arXiv:1609.01281v1 [hep-th] 5 Sep 2016

Punctures for Theories of Class SΓ

Jonathan J. Heckman1∗ , Patrick Jefferson2† ,
Tom Rudelius2‡ , and Cumrun Vafa2§
1

Department of Physics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
2

Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Abstract
With the aim of understanding compactifications of 6D superconformal field theories to
four dimensions, we study punctures for theories of class SΓ . The class SΓ theories arise
from M5-branes probing C2 /Γ, an ADE singularity. The resulting 4D theories descend from
compactification on Riemann surfaces decorated with punctures. We show that for class SΓ
theories, a puncture is specified by singular boundary conditions for fields in the 5D quiver
gauge theory obtained from compactification of the 6D theory on a cylinder geometry. We
determine general boundary conditions and study in detail solutions with first order poles.
This yields a generalization of the Nahm pole data present for 1/2 BPS punctures for theories
of class S. Focusing on specific algebraic structures, we show how the standard discussion
of nilpotent orbits and its connection to representations of su(2) generalizes in this broader
context.

September 2016
∗

e-mail:
e-mail:
‡
e-mail:
§
e-mail:
†

jheckman@email.unc.edu
jeff@physics.harvard.edu
rudelius@physics.harvard.edu
vafa@physics.harvard.edu

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Punctures and M5-branes

4

2.1

1/4 BPS Punctures for Class S Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

2.2

Punctures for Class SΓ Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

2.3

Flavor Symmetries and Mass Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

3 Commuting Nilpotent Matrices

12

4 su(2)Q Ansatz

12

4.1

Flavor Symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 su(2)Q × su(2)Qe Ansatz

17
17

5.1

A-type Γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

5.2

D-type Γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

5.3

E-type Γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

5.4

Flavor Symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

6 su(2)l Directed Paths Ansatz

23

7 Conclusions

26

A Further Examples

27

A.1 Three M5-branes Probing an A1 Singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

A.2 One M5-brane Probing a D4 Singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

1

1

Introduction

One of the remarkable developments from recent work on quantum fields and strings is the
close interplay between higher-dimensional theories and their lower-dimensional compactified descendants. The higher-dimensional perspective often provides a simple geometric
explanation of non-trivial strongly coupled phenomena in lower dimensions.
From this perspective, it is natural to consider compactifications of 6D superconformal
field theories (SCFTs): six is the largest dimension permitting the existence of an SCFT [1],
and it is tempting to conjecture that all lower-dimensional SCFTs arise from appropriate
compactifications of these “master theories.” Given the classification of (2, 0) and (1, 0)
6D SCFTs via F-theory [2–5], the time is ripe to ask what new theories can be obtained
via compactification to lower dimensions—in particular, four dimensions. This has already
been carried out for the (2, 0) theories compactified on Riemann surfaces, leading to 4D
N = 2 supersymmetric systems that have been studied extensively [6] (see also [7–20]). An
important ingredient in this story is the study of Riemann surfaces with punctures, where
the choice of the punctures dramatically impacts the resulting 4D theory. These punctures
are associated with boundary conditions for operators of the 6D theory extended along a real
codimension two subspace (the noncompact 4D spacetime). The full classification of choices
of punctures for class S theories is still incomplete. Nonetheless, a subset called “regular
punctures” have been classified and are related to homomorphisms su(2) → gADE for class
S theories of type gADE an ADE Lie algebra [20].
In the case of 6D SCFTs with N = (1, 0) supersymmetry, compactification on a Riemann
surface will generically lead to a 4D N = 1 supersymmetric theory. Some aspects of these
theories have been studied [21–30]. Much as in the case of the (2, 0) theories, additional data
is associated with possible boundary conditions for fields of the 6D theory, i.e. a choice of
punctures on the compactification manifold.
In this paper we initiate the study of punctures of N = (1, 0) SCFTs. We focus on
the specific case of N M5-branes probing an ADE singularity C2 /Γ. In accord with the
nomenclature used for (2, 0) theories, we refer to these theories as “class SΓ ,” where Γ is a
discrete ADE subgroup of SU (2) indicating the type singularity. For a preliminary discussion
of punctures in the case Γ = Zk , see [21].
These 6D theories provide examples of “conformal matter” [3], and form the building
blocks for more elaborate 6D SCFTs [5]. Already for this limited class, we find a much
broader class of possible 1/2 BPS punctures than what is obtained for the (2, 0) theories,
leading to a rich class of novel 4D theories. We defer the challenging question of classification
to future work.
The basic idea is rather simple: Studying the allowed supersymmetric punctures is equivalent to specifying supersymmetric boundary conditions for compactification of these theories
on a cylinder, viewed as a semi-infinite tube sticking out of the Riemann surface. The semiinfinite tube can be viewed as S 1 × R≥0 . So we first have to study the resulting 5D theory
2

obtained by compactifying the (1, 0) theory on the S 1 factor, in which we have some singular
behavior for fields in the R≥0 factor. For the class of theories obtained from M5-branes
probing C2 /Γ, with Γ ⊂ SU (2) an ADE discrete subgroup, the resulting 5D system is an
affine ADE quiver gauge theory that admits a Lagrangian description. The gauge algebra
is:
Y
gQuiver =
u(N di ),
(1.1)
i ∈ Dynkin

where N is the total number of M5-branes, the product on i runs over the nodes of the
corresponding affine ADE Dynkin diagram, and di is the Dynkin index of a node in the graph.
The links between these gauge groups are 5D N = 1 hypermultiplets in bifundamental
representations. See Table 1 for a depiction of the associated quiver gauge theories for
each of the ADE subgroups. We use this Lagrangian description to determine the allowed
supersymmetric boundary conditions for fields of the quiver theory with poles at the origin
of R≥0 . In this work we primarily focus on the case of fields with simple poles: regular
punctures.
In the special case where Γ is trivial, we recover the punctures of a (2, 0) theory. However,
since we only demand that four real supercharges are preserved, this already leads us to 1/4
BPS punctures of the (2, 0) theory. These boundary conditions are characterized by the
equations:
e = Q,
e [Q, Q]
e = 0, [Q, Q† ] + [Q,
e Q
e† ] = Σ,
[Σ, Q] = Q, [Σ, Q]
(1.2)
e are N × N matrices with complex entries, with Σ Hermitian. The special
where Σ, Q and Q
e = 0, for which the
case of 1/2 BPS punctures for a (2, 0) theory is recovered by setting Q
above system reduces to the commutation relations specifying a representation of su(2).
These conditions may equivalently be viewed as determining a nilpotent element Q in the
e 6= 0, is the
simply-laced algebra g of the (2, 0) theory in question. Equation (1.2), with Q
natural generalization of this. As we show, these equations specify a pair of commuting
e subject to additional constraints. For earlier work on 1/4 BPS
nilpotent matrices Q and Q
punctures for theories of class S, see [31].
For class SΓ theories, a 1/2 BPS puncture preserves four real supercharges. The boundary
conditions we find are most conveniently stated in terms of an algebra of N |Γ| × N |Γ|
matrices with entries in C, where |Γ| is the order of the discrete ADE subgroup Γ ⊂ SU (2).
e matrices with general complex entries, the set of regular
Given Σ Hermitian and Q and Q
punctures P obeys the conditions of equation (1.2). To get a solution for the quiver gauge
theory, we project to the quiver basis of fields as dictated by the Douglas-Moore orbifold
construction [32], retaining only Γ-equivariant solutions PΓ .
Now, in the case of the A-type (2, 0) theories, there is a beautiful characterization of
punctures in terms of nilpotent orbits of u(N ), or equivalently Young diagrams with N
boxes. By a theorem of Jacobson-Morozov, these are in one-to-one correspondence with
homomorphisms su(2) → u(N ). Similar considerations hold for the other (2, 0) theories,

3

where u(N ) is instead replaced by a different choice of ADE Lie algebra gADE .
It is natural to ask how this characterization generalizes to (1, 0) theories. Perhaps the
e = 0, but with
closest analogue of the standard Nahm pole equations comes from taking Q
Γ non-trivial. Here, we obtain a full classification of possible punctures in terms of Young
e define a pair of
diagrams decorated by appropriate roots of unity. In the case where Q and Q
commuting su(2)s, we again obtain a full classification of solutions. An interesting feature of
these solutions is that only in the A- and D-type quivers do we obtain non-trivial solutions.
More broadly, we also find a partial characterization of solutions with a product of su(2)s:
su(2) × ... × su(2) → P → PΓ
|
{z
}

(1.3)

l

for l some number of su(2) factors. These are combinatorially represented in terms of selfavoiding directed paths through the corresponding ADE quiver.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we review some aspects of
Nahm pole data for the (2, 0) theories, and then present a generalization to the case of
M5-branes probing an ADE singularity. Section 3 contains remarks about the fact that the
generalized Nahm pole equations involve a pair of commuting nilpotent matrices. In section
e = 0.
4, we turn to the closest analogue of the (2,0) solutions, namely those for which Q
e generate an su(2)Q × su(2) e
In section 5, we provide a mild generalization where Q and Q
Q
algebra. We then turn in section 6 to solutions based on directed self-avoiding paths. We
present our conclusions and directions for future work in section 7. Additional low rank
examples supplementing the discussion can be found in Appendix A.

