The Phases of Non-supersymmetric Gauge Theories: the SO(Nc) Case Study

Csaba Cs´aki,1, ∗ Andrew Gomes,1, † Hitoshi Murayama,2, 3, 4, ‡ and Ofri Telem2, 4, § 1Department of Physics, LEPP, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA 2Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 3Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI), University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8583, Japan 4Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

We investigate the IR phases of non-supersymmetric (non-SUSY) SO(Nc) gauge theories with NF in the vector representation obtained by perturbing the SUSY theory with anomaly mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB). We find that of the wide variety of phases appearing in the 3 SUSY theory only two survive: for NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2) the theory confines, breaking the SU(NF ) 3 global symmetry to SO(NF ), while for 2 (Nc − 2) < NF < 3(Nc − 2) the theory flows to a (super)- conformal fixed point. The abelian Coulomb and free magnetic phases do not survive and collapse to the confining phase. We also investigate the behavior of loop operators in order to provide a clear distinction between the confining and screened phases. With the choice of Spin(Nc) for the global structure of the gauge group, we find that the electric Wilson loop indeed obeys an area law, providing one of the first demonstrations of true confinement with chiral symmetry breaking in a non-SUSY theory. We identify monopole condensation as the dynamics underlying confinement. These monopoles arise naturally for NF = Nc − 2. The case with smaller number of flavors can be obtained by integrating out flavors, and we confirm numerically that the monopole condensate persists in the presence of AMSB and mass perturbations.

INTRODUCTION starting with its supersymmetric version and perturbing it by anomaly mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB) [21, 22] (see also [23, 24] for earlier work containing some im- Understanding the phases of strongly coupled gauge portant aspects of AMSB). The main advantage of this theories is one of the most important outstanding goals method is that a single spurion provides both the posi- of physics. A great deal of progress was made on tive scalar mass squared and the mass, thereby this problem in the mid-90’s, led by Seiberg [1–3], when preparing exactly the UV theory of interest. By the the vacuum structures of a large variety of supersym- UV insensitive nature of AMSB the determination of metric (SUSY) gauge theories were established, includ- the low-energy phase of the theory can be reliably per- ing N = 1 SUSY QCD, N = 2 Seiberg-Witten theories, formed within the dual low-energy effective theory. In- and also various interesting chiral gauge theories. A wide deed many interesting results have been obtained this variety of phases were encountered in this way including the phases and global symmetry break- process: the confining phase, the screened/Higgs phase ing pattern of SUSY QCD [20] as well as in the sim- (which are indistinguishable due to complementarity), a plest non-supersymmetric chiral gauge theories with an free magnetic phase with an IR free dual gauge group, antisymmetric [25] or symmetric [26] . These re- true conformal field theories (CFTs) with a non-trivial sults allowed the reexamination of old conjectured phases interacting fixed point dubbed the non-abelian Coulomb of non-SUSY chiral gauge theories based on the tum- phase, and finally the abelian Coulomb phase, which in bling/most attractive channel (MAC) framework [27, 28]. the SUSY case usually includes points in the moduli It was found that all cases needed some form of modifica- space with massless monopoles [4]. These phases form an tion, and in some cases it was not the condensate in the intricate web which can be nicely connected by integrat- MAC that was actually generated. The theories with arXiv:2107.02813v2 [hep-th] 9 Sep 2021 ing out flavors or Higgsing the theories. One particularly larger number of flavors included more chiral symme- interesting example is the case of SO(N ) gauge theories c try breaking and also examples of superconformal fixed with N chiral superfields in the vector N representa- f c points from non-SUSY UV theories. tion: as Nf is varied between 1 and 3Nc − 2 all of the above phases actually appear, making SO(Nc) an ideal However all of the theories explored so far with AMSB test lab for studying the phases of gauge theories. contained some in the fundamental representa- SUSY gauge theories are very interesting in their own tion, which led to screening and a perimeter law for all right, though one would obviously like to ask what phases of their Wilson loops. Consequently, their chiral symme- appear for the non-SUSY versions of these theories. This try breaking took place in a screened/Higgs phase, rather question was investigated in a series of papers in the late than a genuine confining phase. This will no longer be 90’s [5–18], by perturbing SUSY gauge theories with soft the case for gauge theories with Lie algebra so(Nc) (more breaking terms (see also the more recent specifically Spin(Nc)) and matter in the vector represen- [19]). In [20], a simple and efficient method was intro- tation, where the Wilson loop in the spinor can not be duced for studying non-supersymetric gauge theory by screened. This makes the appearance of an area law pos- 2 sible – which is the strict definition of a confining phase. electric confinement. By considering mass deformations In this paper we study the low-energy dynamics of the to the NF = Nc − 2 case, we demonstrate this fact, as SO(Nc) gauge theories with NF Weyl fermions in the well as chiral symmetry breaking, for all SO(Nc) theories vector representation, obtained by perturbing the cor- with 1 < NF ≤ Nc − 2. While there are several special responding N = 1 SO(Nc) theory via AMSB. We will cases to examine following the analysis of [31], in the end also include a discussion of the global properties of these the global minimum of the theory for 1 < NF ≤ Nc − 2 theories, which is necessary to distinguish the truly con- is always the one with the SU(NF ) → SO(NF ) chiral fining theories with an area law for the Wilson loop from symmetry breaking pattern. We have also summarized those with a perimeter law. Thus, as will be explained this important result in a companion letter [32]. later, we will have to distinguish between Spin(Nc) and We then continue on to consider the cases with a larger the SO(Nc)± groups. The NF = Nc − 2 case will be number of flavors. We find results similar to the case of 3 particularly interesting: the SUSY theory in this case SUSY QCD. For Nc−2 < NF ≤ 2 (Nc−2) we again find a corresponds to a pure Coulomb branch, where a pair of global minimum where the chiral symmetry is broken to monopoles becomes massless at one point, together with SO(NF ). In this case monopole condensation does not a full multiplet of dyons becoming massless at the origin. directly appear in the description, but non-trivial Wil- We will show that the AMSB perturbation of this the- son loops still exhibit an area law. To see this, note that ory leads to the condensation of monopoles, along with at a generic point in the moduli space of the dual the- (partial) breaking of the chiral global symmetries at the ory, the dual are integrated out, leaving us with true ground state. Such monopole (or dyon) condensa- pure SO(NF − Nc + 4) SYM. Consequently, whenever tion was conjectured by Mandelstam [29] and ’t Hooft the dual gauge group allows for dyonic (’t Hooft) loops, [30] long ago to be the dynamics leading to confinement these exhibit an area (perimeter) law. By the duality of via the dual Meissner effect. This has indeed been found [33], whenever the original theory allows for non-trivial to be the case by Seiberg and Witten when perturbing Wilson (’t Hooft) loops, they exhibit an area (perimeter) pure N = 2 to pure N = 1 supersymmetric Yang–Mills law. 3 (SYM) [4], and also by [6, 7, 9, 12] who studied the small Finally, for 2 (Nc − 2) ≤ NF ≤ 3(Nc − 2) we find that non-SUSY perturbations of the Seiberg-Witten theory. the theory flows to a superconformal fixed point, even Our results provide one of the first examples of (true) though the UV theory explicitly breaks supersymmetry. confinement with chiral symmetry breaking in a non- For 3(Nc − 2) < NF , the theory with AMSB has tachy- SUSY gauge theory. onic squarks and hence no ground state, and is not con- By considering mass deformations to the NF = Nc − 2 tinuously connected to the non-supersymmetric SO(Nc) case, we will be able to show that all of the cases theory. 3 with NF < 2 (Nc − 2) exhibit the same behavior as for NF = Nc −2, i.e., electric confinement via monopole con- densation, together with chiral symmetry breaking. In SO(Nc) WITH NF FUNDAMENTALS 3 contrast, for 2 (Nc − 2) < NF ≤ 3(Nc − 2) the non-SUSY UV theory flows as expected to a (super)-conformal the- We consider a supersymmetric gauge theory with 3 gauge group SO(Nc), NF vectors, and no tree-level su- ory in the IR. The case with NF = 2 (Nc −2) is marginal, and will be discussed in future work. In other words, perpotential. This theory has been thoroughly studied in with the AMSB perturbation the many phases present e.g., [31, 34]. The anomaly-free global symmetry of the in the SUSY case collapse down to just two: the con- theory is (SU(NF ) × U(1)R × Z2NF × Z2/ZNF ), where fining phase, and the conformal phase. The Coulomb the Z2 is charge conjugation [48]. Under the continuous and free magnetic phases do not survive the breaking of part of the global symmetry, the matter fields transform supersymmetry. as Q( ) NF −Nc+2 . NF The paper is organized as follows. First we present a For NF < Nc, the D-flat directions of the theory are short summary of the moduli space and symmetries of given, up to gauge and global transformations, by N = 1 SUSY SO(Nc) theories with NF vectors. The   quantum vacuum structure of the entire SUSY series has ϕ1  ..  been worked out in a beautiful paper by Intriligator and Q =  . 0  , (1) Seiberg in [31], which will be the basis of our analysis ϕNF for the AMSB perturbations. We begin our discussion of the various cases with the most novel N = N − 2 case, For NF < Nc D-flat directions are conveniently param- F c 1 which is the only one known example so far giving rise to eterized by the 2 NF (NF + 1) gauge invariant “” ij i j monopole condensation with chiral symmetry breaking in operators M = Q Q . Along the D-flat directions, they a non-SUSY theory. We then show that whenever “non- are given by trivial” (spinorial) Wilson lines exist in the theory with   M = diag ϕ2, . . . , ϕ2 . (2) 1 Nf NF = Nc − 2, they exhibit an area law, signaling true 3

