𝑞^𝐏𝜇𝑞1𝜇𝐐𝜇𝑞\mathbf{P}(\mu,q)-\widehat{\mathbf{P}}(\mu,q)=(1+\mu)\mathbf{Q}(\mu,q).bold_P ( italic_μ , italic_q ) - over^ start_ARG bold_P end_ARG ( italic_μ , italic_q ) = ( 1 + italic_μ ) bold_Q ( italic_μ , italic_q ) . (3.54)

This is the statement that 𝒦𝒦{\mathcal{K}}caligraphic_K can be constructed from a minimal resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG by introducing spurious pairs of heavy ghosts ξ(k)superscript𝜉𝑘\xi^{(k)}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ξ(k1)superscript𝜉𝑘1\xi^{(k-1)}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfying 𝒬^ξ(k)=ξ(k1)^𝒬superscript𝜉𝑘superscript𝜉𝑘1\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}\xi^{(k)}=\xi^{(k-1)}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒬^ξ(k1)=0^𝒬superscript𝜉𝑘10\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}\xi^{(k-1)}=0over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0. The ghosts ξ(k)superscript𝜉𝑘\xi^{(k)}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ξ(k1)superscript𝜉𝑘1\xi^{(k-1)}italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT possess the same energy eigenvalue. (3.54) places a lower bound at each energy eigenvalue on the number of generators of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, i.e. on the degeneracy of open strings on D-branes in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit.

Note that the lower bound (3.54) applies when there is a state-counting interpretation for the bulk partition function computed in background with k𝑘kitalic_k D-branes. For instance, one situation where the bound does not apply is in the giant graviton-like expansion considered in [17]. It was found in [21] that brane partition functions in this expansion originate from a U(m|m)𝑈conditional𝑚𝑚U(m|m)italic_U ( italic_m | italic_m ) super-matrix integral, which suggests that the partition function is associated to a more exotic brane system. It would be interesting to understand the expansion of [17] in terms of Koszul-Tate resolutions.

Another situation where the bound does not apply is when analytic properties of the bulk partition functions are used to find the spectrum. For example, the giant graviton expansion for the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM can be found by summing over residues of a grand canonical partition function:

ZN(x,y)subscript𝑍𝑁𝑥𝑦\displaystyle Z_{N}(x,y)italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) =Zk,k=0xkNykNn=1km=0(1xnym)n=1km=0(1ynxm)n=1km=1k(1xnym)absentsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝑘superscript𝑘0superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑦superscript𝑘𝑁superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚01superscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑦𝑚superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1superscript𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚01superscript𝑦𝑛superscript𝑥𝑚superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1superscript𝑘1superscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑦𝑚\displaystyle=Z_{\infty}\sum_{k,k^{\prime}=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^{kN}y^{k^{\prime% }N}}{\prod_{n=1}^{k}\prod_{m=0}^{\infty}(1-x^{-n}y^{m})\prod_{n=1}^{k^{\prime}% }\prod_{m=0}^{\infty}(1-y^{-n}x^{m})\prod_{n=1}^{k}\prod_{m=1}^{k^{\prime}}(1-% x^{-n}y^{-m})}= italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG
=Zk,k=0xkNykNZ^(k,k).absentsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝑘superscript𝑘0superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁superscript𝑦superscript𝑘𝑁subscript^𝑍𝑘superscript𝑘\displaystyle=Z_{\infty}\sum_{k,k^{\prime}=0}^{\infty}x^{kN}y^{k^{\prime}N}% \hat{Z}_{(k,k^{\prime})}.= italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (3.55)

The terms xkNZZ^(k,0)superscript𝑥𝑘𝑁subscript𝑍subscript^𝑍𝑘0x^{kN}Z_{\infty}\hat{Z}_{(k,0)}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , 0 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ykNZZ^(0,k)superscript𝑦superscript𝑘𝑁subscript𝑍subscript^𝑍0superscript𝑘y^{k^{\prime}N}Z_{\infty}\hat{Z}_{(0,k^{\prime})}italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have state-counting interpretations and their charge degeneracies are subject to the lower bound (refined with fugacities) at each N𝑁Nitalic_N. The other terms Z^(k,k)subscript^𝑍𝑘superscript𝑘\hat{Z}_{(k,k^{\prime})}over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with k,k0𝑘superscript𝑘0k,k^{\prime}\neq 0italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ 0 do not have state-counting interpretations, because Z^(k,k)subscript^𝑍𝑘superscript𝑘\hat{Z}_{(k,k^{\prime})}over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with k,k0𝑘superscript𝑘0k,k^{\prime}\neq 0italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ 0 does not have a power series expression. Computing the right side of (3.3.2), e.g. in the limit x=y=t𝑥𝑦𝑡x=y=titalic_x = italic_y = italic_t, requires one to use analytic properties of Z^(k,k)subscript^𝑍𝑘superscript𝑘\hat{Z}_{(k,k^{\prime})}over^ start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in fugacities x,y𝑥𝑦x,yitalic_x , italic_y to cancel poles that are present in that limit. The spectrum on the RHS at each total value of k+k𝑘superscript𝑘k+k^{\prime}italic_k + italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT therefore does not possess a state-counting interpretation. Wall-crossing phenomena due to the analytic properties of such expansions were discussed in the context of superconformal indices in [11]. We discuss the resolution in this example in Section 4.

4 Basic examples

We provide some simple examples of Koszul-Tate resolutions of finite N𝑁Nitalic_N modules, such as those for a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N )-gauged free fermion, 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS sector of free 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM, and the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring of 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM. Higher ghosts appear in the free 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS sector and the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring.

We hope it is clear to the reader that generalization to more interesting examples, such as 116116\frac{1}{16}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 end_ARG-BPS sector of 𝒩=4𝒩4\mathcal{N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 SYM or thermal partition function of pure Yang-Mills, is certainly possible in principle. However, this would require a significant improvement in the algorithm and would benefit from a better understanding of their string duals for comparison of the results.