2

Punctures and M5-branes

In this section we introduce the primary class of theories for which we will study punctures.
These are given by M5-branes probing an ADE singularity, i.e., we consider spacetime-filling
branes in which the transverse geometry is R⊥ ×C2 /Γ, with Γ discrete subgroup of SU (2). To
study the structure of punctures in this theory, we then partially compactify on a cylinder
C∗ so that the full geometry is of the form R3,1 × C∗ × R⊥ × C2 /Γ. Our goal will be to
understand boundary conditions associated with the cylinder geometry that preserve four
real supercharges. That is, we will be left with a 4D system with N = 1 supersymmetry.
We present a general analysis of singular field profiles, but shall primarily focus on the case
of fields with first order poles, i.e., the case of regular punctures. For early work on 1/2 BPS
boundary conditions and its connection to the Nahm pole equations see e.g. [33–39].
The primary strategy we adopt to study this question is to recognize that topologically
the cylinder C∗ is simply given by S 1 × R. Since the circle reduction of M5-brane theories
leads to a 5D Lagrangian field theory (with a UV cutoff), we can equally well study boundary
conditions in the 5D theory on the factor R.
4

ADE type

Quiver
N

bk
A
N

......

N

N

N

N

N

2N

bk
D

2N

...

2N

2N

N

N
N

2N

b6
E

N

2N

3N

2N

N

3N

2N

2N

b7
E
N

2N

3N

4N

N

3N

b8
E
2N

4N

6N

5N

4N

3N

2N

N

Table 1: Punctures for M5-branes probing an ADE singularity are specified in terms of Nahm
pole data in an associated 5D gauge theory obtained by reduction on a circle. This is a 5D
a quiver gauge theory with nodes and links fields specified by the corresponding affine ADE
Dynkin diagram. Each quiver node has gauge group U (di N ) where di is the Dynkin index
of the node and N is the total number of M5-branes probing the singularity.

5

The rest of this section is organized as follows. First, we review the standard analysis
of punctures in the special case where Γ is trivial, which brings the discussion into contact
with compactifications of the A-type 6D (2, 0) SCFTs. We then turn to the analogous
question for non-trivial Γ. We determine supersymmetric boundary conditions preserving
four supercharges in the presence of a real codimension two defect. Using these conditions,
we then derive a system of algebraic equations that must be satisfied by a puncture.

2.1

1/4 BPS Punctures for Class S Theories

Let us now turn to an analysis of punctures in the (2, 0) theories which preserve four real
supercharges, i.e., the case of 1/4 BPS punctures. Although our main focus will be the Atype (2, 0) theories realized geometrically by stack of N M5-branes in flat space, the results
described in this subsection readily generalize to the other ADE (2, 0) theories.
Reducing the 6D theory on a circle leads to a 5D N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theory
with gauge group U (N ). There are various ways to determine boundary conditions on a
cylinder which preserve some fraction of the bulk supersymmetry. One method is to consider
the bosonic equations of motion obtained by varying the the 5D N = 2 gauginos, and to
then impose singular behavior for some of the fields. An equivalent method is to treat the
higher-dimensional theory in terms of a collection of 4D fields in which we only impose
the standard supersymmetric equations of motion for the 4D theory. This will lead us to
boundary conditions which preserve four real supercharges.
Indeed, since we are interested in possible boundary conditions which preserve a 4D
Lorentz invariant vacuum with N = 1 supersymmetry, much as in reference [40], it is helpful
to assemble the mode content of this 5D theory in terms of a collection of N = 1 multiplets
parameterized by points of the factor R of the cylinder S 1 × R. With this in mind, we have
a collection of 4D vector multiplets, and three adjoint-valued chiral multiplets, all of which
are labelled by internal points of R. One of these chiral multiplets transforms as a vector
e
on S 1 × R, so we denote it by Z(t), while the other two arrange as Q(t) ⊕ Q(t),
a collection
of 4D N = 2 hypermultiplets, which transforms as a scalar on R. It is helpful to further
decompose Z(t) locally as the complexified connection:
1
Z(t) = ∂t + √ (Σ(t) + iAt ) ,
2

(2.1)

where t is the coordinate along R (with connection At ) and Σ(t) is the adjoint-valued real
scalar in a 5D N = 1 vector multiplet. Note that by a suitable choice of gauge, we can
locally set At = 0. One should keep in mind that on a topologically non-trivial Riemann
e
surface, this is not possible to do globally. Geometrically, Σ(t), Q(t) and Q(t)
rotate as a
vector of SO(5), the R-symmetry group of the (2, 0) theory.
The BPS equations of motion obtained from the condition that we have a Lorentz invari-

6

ant 4D N = 1 vacuum are:
e
e
F-terms: [Z(t), Q(t)] = [Z(t), Q(t)]
= [Q(t), Q(t)]
=0
e
e† (t)] = 0,
D-term: [Z(t), Z † (t)] + [Q(t), Q† (t)] + [Q(t),
Q

(2.2)
(2.3)

modulo u(N ) gauge transformations. Note that the commutator with the Z’s is just an
internal field strength:
[Z(t), Z † (t)] = ∂t Σ(t).
(2.4)
Now, we are interested in possibly non-trivial boundary conditions for our fields along
the factor of R. By a change of coordinates, we can take this singularity to lie at t = 0, and
we consider the case where the fields have simple poles:
e
Q
e = Q , Σ(t) = Σ .
, Q(t)
(2.5)
t
t
t
√
Observe that since Z = ∂t + Σ(t)/ 2 (in the gauge At = 0), both components can act by
non-trivial commutator on the other fields. Our F-term and D-term equations of motion
thus reduce to:
Q(t) =

F-term: [Σ, Q] = Q
e =Q
e
F-term: [Σ, Q]

(2.6)

e =0
F-term: [Q, Q]

(2.8)

e Q
e† ] = Σ.
D-term: [Q, Q† ] + [Q,

(2.9)

(2.7)

This is the same generalization of the Nahm pole equations found in reference [31] (see
also [41]).
e and Σ are generic, we get a 1/4 BPS puncture retaining four real
Now, when Q, Q
e† vanishes, we retain an
supercharges. If, however, some linear combination of Q and Q
SU (2) R-symmetry subgroup of SO(5), preserving a 4D N = 2 subalgebra.
e to zero:
The familiar conditions for Nahm poles arise from setting Q
[Σ, Q] = Q and Σ = [Q, Q† ].

(2.10)

Since these algebraic relations define an su(2) subalgebra of u(N ), we see that such Nahm
pole data is captured by a choice of nilpotent orbit of u(N ), i.e., a choice of partition / Young
diagram.
One can also generalize our discussion to the case of higher order singularities. Introduc-

7

ing an expansion of the form:
Q(t) =

X Qn
n>0

tn

,

e =
Q(t)

XQ
en
n>0

tn

,

Σ(t) =

X Σn
n>0

tn

.

(2.11)

In this case, we collect all terms of the same order and demand that they satisfy the F- and
D-term equations of motion:
X
F-term:
[Σk , Ql ] = (m − 1)Qm−1
(2.12)
k+l=m

F-term:

X

el ] = (m − 1)Q
em−1
[Σk , Q

(2.13)

k+l=m

F-term:

X

el ] = 0
[Qk , Q

(2.14)

k+l=m

D-term:

X

ek , Q
e† ] = (m − 1)Σm−1 ,
[Qk , Q†l ] + [Q
l

(2.15)

k+l=m

ek = 0 for all
for all k, l, m > 0. Again, we can specialize to 1/2 BPS punctures by setting Q
k.

2.2

Punctures for Class SΓ Theories

Having discussed some basic features of the Nahm pole equations for M5-branes in flat space,
we now turn to the analogous set of equations when these branes probe an ADE singularity,
namely, the class SΓ theories. This will realize a 6D SCFT with N = (1, 0) supersymmetry.
In preparation for our analysis of solutions, we shall actually find it convenient to give two
different presentations of the same system of equations. We refer to these as the “covering
space” basis and the “quiver basis,” for reasons which will soon be apparent.
Reduction of the M5-brane theory on a circle yields, at low energies, a stack of D4-branes
in type IIA string theory. These D4-branes probe the ADE singularity, leading to a quiver
gauge theory that can be derived from the Douglas-Moore orbifold construction [32] (see
also [42, 43]). As we shall be making heavy use of it later, let us briefly review the elements
of this construction. The mode content for the N D4-branes consists of five real scalars,
e but which now transform in the adjoint representation
which are again given by Σ, Q and Q,
of U (N |Γ|). Viewed as components of a vector on the geometry R × C2 , Σ is neutral under
e transform as a doublet, which we write as a
the SU (2) group action on C2 while Q and Q
two-component vector:
"
#
→
−
Q
Q= e .
(2.16)
Q
To track the group action of Γ on these fields, it is helpful to decompose the vector space
8

CN |Γ| as:
CN |Γ| =

M

CN di ⊗ Vi ,

(2.17)

i

where here, i runs over the irreducible representations of the discrete group Γ, and di is
the dimension of Vi , which, by the McKay correspondence, is also the Dynkin index of the
corresponding node in the ADE graph. For γ ∈ Γ, denote by ρdoub (γ) the 2 × 2 matrix
representative, and ρreg (γ) the regular representation, i.e. the one which acts on
Vreg =

M

Cdi ⊗ Vi .