Range SUSY +AMSB into color-singlet states, even if a linear potential is lack-

NF = 1 run-away confinement ing due to screening from -antiquark production.

1 < NF < Nc − 4 run-away confinement+χSB We will be more careful with the word and, following [33], only use it in the narrow context of a particular Wilson/’t NF = Nc − 4 2 branches confinement+χSB Hooft/dyonic loop operator [49] exhibiting an area law, N = N − 3 2 branches confinement+χSB F c in which case we will say that the given loop operator N = N − 2 Coulomb confinement+χSB F c confines. We are especially interested in the confinement free magnetic NF = Nc − 1 confinement+χSB of non-trivial loop operators - the ones which transform 2 branches non-trivially under the center of the gauge group. Note free magnetic that in some of the literature, e.g., [33], these closed loops NF = Nc confinement+χSB 2 branches are referred to as line operators - we will use the more 3 Nc + 1 ≤ NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2) free magnetic confinement +χSB conventional name “loop operators” to stress their gauge 3 invariance. 2 (Nc − 2) < NF ≤ 3(Nc − 2) CFT CFT 3(Nc − 2) < NF IR free run-away The allowed non-trivial loop operators in the theory depend on the choice of the global properties of the gauge TABLE I: Summary of IR Behavior of SO(Nc) theories with group – for example, with the Lie algebra so(Nc) the N fundamentals with AMSB. χSB stands for chiral symme- F gauge group can be Spin(Nc),SO(Nc), and so on. De- try breaking. For NF = Nc − 1 and Nc, two branches appear pending on the choice of gauge group, the allowed non- along the flat direction of the maximum rank of the meson trivial loop operators can be Wilson, ’t Hooft, or dyonic M ij , yet the AMSB chooses one over the other, resulting in the χSB. loops. Whatever the choice may be, these loops exhibit either a perimeter or an area law, depending on the local physics, which is in and of itself insensitive to the global

For NF ≥ Nc, the D-flat direction is given by properties of the gauge group. One possible choice of the gauge group is Spin(N ),   c ϕ1 which is the universal cover of all Lie groups that share  .  the Lie algebra so(N ). In this case the non-trivial loop  ..  c Q =   (3) operators are Wilson loops, while others are forbidden  ϕ   Nc  by Dirac quantization. An area law for non-trivial Wil- 0 son loops indicates the confinement of the electric de- grees of freedom associated with it. Other choices for It is conveniently parameterized in terms of meson op- the global structure are obtained by modding out the [i1,...iN ] erators, as well as the operators B c = Spin(N ) by subgroups of its center, which is for odd [i i ] c Z2 Q 1 ...Q Nc , where the i are flavor indices and we take Nc and larger for even Nc [33]. Here we only consider the gauge singlet out of the tensor product of Nc funda- SO(Nc) = Spin(Nc)/Z2. In this case the non-trivial mentals of SO(Nc). The gauge invariant operators are loop operators are either purely magnetic ’t Hooft loops, given, up to global transformations, by a choice denoted by SO(Nc)+, or dyonic loops, a choice ! denoted by SO(Nc)−. In each case, other non-trivial diag ϕ2, . . . , ϕ2  0 M = 1 Nc loop operators are forbidden by Dirac quantization. Be- 0 0NF −Nc×NF −Nc low, when we speak of “the loop” in a particular theory,

1,...Nc we will be referring to the single non-trivial loop that B = ϕ1 . . . ϕN . (4) c the theory admits, whether electric, magnetic, or dyonic. The IR behavior of the theory strongly depends on the Additionally, when we are only concerned with the lo- relative magnitudes of Nc and NF and is summarized cal physics we will simply refer to the gauge group as in Table I. Below we will show that adding AMSB to SO(Nc). the theory leads to chiral symmetry breaking for all While Spin(Nc) and SO(Nc)± exist on equal footing 3 as possible gauge groups, we will be particularly inter- 1 < NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2). Furthermore, in this range the theory confines; below we give an exact meaning to this ested in Spin(Nc), as it can provide what eludes us for statement in terms of the loop operators of the theory. SU(N) gauge theories with fundamental matter: an or- We assume throughout that Nc > 3, and leave the Nc = 3 der parameter for electric confinement. Whereas the fun- to future work. damental Wilson loop of SU(N) (which is its own uni- versal cover) can be screened by the fundamental matter, the spinorial Wilson loop of Spin(Nc) cannot be screened PHASES OF GAUGE THEORIES by the vectorial quarks. The main objective of our study is to determine the One often hears the word “confinement” describing the phases of supersymmetric SO(Nc) gauge theories when situation in which colored degrees of freedom are bound perturbed by AMSB. We will be able to determine the lo- 4

cal behavior of the theory – be it chiral symmetry break- SO(Nc) SU(NF ) U(1)R ing, monopole condensation, etc. As a result, we will be Qi 0 able to establish the behavior of the allowed non-trivial λ 1 1 loop operators in the theory, and whether they exhibit an M 1 0 area or a perimeter law. Our final results about the phase ij q± − 1 structure (along with the corresponding SUSY phases) i are summarized in Tab. I. We can see that in the non- λmag − 1 1 SUSY theory the only surviving phases are those of con- TABLE II: DOF of the SO(N ) theory with N = N − 2 finement (with chiral symmetry breaking), or a confor- c F c near M = 0. λ are the SO(Nc) , while λmag are the mal phase. The abelian Coulomb and the free magnetic of the unbroken (magnetic) U(1) in the IR. For the phases do not survive the AMSB perturbation, and they supersymmetric theory at the origin, the full global symmetry all collapse to the generic confining+χSB phase. is unbroken. With AMSB there is a local minimum, where the global symmetry is broken to SU(NF − 2).