4.1 Enumerating relations

We can enumerate the trace relations in a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory by defining the function [41]

Δ(M1,,MN+1)=σSN+1χ(1,1,,1)N+1(σ)(M1)i1iσ(1)(M2)i2iσ(2)(MN+1)iN+1iσ(N+1).Δsubscript𝑀1subscript𝑀𝑁1subscript𝜎subscript𝑆𝑁1subscript𝜒subscript111𝑁1𝜎superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑀1subscript𝑖1subscript𝑖𝜎1superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑀2subscript𝑖2subscript𝑖𝜎2superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑀𝑁1subscript𝑖𝑁1subscript𝑖𝜎𝑁1\Delta(M_{1},\cdots,M_{N+1})=\sum_{\sigma\in S_{N+1}}\chi_{\underbrace{% \scriptstyle(1,1,\cdots,1)}_{N+1}}(\sigma)\,(M_{1})_{i_{1}}^{i_{\sigma(1)}}(M_% {2})_{i_{2}}^{i_{\sigma(2)}}\cdots(M_{N+1})_{i_{N+1}}^{i_{\sigma(N+1)}}.roman_Δ ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG ( 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ ) ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( 1 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_N + 1 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4.1)

which consists of N+1𝑁1N+1italic_N + 1 matrices M1,M2,,MN+1subscript𝑀1subscript𝑀2subscript𝑀𝑁1M_{1},M_{2},\cdots,M_{N+1}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Here, χR(σ)subscript𝜒𝑅𝜎\chi_{R}(\sigma)italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ ) is the character of the symmetric group SN+1subscript𝑆𝑁1S_{N+1}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the antisymmetric representation R=(1,1,,1)𝑅111R=(1,1,\cdots,1)italic_R = ( 1 , 1 , ⋯ , 1 ). As a consequence of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, the following relation

Δ(M1,,MN+1)=0.Δsubscript𝑀1subscript𝑀𝑁10\Delta(M_{1},\cdots,M_{N+1})=0.roman_Δ ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (4.2)

holds identically for any set of N×N𝑁𝑁N\times Nitalic_N × italic_N matrices Misubscript𝑀𝑖M_{i}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where each Misubscript𝑀𝑖M_{i}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT may be grassmann even or odd. Trace relations in a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) gauge theory can be found by considering replacements of Misubscript𝑀𝑖M_{i}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with (products of) matrix-valued fields in the gauge theory.131313See for example [42] for a recent study using the Cayley-Hamilton theorem to determine trace relations. Since there are infinitely many trace relations, the set of trace relations must be computed in practice with a cutoff in the charges.

There is a large redundancy in the set of trace relations obtained from making substitutions in Δ(M1,,MN+1)=0Δsubscript𝑀1subscript𝑀𝑁10\Delta(M_{1},\cdots,M_{N+1})=0roman_Δ ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋯ , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. We find the minimal set of trace relation generators and the minimal free resolution of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, up to a truncation in the charge values, by using a Gröbner basis algorithm in a computer program [43].

4.2 Examples

U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N )-gauged fermion

Consider a free fermion ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ in the adjoint representation of the gauge group U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ). To simplify matters, we consider the Hilbert space built from gauge-invariant operators without derivatives, i.e. traces of an N×N𝑁𝑁N\times Nitalic_N × italic_N fermion matrix. Writing down trace relations is straightforward, and the Koszul-Tate resolution of this example can be worked out analytically. Taking the energy of the fermion to be 1/2121/21 / 2, the thermal partition function of the system with anti-periodic boundary conditions is

TrNeβH=n=1N(1+qn12),subscriptTrsubscript𝑁superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁1superscript𝑞𝑛12{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}e^{-\beta H}=\prod_{n=1}^{N}(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}),roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (4.3)

and with periodic boundary conditions is

TrN(1)FeβH=n=1N(1qn12),subscriptTrsubscript𝑁superscript1𝐹superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁1superscript𝑞𝑛12{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{N}}(-1)^{F}e^{-\beta H}=\prod_{n=1}^{N}(1-q^{n-% \frac{1}{2}}),roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (4.4)

where q=eβ𝑞superscript𝑒𝛽q=e^{-\beta}italic_q = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The fermion number grading (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT here should be distinguished from the heavy ghost grading (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the resolution. It will be interesting to see the effect of having both (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for the periodic case.

Let us find the trace relations and the resolution. From the cyclicity of the trace, one finds that traces containing even powers of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ vanish identically, independently of N𝑁Nitalic_N:

Trψ2n=0forn1.formulae-sequenceTrsuperscript𝜓2𝑛0for𝑛1{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2n}=0\quad\mathrm{for}\ n\geq 1.roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 roman_for italic_n ≥ 1 . (4.5)

So the large N𝑁Nitalic_N ring R𝑅Ritalic_R is

R=[Trψ,Trψ3,Trψ5,].𝑅Tr𝜓Trsuperscript𝜓3Trsuperscript𝜓5R=\mathbb{C}[{\rm Tr\,}\psi,{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{3},{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{5},\cdots].italic_R = blackboard_C [ roman_Tr italic_ψ , roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋯ ] . (4.6)

The trace relations at N𝑁Nitalic_N are

Trψ2N+1=Trψ2N+3=Trψ2N+5==0.Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁1Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁3Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁50{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+1}={\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+3}={\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+5}=\cdots=0.roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⋯ = 0 . (4.7)

We can find the Koszul-Tate resolution of the finite N𝑁Nitalic_N module

N=/Trψ2N+1,Trψ2N+3,Trψ2N+5,Rsubscript𝑁subscriptsubscriptTrsuperscript𝜓2𝑁1Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁3Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁5𝑅{\mathcal{H}}_{N}={\mathcal{H}}_{\infty}/\langle{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+1},{\rm Tr% \,}\psi^{2N+3},{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+5},\cdots\rangle_{R}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / ⟨ roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋯ ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (4.8)

by introducing ghosts φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ and a differential 𝒬^=[,Q^]^𝒬^𝑄\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}=[\,\cdot\,,\widehat{Q}]over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG = [ ⋅ , over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG ] on operators satisfying

𝒬^(φ2Na)=Trψ2N+a^𝒬subscript𝜑2𝑁𝑎Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁𝑎\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\varphi_{-2N-a})={\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+a}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4.9)

where a=1,3,5,𝑎135a=1,3,5,\cdotsitalic_a = 1 , 3 , 5 , ⋯. The anti-commuting differential Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG in a graded free resolution must commute with all quantum numbers other than the ghost degree of the resolution, so the ghosts φ2Nasubscript𝜑2𝑁𝑎\varphi_{-2N-a}italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are commuting operators with F=1𝐹1F=1italic_F = 1 mod 2subscript2\mathbb{Z}_{2}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and H=N+a2𝐻𝑁𝑎2H=N+\frac{a}{2}italic_H = italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG.141414φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ may both commute and have F=1𝐹1F=1italic_F = 1 mod 2subscript2\mathbb{Z}_{2}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT because F𝐹Fitalic_F is defined through other quantum numbers such as Lorentz spin in higher dimensions. The differential is nilpotent 𝒬^2=0superscript^𝒬20\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}^{2}=0over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 and acts via the graded Leibniz rule on multi-ghost operators:

𝒬^(φ2Na1φ2Nak)^𝒬subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘\displaystyle\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(\varphi_{-2N-a_{1}}\cdots\varphi_{-2N-a_{k}})over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =i=1k(φ2Na1𝒬^(φ2Na1)φ2Nak)absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎1^𝒬subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{k}(\varphi_{-2N-a_{1}}\cdots\widehat{\mathcal{Q}}(% \varphi_{-2N-a_{1}})\cdots\varphi_{-2N-a_{k}})= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ over^ start_ARG caligraphic_Q end_ARG ( italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋯ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
=i=1kTrψ2N+ai(φ2Na1φ2Nai1φ2Nai+1φ2Nak).absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘Trsuperscript𝜓2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖1subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑖1subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{k}{\rm Tr\,}\psi^{2N+a_{i}}(\varphi_{-2N-a_{1}}% \cdots\varphi_{-2N-a_{i-1}}\varphi_{-2N-a_{i+1}}\cdots\varphi_{-2N-a_{k}}).= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Tr italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (4.10)

There are no higher ghosts in this example. This statement can be checked by computing the Lefschetz trace formula using only the multi-ghost states (with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R)

φ2Na1φ2Na2φ2Nak|0𝒱ksubscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎1subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎2subscript𝜑2𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘ket0subscript𝒱𝑘\varphi_{-2N-a_{1}}\varphi_{-2N-a_{2}}\cdots\varphi_{-2N-a_{k}}|0\rangle\in{% \mathcal{V}}_{k}italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_N - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ∈ caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (4.11)

where a=1,3,5,𝑎135a=1,3,5,\cdotsitalic_a = 1 , 3 , 5 , ⋯ with 1a1a2ak<1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2subscript𝑎𝑘1\leq a_{1}\leq a_{2}\leq\cdots\leq a_{k}<\infty1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ and no higher ghosts. Let us compute the ghost partition functions by taking traces with respect to the free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules 𝒱ksubscript𝒱𝑘{\mathcal{V}}_{k}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The k𝑘kitalic_k-ghost partition function without (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is

Tr𝒱keβHsubscriptTrsubscript𝒱𝑘superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻\displaystyle{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}}e^{-\beta H}roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =n=1(1+qn12)1a1ak<aioddqN+a12qN+a22qN+ak2absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑞𝑛12subscript1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑎𝑖oddsuperscript𝑞𝑁subscript𝑎12superscript𝑞𝑁subscript𝑎22superscript𝑞𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘2\displaystyle=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})\sum_{\begin{subarray}{% c}1\leq a_{1}\leq\cdots\leq a_{k}<\infty\\ a_{i}\ \mathrm{odd}\end{subarray}}q^{N+\frac{a_{1}}{2}}q^{N+\frac{a_{2}}{2}}% \cdots q^{N+\frac{a_{k}}{2}}= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_odd end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4.14)
=n=1(1+qn12)qkNqk2m=1k(1qm),absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑞𝑛12superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁superscript𝑞𝑘2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑞𝑚\displaystyle=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})\frac{q^{kN}q^{\frac{k}% {2}}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-q^{m})},= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) divide start_ARG italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG , (4.15)

and with (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is

Tr𝒱k(1)FeβHsubscriptTrsubscript𝒱𝑘superscript1𝐹superscript𝑒𝛽𝐻\displaystyle{\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}}(-1)^{F}e^{-\beta H}roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =n=1(1qn12)1a1ak<aiodd(1)kqN+a12qN+a22qN+ak2absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑞𝑛12subscript1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝑎𝑖oddsuperscript1𝑘superscript𝑞𝑁subscript𝑎12superscript𝑞𝑁subscript𝑎22superscript𝑞𝑁subscript𝑎𝑘2\displaystyle=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})\sum_{\begin{subarray}{% c}1\leq a_{1}\leq\cdots\leq a_{k}<\infty\\ a_{i}\ \mathrm{odd}\end{subarray}}(-1)^{k}q^{N+\frac{a_{1}}{2}}q^{N+\frac{a_{2% }}{2}}\cdots q^{N+\frac{a_{k}}{2}}= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_odd end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4.18)
=n=1(1qn12)(1)kqkNqk2m=1k(1qm).absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑞𝑛12superscript1𝑘superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁superscript𝑞𝑘2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑞𝑚\displaystyle=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})\frac{(-1)^{k}q^{kN}q^{% \frac{k}{2}}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-q^{m})}.= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (4.19)

In the latter, (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT evaluates to (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT because each φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ has F=1𝐹1F=1italic_F = 1 mod 2subscript2\mathbb{Z}_{2}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and heavy ghost number 1111.

We find that the Lefschetz trace formula is satisfied in both cases. For the fermion ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ with anti-periodic boundary conditions one obtains

n=1N(1+qn12)=n=1(1+qn12)k=0(1)kqkNqk2m=1k(1qm)superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁1superscript𝑞𝑛12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑞𝑛12superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁superscript𝑞𝑘2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑞𝑚\prod_{n=1}^{N}(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})% \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}q^{kN}\frac{q^{\frac{k}{2}}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-q^{m% })}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG (4.20)

and with periodic boundary conditions one obtains

n=1N(1qn12)=n=1(1qn12)k=0qkNqk2m=1k(1qm).superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛1𝑁1superscript𝑞𝑛12superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛11superscript𝑞𝑛12superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript𝑞𝑘𝑁superscript𝑞𝑘2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑚1𝑘1superscript𝑞𝑚\prod_{n=1}^{N}(1-q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{n-\frac{1}{2}})% \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}q^{kN}\frac{q^{\frac{k}{2}}}{\prod_{m=1}^{k}(1-q^{m})}.∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (4.21)

It is interesting that (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cancels with (1)Fsuperscript1𝐹(-1)^{F}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the latter. If a string dual of a U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N )-gauged fermion can be formulated, this suggests that D-branes in the anti-periodic case behave with fermionic statistics while D-branes in the periodic case behave as bosons.

Free 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS sector

Let us consider the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS sector of free U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 super Yang-Mills, which consists of gauge-invariants constructed from two N×N𝑁𝑁N\times Nitalic_N × italic_N scalars X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y [44]. Starting with examples involving two matrices, the trace relations become rather involved. We find the trace relations at low values of N𝑁Nitalic_N up to a truncation in the total dimension of the adjoint fields X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y. Then we reduce the set of trace relations to a minimal set of generators using [43].