(2.18)

i

This canonically extends to a group action on CN |Γ| as in line (2.17), so by abuse of notation
we also denote this by ρreg (γ). The orbifold projection then amounts to the conditions:
"
Σ = ρreg (γ)Σρreg (γ −1 ) and ρdoub (γ)

Q
e
Q

#

"
=

ρreg (γ)Qρreg (γ −1 )
e reg (γ −1 )
ρreg (γ)Qρ

#
.

(2.19)

To avoid overloading the notation, in what follows we shall often drop the overall designation
of the representation ρ since it will be clear from the context.
So in other words, punctures of the orbifold theory are obtained by first imposing the
conditions:
F-term: [Σ, Q] = Q
e =Q
e
F-term: [Σ, Q]

(2.20)

e =0
F-term: [Q, Q]

(2.22)

e Q
e† ] = Σ,
D-term: [Q, Q† ] + [Q,

(2.23)

(2.21)

and then imposing the orbifold projection condition of line (2.19). We refer to this as the
“covering space basis,” since all solutions are embedded in large N |Γ| × N |Γ| matrices.
Alternatively, we can work in terms of the “quiver basis,” by directly considering punctures in the 5D gauge theory defined by the Douglas-Moore construction. In either case, we
have a product of gauge algebras
Y
gQuiver =
u(N di ),
(2.24)
i ∈ Dynkin

each with gauge coupling [43]:
1
di 1
=
,
2
2
g(i)
|Γ| g(5D)

(2.25)

where as in the usual discussion of compactifications of the (2, 0) theory, the 5D gauge
2
coupling is related to the compactification radius L as g(5D)
∼ L. In the context of the 5D
9

field theory, we are of course free to move away from the special values dictated by equation
(2.25). In the 4D field theory, the complexification of these parameters then become marginal
parameters. Indeed, we shall often take convenient values of these couplings when we turn
to quiver basis solutions.
Now, for each quiver node i, we have an adjoint-valued field Σi , and between pairs (i, j)
c
connected in the Dynkin diagram, we have a hypermultiplet H(i,j) ⊕ H(i,j)
, with H(i,j) in the
c
representation (N di , N dj ) and H(i,j) in the conjugate representation. Let us stress that in
passing from the covering space basis to the quiver basis, components of Q can contribute
e
to both H and H c , and similarly for Q.
To determine the F- and D-term constraints for this system, it is helpful to recall the
superpotential for a 4D, N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theory in a basis of fields where the
scalar of the vector multiplets are canonically normalized:
X√
c
W =
2g(i) H(i,j)
Z(i) H(i,j)
(2.26)
i

where we have introduced the complexified connection Z(i) for each gauge group factor, as
per our discussion near line (2.1). To keep the presentation of F-terms as close to the (2, 0)
√
case as possible, it is convenient to rescale each Z(i) → Z(i) di . In this rescaled basis of
fields, the F- and D-term equations of motion are given by:
F-term: Z(i) (t)H(i,j) (t) − H(i,j) (t)Z(j) (t) = 0
c
H(i,j)
(t)Z(i) (t)

c
Z(j) (t)H(i,j)
(t)

−
X
c
F-term:
H(i,j) (t) · H(i,j)
(t) = 0,
F-term:

(2.27)

=0

(2.28)

for all i

(2.29)

j
†
D-term: di [Z(i) (t), Z(i)
(t)] +

X


†
c†
c†
H(i,j) (t) · H(i,j)
(t) − H(i,j)
(t) · H(i,j)
(t) = 0,

for all i,

j

(2.30)
where in the above, each pairing A · B is implicitly associated with the outer product of the
fundamental and anti-fundamental representation of the gauge group U (N di ). We can of
course also work out the structure of the Nahm pole equations in this basis, obtaining the
analogous conditions for regular punctures:
F-term: Σ(i) H(i,j) − H(i,j) Σ(j) = H(i,j)
F-term:

c
H(i,j)
Σ(i)

F-term:

X

−

c
Σ(j) H(i,j)

c
H(i,j) · H(i,j)
= 0,

=

c
H(i,j)

for all i

(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.33)

j

D-term:


X
†
c†
c†
H(i,j) · H(i,j)
− H(i,j)
· H(i,j)
= d(i) Σ(i) .
j

10

(2.34)

Similar considerations hold for higher order poles, as in lines (2.12)-(2.15).
As we already mentioned near equation (2.25), it is also natural to study the broader
class of solutions when we take generic values of the gauge couplings. Indeed, our algebraic
solutions will clearly deform smoothly (possibly at the expense of the convenient Lie algebraic
structure initially used to identify the solutions) as we move to generic values of these
parameters. The only subtlety is that at special tuned values of these parameters, additional
discrete symmetries may emerge, and there is a general compatibility condition between
punctures which must be satisfied in constructing models on a compact punctured Riemann
surface [21]. Since we are concerned here with the structure of a single puncture, this subtlety
plays no role in our analysis.

2.3

Flavor Symmetries and Mass Parameters

The symmetries of the 5D system that are not broken by boundary conditions descend to
flavor symmetries of the 4D theory localized on the puncture.1 For example, in the case
where we take all boundary conditions to be trivial, the resulting flavor symmetry is at least
the product of quiver gauge algebras. In principle, there can be a further enhancement in this
flavor symmetry. More generally, once we consider non-trivial solutions to the generalized
Nahm pole equations, we obtain only a subalgebra of the quiver theory gauge algebra:
Y
gflav ⊂
u(N di ).
(2.35)
i

Much as in other contexts, we define a “complexified mass parameter” as parameters which
transform in the adjoint representation of gflav . One can see that the name is appropriate by
returning, for example, to equation (2.26), in which we can consider activating a background
constant value (i.e. no singularity) for the Z(i) . Note that owing to the N = 2 structure of
the 5D theory, we must actually demand these mass parameters are valued in the Cartan
subalgebra of gflav . So in other words, the mass parameters of our theory with punctures are
fully capured by the maximal Torus:
{Mass Parameters} = T(gflav ).

(2.36)

With these preliminaries dispensed with, let us now turn to some representative examples
of generalized Nahm pole equations.
1

Of course, on a compact Riemann surface these flavor symmetries will then be gauged.

11

3

Commuting Nilpotent Matrices

Before proceeding to the case of punctures for our (1, 0) theories, let us make a few general
comments on the structure of 1/4 BPS punctures for the (2, 0) theories. Indeed, all of the
solutions we obtain for these (1, 0) theories will simply be special cases of these more general
considerations.
Recall that the 1/4 BPS punctures are characterized by the equations:
e = Q,
e [Q, Q]
e = 0, [Q, Q† ] + [Q,
e Q
e† ] = Σ.
[Σ, Q] = Q, [Σ, Q]

(3.1)

e are nilpotent, so as noted in [31], we get a partial
As we now explain, both Q and Q
characterization of solutions by enumerating pairs of commuting nilpotent elements. A full
characterization would require us to also impose all conditions associated with Σ.
To see that Q is nilpotent, first note that since [Σ, Q] = Q, we also have [Σ, Ql ] = lQl
for all l > 0. Taking the trace of each side, we obtain the relation Tr(Ql ) = 0 for all l. This
establishes the claim.
e we learn that Q and Q
e are both nilpotent, and commute.
Repeating this argument for Q,
As far as we are aware, the classification of pairs of nilpotent commuting matrices is still
an open problem. There is, however, a rich connection between such pairs and elements of
the punctual Hilbert scheme for C2 (see e.g. [44] and references therein). Indeed, from this
perspective, the 1/2 BPS punctures of the (1, 0) theories we study are just elements of the
Γ-equivariant Hilbert scheme on C2 .
Based on the fact that this classification is still an open problem, we shall primarily focus
on canonical classes of examples where the analysis is still tractable.

4

su(2)Q Ansatz

Perhaps the most direct analogue of the classification of punctures for the (2, 0) theories
are those in which we simply take the same class of solutions, and then impose the orbifold
projection constraint. For these solutions, we find it simpler to work in the covering space
basis. In this case, we have the conditions:
e = 0,
[Σ, Q] = Q, [Q, Q† ] = Σ, Q

(4.1)

and for each such solution we impose the orbifold projection constraint. These are the
commutation relations for an su(2) algebra:
[Ja , Jb ] = iεabc Jc

12

(4.2)

in which we make the identifications:
1
Q = √ (Jx + iJy )
2

and Σ = Jz .

(4.3)

As standard, we also introduce the Casimir operator J 2 = Σ2 + {Q, Q† } = Jx2 + Jy2 + Jz2 .
Let us now turn to the classification of solutions for the su(2)Q ansatz. As a warmup,
consider the 1/2 BPS punctures of A-type (2, 0) theories. Here, all of the data is characterized
by a choice of Q a nilpotent matrix. By a suitable choice of basis, we can assume Q is in
Jordan normal form, and is given by a direct of nilpotent blocks of size µi × µi . We can also
order the µi ’s so that
µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ ... ≥ µl ,
(4.4)
for some l ≥ 1. Since µ1 +...+µl = N , we label possible boundary conditions by a choice of a
partition of N . A convenient presentation of this is in terms of a Young diagram. To adhere
with the notation in the class S literature, (rather than what is present in the representation
theory literature), we label our Young diagrams as a sequence of columns with µi boxes in
which we read the partition from left to right. Here are examples of such Young diagrams
for the partitions [1N ], [N − 1, 1] and [N ]:












 .

..
N
.
.
[1 ] :
,
[N
]
:
N
(4.5)
,
[N
−
1,
1]
:
N
−
1
···
.


|
{z
}








N


The partition [1N ] defines a “full puncture,” while [N − 1, 1] corresponds to a “simple
puncture,” and [N ] corresponds to an “empty puncture.” These three types of punctures
correspond (respectively) to maximal, minimal and trivial flavor symmetries. There is an
analogue of these full and simple pictures for the (1, 0) class SΓ theories for Γ = Zk , which
was recently studied in [21].2 We will indeed see how these specific cases fit into a much
broader class of solutions.
Along these lines, consider next the 1/2 BPS punctures for our (1, 0) theories. First of
all, we can see that only the A-type case Γ = Zk will provide non-trivial solutions when
e = 0. The reason is simply that all other groups Γ contain generators that non-trivially
Q
e In the quiver basis, we have a gauge group U (N )k ,
rotate the doublet comprised of Q and Q.
which we label as i = 1, ..., N . The hypermultiplets are then given by links which form a
c
c
ring: H(i+1,i) ⊕ H(i+1,i)
, or simply H(i) ⊕ H(i)
, where i = N + 1 is identified with i = 1. Our
2

The “maximal” (resp. “minimal”) punctures of [21] are expected to be the “full” (resp. “simple”)
punctures discussed in this paper.