CONFINEMENT WITH CHIRAL SYMMETRY 3 generated superpotential about U = 0 of BREAKING FOR 1 < NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2) 1 W = f(t) M ijq+q− , (5) Next we present a detailed analysis of the vacuum dyon µ i j structure of SO(Nc) with NF flavors in the presence of AMSB. For N = N − 2 we show monopole conden- F c where µ is an effective mass scale, t = UΛ4−2Nc , and sation with chiral symmetry breaking – leading to the f(t) is a holomorphic function in the neighborhood of confinement of non-trivial Wilson lines for Spin(N )[50]. c t = 0, normalized so that f(0) = 1. Expanding f to For N < N − 2 we can still explicitly see chiral sym- F c higher orders in t introduces tree level AMSB, but it is metry breaking, while monopole condensation and thus highly suppressed by powers of the meson VEV over Λ electric confinement is established by adding mass de- and results in no qualitative changes. Exactly at U = 0, formations to the N = N − 2 case. Finally, theories F c ’t Hooft anomaly matching is saturated by q±,M ij, and with N − 2 < N ≤ 3 (N − 2) exhibit chiral symmetry i c F 2 c the photinos W ∼ W QNc−2 [31], whose charges are breaking, while confinement is demonstrated by finding α α given in Table II. a “hidden” monopole condensate in the dual theory. Using the formulae for loop level AMSB Eq. (45), we can explore the local minima around the origin of mod- uli space. The IR free nature of the U(1) gauge the-

NF = Nc − 2 ory gives a tachyonic contribution to the dyon masses. However, the dyons also receive a positive mass-squared In this case the supersymmetric theory is in an abelian contribution from the Yukawa-like coupling to the me- Coulomb phase [31]. Since the M ij are not charged un- son field Eq. (5). The co-dependence of the Yukawa and gauge beta functions results in a flow to a fixed ratio der U(1)R, there is no superpotential even at the quan- tum level, and hence the theory has a quantum moduli between the two couplings. This ratio is such that the space. On this moduli space, the gauge symmetry is mass-squared due to loop AMSB is positive for both the higgsed to a SO(2) ' U(1), namely, the theory is on meson and the dyons. Thus, the loop-level AMSB trilin- the Coulomb branch. On the moduli space, the gauge ear term in combination with the tree-level quartic po- tential gives a local minimum a distance O( m ) from coupling τ = θ + i8π is given only as a function of 16π2 2π g2 the origin. To understand the symmetry breaking pat- the SU(N ) invariant U ≡ detM. It is singular at two F tern at this minimum, we must examine the form of the points U = 0 (U = U ≡ 16Λ2NF ), where the dyons 1 tree-level potential in terms of the SU(N ) matrix M q± (monopoles E±) of the U(1) gauge symmetry become F i and vectors q±, massless. In the original paper [31], the authors chose to label the particles condensing at U = 0 and U = U as 1 1 monopoles and dyons, respectively. Our opposite label- V = (q+ · q+∗)(q− · q−∗) ing leads to line behaviors consistent with those in [33] 2 + 2 − 2 for all confining theories, and is also consistent with the +|Mq | + |Mq | + VAMSB (6) finding in [35]. Around the singular point U = 0 the relevant light de- The dot product term is due to the symmetric nature of ± ij + − + − grees of freedom are the dyons qi with magnetic charge the meson matrix (i.e., M couples to qi qj and qj qi ). ±1, which transform under the UV global symmetry This term encourages the q± VEVs to point in different ± SU(NF ) × U(1)R as qi ( )1. These have a dynamically directions in flavor space. We find a minimum along the 5

direction, SO(Nc) SU(NF ) U(1)R U(1)mag SO(NF ) i     Q 0 − 1 0 λ 1 1 − 1  0   1      Mij 1 0 − 1 + +   −   q =  0  α, q =  0  α, (7) ±     E − 1 1 ±1 1  .   .   .   .  λmag − 1 1 0 1 0 0 TABLE III: DOF of the SO(Nc) theory with NF = Nc − 2 ij ij near M ∼ δ ,U = U1. The unbroken global symmetry near ij ij  0 1 0 ··· 0  M ∼ δ ,U = U1 is SO(NF ) × U(1)R, with U(1)R explicitly broken by AMSB.  1 0 0 ··· 0      M ∝  0 0 0 ··· 0  , (8)  . . . . .  Contrary to the point U˜ = 0, here adding AMSB gener-  ......    ates a tree-level contribution to the scalar potential from 0 0 0 ··· 0 (44). This results in the global minimum at U˜ = U˜1. In particular, the scalar potential along M˜ ij = Mδ˜ ij is Breaking the global flavor symmetry to SU(NF −2). The m 4 given locally as vacuum energy of this minimum is V = −O( 16π2 ) . In the vicinity of the singular point U = U1, on 2 ˜ !NF the other hand, the light degrees of freedom are the 2 M  ˜+ 2 ˜− 2 ± V ˜ ˜ = Λ − 16 |E | + |E | monopoles E± ∼ q Qi, whose magnetic charges are ±1. U∼U1 Λ i These transform under the SU(NF )×U(1)R global sym- ± N −1 2 metry of the UV theory as E (1)1. Since detM ≡ U 6= 0, ˜ ! F 1 M ˜+ ˜− 2 the global SU(NF ) × U(1)R is spontaneously broken to + NF |E E | + VAMSB . (13) kNF Λ SO(NF ) × U(1)R. In the neighborhood of U = U1, the theory generates a dynamical superpotential −1 Note the (kNF ) factor in the second line, which comes U − U  ˜ † ˜ ˜ ˜ 1 + − from the K¨ahler term kNF M M for M, where k is an un- Wmon = f E E . (9) Λ2NF known O(1) normalization factor. The tree-level AMSB contribution is given by (44), i.e., Here f˜(t) = t + ··· is holomorphic near t = 0. For all ˜   practical purposes, only the leading order in f matters ˜ !NF M ˜+ ˜− for the stabilization of the minimum. Using canonically VAMSB = mΛ 16 + (NF − 1)  E E + c.c. normalized fields we have Λ ˜ ! (14) U ˜+ ˜− Wmon = Λ N − 16 E E , (10) Λ F This potential has a minimum at √ ˜± ± ˜ ˜ ˜ 1 + − 2 −1 where E = E / Λ, U = detM, and M = M/Λ M˜ = 16 NF Λ , |E˜ ||E˜ | = 16 NF kmΛ is the canonically normalized meson. Exactly at 2 ˜ ˜ NF N 2 2 U = U1 ≡ 16Λ , ’t Hooft anomaly matching is satu- Vmin = −16 F NF km Λ . (15) ± ij Nc−2 rated by E , M˜ , and the photinos Wα ∼ WαQ , whose charges are given in Table III. Since M˜ ij = Mδ˜ ij in this minimum, the global symmetry is broken to SO(Nf ), and there are no ’t Hooft anomalies Explicitly, to match. Because it is generated by a tree-level contri- bution from AMSB, it is lower than the local minimum 2 3 U(1)R gravity and U(1)R : near the origin U ≈ 0, and so it is the global minimum of the theory. A similar phenomenon of AMSB leading to Nc(Nc − 1) NF (NF + 1) a global minimum generated by a tree-level contribution (−1)NF Nc + (1) = (1) + (−1) , 2 2 and a local minimum generated at loop-level was seen (11) in [25]. It is easy to see that there are no minima with M ij 6= 0,M ij∝/ δij. U(1) SO(N )2: R F Notably, the minimum (15) involves the condensation of monopoles E±, which in turn leads to confinement (−1)(1)Nc = (−1)(NF + 2). (12) [30, 36, 37], in the sense that non-trivial Wilson lines get an area law. Famously, monopole condensation has 6