The partition function of this system is

ZN(x,y)=1N!a=1Ndσa2πiσaa>b(1σaσb1)(1σbσa1)a,b=1N(1xσaσb1)(1yσaσb1).subscript𝑍𝑁𝑥𝑦1𝑁contour-integralsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑎1𝑁𝑑subscript𝜎𝑎2𝜋𝑖subscript𝜎𝑎subscriptproduct𝑎𝑏1subscript𝜎𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑏11subscript𝜎𝑏superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑎1superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑎𝑏1𝑁1𝑥subscript𝜎𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑏11𝑦subscript𝜎𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑏1Z_{N}(x,y)=\frac{1}{N!}\oint\prod_{a=1}^{N}\frac{d\sigma_{a}}{2\pi i\sigma_{a}% }\frac{\prod_{a>b}(1-\sigma_{a}\sigma_{b}^{-1})(1-\sigma_{b}\sigma_{a}^{-1})}{% \prod_{a,b=1}^{N}(1-x\sigma_{a}\sigma_{b}^{-1})(1-y\sigma_{a}\sigma_{b}^{-1})}.italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N ! end_ARG ∮ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a > italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( 1 - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_b = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( 1 - italic_y italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (4.22)

where x𝑥xitalic_x and y𝑦yitalic_y are fugacities for charges associated to fields X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y. The large N𝑁Nitalic_N ring

R=[TrX,TrY,TrX2,TrXY,]𝑅Tr𝑋Tr𝑌Trsuperscript𝑋2Tr𝑋𝑌R=\mathbb{C}[{\rm Tr\,}X,{\rm Tr\,}Y,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2},{\rm Tr\,}XY,\cdots]italic_R = blackboard_C [ roman_Tr italic_X , roman_Tr italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X italic_Y , ⋯ ] (4.23)

is the ring of polynomials in all single traces constructed from X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y, where X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y do not commute. The large N𝑁Nitalic_N partition function is

Z(x,y)=n=111xnyn.subscript𝑍𝑥𝑦superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛111superscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑦𝑛Z_{\infty}(x,y)=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-x^{n}-y^{n}}.italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . (4.24)

Let us compute ZNsubscript𝑍𝑁Z_{N}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at low values of N𝑁Nitalic_N to set some expectations regarding the higher relations. We can read off the single-trace generators of the free 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS sector at low values of N𝑁Nitalic_N from ZNsubscript𝑍𝑁Z_{N}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The partition function for N=1,2𝑁12N=1,2italic_N = 1 , 2 are

Z1subscript𝑍1\displaystyle Z_{1}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =1(1x)(1y)absent11𝑥1𝑦\displaystyle=\frac{1}{(1-x)(1-y)}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 - italic_x ) ( 1 - italic_y ) end_ARG
Z2subscript𝑍2\displaystyle Z_{2}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =1(1x)(1y)(1x2)(1xy)(1y2).absent11𝑥1𝑦1superscript𝑥21𝑥𝑦1superscript𝑦2\displaystyle=\frac{1}{(1-x)(1-y)(1-x^{2})(1-xy)(1-y^{2})}.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 - italic_x ) ( 1 - italic_y ) ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( 1 - italic_x italic_y ) ( 1 - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (4.25)

This suggests that N=1subscript𝑁1{\mathcal{H}}_{N=1}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Fock space built from the generators TrX,TrYTr𝑋Tr𝑌{\rm Tr\,}X,\,{\rm Tr\,}Yroman_Tr italic_X , roman_Tr italic_Y, and that N=2subscript𝑁2{\mathcal{H}}_{N=2}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Fock space built from

TrX,TrY,TrX2,TrXY,TrY2.Tr𝑋Tr𝑌Trsuperscript𝑋2Tr𝑋𝑌Trsuperscript𝑌2{\rm Tr\,}X,\,{\rm Tr\,}Y,\,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2},\,{\rm Tr\,}XY,\,{\rm Tr\,}Y^{2}.roman_Tr italic_X , roman_Tr italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4.26)

However, the partition function at N=3𝑁3N=3italic_N = 3

Z3=(1x6y6)(n=13(1xn)(1yn))(1xy)(1x2y)(1xy2)(1x2y2)(1x3y3)subscript𝑍31superscript𝑥6superscript𝑦6superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛131superscript𝑥𝑛1superscript𝑦𝑛1𝑥𝑦1superscript𝑥2𝑦1𝑥superscript𝑦21superscript𝑥2superscript𝑦21superscript𝑥3superscript𝑦3Z_{3}=\frac{(1-x^{6}y^{6})}{\left(\prod_{n=1}^{3}(1-x^{n})(1-y^{n})\right)(1-% xy)(1-x^{2}y)(1-xy^{2})(1-x^{2}y^{2})(1-x^{3}y^{3})}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( 1 - italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) ( 1 - italic_x italic_y ) ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y ) ( 1 - italic_x italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG (4.27)

says that N=3subscript𝑁3{\mathcal{H}}_{N=3}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N = 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT cannot be a Fock space built from single trace generators [45], because there exists a relation of degree (6,6)66(6,6)( 6 , 6 ) in X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y fields among the generators

TrX,TrY,TrX2,TrXY,TrY2,TrX3,TrX2Y,TrXY2,TrY3,TrX2Y2,TrX3Y3.Tr𝑋Tr𝑌Trsuperscript𝑋2Tr𝑋𝑌Trsuperscript𝑌2Trsuperscript𝑋3Trsuperscript𝑋2𝑌Tr𝑋superscript𝑌2Trsuperscript𝑌3Trsuperscript𝑋2superscript𝑌2Trsuperscript𝑋3superscript𝑌3{\rm Tr\,}X,\,{\rm Tr\,}Y,\,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2},\,{\rm Tr\,}XY,\,{\rm Tr\,}Y^{2},{% \rm Tr\,}X^{3},\,{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}Y,\,{\rm Tr\,}XY^{2},\,{\rm Tr\,}Y^{3},\,{\rm Tr% \,}X^{2}Y^{2},\,{\rm Tr\,}X^{3}Y^{3}.roman_Tr italic_X , roman_Tr italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y , roman_Tr italic_X italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4.28)

One can think of other traces, e.g. TrXYXYTr𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌{\rm Tr\,}XYXYroman_Tr italic_X italic_Y italic_X italic_Y, TrXYX2Y2Tr𝑋𝑌superscript𝑋2superscript𝑌2{\rm Tr\,}XYX^{2}Y^{2}roman_Tr italic_X italic_Y italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and TrXYXYXYTr𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌{\rm Tr\,}XYXYXYroman_Tr italic_X italic_Y italic_X italic_Y italic_X italic_Y, at degrees (2,2)22(2,2)( 2 , 2 ) and (3,3)33(3,3)( 3 , 3 ) as having been eliminated by expressing them in terms of TrX2Y2Trsuperscript𝑋2superscript𝑌2{\rm Tr\,}X^{2}Y^{2}roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and TrX3Y3Trsuperscript𝑋3superscript𝑌3{\rm Tr\,}X^{3}Y^{3}roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT using the trace relations at N=3𝑁3N=3italic_N = 3. The analysis in this paragraph amounts to using the trace relations that were present at each N𝑁Nitalic_N to reduce the ring generators to a finite set, but we would like to work over the large N𝑁Nitalic_N ring R𝑅Ritalic_R and find whether there exist non-trivial relations between trace relations.