13

ansatz embeds in the larger covering space as:


H(N )

 H(1)

Q=
..

.












and Σ = 




Σ(1)
Σ(2)
..

H(N −1)



.


.

(4.6)

Σ(N )

We now proceed to classify all of the resulting punctures for this ansatz. Again, the
covering space description is most helpful. In particular, in the basis specified above, we
introduce:


ωIN


ω 2 IN




...
γ=
(4.7)
,




ω k−1 IN
IN
with IN the N × N identity matrix and ω a primitive kth root of unity. This gives
γΣγ † = Σ ,

γQγ † = ωQ.

(4.8)

The solutions decompose into representations of su(2):
M
Q=
rj H(j)

(4.9)

j

P
for spins j and multiplicities rj , with j rj (2j + 1) = N k. The action of γ must be compatible with the su(2) algebra. Notice that γJ 2 γ † = J 2 implies γ preserves the spin of the
representation. Further, γΣγ † = Σ so that J 2 , Σ, γ all commute. We find:
γ |ji mi i = aji mi |ji mi i

⇒

γQ |ji mi i = ωaji mi Q |ji mi i ,

akji mi = 1.

(4.10)

Here, i runs from 1 to rj . For a given ji we pick some a lowest eigenvalue aji ,−ji = aji , so
that
aji ,−ji +n = aji ω n .
(4.11)
This completely fixes the form of γ. Our solutions are thus specified by a choice of N kdimensional representation of su(2) (equivalently, a partition of N k) as well as a choice of
kth root of unity aji ,−ji for each i:
Q=

k−1
MM
j

n=0

14

rj,n Hj,n ,

(4.12)

where rj,n labels the multiplicity of representations Hj,n of spin j with aj,−j = ω n , and
Nk =

k−1
XX
j

rj,n (2j + 1).

(4.13)

n=0

Additionally, solutions are subject to the constraint that each kth root of unity must show
up precisely N times as one of the aji ,mi .
To construct these solutions more concretely, it is helpful to work in the “Jordan basis,”
in which Q is a nilpotent matrix with entries along the superdiagonal,


0 c1

0 c2


... ...
Q=


0 cN k−1
0





,



(4.14)

and Σ is diagonal. Analogous to the ordinary Nahm equations for U (N k), this shows that
the solutions are labeled by partitions of N k, where each column of the partition corresponds
to a decoupled Jordan block of Q. For instance, the partition [N k] corresponds to the case
where all the ci are nonvanishing, whereas the partition [2, 1, 1, ..., 1] corresponds to the case
where c1 6= 0 but the rest vanish.
In addition to the choice of partition, solutions are labeled by a choice of γ, which we
take to be diagonal. Equation (4.7) tells us the spectrum of eigenvalues of γ, but we still
have the freedom to rearrange the eigenvalues λi of γ along the diagonal as we see fit. The
one additional restriction comes from (4.8), which tells us that λi+1 = ωλi if ci 6= 0.
The above conditions admit a combinatorial interpretation. Solutions to the generalized
Nahm pole equations for a quiver of k U (N ) gauge groups are specified by Young diagrams
of N k boxes. Given such a diagram, we must fill in each box with a kth root of unity ω j
subject to the constraints that each root of unity must appear N times in the diagram, and
any box stacked on another box must have a primitive root of unity that is ω times the root
of unity in the box below it. To keep the notation readable, we display just the exponent in
each box. These are to be read vertically from bottom to top.
Columns are indistinguishable in the sense that switching the order of two columns of
the same height does not give a new solution. For instance, in the case of N = 3 and k = 2,
(i.e., three M5-branes at a C2 /Z2 singularity), the following are equivalent:
0
1
0 1 0 1

∼
=

0
.
1
0 0 1 1

There is yet another way to describe these solutions, which as we show in section 3
15

generalizes to D- and E-type singularities. Namely, we can represent a solution by a directed
graph through a generalization of the associated affine Dynkin diagram. As a simple case,
consider the k = 4, N = 1 theory (One M5-brane at a C2 /Z4 singularity) and the solution
with partition
2
.
1
0 3
Here, the labels indicate the powers of ω = exp(2πi/4) associated with each box. The
partition tells us that the the chiral field between the gauge groups labeled by ω 0 and ω 1 is
turned on, as is the chiral field between the ω 1 and ω 2 gauge groups. Pictorially, we may
b3 Dynkin diagram:
represent this by the following directed graph between the nodes of the A
1

0

2

3

This extends to theories with N > 1. For instance, the k = 4, N = 2 theory has a solution
with partition
0
3
.
2
1 3
0 2 1
This is represented by the directed graph
1

1

0

0

2

2

3

3

b3 diagram,
Note that the vertices of this graph consist of two copies of the nodes of the A
since N = 2 in this case. The edges of the graph always point clockwise around the quiver
diagram. Every vertex in the graph can have at most one incoming and one outgoing edge.
In this way, every su(2) solution for the type A quivers with anti-chirals turned off can be
represented by a directed graph, a point we return to in section 6.
16

4.1

Flavor Symmetries

Let us now turn to the continuous flavor symmetries for our puncture, i.e., the subalgebra
of the 5D gauge symmetry which is left unbroken by our boundary conditions. First, recall
that in the case of a class S theory 1/2 BPS puncture, the flavor symmetry associated with
a partition {(µ1 )r1 , ..., (µl )rl } is given by [20]:
"
gflav = s

l
M

#
u(ri ) ,

(4.15)

i=1

where ri is the multiplicity of a given partition. For the 1/2 BPS punctures of the class SΓ
theories with Γ = Zk , we also have the data of a partition, but with a further refinement
given by the overall complex phase attached to the lowest weight state of an irreducible
representation. So, taking a further partition of ri as:
(1)

(t )

ri = mi + ... + mi i ,
we get that the unbroken flavor symmetry is:
#
" l t
i
MM
(p)
u(mi )) .
gflav = s

(4.16)

(4.17)

i=1 p=1

More succinctly, we can write this as:

gflav = s 


M

u(mdegen ) ,

(4.18)

mdegen

where mdegen is the degeneracy of a given spin, with associated Zk charge.

5

su(2)Q × su(2)Qe Ansatz

To generate more examples of solutions to the generalized Nahm pole equations, we now
turn to an ansatz in which we have two independent su(2) subalgebras. Returning to our
system of equations,
e = Q,
e [Q, Q]
e = 0, [Q, Q† ] + [Q,
e Q
e† ] = Σ.
[Σ, Q] = Q, [Σ, Q]

(5.1)

we now impose the further condition:
e† ] = 0.
[Q, Q

17

(5.2)

e are each nilpotent, this additional condition means that our solutions will be
Since Q and Q
captured by representations of su(2) × su(2). In this case, it is again helpful to introduce
the corresponding su(2) generators Ja and Jea .
Let us now turn to the types of orbifold group projections compatible with these conditions. Consider first the class S theories, where we have a 1/4 BPS punctures. Now, since
we have a pair of commuting su(2)s, we can decompose CN into some choice of irreducible
representations of su(2) × su(2). For this choice, a vector |Ψi ∈ CN will decompose as:
E
X
e
|Ψi =
ψjm;ej m
e ; s ,
(5.3)
e j m ; j m
j m;e
j m
e ;s

where j is the spin with respect to the su(2) generated by Q, m labels a state in this represene Here, s is an additional
tation, and similar considerations hold for e
j and m
e with respect to Q.
index to account for the possibility that we have a degeneracy in our decomposition, i.e., a
given spin may appear more than once.
We thus need to list possible representations (j, e
j, s) which appear in such a decomposition. The choices compatible with our other conditions are that we have a specific class of
partitions:
X
N=
(2j + 1) (2e
j + 1),
(5.4)
(j,e
j,s)

in the obvious notation.
Consider next the 1/2 BPS punctures of the (1, 0) theories of class SΓ . Here, we would
like to first determine whether our ansatz is compatible with a particular choice of Γ. In
the case of A- and D-type discrete subgroups, we will give a classification of the resulting
boundary conditions. For the E-type quivers, however, we find that there are no non-trivial
solutions. In the following subsections we step through each possibility.

5.1

A-type Γ

Let us now turn to the further constraints imposed by working with the Zk orbifold. Essentially, our task reduces to tracking the group action of elements of Zk on a state such
as that given in equation (5.3). Since we can potentially have a degeneracy for each
E choice
e
of representation, we again label states of the representation as j m ; j m
e ; s . Noting
that γ, Jz , Jez J 2 , Je2 constitute a set of commuting normal matrices, we can without loss of
generality assume that γ has been diagonalized by an element of U (N k) when acting on the
index s. We then have:
E
E
e
γ jm; e
jm
e ; s = aj m ; ej m
j
m
;
j
m
e
;
s
,
(5.5)
e ;s

18

k
for some complex phase aj m ; ej m
e ; s subject to the condition (since γ = 1):



aj m ; ej m
e ;s

k

= 1.