Nc+NF −2 also been seen in the breaking of N = 2 Seiberg-Witten with fN = . We see that the minimum is at F 3Nc−NF −6 theory to N = 1 via a tree level superpotential for the ϕ  Λ, which justifies a weakly coupled analysis in an matter field [4]. In [11, 12], it was shown in a non- asymptotically free theory. Since M˜ ij ∝ δij, in this min- supersymmetric theory by introducing soft SUSY break- imum the global symmetry is broken to SO(NF ). There ij ij ij ing on top of the breaking to N = 1. Here, on the are no minima with M˜ 6= 0, M˜ ∝/ δ . Since the U(1)R other hand, monopole condensation and SUSY break- symmetry was explicitly broken by AMSB, there are no ing emerge together as a result of AMSB. Furthermore, ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions to check in this since the global SU(NF ) symmetry is spontaneously bro- scenario. ij ken to SO(NF ), this is a demonstration of confinement The non-trace components of M˜ are split into with chiral symmetry breaking in a non-supersymmetric massless Nambu–Goldstone (NGBs), massive setting. fermions, and massive scalar partners of the NGBs, where We can also connect the chiral symmetry breaking ob- masses are O(m). The NGBs form the chiral Lagrangian served here to the familiar one due to fermion bilinears. on the SU(NF )/SO(NF ) coset space. Once the mas- To see this, note that the UV theory of quarks has no su- sive fermions are integrated out, the one-loop diagram perpotential and their F-components vanish. Therefore [39] produces the Wess–Zumino–Witten (WZW) term the only contribution to the F -component of the meson [40, 41] because π5(SU(NF )/SO(NF )) = Z (NF ≥ 3). superfield comes from fermion bilinears: For NF = 2, there is no WZW term. To summarize, we establish that the 1 < NF < Nc − 4 case with AMSB hψ∗ψ∗i = F ∗ = 16Λ2M −1E+E− ∝ δ kmΛ2 6= 0. i j Mij ij ij has a global minimum in which the chiral symmetry is (16) broken to SO(NF ), similar to the NF = Nc − 2 case. The case NF = 1 is an exception because the meson In other words, our analysis demonstrates the condensa- has only one component. There is no exact flavor sym- tion of fermion bilinears in a non-supersymmetric theory, metry, no massless NGB, and the theory is gapped. in addition to the monopole condensate.

NF = Nc − 4 NF < Nc − 4 In this case the gauge symmetry is higgsed on the mod- At a generic point in the moduli space, the gauge uli space to SO(4) ' SU(2)L × SU(2)R. The theory group SO(Nc) is higgsed down to SO(Nc − NF ) pure has two distinct branches corresponding to the gaugino SYM, whose gaugino condensation induces an Affleck– condensates in SU(2)L,R having the same, or opposite Dine–Seiberg (ADS) superpotential given by [38] signs. On the first branch with aligned condensates, the

1 superpotential is of the same form as (17), while on the  3Nc−NF −6  Nc−NF −2 Nc − NF − 2 k 16Λ second branch, it vanishes. The second branch contains WADS = ω , 2 detM the point M = 0, at which there is confinement without (17) chiral symmetry breaking. In [42], it was shown that on this branch there is also a VEV for the exotic baryon where Λ is the strong scale of the theory and ω = α NF S = WαW Q , which breaks the discrete global sym- 2πi/(Nc−NF −2) e with k = 0, 1,...,Nc − NF − 3. metry Z2F down to ZF . The K¨ahlerpotential of M is singular at the origin ij 2 ij With AMSB, the theory on the first branch develops and writing M = ϕ δ , we identify ϕ as the canonical a minimum identical to (19), breaking the global sym- DOF. Turning on AMSB stabilizes the runaway behavior metry down to SO(NF ). This is the global minimum of of the superpotential via the tree-level scalar potential the theory. As for the second branch, the identically zero 1 superpotential means we need to consider a more gen-  2NF  Nc−NF −2 3 3Nc − NF − 6 16Λ eral version of Eq. (44) that accounts for a non-canonical VAMSB = −mΛ +c.c. , 2 ϕ2NF K¨ahlerpotential. We find for a general W and K (18) which together with the scalar potential derived from the ij∗ ∗ ∗ ∗  ij∗ ∗  Vtree =∂iW g ∂ W + m m ∂iKg ∂ K − K superpotential (17) gives a minimum j j  ij∗ ∗  + m ∂iW g ∂ K − 3W + c.c., (20) Nc−NF −2 j   2(N −2) 2 Λ c ϕ = 2 Nc−2 f Λ NF ij ¯ m where g is the inverse of the K¨ahlermetric gij = ∂i∂jK. Nc−NF −2 With a vanishing superpotential, interactions originate   Nc−2 4 Nc − 2 Λ 2 2 V = −2 Nc−2 f m Λ . only from the K¨ahlerpotential. Higher order terms in the min f 2 NF m NF K¨ahlerpotential will give rise to irrelevant interactions, (19) and as the theory is IR free, we expect the effects of 7