Let 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be free R𝑅Ritalic_R-modules consisting a minimal Koszul-Tate resolution 𝒦^^𝒦\widehat{{\mathcal{K}}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_K end_ARG of Nsubscript𝑁{\mathcal{H}}_{N}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We define the following, which is the Hilbert series of 𝒱kNsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

Z𝒱kN=Tr𝒱kN[x𝒞Xy𝒞Y].subscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁subscriptTrsuperscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘𝑁delimited-[]superscript𝑥subscript𝒞𝑋superscript𝑦subscript𝒞𝑌Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}={\rm Tr\,}_{{\mathcal{V}}_{k}^{N}}\left[x^{{\mathcal% {C}}_{X}}y^{{\mathcal{C}}_{Y}}\right].italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] . (4.29)

By enumerating trace relations, we find that the generators of 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that map to trace relations possess the following total charges:

Z𝒱1N=1Zsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁1subscript𝑍\displaystyle\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N=1}}}{Z_{\infty}}divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG =3t2+4t3+6t4+8t5+14t6+20t7+36t8+60t9+108t10+188t11+352t12+absent3superscript𝑡24superscript𝑡36superscript𝑡48superscript𝑡514superscript𝑡620superscript𝑡736superscript𝑡860superscript𝑡9108superscript𝑡10188superscript𝑡11352superscript𝑡12\displaystyle=3t^{2}+4t^{3}+6t^{4}+8t^{5}+14t^{6}+20t^{7}+36t^{8}+60t^{9}+108t% ^{10}+188t^{11}+352t^{12}+\cdots= 3 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 14 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 20 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 60 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 108 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 188 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 352 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯
Z𝒱1N=2Zsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁2subscript𝑍\displaystyle\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N=2}}}{Z_{\infty}}divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG =4t3+6t4+8t5+14t6+20t7+36t8+60t9+108t10+188t11+352t12+absent4superscript𝑡36superscript𝑡48superscript𝑡514superscript𝑡620superscript𝑡736superscript𝑡860superscript𝑡9108superscript𝑡10188superscript𝑡11352superscript𝑡12\displaystyle=4t^{3}+6t^{4}+8t^{5}+14t^{6}+20t^{7}+36t^{8}+60t^{9}+108t^{10}+1% 88t^{11}+352t^{12}+\cdots= 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 14 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 20 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 60 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 108 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 188 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 352 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯
Z𝒱1N=3Zsubscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁3subscript𝑍\displaystyle\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N=3}}}{Z_{\infty}}divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG =5t4+8t5+13t6+20t7+36t8+60t9+108t10+188t11+352t12+absent5superscript𝑡48superscript𝑡513superscript𝑡620superscript𝑡736superscript𝑡860superscript𝑡9108superscript𝑡10188superscript𝑡11352superscript𝑡12\displaystyle=5t^{4}+8t^{5}+13t^{6}+20t^{7}+36t^{8}+60t^{9}+108t^{10}+188t^{11% }+352t^{12}+\cdots= 5 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 13 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 20 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 60 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 108 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 188 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 352 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ (4.30)

where we specialized the fugacities to x=y=t𝑥𝑦𝑡x=y=titalic_x = italic_y = italic_t.

We would like to find whether there exist higher relations between trace relations. We can do so by checking whether the Lefschetz trace formula is satisfied by multi-ghost states constructed only from single-ghost generators with the above charges. We use Polya theory [46, 47, 48] to multi-particle the anti-commuting ghosts of 𝒱1Nsuperscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

exp[n=1μnnZ𝒱1NZ(tn)]=k=0(1)kμkMk,N(t)superscriptsubscript𝑛1superscript𝜇𝑛𝑛subscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁subscript𝑍superscript𝑡𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘superscript𝜇𝑘subscript𝑀𝑘𝑁𝑡\exp\left[-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\mu^{n}}{n}\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N}}% }{Z_{\infty}}(t^{n})\right]=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}\mu^{k}M_{k,N}(t)roman_exp [ - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) (4.31)

where the series Mk,N(t)subscript𝑀𝑘𝑁𝑡M_{k,N}(t)italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) contains charges of states with total heavy ghost number k𝑘kitalic_k. If the Mk,N(t)subscript𝑀𝑘𝑁𝑡M_{k,N}(t)italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) above satisfy

ZN(t)Z(t)=?k=0(1)kMk,N(t),superscript?subscript𝑍𝑁𝑡subscript𝑍𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscript𝑀𝑘𝑁𝑡\frac{Z_{N}(t)}{Z_{\infty}(t)}\ \stackrel{{\scriptstyle?}}{{=}}\ \sum_{k=0}^{% \infty}(-1)^{k}M_{k,N}(t),divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG ? end_ARG end_RELOP ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) , (4.32)

it means that there are no ghosts-for-ghosts.

Up to total charge 12121212, we find that (4.32) is satisfied for N=1,2𝑁12N=1,2italic_N = 1 , 2. There is a discrepancy at N=3𝑁3N=3italic_N = 3 of

Z3(t)Z(t)k=0(1)kMk,3(t)=t12+O(t13)subscript𝑍3𝑡subscript𝑍𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscript𝑀𝑘3𝑡superscript𝑡12𝑂superscript𝑡13\frac{Z_{3}(t)}{Z_{\infty}(t)}-\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}M_{k,3}(t)=-t^{12}+O% (t^{13})divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = - italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_O ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 13 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (4.33)

which indicates that the Koszul-Tate resolution at N=3𝑁3N=3italic_N = 3 involves a higher ghost state at total charge 12121212. The minus sign, and the fact that the Mk=3,3(t)subscript𝑀𝑘33𝑡M_{k=3,3}(t)italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 3 , 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is the final term to contribute to (4.33) up to charge 12121212, suggests the higher ghost χ(3)|0𝒱k=3N=3superscript𝜒3ket0superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘3𝑁3\chi^{(3)}|0\rangle\in{\mathcal{V}}_{k=3}^{N=3}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 3 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ∈ caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of charge 12121212 maps under Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG to a linear combination of χA1(1)χA2(1)|0superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴11superscriptsubscript𝜒subscript𝐴21ket0\chi_{A_{1}}^{(1)}\chi_{A_{2}}^{(1)}|0\rangleitalic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ with coefficients in R𝑅Ritalic_R.