(5.6)

Next, consider the effect of acting by the raising operator (i.e., the rescaled versions of
e
Q and Q):
E
E
e
γJ+ j m ; e
jm
e ; s = ωaj m ; ej m
J
j
m
;
j
m
e
;
s
,
e ;s +
E
E
−1
e
e
e
e
γ J+ j m ; j m
e ; s = ω aj m ; ej m
e ; s .
(5.7)
e ; s J+ j m ; j m
So as expected, for a given j, e
j, we pick some a lowest eigenvalue aj m ; ej m
e ; s = αj ; e
j ; s , so
that further shifts in the m and m
e index obey:
m−m
e
aj −j+m ; ej −ej+m
.
e ; s = αj ; e
j ; sω

(5.8)

Once again, our solutions are labeled by a collection of spins (j, e
j, s) (with possible degeneracy), as well as a choice of αj ; ej ; s , subject to the above constraints. Additionally, each kth
root of unity must appear N times as one of the aj m; ej m
e ;s .

5.2

D-type Γ

Consider next the case of the D-type discrete subgroups of SU (2). In a quiver basis where we
have k simple gauge group factors (i.e. we have a Dk type singularity), the defining relations
for the discrete group are:
γ 2k−4 = 1, γ k−2 = τ 2 , γτ γ = τ.

(5.9)

In terms of 2 × 2 matrix representatives, we have:

γdoub =



ω
ω −1


and τdoub =

0 1
−1 0


,

(5.10)

where ω is a primitive (2k −4)th root of unity, i.e. ω 2k−4 = 1. To obtain a solution consistent
with the orbifold projection we first obtain a solution to the A-type case, and then impose a
further constraint by requiring invariance under the action of τ . Since γ and τ generate the
group, this is sufficient to determine the algebraic structure of the solution.
E
e
We again choose to label all states as j m ; j m
e ; s , where s is an index indicating
the possible degeneracy with respect to a given choice of spins. Now, we have the orbifold
projection conditions:
e τ Qτ
e −1 = −Q.
τ Qτ −1 = Q,
(5.11)
19

In particular, we therefore obtain the relations:
τ Jz τ −1 = Jez , τ Jez τ −1 = Jz
τ J 2 τ −1 = Je2 , τ Je2 τ −1 = J 2

(5.12)
(5.13)

Consider, then, the matrix elements of τ . Since we have τ Jz = Jez τ , we have:
E
E
X
0
0
0
0
0
e
e
τ Jz j m ; j m
e ; s =
mτjm;ej m|j
e ; s
e 0 m0 ;e
j0m
e 0 ; s0 j m ; j m
j 0 m0 ;e
j0m
e0

E

;

E
0
0
0
0
0
e
m
e 0 τjm;ej m|j
j
m
;
j
m
e
;
s
.
0
0
0
0
0
e
e m ;j m
e ;s

X

τ Jz j m ; e
jm
e ; s =

j 0 m0 ;e
j0m
e0

;

(5.14)

s0

(5.15)

s0

We include the sum over degeneracy factors since a priori, τ may move us between them.
From the above equations, we conclude that to have a non-zero matrix element, we need
m
e = m. Based on this, we learn that up to a phase, τ interchanges the values of the spins:
E
E X
(jm;e
j m)
e e
cs;s0
jm
e ; j m ; s0 ,
(5.16)
τ jm; e
jm
e ; s =
0

s0

where to emphasize the restricted role of these phases, we have introduced a specific collection
(jm;e
j m)
e
of entries cs;s0
, which are the analogue of the aj m ; ej m
e ; s introduced for the A-type orbifold
projection. Note that in this case, we have:


aj m ; ej m
e ;s

2k−4

= 1.

(5.17)
(j m ; e
j m)
e

To proceed further, we ask about the relations which the cs;s0
’s satisfy. First, we
argue that we can assume a diagonal action on the degeneracy index s and s0 . To see
this, consider the relation γτ γ = τ . This does not quite yield a commutation relation.
Nevertheless, although this means we cannot simultaneously diagonalize the operators γ
and τ , it does mean that upon acting on a state of our representation:
E
E X
(j m ; e
j m)
e
0
e
a
j
m
e
;
j
m
;
s
(5.18)
γτ γ j m ; e
jm
e ; s =
aj m ; ej m
c
e
e ; s s;s0
j m
e ; j m ; s0
s0

E

τ jm; e
jm
e ; s =

X

(j m ; e
j m)
e
cs;s0

E
0
e
jm
e ; jm; s .

(5.19)

s0

So, we get the additional relation:
aj m ; ej m
e ; s ae
j m
e ; j m ; s0 = 1,

(5.20)

for all s0 . From this, we conclude that by a suitable change of basis, we may assume a

20

diagonal action for τ on our degeneracy label s. We therefore adopt the notation:
E
E
e
τ jm; e
jm
e ; s = cj m ; ej m
j
m
e
;
j
m
;
s
.
e ;s

(5.21)

Returning to the relations of line (5.9), consider next the condition γ k−2 = τ 2 . Acting
on states of our representation, we have:
E 
k−2
E
e
γ k−2 j m ; e
jm
e ; s = aj m ; ej m
j
m
;
j
m
e
;
s
e ;s
E
E
e
τ2 j m ; e
jm
e ; s = cj m ; ej m
c
j
m
;
j
m
e
;
s
,
e ;s e
j m
e ;j m;s

(5.22)
(5.23)

from which we get the relation:

k−2
=
a
.
cj m ; ej m
c
e
e
e ;j m;s
j m;j m
e ;s
e ;s j m

(5.24)

Accounting for the further relation:
m−m
e
aj −j+m ; ej −ej+m
e ; s = αj ; e
j ; sω

(5.25)


k−2
m−m
e
cj −j+m ; ej −ej+m
c
=
(−1)
α
.
e ;s e
j −e
j+m
e ; j −j+m ; s
j ;e
j ;s

(5.26)

with ω k−2 = −1, we obtain:

e we find
Accounting for the raising action of J, J,
cj

−j+m ; e
j −e
j+m
e ; s

e
= (−1)m
χj

(5.27)

; e
j ; s

which implies
χj

; e
j ;

s χe
j ;


= αj

j ;s

k−2
; e
j ; s

.

(5.28)

We therefore also label a pair (j, e
j, s) and (e
j, j, s) according to a choice of fourth roots of unity
χj ; ej ; s and χej ; j ; s . Summarizing, then, we classify solutions to the D-type orbifold projection by labeling representations of su(2) × su(2) with a pair of Zk phases αj ; ej ; s , αej ; j ; s ,
and a pair of Z4 phases χj ; ej ; s , χej ; j ; s satisfying
αj ; ej ; s αej ; j ; s = 1 and χj

; e
j ;

s χe
j ;

j ;s


= αj

k−2
; e
j ; s

.

(5.29)

Additionally, each (2k − 4)th root of unity must appear 2N times in the eigenspectrum of
γ, while each fourth root of unity must appear N (k − 2) times in the eigenspectrum of τ .

21

5.3

E-type Γ

Let us now demonstrate that for the E-type discrete subgroups of Γ, the su(2)Q × su(2)Qe
ansatz does not produce any non-trivial solutions.
The key point is that in contrast to the A- and D-type discrete subgroups, here, there is
always an element of the group which has 2 × 2 matrix representative:
σdoub



a b
=
,
c d

a, b, c, d 6= 0.

(5.30)

The fact that all entries are non-zero will lead to a contradiction. The projection on the
generators requires:
σJ+ σ −1 = aJ+ + bJe+
σ Je+ σ −1 = cJ+ + dJe+ .

(5.31)
(5.32)

This in turn determines a conjugation rule for the Jz and Jez generators:
σJz σ −1 = |a|2 Jz + |b|2 Jez
σ Jez σ −1 = |c|2 Jz + |d|2 Jez .

(5.33)

σ[Jz , J+ ]σ −1 = [σJz σ −1 , aJ+ + bJe+ ] = aJ+ + bJe+ ,

(5.35)

(|a|2 − 1)aJ+ + (|b|2 − 1)bJe+ = 0

(5.36)

(5.34)

Now, since we also have:

we learn that:
Since we are assuming J+ and Je+ are linearly independent, we learn that:
|a|2 = |b|2 = 1.

(5.37)

Interchanging the roles of the su(2) generators, we also obtain the relations:
|c|2 = |d|2 = 1.

(5.38)

So, returning to equations (5.33) and (5.34), we have:
σ(Jz + Jez )σ −1 = 2(Jz + Jez ).

(5.39)

But this contradicts the original orbifold projection condition:
σΣσ −1 = Σ,

22

(5.40)

since Σ is proportional to Jz + Jez .
Summarizing, then, we conclude that to obtain non-trivial solutions for Γ an E-type
discrete subgroup of SU (2), we must seek out another ansatz.

5.4

Flavor Symmetries

Consider next the flavor symmetries for the su(2)Q ×su(2)Qe ansatz. Much as in our discussion
around equation (4.18), we simply need to track the degeneracy of a given representation,
i.e. the multiplicity with which it appears in our decomposition of the puncture:


M
gflav = s 
u(mdegen ) ,
(5.41)
mdegen

For the A-type orbifold group projection, we just need to total up the number of times a
given pair (j, e
j) appears with the same Zk phase αj ; ej . For the D-type orbifold projection,
we seek out pairs (j, e
j) and their images under τ given by (e
j, j). For each such pair, we also
−1
get a pair of Zk phases αj ; ej and αej ; j = (αj ; ej ) with an additional Z4 phase χj ; ej . Again,
we label the multiplicity, and this determines the degeneracies of equation (5.41).