AMSB to be highly suppressed by the dynamical scale. where M˜ is the canonically normalized meson. To estimate these effects, consider the leading corrections As usual, adding AMSB to the theory generates for to the canonical K¨ahlerpotential for M, the first branch the minimum (19) and breaks the global a 2 symmetry down to SO(N ). This is again the global K = TrM †M + TrM †M F Λ2 minimum of the theory. On the second branch, the tree- b level AMSB contribution vanishes at O(t0), while the + TrM †MM †M, (21) Λ2 loop-level contribution (45) generates a minimum in the neighborhood of M˜ ij = 0, with where a, b are order one numbers. Note that cubic terms are forbidden because M is in the symmetric of SU(NF ).  m 4 In this case, only the second term in Eq. (20) will con- V ≈ − , (25) tribute, and at leading order gives, 16π2 m2 4 Again the O(t) corrections give a sub-leading contribu- V ∼ ± 2 |M| (22) Λ tion. Around the origin loop-level AMSB is again the The potential in this theory arises exclusively from dominant perturbation, which will clearly not be the AMSB. Clearly the power series expansion makes sense global minimum of the theory, since its (negative) height only up to M ∼ Λ, and the maximum contribution of is loop suppressed. the higher dimension terms to the potential is O(m2Λ2). Note that the minimum we obtained in Eq. (19) (and is also relevant for the branch with nonzero superpotential) 2/(Nc−2) is parametrically enhanced by (Λ/m) . There- 3 Nc − 1 ≤ NF ≤ (Nc − 2) fore the branch with W = 0 does not yield the global 2 minimum, which instead arises from the branch with the ADS-type superpotential. In this case the correct IR description of the theory is in terms of its IR free Seiberg dual SO(NF −Nc +4) with 1 ij NF fundamentals qi and 2 NF (NF +1) singlets M in the N = N − 3 ij F c qi( ) Nc−2 and M ( ) 2(NF −Nc+2) representations of the N F NF global SU(NF ) × U(1)R, respectively. First we will focus Here the gauge symmetry on the moduli space is hig- on the case when NF ≥ Nc + 1, leaving the NF = Nc − 1 gsed down to SO(3). As in [31], it is useful to first turn on and NF = Nc special cases to the end of the section. For the VEVs of NF − 1 of the fundamentals, in which case NF ≥ Nc + 1, the dual theory has a superpotential the theory is higgsed to SU(2)L × SU(2)R. Then, the VEV of the last fundamental higgses SU(2)L × SU(2)R 1 ij to the diagonal SO(3). The superpotential for this the- Wdual = M qiqj . (26) ory is dynamically generated by a combination of gaugino 2µ condensation in the unhiggsed SO(3) and instantons in the broken SU(2)L × SU(2)R/SO(3). The theory again The scales of the original and dual theories are related has two branches: on the first, the gaugino contribution by is aligned with the instanton contributions, and the su- perpotential is of the form (17). On the second branch, 28Λ3(Nc−2)−NF Λ˜ 2NF −3(Nc−2) = (−1)Nf −Nc µNF . (27) the contributions cancel out, and the ADS-type super- potential vanishes. However, it was shown via a mass deformation to the NF = Nc − 4 case that the second For later convenience, we switch to canonically normal- branch has a dynamically generated superpotential: ized fields M˜ , 1 W = f(t) M ijq q , (23) 1 dyn 2µ i j W = M˜ ijq q , (28) dual 2 i j α NF −1 NF +1 where qi = WαW Q i /Λ is the exotic baryon of the theory. Here µ is an effective mass scale, t = with M˜ = M/µ. When we turn on AMSB, the situa- 1 detMM ijq q , and f(t) is a holomorphic func- Λ2NF +4 i j tion is similar to the one encountered in [25] and to the tion in the neighborhood of t = 0, normalized so that NF = Nc −2 case in the present work. Near M = 0 there f(0) = 1. We can canonically normalize the superpoten- is a local minimum generated by the loop level AMSB tial yielding contribution. The tree-level contribution vanishes as usual because the superpotential (28) is marginal. Again 1 ij Wdyn = f(t) M˜ qiqj , (24) m 4 2 we expect only a local minimum with V = −O( 16π2 ) 8 along the direction, The extra contribution can be seen by deforming the dual for N = N by a mass term for the last fla-     F c 1 ··· 0 1 ··· 0 0 ··· 0 vor, which leads to instantons in the broken SU(2)L ×  . . .   ......  SU(2) /SO(3) in the magnetic theory [43]. Here the  . .. .   ......  R     scale matching is given by  0 ··· 1   0 ··· 1 0 ··· 0  q ∝   ,M ∝   ,  0 ··· 0   0 ··· 0 0 ··· 0   2 2     14 2Nc−5 4−Nc Nc−1     2 Λ Λ˜ = µ . (35)  . .. .   ......   . . .   ......  0 ··· 0 0 ··· 0 0 ··· 0 Interestingly, this relation looks like the square of the (29) usual relation (27) - for more details, see the original [31]. When M has full rank on the moduli space, the qi where q is a NF × (NF − Nc + 4) matrix. become massive and the gaugino condensation in the IR At nonzero M with rank(M) = NF on the moduli SO(3) SYM generates a superpotential space for NF ≥ Nc + 1, the dual quarks qi are integrated out, and we are left with pure SO(NF − Nc + 4) SYM, detM Wλλ,dual,N −1 = 2 . (36) with a scale c 64Λ2Nc−5

˜ 3NF −3(Nc−2) ˜ ˜ 2NF −3(Nc−2) ΛL = det(M) Λ (30) Note that this superpotential has the same magnitude as the instanton contribution in (34), and so the theory Gaugino condensation in the dual theory now generates again has two branches: one in which the two contribu- a dynamical superpotential tions add, leading to an AMSB minimum of the form

N −(N −2)−4 (33), and another with vanishing superpotential. On the − F c 3 NF −(Nc−2) ˜ Wλλ = 2 NF −(Nc−2) ΛL (31) second branch there is no superpotential, and we can re- peat the arguments concerning the second branch in the With AMSB this superpotential leads to the tree-level case of N = N − 4. Again, any minimum produced SUSY breaking scalar potential F c by AMSB and a non-canonical K¨ahleris parametrically 3 (N − 2) − N suppressed in comparison with the first branch. V = −2mΛ˜ 3 2 c F × (32) AMSB For NF = Nc, the magnetic gauge group is SU(2)L × NF − (Nc − 2) 1 SU(2)R. There is no instanton contribution to the tree- 1 ! NF −(Nc−2) 16 NF det(M˜ ) level superpotential, but when M is given full rank, there + c.c. Λ˜ NF are again two branches: one with aligned gaugino con- densates in the IR pure SU(2)L ×SU(2)R SYM, and one For NF > Nc, this potential, together with the usual with opposite sign condensates and vanishing superpo- scalar potential from the superpotential, is minimized at tential. As usual, with AMSB the first branch leads to a global minimum of the form (33), while any minimum in NF −(Nc−2) NF −(Nc−2)−2 ij  m 2(Nc−2)−NF ij the second branch is again subdominant. ˜ 2(Nc−2)−NF M ∼ 4 f Λ δ 3 Λ Finally, we note that for Nc < 6 we have 2 (Nc − 2) < N , and so the theories with N = N = 4, 5 have to be NF −4 2(N − 2) − N c F c 2((N −2)−N c F Vmin ∼ −4 c F × considered separately. Indeed, for N = N = 4, 5 the [N − (N − 2)]2 F c F c magnetic theory is no longer IR free, but rather has an 2(Nc−2)  m 2(N −2)−N f c F Λ4 , (33) IR fixed point. Λ 1  3  where f = [NF − (Nc − 2)] (Nc − 2) − NF . Nc−2 2 3 Monopole Condensation for NF < Nc − 2 Noting that Nc − 2 < NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2) from (33), this via Mass Deformations minimum satisfies Λ˜ L  M˜  Λ,˜ below the Landau pole of the UV magnetic theory and above the scale of gaug- When discussing the theory with NF = Nc−2, the non- ino condensation in the IR pure SYM. This justifies our supersymmetric vacuum of the theory explicitly involved weakly coupled analysis. Again the global symmetry at monopole condensation. In the next section, this will the minimum is broken down to SO(NF ). enable us to determine the behavior of the loop operators We now comment on the NF = Nc − 1 and NF = in the theory, and in particular establish confinement of Nc cases. For NF = Nc − 1, the dual gauge group is non-trivial Wilson loops for Spin(Nc). In this section we SO(3). The superpotential of the dual now includes a wish to make contact between the NF = Nc − 2 case and contribution from instantons: the cases with fewer flavors, by treating the latter as the