1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring

A similar computation may be done in the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring of U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) 𝒩=4𝒩4{\mathcal{N}=4}caligraphic_N = 4 SYM, which involves adjoint fields X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y subject to a superpotential constraint [X,Y]=0𝑋𝑌0[X,Y]=0[ italic_X , italic_Y ] = 0. The large N𝑁Nitalic_N ring R𝑅Ritalic_R consists of traces of commuting fields:

R=[TrXnYm]𝑅delimited-[]Trsuperscript𝑋𝑛superscript𝑌𝑚R=\mathbb{C}[{\rm Tr\,}X^{n}Y^{m}]italic_R = blackboard_C [ roman_Tr italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] (4.34)

where n,m=0,1,2,formulae-sequence𝑛𝑚012n,m=0,1,2,\cdotsitalic_n , italic_m = 0 , 1 , 2 , ⋯ and (n,m)(0,0)𝑛𝑚00(n,m)\neq(0,0)( italic_n , italic_m ) ≠ ( 0 , 0 ). The grand canonical partition function of the 1414\frac{1}{4}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG-BPS chiral ring is

𝒵(p;x,y)=N=0pNZN(x,y)=n,m=011pxnym𝒵𝑝𝑥𝑦superscriptsubscript𝑁0superscript𝑝𝑁subscript𝑍𝑁𝑥𝑦superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛𝑚011𝑝superscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑦𝑚{\mathcal{Z}}(p;x,y)=\sum_{N=0}^{\infty}p^{N}Z_{N}(x,y)=\prod_{n,m=0}^{\infty}% \frac{1}{1-p\,x^{n}y^{m}}caligraphic_Z ( italic_p ; italic_x , italic_y ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_m = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_p italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG (4.35)

and the large N𝑁Nitalic_N partition function is

Z(x,y)=n,m=0(n,m)(0,0)11xnym.subscript𝑍𝑥𝑦superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛𝑚0𝑛𝑚0011superscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑦𝑚Z_{\infty}(x,y)=\prod_{\begin{subarray}{c}n,m=0\\ (n,m)\neq(0,0)\end{subarray}}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-x^{n}y^{m}}.italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_n , italic_m = 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_n , italic_m ) ≠ ( 0 , 0 ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . (4.36)

One finds non-trivial results also starting at N=3𝑁3N=3italic_N = 3, where the generators of 𝒱1N=3superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁3{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N=3}caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that map to trace relations possess the following total charges:

Z𝒱1N=3Z=5t4+8t5+10t6+8t7+9t8+10t9+11t10+subscript𝑍superscriptsubscript𝒱1𝑁3subscript𝑍5superscript𝑡48superscript𝑡510superscript𝑡68superscript𝑡79superscript𝑡810superscript𝑡911superscript𝑡10\frac{Z_{{\mathcal{V}}_{1}^{N=3}}}{Z_{\infty}}=5t^{4}+8t^{5}+10t^{6}+8t^{7}+9t% ^{8}+10t^{9}+11t^{10}+\cdotsdivide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 5 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 10 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 9 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 10 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 11 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ⋯ (4.37)

There is a discrepancy in (4.32) at N=3𝑁3N=3italic_N = 3:

Z3(t)Z(t)k=0(1)kMk,3(t)=3t8+O(t9),subscript𝑍3𝑡subscript𝑍𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript1𝑘subscript𝑀𝑘3𝑡3superscript𝑡8𝑂superscript𝑡9\frac{Z_{3}(t)}{Z_{\infty}(t)}-\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}M_{k,3}(t)=3t^{8}+O(% t^{9}),divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 3 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_O ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (4.38)

which indicates that three ghost-for-ghost states χ(2)|0𝒱k=2N=3superscript𝜒2ket0superscriptsubscript𝒱𝑘2𝑁3\chi^{(2)}|0\rangle\in{\mathcal{V}}_{k=2}^{N=3}italic_χ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 0 ⟩ ∈ caligraphic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N = 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT exist in the minimal Koszul-Tate resolution at charge 8888. It would be nice to understand the higher ghosts in this context by comparing the large N𝑁Nitalic_N spectrum of 𝒢ksubscript𝒢𝑘{\mathcal{G}}_{k}caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Section 3.3.1 at fixed 𝒞Ysubscript𝒞𝑌{\mathcal{C}}_{Y}caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT charges with the spectrum of normalizable states constructed from higher S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT modes on D3 giants.

5 Discussion

We conclude with a partial list of open questions:

  1. 1.

    A path integral realization of the Koszul-Tate resolution implementing trace relations would be conceptually enlightening. This may help understand how structures discussed in this work are realized in the bulk string field theory in the αsuperscript𝛼\alpha^{\prime}\to\inftyitalic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ∞ limit.

  2. 2.

    To make the bulk grading and the Hilbert space structure manifest, we used canonical quantization to study the states of bulk D-branes. It would be nice to understand how the grading (1)ksuperscript1𝑘(-1)^{k}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT arises in the gravitational path integral in the presence of Euclidean D-branes.

  3. 3.

    Trace relations exist at finite λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. How does the structure of the Koszul-Tate resolution change when one turns on the coupling, and what additional ingredients are required? How do we describe the dynamics of the heavy ghost states, and how are properties of black holes encoded therein? How does the bulk radial coordinate emerge at finite λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ? It would also be nice to understand the recent progress in 116116\frac{1}{16}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 end_ARG-BPS states at weak coupling [49, 50, 51, 52, 53] using tools presented in this work.

  4. 4.

    More intricate finite N𝑁Nitalic_N relations appear in gauge theories with (anti-)fundamental and adjoint fields or in gauge theories with surface defects with (anti-)fundamental degrees of freedom. It would be nice to gain an algebraic understanding of various branes in anti-de Sitter space in terms of relations at finite N𝑁Nitalic_N.

  5. 5.

    It would be important to have a sharper bulk understanding of the higher ghosts (e.g. as strings on multiply-wrapped branes, etc.). Along these lines, it would be helpful to generalize the computation of normalizable states in Section 2.2 to that with higher S3superscript𝑆3S^{3}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT modes and fluctuations in AdSAdS\mathrm{AdS}roman_AdS directions.

  6. 6.