6

su(2)l Directed Paths Ansatz

In the previous sections we focused on a class of solutions which are most transparent in the
covering space basis. As we have already remarked, an alternative but entirely equivalent
way to study 1/2 BPS pictures of class SΓ theories is to instead work directly with the quiver
basis. In this section we present a class of solutions which exploit this basis to generate new
solutions. Some of the solutions we arrive at have already been encountered in the context
of our su(2)Q and su(2)Q × su(2)Qe solutions, though some are entirely new. In particular,
we will present a broad class of examples for all of the E-type quivers.
The main solution generating technique we develop involves drawing a collection of selfavoiding directed paths through the quiver. To be more precise, we introduce some additional
combinatorial data for our quiver. For each node with gauge group U (N di ), we introduce
N di interior vertices. Each such vertex should be viewed as a basis vector in the vector space
CN di . Now, for a bifundamental between U (N di ) and U (N dj ), we have a pair of linear maps:
H(i,j) : CN di → CN dj
c
H(i,j)

N dj

:C

→C

N di

(6.1)
.

(6.2)

A simple collection of examples are those where we just connect one basis vector of one node
to the neighboring node. This defines a directed segment in a link. The direction of the
23

link tells us whether we have activated H or H c . Note that a simple way to maintain the
condition H · H c = 0 is that we take a directed path involving just the H’s or just the H c ’s.
Proceeding in this way, we see that we can start to generate a directed path through the
quiver. To maintain a consistent solution, we generate a collection of paths subject to the
following rules:
1. Any vertex can meet at most two edges: one incoming and one outgoing.
2. Edges must connect vertices associated with adjacent nodes of the affine Dynkin diagram.
3. Edges meeting at the same vertex must be oriented in the same direction along the
affine Dykin diagram. That is to say, an individual path can only have H’s or H c ’s
activated.
4. Loops are not allowed.
The third criterion rules out paths of the form:
1
1

0

0

2

2

3
3

since this path involves activating both H and H c . In other words, a path must continue
in a fixed direction. Here, a “path” is defined to be a sequence of vertices {vi } such that a
directed edge points from vi to vi+1 . A path that bends backwards on itself will generically
e = 0 constraint.
violate the [Q, Q]
In the case of an A-type quiver, these conditions restrict us to the class of su(2)Q ×su(2)Qe
solutions with trivial tensor products considered previously, so it is clear that they give valid
solutions. Indeed, a chain of m consecutive edges in the graph corresponds to the spin m2
representation of su(2), with each vertex in the chain corresponding to an eigenstate of J3
and each edge corresponding to an action of the raising operator J+ .
For the D- and E-type quivers, we obtain genuinely new solutions. For instance, for the
N = 1 quiver of associated with probing a D5 singularity, one solution is represented by the

24

directed graph
1

5

3

4

3

4

2

6

There are two vertices for each of the middle nodes because their Dynkin index is 2, whereas
each of the outer nodes has Dynkin index 1.
As another example, consider the N = 1 theory for the quiver coming from probing an
E6 singularity. One solution of this form is the following:
5

4

2
1

4

3

6

3

6

3
2

7

Here, the multiplicity of vertices associated with each node corresponds to the Dynkin number of the node.
Given this simple structure, it is natural to ask about the flavor symmetry left unbroken
by a choice of directed path. It is given by a product:
"
#
M
gF = s
u(ni ) .
(6.3)
i

Here, i runs over the distinct path types in the quiver, and ni is the number of paths of each
type, where two paths {vi }, {vi0 } are said to be of the same “type” if vi and vi0 are vertices
associated with the same Dynkin node for all i. Clearly, paths of the same type must be
the same length, and path type defines an equivalence relation between paths. An isolated
vertex is considered to be a path of length 1. Intuitively, we can think of each u(ni ) summand
in the symmetry algebra as rotating the ni paths of identical type i into each other.

25

As an example, consider the following directed graph solution for the A-type quiver with
gauge group U (3)4 :
1
1
1

0

0

0

2

2

2

3
3
3

In this diagram, there are two paths of length three that begin at the left cluster of (three)
vertices and terminate on the right cluster. These two paths are thus of the same type and
so contribute u(2) to the flavor symmetry. There is one path of length two (contributing
u(1)) and four paths of length 1, three of which are of the same type (corresponding to the
three vertices of the bottom node, contributing u(3)) and one of which is of a different type
(corresponding to a vertex in the right node, contributing u(1)). Thus, the overall flavor
symmetry is:
s [u(3) ⊕ u(2) ⊕ u(1) ⊕ u(1)] .
(6.4)

7

Conclusions

Compactifications of higher-dimensional CFTs provide a general template for realizing a
rich class of lower-dimensional quantum field theories. In this paper we have given a general
characterization of 1/2 BPS regular punctures of (1, 0) SCFTs defined by a stack of M5branes probing an ADE singularity: class SΓ theories. By compactifying these 6D theories
on a cylinder, we have shown how boundary conditions that preserve four real supercharges
reduce to a generalization of the Nahm pole equations. We have also presented some canonical examples of solutions to these equations, illustrating how the notion of nilpotent orbits
for 1/2 BPS punctures of the class S theories generalizes for 1/4 BPS punctures of class
S and 1/2 BPS punctures of class SΓ to pairs of commuting nilpotent elements subject to
additional constraints arising from an orbifold projection. In the remainder of this section
we discuss some open areas of investigation for future work.
Our primary emphasis in this work has centered on giving various methods for generating
solutions to the generalized Nahm pole equations. Since the task of classifying pairs of
commuting nilpotent matrices is still an open problem, we expect that a full classification
of such punctures will likely be more challenging to achieve. Nevertheless, for low rank
theories, i.e. theories defined by a single M5-brane probing an ADE singularity, we expect
that a classification should be possible.

26

One of the motivations for this work was to better understand the 4D theories generated
by compactification of the (1, 0) 6D SCFTs. Since class SΓ theories form the basic building
blocks for more general 6D SCFTs, it would be interesting to extend our analysis to all 6D
SCFTs.
With the structure of punctures in place, the next step would be to understand in more
detail the structure of the resulting 4D theories. In particular, it would be interesting to
track the contributions such punctures make to various quantities of interest in 4D such
as the anomaly polynomial and (if the compactified theory is an interacting SCFT), the
superconformal index.
Finally, it is tempting to contemplate the extension of our analysis to lower-dimensional
compactifications. Developing the analogue of the generalized Nahm pole equations in these
cases as well would provide another connection between higher-dimensional SCFTs and their
lower-dimensional descendants.

Acknowledgements
We thank T. Iarrobino, S. Razamat and Y. Tachikawa for helpful discussions. We also thank
the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics 2016 summer workshop for hospitality during
the completion of this work. JJH also thanks the theory groups at Columbia University, the
ITS at the CUNY graduate center, and the CCPP at NYU for hospitality during this work.
The work of JJH is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-1452037. JJH also acknowledges
support from the Bahnson Fund at UNC Chapel Hill as well as the R. J. Reynolds Industries,
Inc. Junior Faculty Development Award from the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor
and Provost at UNC Chapel Hill. The work of PJ, TR and CV is supported by NSF grant
PHY-1067976. TR is also supported by the NSF GRF under DGE-1144152.

A

Further Examples

In this Appendix we present some additional examples of solutions to the generalized Nahm
pole equations for systems with a small number N of M5-branes, and for Γ of low order.
First, we give a complete classification for solutions to the U (3)2 quiver generated by N = 3
M5-branes probing an A1 singularity. We follow this with an example of a single M5-brane
(i.e., N = 1) probing a D4 singularity.

A.1

Three M5-branes Probing an A1 Singularity

As an example, we now classify solutions to the generalized Nahm equations for the U (3)2
e = 0. We further work out one particular solution
quiver with anti-chirals turned off, Q

27

in detail and show how it transforms to the original basis of (4.14). We then consider the
solutions of the above form with anti-chirals turned on.
With anti-chirals turned off, there are 31 solutions to the generalized Nahm equations,
given by the following Young diagrams and their inverses obtained by swapping labels, 0 ↔ 1:
1
0
1
0
1
0

0
1
0
1
0 1

0
1
0 1
1 0

0
1
0 0
1 1

0
1
0
1 1 0

1 0
0 1
1 0

1 1
0 0
1 1

0
1 1
0 0 1

1
0 1
1 0 0

1
0
1 1 0 0

0
1
0 1 1 0

1 0 1
0 1 0

1 1 1
0 0 0

1 0
0 1 1 0

0 0
1 1 1 0

1
0 1 1 0 0

1 0 1 0 1 0

(A.1)

Note that there are only 31 solutions, rather than 34, because the Young diagrams
1 0
0 1
1 0

1 0
0 1 1 0

1 0 1 0 1 0

are equivalent to their inverses.
For a concrete example of describing a solution in terms of this partition data, consider
the solution labeled by the Young diagram
0
1 .
0 1
1 0

28

In directed graph notation, this is given by
−
−
−

(A.2)
+
+
+

In the Jordan basis, the corresponding Q takes the form


0 c1

0 c2


0 c3

Q=

0 0


0 c5
0











(A.3)

We can fix the magnitude of each ci by using the relation [Q, Q† ] = Σ. The result is,
|c1 |2 = |c3 |2 = 3/2 ,

|c2 |2 = 2 ,

|c5 |2 = 1/2.