1 ij detM NF = Nc −2 deformed by a supersymmetric mass µ, with Wdual,Nc−1 = M qiqj − . (34) 2µ 64Λ˜ 2Nc−5 µ  Λ. 9

0.18 We begin by considering the N = N − 2 theory in Nc=13,N F =Nc-2, mass for last flavor F c μ=50Λ the supersymmetric limit, with just one mass term for 0.16 ● the last flavor, 0.4 ●

0.14 0.35 ● μ=0 ! =m 0.3 ● ˜ μ det M 1 0.12 ˜+ ˜− ˜ ● 0.25 W = Λ − 16 E E + µΛMN N (37) ●

F F E / Λ ● NF ● Λ 2 ● 0.2 ● 0.10 ● ● ● 0.15 ● ˜ ● ● The equation of motion for MN N gives 0.08 ● F F 0.1 ● ●

NF 0.06 ● 1 µΛ ● E˜+E˜− = − , (38) 2 ˜ 0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 det M Mi/Λ

˜ 0 where M is the matrix of the remaining . As FIG. 1: The supersymmetry breaking minimum for the theory already demonstrated, tree level AMSB corrections to with AMSB and NF = Nc − 2, with the extra mass term 1 NF NF ˜± the ADS superpotential stabilize the runaway, and the 2 µM . E is the VEV of the monopoles E , while Mi finite VEV of M 0 ensures that a non-vanishing monopole is the VEV of the first Nc − 3 flavors. The labeling on the condensate persists. In Fig. 1 we show this explicitly different curves indicates different values of m/Λ. For µ = 0, by studying the minimum of the mass-deformed theory the curves are at the Nc − 2 minimum (15) . As µ grows, the VEV of Mi initially decreases, but then starts increasing as (37) in the presence of AMSB with m < µ. Since we are µ passes m. For large µ/Λ → ∞, the vacuum of the theory ultimately interested in the infinite µ limit, this does not goes over to Eq. (19) with NF = Nc − 3, while the monopole interfere with our extrapolation to the non-SUSY limit condensate persists. The relation (38) is shown in the dashed with large m. As can be seen in the plot, the VEV of line for µ = 50Λ. We chose Nc = 13 for this plot. the first Nc −3 flavors interpolates between the minimum (15) for µ = 0, and the ADS+AMSB minimum (19) with N = N − 3 and Λ → Λ in the large µ limit. f c NF =Nc−3 where M˜ is the common VEV of all of the flavors. This We can see that the monopole condensate persists in the generates an ADS superpotential for the M˜ , which is large µ limit. balanced by the µ term and leads to an overall minimum To correctly reproduce the ADS+AMSB minimum, at we had to interpolate the K¨ahlerpotential between the ˜ ˜ ˜ 1 neighborhood of detM ∼ U1, where it is canonical in M, M˜ = 16 NF Λ , to large detM˜ , where the K¨ahlerpotential is canonical 4 −5 p ˜+ ˜− N in ϕ ∼ M˜ Λ. More specifically, we used the following E E = −2 F µΛ . (41) interpolating K¨ahlerpotential in the numerical study: Notably, the VEV of M˜ in this case is equal to the pure s NF = Nc − 2 case. This vacuum is the one depicted by ˜ ˜ † 2 MM the dashed line in Fig. 2. Kinterp. = Λ 1 + . (39) Λ2 Though we don’t show this explicitly, the same con- clusion persists for any number of flavors that are in- + − For µ < m, the UV theory has a runaway at E E = 0 tegrated out from the NF = Nc − 2 theory, and so we and Mi → ∞. This is a consequence of the mass term explicitly see monopole condensation for the entire range in (37) in the presence of AMSB. In this regime we fol- 0 ≤ NF ≤ Nc − 2. low the local minimum which goes over to the global minimum for µ > m. Importantly, the condensation of monopoles in the large µ limit is independent of this sub- Loop Operators and Confinement tlety.

Similarly, we can give a mass term to any number of fla- The observed monopole condensation for NF ≤ Nc − 2 vors in the NF = Nc − 2 theory and show that monopole implies the confinement of electric and dyonic loop op- condensation persists. In Fig. 2 we present the case where erators and a perimeter law for magnetic ’t Hooft loops. all of the flavors get the same mass term, resulting in a This is in agreement with arguments made in [33]. For pure SYM theory with monopole condensation. In the NF < Nc − 4, the VEV of the meson field Higgses the small µ limit, the minimum is given by the NF = Nc − 2 gauge group to pure YM with more than four colors, in vacuum (15). The µ  m case can be fully understood which Wilson and dyonic loops confine while ’t Hooft in the supersymmetric limit – the monopoles get a VEV loops do not. With Nc − 4 flavors, the situation is a bit more subtle µΛ Λ NF −1 because the unbroken SO(4) ' SU(2) × SU(2) gauge E˜+E˜− = − , (40) L R 2 M˜ theory forms a gaugino condensate for each SU(2) factor. 10

Nc=13,N F =Nc-2, mass for all flavors theories, the correspondence of gauge groups is [33, 44],

1.5 μ=50Λ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Spin(Nc) ←→ SO(NF − Nc + 4)−

SO(Nc)+ ←→ SO(NF − Nc + 4)+ (42) 1.0 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 SO(Nc)− ←→ Spin(NF − Nc + 4) E / Λ

Put concisely, the duality exchanges the electric and dy- 0.5 onic loops. The duality (42) therefore implies the same

μ=0 loop operator behavior as in the NF ≤ Nc − 2 case.