    It would be nice to understand the relationship between our work and works on the K-theory classification of D-branes [54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59], higher spin holography [60, 61, 62, 63], tensionless strings [64, 65, 66, 67], and works relating holography and Koszul duality [68, 69, 70, 71, 72].

  7. 7.

    The holographic interpretation of the differential Q^^𝑄\widehat{Q}over^ start_ARG italic_Q end_ARG is an instanton which maps a state on k𝑘kitalic_k wrapped D-branes to a linear combination of states on k1𝑘1k-1italic_k - 1 wrapped D-branes with coefficients in the traces (i.e. closed strings). What are the gauge theory predictions for the tunneling amplitudes between vacua labelled by different D-branes, as well as the effect of turning on λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ on this amplitude?

Acknowledgments

I thank D. Belayneh, M. R. Gaberdiel, D. Gaiotto, M. Heydeman, L. V. Iliesiu, S. Komatsu, W. Li, E. J. Martinec, H. Murali, S. S. Pufu, S. Raghavendran, P. Vieira, and E. Witten for helpful discussions. I am especially grateful to D. Gaiotto for many valuable suggestions and careful reading of the draft. I thank the organizers of the Precision Holography workshop at CERN and the organizers of the QFT & Strings seminar at ETH Zürich for the opportunity to present early versions of this work. I am thankful for the hospitality of Institut für Theoretische Physik at ETH Zürich, where parts of this work was done.

I am supported by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and in part by the NSERC Discovery Grant program and the Simons Collaboration on Confinement and QCD Strings. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