(A.4)

The phases can be eliminated using the U (3)2 gauge symmetry. In this basis, γ takes the
form,


1


−1




1


(A.5)
γg = 



−1




1
−1
To get solutions for the original fields Hi , Σi , we need to transform back to the basis in
which γ takes the form in 4.7. This is accomplished by simply permuting the eigenvalues.
Performing the same basis transformation on Q gives,





Q=




0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p0
0
3/2 p0
0
1/2
p0
3/2
0
0
29

0
0
0
0
0
0


0 0
√ 
0
2 
0 0 


0 0 

0 0 
0 0

(A.6)

From this, we find

0 0 0
√
= 0 0
2 ,
0 0 0





H(1,2)

H(2,1)

0

=  p0
3/2


p
3/2 p0

0
1/2  .
0
0

(A.7)

And,

−3/2 0
0
Σ1 =  0
1/2
0 ,
0
0 −1/2



3/2 0
0
Σ2 =  0 1/2
0 .
0
0 −1/2


(A.8)

As can be checked, these matrices satisfy the generalized Nahm equations in the quiver basis.
c
Finally, let us consider turning on anti-chirals H(i,j)
6= 0 so that the algebra splits into a
decoupled su(2)×su(2). We may then label our solutions by two decoupled Young diagrams,
one for the chirals and one for the anti-chirals. For the first six Young diagrams in (A.1),
there are only two that permit non-trivial solutions with anti-chirals. Namely, we may have


3
, 0 0 ⊕ 0, 12 0
2


3
1
(A.9)
,
0
⊕
0,
2
2 1
0
1
1, 2 0

and their inverses, obtained by the interchange 0 ↔ 1. Here, (j, e
j)p indicates the tensor
e
product of the spin j and spin j representations of su(2), and the subscript labels the value
of aj −j ; ej −ej = ω p for the representation, where ω is a primitive kth root of unity.
For the remaining Young diagrams in (A.1), we have the non-trivial anti-chiral solutions
(1, 0) ⊕ (0, 1)

(1, 0) ⊕ 0, 21 ⊕ (0, 0)

1
,1
2


1 1
, ⊕ 12 , 0
2 2



1
1
1
,
0
⊕
,
0
⊕
0,
2
2
2


1 1
1
,
⊕
0,
2 2
2

1 1
, ⊕ (0, 0) ⊕ (0, 0)
2 2


1
3
,
0
⊕
0,
2
2

1
, 0 ⊕ (0, 1) ⊕ (0, 0)
2



1
, 0 ⊕ 0, 12 ⊕ 0, 12
2


1
, 0 ⊕ 0, 12 ⊕ (0, 0) ⊕ (0, 0).
2

(A.10)

For the sake of brevity, we have suppressed the subscript labels aj −j ; ej −ej for the representation, which may be filled in according to the usual rules. Finally, for µ = 0 1 0 1 0 1 ,
30

the chiral fields are completely turned off, and the anti-chirals solutions are in one-to-one
correspondence with the Young diagrams of (A.1).

A.2

One M5-brane Probing a D4 Singularity

In this case we have a five node quiver, with a single copy of the defining representation of Γ
for the middle node. Here, we assume that all gauge couplings for the quiver are equal. There
are four one-dimensional representations for the satellite nodes. The regular representation
V|Γ| ∼
= C8 decomposes as:
0
V±± ∼
= C,

V|Γ| = V++ ⊕ V+− ⊕ V1 ⊕ V1 ⊕ V−+ ⊕ V−− ,

V1 ∼
= C2 .

(A.11)

We are free to choose a basis in which each matrix is explicitly a direct sum of the irreducible
representations described above:
γ =1⊕1⊕


i


−i


τ = 1 ⊕ −1 ⊕

⊕

1

−1


i


−i


⊕

⊕ −1 ⊕ −1

1

−1

(A.12)

⊕ −1 ⊕ 1.

(A.13)

Imposing the orbifold projection on Σ, we learn
Σ=

Σ+
+

⊕

Σ−
+


Σ11 I2 Σ12 I2
−
⊕ Σ+
⊕
− ⊕ Σ− ,
Σ21 I2 Σ22 I2





1 0
I2 =
.
0 1

(A.14)

We should think of the middle 4 × 4 block of Σ as transforming in the adjoint representation
of the group U (2),

 
Σ11 I2 Σ12 I2 ∼ Σ11 Σ12
Σ1 ≡
.
=
Σ21 I2 Σ22 I2
Σ21 Σ22


31

(A.15)

Next, imposing the orbifold projection on

0 0 0 a1

 0 0 0 b1

 c1 d 1 0 0

 0 0 0 0
Q=
 c2 d 2 0 0

 0 0 0 0


 0 0 g1 0
0 0 h1 0

0
0 a1

0 −b1
 0

 0
0
0

 −c1 d1 0
e=
Q
 0
0
0

 −c d
0

2
2

0
0
 0
0
0
0

e we get
Q, Q,

0 a2 0 0

0 b2 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 e 1 f1 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 e 2 f2 


g2 0 0 0 
h2 0 0 0

0
a2
0
0
0

0 −b2 0
0
0 

0
0
0 −e1 f1 

0
0
0
0
0 
.
0
0
0 −e2 f2 

0
0
0
0
0 


g1
0
g2
0
0 
−h1 0 −h2 0
0

(A.16)

(A.17)

Of particular interest will be the row and column vectors








~at = a1 a2 , ~bt = b1 b2 , ~g t = g1 g2 , ~ht = h1 h2
 
 
 
 
d1
e1
f
c1
~
~
, d=
, ~e =
, f= 1 .
~c =
d2
c2
e2
f2

(A.18)
(A.19)

The above row and column vectors are precisely the bifundamental maps, as can be seen by
e on an arbitrary vector ~v ∈ C8 , being careful to restrict to a 2d diagonal
acting with Q, Q
subspace of the 4d space V1 ⊕ V1 , namely V1 ⊕ V1 ,→ (V1 )diag ∼
= C2 .
e It is evident from
Similarly, one can identify the bifundamental maps associated to Q.
e are related to those of
the direct sum decomposition of τ that the bifundamentals of Q
Q by a trivial interchanging of the two (identified) summands of V1 = C ⊕ C, where the
second summand picks up a sign in the process. Therefore, it is only necessary to study Q
to correctly identify the bifundamental maps. The action of the bifundamental maps on the
representation spaces is specified completely by the quiver diagram in Figure 1. Using this
interpretation of the bifundamental maps, one can read off the 1/2 BPS equations directly

32

V++ ∼
=C

V−+ ∼
=C

1

1
~at

~e

~c

~g t

~bt

= C2
2 (V1 )diag ∼
f~
d~

~ht

1
V+− ∼
=C

1
V−− ∼
=C

c4 quiver diagram. Each link is labeled by the bifundamental field mapping
Figure 1: D
between representation spaces. The four row vectors ~at , ~bt , ~g t , ~ht are in the representation
~ ~e, f~ are in the representation (1, 2)
(2, 1) of U(2) × U(1), while the four column vectors ~c, d,
of U(1) × U(2). Since all of the bifundamental hypermultiplets are organized in the 8 × 8
e provides redundant information.
matrix Q, the matrix Q
e The F-term equations are
from the matrix equations constraining Σ, Q, and Q.
Σ+
at − ~at Σ1 = ~at
+~
~t ~t
~t
Σ+
− b − b Σ1 = b

(A.20)

Σ−
gt
+~

− ~g Σ1 = ~g
~t ~t
~t
Σ−
− h − h Σ1 = h

(A.22)

− ~cΣ+
+

(A.24)

t

t

(A.21)
(A.23)

Σ1~c
= ~c
+
~
~
Σ1 d~ − dΣ
− = d

(A.25)

− ~eΣ−
+

Σ1~e
= ~e
~
Σ1 f~ − f~Σ−
− = f,

(A.26)

Σ+
a|2 − |~c|2 )
+ = 2(|~
~ 2)
Σ+ = 2(|~b|2 − |d|

(A.28)

(A.27)

and the D-term equations are:

−
Σ−
+

= 2(|~g |2 − |~e|2 )
~ 2
~2
Σ−
− = 2(|h| − |f | )

33

(A.29)
(A.30)
(A.31)

as well as:
Σ1 = (~c ⊗ ~c∗ + d~ ⊗ d~∗ + ~e ⊗ ~e∗ + f~ ⊗ f~∗ ) − (~a∗ ⊗ ~a + ~b∗ ⊗ ~b + ~g ∗ ⊗ ~g + ~h∗ ⊗ ~h)

(A.32)

e = 0 are
Furthermore, the equations corresponding to the commutation condition [Q, Q]
0 = ~a · ~c = ~b · d~ = ~g · ~e = ~h · f~
0 = (~c ⊗ ~a + ~e ⊗ ~g ) − (d~ ⊗ ~b + f~ ⊗ ~h).

(A.33)
(A.34)

We now use the structure of representations of the algebra su(2)×su(2) to construct some
simple examples of solutions to the vacuum equations for a type D quiver gauge theory. For
our first example, we consider the representation
3
,0
2



R=


⊕ 0, 23 ,

(A.35)

which implies that in terms of the generators Ja and Jea of the two su(2)s:
J+ = J+, 3 ⊕ J+,0 ,

J = J 3 ⊕ J0 ,

2

Je+ = Je+,0 ⊕ Je+, 3 ,

2

2

Je = Je0 ⊕ Je3 .
2

(A.36)

Given this kind of representation, the phases defining the representatives of the Γ generators
simplify to
a3

2

m− 23 ; 0 0

= ω m α− 3

2

; 0,

c3
2

m− 32 ; 0 0

= χ− 3

2

; 0

(A.37)


and similarly for the associated to the irrep 0, 32 (note, however, the minus sign appearing
3
0
in definition of c0 0 ; 3 m−
e 23 . Keeping in mind the fact that j = j = 2 , the consistency
2
conditions then become
2
α−
3
2

; 0

= α02

; − 32

= χ− 3
2

; 0 χ0 ; − 23 ,

α− 3
2

; 0 α0 ; − 32

= 1.