● ● As first noted in [31] and elaborated in [33], the cases 0.0 1.2865 1.2870 1.2875 1.2880 1.2885 1.2890 1.2895 1.2900 N = N − 1,N are special in the sense that there are Mi/Λ F c c extra dual descriptions for the same theory. Let us first FIG. 2: Location of the minimum in the theory with AMSB focus on the NF = Nc − 1 case, and take the original 1 ii and NF = Nc − 2, deformed by a universal mass term 2 µM theory to be Spin(Nc). In that case the dual is SO(3)− for all flavors. E is the VEV of the condensed monopoles, with Nf = Nc − 1 flavors and a superpotential (34). But while M is the common VEV for all of the flavors. The i we know that this theory is equivalent to SO(3)+ with θ different curves are labeled by the value of m/Λ. The curves shifted by 2π, which results in an exchange of the ADS start at the Nc − 2 minimum (15) for µ = 0. As µ/Λ → ∞, the theory goes over to pure SYM, while the VEV of the and the exotic baryon branch. Dualizing back, we find monopoles E is given by (41), represented by the dashed line. another IR description of the theory in terms of SO(Nc)+ detM We have again chosen set Nc = 11 for this plot. and a superpotential W2nd dual = − 32Λ2Nc−5 . By the ar- guments above, at the AMSB minimum the dyonic loop of the SO(3)− description and the Wilson loop of the Spin(Nc) description confine, while the ’t Hooft loop of the SO(Nc)+ description has a perimeter law. A sim- ilar logic applies if we choose the original theory to be The branch where the gaugino condensates are aligned is SO(Nc)−, in which case the first dual is Spin(3) and the connected by a mass deformation to the Nc − 2 case, and second dual is again SO(Nc)−. Here both the Wilson so by the argument of the previous section it involves loop of Spin(3) and the dyonic loop of SO(Nc)− confine. monopole condensation. Consequently, magnetic loops For NF = Nc there are again two dual descriptions of acquire a perimeter law while dyonic loops acquire an the original theory, albeit with a different superpotential area law. The other branch with anti-aligned condensates for the second dual. Since the loop behavior is identical is related to the first one by a shift θ1 → θ1 + 2π [33], to the NF = Nc − 1 case, we do not repeat the analysis and so by the Witten effect, on this branch it is the dyons here. that condense. On this branch, dyonic loops acquires a 3 In summary, theories with NF ≤ 2 (Nc −2) and AMSB perimeter law while magnetic loops acquires an area law. all experience monopole condensation and the same be- In both cases the electric Wilson loop is confined. havior for their loop operators. In particular, the non- trivial Wilson loop has an area law, signaling electric In the case of Nc −3 flavors, the unbroken gauge group confinement. is again special because SO(3)+ is in fact related to SO(3)− by a shift of the vacuum angle θ → θ + 2π [33]. Such a shift permutes the magnetic and dyonic loops, NON-CONFINING PHASES however the shift also exchanges the two orientations of the gaugino condensate, thus exchanging the ADS and 3 For the supersymmetric theories with 2 (Nc − 2) < exotic baryon branches. Again the global minimum ex- NF ≤ 3(Nc − 2), there is an IR fixed point, while for hibits the same loop operator behavior as of all other 3(Nc − 2) < NF the theories are IR free. Below we ex- values of NF ≤ Nc − 2. We are free to interpret this plore the behavior of the theory in these ranges when we case as either monopoles condensing in SO(3)− or dyons add AMSB. condensing in SO(3)+.

3 3 (Nc − 2) < NF ≤ 3(Nc − 2) For Nc − 1 ≤ NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2), the global minimum 2 of the dual theory finds the meson with non-vanishing VEV. Integrating out the dual quarks leaves behind pure In this regime the theory has an IR fixed point. The YM, for which we already demonstrated monopole con- IR dynamics is described by either the electric or the densation in the previous section. Thus, the electric and magnetic theory. At the fixed point, the electric and dyonic loops of the dual theory confine. Matching the magnetic degrees of freedom pick up an anomalous di- behavior of the single non-trivial loop in each of the dual mension γi = 3Ri − 2, where Ri is the R-charge. Since 11 there is no additional anomaly-free global U(1) symme- we indeed find a non-vanishing monopole condensate in try, the R-symmetry in this case is uniquely defined. The accordance with the original conjecture by Mandelstam anomalous dimensions are then: and ’t Hooft. By considering mass deformations to the NF = Nc − 2 case, we have numerically verified that the NF − 3Nc + 6 γQ = , monopole condensate persists for all NF ≤ Nc − 2. For NF 3 the Nc − 2 < NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2), the AMSB vacuum is ob- 3Nc − 2NF − 12 γq = , tained when the quarks of the dual theory are integrated NF out and the dual theory becomes pure YM, for which we 4NF − 6Nc + 12 already established monopole condensation as the special γM = . (43) NF case NF = 0. It’s easy to see that these anomalous dimensions are con- sistent with the vanishing of the NSVZ beta function. ANOMALY MEDIATION With AMSB, the theory becomes supersymmetric again at the IR fixed point, as in [20, 25]. This is reminis- cent of the IR restoration of supersymmetry presented Anomaly mediation of supersymmetry breaking in [45, 46]. At intermediate scales, the gaugino mass is (AMSB) is parameterized by a single number m that ex- power-suppressed, and approaches zero quickly in the IR plicitly breaks supersymmetry in two different ways. One [20, 25]. is the tree-level contribution based on the superpotential  ∂W  V = m ϕ − 3W + c.c. (44) tree i ∂ϕ 3(Nc − 2) < NF i The other is the loop-level supersymmetry breaking ef- Here the theory is in the free-electric phase, and so fects in tri-linear couplings, scalar masses, and gaugino there is no superpotential. With AMSB, the squarks get masses [21, 47], a negative soft mass from (45) and become tachyonic. The theory then has no ground sate. The theory is then 1 Aijk(µ) = − (γi + γj + γk)(µ) m, (45) not continuously connected to non-SUSY SO(Nc) with 2 3(N − 2) < N fundamentals. 1 c F m2(µ) = − γ˙ (µ) m2, (46) i 4 i β(g2) CONCLUSIONS mλ(µ) = − (µ) m. (47) 2g2

We have examined the low-energy phase structure of d d 2 d 2 Here, γi = µ dµ ln Zi(µ),γ ˙ = µ dµ γi, and β(g ) = µ dµ g . SO(Nc) gauge theories with NF Weyl fermions in the 2 When the gauge theory is asymptotically free, mi > 0 vector representation, obtained by perturbing the SUSY which stabilizes the theory against run-away behaviors. version of this theory via AMSB. We found that the Note that Eqs. (44,45) also break the U(1)R symmetry intricate phase structure of the SUSY theory does not explicitly and hence we do not need to study its anomaly survive the non-SUSY perturbation. Instead the phase matching conditions. structure is very simple: for small number of flavors 3 NF ≤ 2 (Nc − 2) the theory is confining with chiral sym- 3 metry breaking, while for 2 (Nc − 2) < NF < 3(Nc − 2) it flows to a (super)-conformal fixed point. This suggests that the free magnetic and abelian Coulomb phases are ∗ Electronic address: [email protected] † Electronic address: [email protected] rather special to supersymmetry, and are lifted as soon ‡ as SUSY is broken. We have also paid special attention Electronic address: [email protected], [email protected], Hamamatsu Professor to the loop operators of the theory that can be used as § Electronic address: [email protected] proper order parameters. In the most interesting case [1] I. Affleck, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, “Dynamical of Spin(Nc) (in which case the electric Wilson loop in Supersymmetry Breaking in Supersymmetric QCD,” the spinor can not be screened by the dynamical matter Nucl. Phys. B241 (1984) 493–534. fields) we indeed find an area law behavior correspond- [2] N. Seiberg, “Exact results on the space of vacua of 3 four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. ing to true confinement for all NF ≤ 2 (Nc −2), while the SU(N ) global symmetry is broken to SO(N ). The dy- D49 (1994) 6857–6863, arXiv:hep-th/9402044. F F [3] N. Seiberg, “Electric - magnetic duality in namics leading to confinement is monopole condensation. supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. This is most clearly seen for the NF = Nc − 2 special B435 (1995) 129–146, arXiv:hep-th/9411149. case, where massless monopoles (and dyons) indeed ap- [4] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, pear at special points in the moduli space. With AMSB, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 12

supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 426 R. Rattazzi, “Gaugino mass without singlets,” JHEP 12 (1994) 19–52, arXiv:hep-th/9407087. [Erratum: (1998) 027, arXiv:hep-ph/9810442. Nucl.Phys.B 430, 485–486 (1994)]. [23] N. Arkani-Hamed, G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, and [5] N. J. Evans, S. D. H. Hsu, and M. Schwetz, “Exact R. Rattazzi, “Supersymmetry breaking loops from results in softly broken supersymmetric models,” Phys. analytic continuation into superspace,” Phys. Rev. D58 Lett. B 355 (1995) 475–480, arXiv:hep-th/9503186. (1998) 115005, arXiv:hep-ph/9803290. [6] O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein, M. E. Peskin, and [24] N. Arkani-Hamed and R. Rattazzi, “Exact results for S. Yankielowicz, “Exotic nonsupersymmetric gauge nonholomorphic masses in softly broken supersymmetric dynamics from supersymmetric QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 52 gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B 454 (1999) 290–296, (1995) 6157–6174, arXiv:hep-th/9507013. arXiv:hep-th/9804068. [7] N. J. Evans, S. D. H. Hsu, M. Schwetz, and S. B. [25] C. Cs´aki,H. Murayama, and O. Telem, “More Exact Selipsky, “Exact results and soft breaking masses in Results on Chiral Gauge Theories: the Case of the supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 456 Symmetric Tensor,” arXiv:2105.03444. (1995) 205–218, arXiv:hep-th/9508002. [26] C. Cs´aki,H. Murayama, and O. Telem, “Some Exact [8] E. D’Hoker, Y. Mimura, and N. Sakai, “Gauge Results in Chiral Gauge Theories,” arXiv:2104.10171. symmetry breaking through soft masses in [27] S. Raby, S. Dimopoulos, and L. Susskind, “Tumbling supersymmetric gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D 54 Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 169 (1980) 373–383. (1996) 7724–7740, arXiv:hep-th/9603206. [28] S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and L. Susskind, “Light [9] L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. Distler, C. Kounnas, and Composite Fermions,” Nucl. Phys. B 173 (1980) M. Marino, “Softly broken N=2 QCD,” Int. J. Mod. 208–228. Phys. A 11 (1996) 4745–4777, arXiv:hep-th/9604004. [29] S. Mandelstam, “Vortices and quark confinement in [10] L. Alvarez-Gaume and M. Marino, “More on softly non-abelian gauge theories,” Physics Letters B 53 broken N=2 QCD,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) (1975) no. 5, 476–478. https://www.sciencedirect. 975–1002, arXiv:hep-th/9606191. com/science/article/pii/037026937590221X. [11] N. J. Evans, S. D. H. Hsu, and M. Schwetz, “Phase [30] G. ’t Hooft, “Topology of the Gauge Condition and New transitions in softly broken N=2 SQCD at nonzero theta Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,” angle,” Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 124–140, Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981) 455–478. arXiv:hep-th/9608135. [31] K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “Duality, monopoles, [12] K. Konishi, “Confinement, supersymmetry breaking and dyons, confinement and oblique confinement in theta parameter dependence in the Seiberg-Witten supersymmetric SO(N(c)) gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. model,” Phys. Lett. B 392 (1997) 101–105, B 444 (1995) 125–160, arXiv:hep-th/9503179. arXiv:hep-th/9609021. [32] C. Cs´aki,A. Gomes, H. Murayama, and O. Telem, [13] L. Alvarez-Gaume, M. Marino, and F. Zamora, “Softly “Demonstration of Confinement and Chiral Symmetry broken N=2 QCD with massive quark hypermultiplets. Breaking in SO(Nc) Gauge Theories,” 1.,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13 (1998) 403–430, arXiv:2106.10288. arXiv:hep-th/9703072. [33] O. Aharony, N. Seiberg, and Y. Tachikawa, “Reading [14] N. J. Evans, S. D. H. Hsu, and M. Schwetz, “Controlled between the lines of four-dimensional gauge theories,” soft breaking of N=1 SQCD,” Phys. Lett. B 404 (1997) Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013) no. 8, . 77–82, arXiv:hep-th/9703197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2013)115. [15] L. Alvarez-Gaume, M. Marino, and F. Zamora, “Softly [34] K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “Lectures on broken N=2 QCD with massive quark hypermultiplets. supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic 2.,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13 (1998) 1847–1880, duality,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 45BC (1996) arXiv:hep-th/9707017. 1–28, arXiv:hep-th/9509066. [16] H.-C. Cheng and Y. Shadmi, “Duality in the presence of [35] E. Witten, “Supersymmetric index in four-dimensional supersymmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B531 (1998) gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 5 (2002) 125–150, arXiv:hep-th/9801146. 841–907, arXiv:hep-th/0006010. [17] S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, “Chiral symmetry [36] J. L. Cardy and E. Rabinovici, “Phase Structure of Z(p) breaking and effective Lagrangians for softly broken Models in the Presence of a Theta Parameter,” Nucl. supersymmetric QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 115013, Phys. B 205 (1982) 1–16. arXiv:hep-th/9801157. [37] J. L. Cardy, “Duality and the θ parameter in Abelian [18] M. A. Luty and R. Rattazzi, “Soft supersymmetry lattice models,” B 205 (1982) no. 1, breaking in deformed moduli spaces, conformal theories, 17–26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ and N=2 Yang-Mills theory,” JHEP 11 (1999) 001, article/pii/0550321382904643. Volume B205 [FS5] arXiv:hep-th/9908085. No. 2 to follow in approximately one month. [19] C. C´ordova and T. T. Dumitrescu, “Candidate Phases [38] I. Affleck, M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, “Dynamical for SU(2) Adjoint QCD4 with Two Flavors from N = 2 Supersymmetry Breaking in Chiral Theories,” Phys. Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,” Lett. B 137 (1984) 187. arXiv:1806.09592. [39] E. D’Hoker and E. Farhi, “Decoupling a Fermion Whose [20] H. Murayama, “Some Exact Results in QCD-like Mass Is Generated by a Yukawa Coupling: The General Theories,” arXiv:2104.01179. Case,” Nucl. Phys. B 248 (1984) 59–76. [21] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “Out of this world [40] J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Consequences of anomalous supersymmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B 557 (1999) Ward identities,” Phys. Lett. B 37 (1971) 95–97. 79–118, arXiv:hep-th/9810155. [41] E. Witten, “Global Aspects of Current Algebra,” Nucl. [22] G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, and Phys. B 223 (1983) 422–432. 13

[42] C. Cs´akiand H. Murayama, “Discrete anomaly matching,” Nucl. Phys. B 515 (1998) 114–162, arXiv:hep-th/9710105. [43] C. Cs´akiand H. Murayama, “Instantons in partially broken gauge groups,” Nucl. Phys. B 532 (1998) 498–526, arXiv:hep-th/9804061. [44] D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02 (2015) 172, arXiv:1412.5148. [45] M. Lanzagorta and G. G. Ross, “Infrared fixed point structure of soft supersymmetry breaking mass terms,” Phys. Lett. B 364 (1995) 163–174, arXiv:hep-ph/9507366. [46] R. Sundrum, “SUSY Splits, But Then Returns,” JHEP 01 (2011) 062, arXiv:0909.5430. [47] A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, “Sparticle masses from the superconformal anomaly,” JHEP 05 (1999) 013, arXiv:hep-ph/9903448. [48] For NF = 3 the discrete part of the global symmetry is

enhanced from Z2NF to Z4NF [49] By a loop operator we mean a closed line around which we take a test charge, monopole or dyon in some representation allowed by the gauge group. [50] Alternatively, for SO(Nc)+ the non-trivial ’t Hooft line exhibit a perimeter law, while for SO(Nc)−, the non-trivial dyonic line exhibits an area law.