References

  • [1] G. ’t Hooft, A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions, Nucl. Phys. B 72 (1974) 461.
  • [2] J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, [hep-th/9711200].
  • [3] E. Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253–291, [hep-th/9802150].
  • [4] S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory, Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105–114, [hep-th/9802109].
  • [5] J. M. Maldacena and A. Strominger, AdS(3) black holes and a stringy exclusion principle, JHEP 12 (1998) 005, [hep-th/9804085].
  • [6] R. C. Myers, Dielectric branes, JHEP 12 (1999) 022, [hep-th/9910053].
  • [7] J. McGreevy, L. Susskind, and N. Toumbas, Invasion of the giant gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space, JHEP 06 (2000) 008, [hep-th/0003075].
  • [8] D. Gaiotto and J. H. Lee, The Giant Graviton Expansion, arXiv:2109.02545.
  • [9] R. Arai and Y. Imamura, Finite N𝑁Nitalic_N Corrections to the Superconformal Index of S-fold Theories, PTEP 2019 (2019), no. 8 083B04, [arXiv:1904.09776].
  • [10] Y. Imamura, Finite-N superconformal index via the AdS/CFT correspondence, PTEP 2021 (2021), no. 12 123B05, [arXiv:2108.12090].
  • [11] J. H. Lee, Exact stringy microstates from gauge theories, JHEP 11 (2022) 137, [arXiv:2204.09286].
  • [12] J. Kinney, J. M. Maldacena, S. Minwalla, and S. Raju, An Index for 4 dimensional super conformal theories, Commun. Math. Phys. 275 (2007) 209–254, [hep-th/0510251].
  • [13] M. T. Grisaru, R. C. Myers, and O. Tafjord, SUSY and goliath, JHEP 08 (2000) 040, [hep-th/0008015].
  • [14] A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano, and N. Itzhaki, Large branes in AdS and their field theory dual, JHEP 08 (2000) 051, [hep-th/0008016].
  • [15] R. Arai, S. Fujiwara, Y. Imamura, and T. Mori, Schur index of the 𝒩=4𝒩4{\cal N}=4caligraphic_N = 4 U(N)𝑈𝑁U(N)italic_U ( italic_N ) supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory via the AdS/CFT correspondence, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 8 086017, [arXiv:2001.11667].
  • [16] R. Arai, S. Fujiwara, Y. Imamura, T. Mori, and D. Yokoyama, Finite-N𝑁Nitalic_N corrections to the M-brane indices, JHEP 11 (2020) 093, [arXiv:2007.05213].
  • [17] S. Murthy, Unitary matrix models, free fermions, and the giant graviton expansion, Pure Appl. Math. Quart. 19 (2023), no. 1 299–340, [arXiv:2202.06897].
  • [18] Y. Imamura, Analytic continuation for giant gravitons, PTEP 2022 (2022), no. 10 103B02, [arXiv:2205.14615].
  • [19] S. Choi, S. Kim, E. Lee, and J. Lee, From giant gravitons to black holes, JHEP 11 (2023) 086, [arXiv:2207.05172].
  • [20] J. T. Liu and N. J. Rajappa, Finite N indices and the giant graviton expansion, JHEP 04 (2023) 078, [arXiv:2212.05408].
  • [21] D. S. Eniceicu, Comments on the Giant-Graviton Expansion of the Superconformal Index, arXiv:2302.04887.
  • [22] F. F. Gautason, V. G. M. Puletti, and J. van Muiden, Quantized strings and instantons in holography, JHEP 08 (2023) 218, [arXiv:2304.12340].
  • [23] M. Beccaria and A. Cabo-Bizet, On the brane expansion of the Schur index, JHEP 08 (2023) 073, [arXiv:2305.17730].
  • [24] M. Beccaria and A. Cabo-Bizet, Large black hole entropy from the giant brane expansion, arXiv:2308.05191.
  • [25] M. Beccaria, S. Giombi, and A. A. Tseytlin, (2,0) theory on S5×S1 and quantum M2 branes, Nucl. Phys. B 998 (2024) 116400, [arXiv:2309.10786].
  • [26] S. Fujiwara, Y. Imamura, T. Mori, S. Murayama, and D. Yokoyama, Simple-Sum Giant Graviton Expansions for Orbifolds and Orientifolds, arXiv:2310.03332.
  • [27] V. Balasubramanian, M.-x. Huang, T. S. Levi, and A. Naqvi, Open strings from N=4 superYang-Mills, JHEP 08 (2002) 037, [hep-th/0204196].
  • [28] V. Balasubramanian, D. Berenstein, B. Feng, and M.-x. Huang, D-branes in Yang-Mills theory and emergent gauge symmetry, JHEP 03 (2005) 006, [hep-th/0411205].
  • [29] R. de Mello Koch, J. Smolic, and M. Smolic, Giant Gravitons - with Strings Attached (I), JHEP 06 (2007) 074, [hep-th/0701066].
  • [30] G. Festuccia and N. Seiberg, Rigid Supersymmetric Theories in Curved Superspace, JHEP 06 (2011) 114, [arXiv:1105.0689].
  • [31] G. Ishiki, Y. Takayama, and A. Tsuchiya, N=4 SYM on R x S**3 and theories with 16 supercharges, JHEP 10 (2006) 007, [hep-th/0605163].
  • [32] E. Witten, Holomorphic Morse Inequalities, Algebraic and Differential Topology - Global Differential Geometry (1984).
  • [33] H. Lin, O. Lunin, and J. M. Maldacena, Bubbling AdS space and 1/2 BPS geometries, JHEP 10 (2004) 025, [hep-th/0409174].
  • [34] D. Berenstein, A Toy model for the AdS / CFT correspondence, JHEP 07 (2004) 018, [hep-th/0403110].
  • [35] S. Dutta and R. Gopakumar, Free fermions and thermal AdS/CFT, JHEP 03 (2008) 011, [arXiv:0711.0133].
  • [36] M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of gauge systems. 1992.
  • [37] D. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry. 1995.
  • [38] D. Cox, J. Little, and D. O’shea, Using Algebraic Geometry. 2005.
  • [39] G. Felder, BRST Approach to Minimal Models, Nucl. Phys. B 317 (1989) 215. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 324, 548 (1989)].
  • [40] E. Witten, Supersymmetry and Morse theory, J. Diff. Geom. 17 (1982), no. 4 661–692.
  • [41] C. D. Concini and C. Procesi, The Invariant Theory of Matrices. 2017.
  • [42] R. Dempsey, I. R. Klebanov, L. L. Lin, and S. S. Pufu, Adjoint Majorana QCD22{}_{2}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 2 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT at finite N, JHEP 04 (2023) 107, [arXiv:2210.10895].
  • [43] D. R. Grayson and M. E. Stillman, “Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry.” Available at http://www2.macaulay2.com.
  • [44] F. A. Dolan, Counting BPS operators in N=4 SYM, Nucl. Phys. B 790 (2008) 432–464, [arXiv:0704.1038].
  • [45] A. Hanany, Counting BPS operators in the chiral ring: The plethystic story, AIP Conf. Proc. 939 (2007), no. 1 165–175.
  • [46] B. Sundborg, The Hagedorn transition, deconfinement and N=4 SYM theory, Nucl. Phys. B 573 (2000) 349–363, [hep-th/9908001].
  • [47] A. M. Polyakov, Gauge fields and space-time, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17S1 (2002) 119–136, [hep-th/0110196].
  • [48] O. Aharony, J. Marsano, S. Minwalla, K. Papadodimas, and M. Van Raamsdonk, The Hagedorn - deconfinement phase transition in weakly coupled large N gauge theories, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 8 (2004) 603–696, [hep-th/0310285].
  • [49] C.-M. Chang and Y.-H. Lin, Words to describe a black hole, JHEP 02 (2023) 109, [arXiv:2209.06728].
  • [50] S. Choi, S. Kim, E. Lee, and J. Park, The shape of non-graviton operators for SU(2)𝑆𝑈2SU(2)italic_S italic_U ( 2 ), arXiv:2209.12696.
  • [51] S. Choi, S. Kim, E. Lee, S. Lee, and J. Park, Towards quantum black hole microstates, JHEP 11 (2023) 175, [arXiv:2304.10155].
  • [52] K. Budzik, H. Murali, and P. Vieira, Following Black Hole States, arXiv:2306.04693.
  • [53] C.-M. Chang, L. Feng, Y.-H. Lin, and Y.-X. Tao, Decoding stringy near-supersymmetric black holes, arXiv:2306.04673.
  • [54] M. B. Green, J. A. Harvey, and G. W. Moore, I-brane inflow and anomalous couplings on d-branes, Class. Quant. Grav. 14 (1997) 47–52, [hep-th/9605033].
  • [55] R. Minasian and G. W. Moore, K theory and Ramond-Ramond charge, JHEP 11 (1997) 002, [hep-th/9710230].
  • [56] E. Witten, D-branes and K-theory, JHEP 12 (1998) 019, [hep-th/9810188].
  • [57] D. S. Freed and M. J. Hopkins, On Ramond-Ramond fields and K theory, JHEP 05 (2000) 044, [hep-th/0002027].
  • [58] J. M. Maldacena, G. W. Moore, and N. Seiberg, D-brane instantons and K theory charges, JHEP 11 (2001) 062, [hep-th/0108100].
  • [59] E. Witten, Overview of K theory applied to strings, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 693–706, [hep-th/0007175].
  • [60] I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, AdS dual of the critical O(N) vector model, Phys. Lett. B 550 (2002) 213–219, [hep-th/0210114].
  • [61] E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, Massless higher spins and holography, Nucl. Phys. B 644 (2002) 303–370, [hep-th/0205131]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 660, 403–403 (2003)].
  • [62] S. Giombi and X. Yin, Higher Spin Gauge Theory and Holography: The Three-Point Functions, JHEP 09 (2010) 115, [arXiv:0912.3462].
  • [63] M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, An AdS33{}_{3}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 3 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT Dual for Minimal Model CFTs, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 066007, [arXiv:1011.2986].
  • [64] M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, Tensionless string spectra on AdS33{}_{3}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 3 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT, JHEP 05 (2018) 085, [arXiv:1803.04423].
  • [65] L. Eberhardt, M. R. Gaberdiel, and R. Gopakumar, The Worldsheet Dual of the Symmetric Product CFT, JHEP 04 (2019) 103, [arXiv:1812.01007].
  • [66] L. Eberhardt, M. R. Gaberdiel, and R. Gopakumar, Deriving the AdS33{}_{3}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 3 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT/CFT22{}_{2}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 2 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT correspondence, JHEP 02 (2020) 136, [arXiv:1911.00378].
  • [67] M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, The worldsheet dual of free super Yang-Mills in 4D, JHEP 11 (2021) 129, [arXiv:2105.10496].
  • [68] K. Costello and S. Li, Twisted supergravity and its quantization, arXiv:1606.00365.
  • [69] K. Costello, Holography and Koszul duality: the example of the M2𝑀2M2italic_M 2 brane, arXiv:1705.02500.
  • [70] N. Ishtiaque, S. Faroogh Moosavian, and Y. Zhou, Topological holography: The example of the D2-D4 brane system, SciPost Phys. 9 (2020), no. 2 017, [arXiv:1809.00372].
  • [71] K. Costello and D. Gaiotto, Twisted Holography, arXiv:1812.09257.
  • [72] K. Costello and N. M. Paquette, Twisted Supergravity and Koszul Duality: A case study in AdS33{}_{3}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 3 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT, Commun. Math. Phys. 384 (2021), no. 1 279–339, [arXiv:2001.02177].