(A.38)

As an example of choices satisfying the above conditions, we find
α− 3
2

; 0

= α0

; − 32

χ∗− 3

= 1,

2

34

; 0

= χ0

; − 32

=i

(A.39)

To see that the above data constitute a solution of the vacuum equations, we use the matrix


0 0 0 −µ∗ 0
0 0 µ


µ∗
0
0 0 µ 
 0 0 0


 0 0 0
0 −1 0 0 0 



 −i 0 0
1+i
0
0
0
0
0
 ∈ SU(8),
M =
µ
=
,
(A.40)
 0 0 −i 0
0
0 0 0 
2


 0 0 0
0
0
0 1 0 




∗
0
µ
0
0
0
−µ
0
0


0 µ 0
0
0
µ∗ 0 0
to conjugate the entire system back to the quiver basis, i.e. the basis in which the generators
γ, τ are manifestly direct sums of the irreducible representations described above. Mapping
our solution in Jordan canonical form to the quiver basis (where for simplicity we take all
g(i) equal as per our discussion in section 2), we have the following identifications:
"
~at = ~bt = 0,

~c = −d~ =

−µ

0q

∗

#
3
2

~e = f~ =

,

" q #
−µ 32

,

√ 

~g t = ~ht = 0 −µ∗ 2

0
(A.41)

3
Σ+
± = − ,
2

1
Σ−
± = ,
2

3
2

Σ1 =


− 12

.

(A.42)

The above solution corresponds to the following quiver:
1

1

f~

~e
~g t

1

~ht

.

1

(A.43)

d~

~c
1

1

The solution consists of a single irreducible representation, and hence the flavor symmetry
group is trivial.

35

References
[1] W. Nahm, “Supersymmetries and their Representations,” Nucl. Phys. B135 (1978)
149.
[2] J. J. Heckman, D. R. Morrison, and C. Vafa, “On the Classification of 6D SCFTs and
Generalized ADE Orbifolds,” JHEP 05 (2014) 028, arXiv:1312.5746 [hep-th].
[Erratum: JHEP 06 (2015) 017].
[3] M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, A. Tomasiello, and C. Vafa, “6d Conformal Matter,”
JHEP 02 (2015) 054, arXiv:1407.6359 [hep-th].
[4] J. J. Heckman, “More on the Matter of 6D SCFTs,” Phys. Lett. B747 (2015) 73–75,
arXiv:1408.0006 [hep-th].
[5] J. J. Heckman, D. R. Morrison, T. Rudelius, and C. Vafa, “Atomic Classification of
6D SCFTs,” Fortsch. Phys. 63 (2015) 468–530, arXiv:1502.05405 [hep-th].
[6] D. Gaiotto, “N = 2 Dualities,” JHEP 08 (2012) 034, arXiv:0904.2715 [hep-th].
[7] A. Klemm, W. Lerche, P. Mayr, C. Vafa, and N. P. Warner, “Selfdual Strings and
N = 2 Supersymmetric Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B477 (1996) 746–766,
arXiv:hep-th/9604034.
[8] A. Brandhuber, J. Sonnenschein, S. Theisen, and S. Yankielowicz, “M-theory and
Seiberg-Witten Curves: Orthogonal and Symplectic Groups,” Nucl. Phys. B504
(1997) 175–188, arXiv:hep-th/9705232.
[9] K. Landsteiner, E. Lopez, and D. A. Lowe, “N = 2 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,
Branes and Orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B507 (1997) 197–226, arXiv:hep-th/9705199.
[10] N. J. Evans, C. V. Johnson, and A. D. Shapere, “Orientifolds, Branes, and Duality of
4D Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B505 (1997) 251–271, arXiv:hep-th/9703210.
[11] E. Witten, “Solutions of Four-Dimensional Field Theories via M-theory,” Nucl. Phys.
B500 (1997) 3–42, arXiv:hep-th/9703166.
[12] K. Landsteiner and E. Lopez, “New Curves from Branes,” Nucl. Phys. B516 (1998)
273–296, arXiv:hep-th/9708118.
[13] A. Kapustin, “Solution of N = 2 Gauge Theories via Compactification to Three
Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B534 (1998) 531–545, arXiv:hep-th/9804069.
[14] K. Landsteiner, E. Lopez, and D. A. Lowe, “Supersymmetric Gauge Theories from
Branes and Orientifold Six Planes,” JHEP 07 (1998) 011, arXiv:hep-th/9805158.

36

[15] P. C. Argyres, R. Maimon, and S. Pelland, “The M-theory Lift of Two O6-planes and
Four D6-branes,” JHEP 05 (2002) 008, arXiv:hep-th/0204127.
[16] L. F. Alday, D. Gaiotto, and Y. Tachikawa, “Liouville Correlation Functions from
Four-dimensional Gauge Theories,” Lett. Math. Phys. 91 (2010) 167–197,
arXiv:0906.3219 [hep-th].
[17] O. Chacaltana and J. Distler, “Tinkertoys for Gaiotto Duality,” JHEP 11 (2010) 099,
arXiv:1008.5203 [hep-th].
[18] N. Nekrasov and V. Pestun, “Seiberg-Witten Geometry of Four-Dimensional N = 2
Quiver Gauge Theories,” arXiv:1211.2240 [hep-th].
[19] D. Xie, “General Argyres-Douglas Theory,” JHEP 01 (2013) 100, arXiv:1204.2270
[hep-th].
[20] O. Chacaltana, J. Distler, and Y. Tachikawa, “Nilpotent orbits and codimension-two
defects of 6d N = (2, 0) theories,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013) 1340006,
arXiv:1203.2930 [hep-th].
[21] D. Gaiotto and S. S. Razamat, “N = 1 theories of class Sk ,” JHEP 07 (2015) 073,
arXiv:1503.05159 [hep-th].
[22] M. Del Zotto, J. J. Heckman, D. S. Park, and T. Rudelius, “On the Defect Group of a
6D SCFT,” Lett. Math. Phys. 106 no. 6, (2016) 765–786, arXiv:1503.04806
[hep-th].
[23] S. Franco, H. Hayashi, and A. Uranga, “Charting Class Sk Territory,” Phys. Rev. D92
no. 4, (2015) 045004, arXiv:1504.05988 [hep-th].
[24] A. Hanany and K. Maruyoshi, “Chiral theories of class S,” JHEP 12 (2015) 080,
arXiv:1505.05053 [hep-th].
[25] K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, “6d N = (1, 0) theories on
T 2 and class S theories: Part I,” JHEP 07 (2015) 014, arXiv:1503.06217 [hep-th].
[26] K. Ohmori, H. Shimizu, Y. Tachikawa, and K. Yonekura, “6d N =(1, 0) theories on
S 1 /T 2 and class S theories: part II,” arXiv:1508.00915 [hep-th].
[27] M. Del Zotto, C. Vafa, and D. Xie, “Geometric engineering, mirror symmetry and
6d(1,0) → 4d(N =2) ,” JHEP 11 (2015) 123, arXiv:1504.08348 [hep-th].
[28] M. Aganagic and N. Haouzi, “ADE Little String Theory on a Riemann Surface (and
Triality),” arXiv:1506.04183 [hep-th].
[29] I. Coman, E. Pomoni, M. Taki, and F. Yagi, “Spectral curves of N = 1 theories of
class Sk ,” arXiv:1512.06079 [hep-th].
37

[30] D. R. Morrison and C. Vafa, “F-Theory and N = 1 SCFTs in Four Dimensions,”
JHEP 08 (2016) 070, arXiv:1604.03560 [hep-th].
[31] D. Xie, “M5-brane and Four-Dimensional N = 1 Theories I,” JHEP 04 (2014) 154,
arXiv:1307.5877 [hep-th].
[32] M. R. Douglas and G. W. Moore, “D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons,”
arXiv:hep-th/9603167.
[33] D.-E. Diaconescu, “D-branes, monopoles and Nahm equations,” Nucl. Phys. B503
(1997) 220–238, arXiv:hep-th/9608163.
[34] D. Tsimpis, “Nahm equations and boundary conditions,” Phys. Lett. B433 (1998)
287–290, arXiv:hep-th/9804081.
[35] A. Kapustin and S. Sethi, “The Higgs Branch of Impurity Theories,” Adv. Theor.
Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 571–591, arXiv:hep-th/9804027.
[36] O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, and H. Ooguri, “Holography and Defect Conformal
Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 025009, arXiv:hep-th/0111135.
[37] J. Erdmenger, Z. Guralnik, and I. Kirsch, “Four-Dimensional Superconformal Theories
with Interacting Boundaries or Defects,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 025020,
arXiv:hep-th/0203020.
[38] N. R. Constable, J. Erdmenger, Z. Guralnik, and I. Kirsch, “Intersecting D3-Branes
and Holography,” Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 106007, arXiv:hep-th/0211222.
[39] D. Gaiotto and E. Witten, “Supersymmetric Boundary Conditions in N = 4 Super
Yang-Mills Theory,” J. Stat. Phys. 135 (2009) 789–855, arXiv:0804.2902 [hep-th].
[40] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Gregoire, and J. G. Wacker, “Higher Dimensional
Supersymmetry in 4D Superspace,” JHEP 03 (2002) 055, arXiv:hep-th/0101233.
[41] A. Hashimoto, P. Ouyang, and M. Yamazaki, “Boundaries and Defects of N = 4 SYM
with 4 Supercharges. Part I: Boundary/Junction Conditions,” JHEP 10 (2014) 107,
arXiv:1404.5527 [hep-th].
[42] C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, “Aspects of Type IIB Theory on ALE Spaces,” Phys.
Rev. D55 (1997) 6382–6393, arXiv:hep-th/9610140.
[43] A. E. Lawrence, N. Nekrasov, and C. Vafa, “On Conformal Field Theories in Four
Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B533 (1998) 199–209, arXiv:hep-th/9803015.
[44] R. Basili and A. Iarrobino, “Pairs of Commuting Nilpotent Matrices, and Hilbert
Function,” arXiv:0709.2304 [math.AC].

38

