\section{Introduction}
Interactions between colloidal particles in dispersions depend, beside the colloid coordinates, on the degrees of freedom of the solvent and of the co-solutes.  When a clear separation in time and space scales between solvent molecules and
colloidal particles exists, it is possible to integrate out the solvent (and co-solute)
degrees of freedom and derive an effective  potential that describes
the interaction between  colloids~\cite{Likos}. A well known case is the depletion interaction derived long time ago by Asakura and Oosawa~\cite{AO} which have shed light on the role of entropic forces on the phase diagrams of colloidal suspensions.  Depletion interactions arise whenever small additives,  such as polymers or surfactants,  are added to colloidal dispersions; when two colloids are closer than the typical size of the co-solute,
the latter is excluded by a  ''depletion'' region in between the two colloids. As a result, a pressure gradient originates, giving rise to a short-range entropy-driven attractive effective potential -- the depletion potential.
Today we know that depletion forces can be strong enough to induce colloidal phase separation~\cite{LekNat416,LekEPL20,Dijkstra}, or
to enhance the stability of the crystalline phase, as in the case of proteins~\cite{FrenkelSCI26,PiazzaCOCIS}.

An interesting effective potential is the one arising when  two colloids are dispersed in a critical fluid.
Close to the critical point, thermal fluctuations of the order parameter
are correlated over length-scales that are much larger than the solvent size and their properties become
 independent of the microscopic behavior of the  system, i.e. they are \emph{universal}.
 The confinement of the order-parameter fluctuations in between the  two colloids  give rise to long-range effective forces, named  critical Casimir forces~\cite{Kerch}.

In the last decade direct experimental evidence of such forces has been provided~\cite{hertleinnat451}.
Theoretical investigation of critical Casimir forces, which started with the pioneering work of
Fisher and de Gennes~\cite{Fisher} back in 1978,  has provided accurate predictions for the
radial dependence of the effective potential and the associated scaling properties.
Such studies, capitalizing on the universality aspect of the problem, have been mostly focusing on
Ising model calculations~\cite{VasilyevEPL,MaciolekPRE79,MohryPRE2010,VasilyevPRE88} and, more recently,  on a field-theory approach for a classical binary mixtures~\cite{gambassipre80,MohryArXiv1,MohryArXiv2,Buzzaccaro,PiazzaJPCM23}. The main result of these studies is the explicit derivation of the critical Casimir potential for a  solvent confined between the surfaces of two large colloids:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi_z}
\beta \Phi(z)=\frac{\sigma_c}{z}\Theta(z/\xi).
\end{equation}

where $\sigma_c$ is the colloid diameter and $z$ is the distance between the surfaces of the two colloids.  The scaling function $\Theta(z/\xi)$ depends on the distance from the critical point (via the correlation length $\xi$), on the bulk universality class of the solvent and on the boundary conditions (BC) imposed by the colloidal surface properties.
It has been demonstrated~\cite{gambassipre80} that  for $z>>\xi >> \sigma_s$ (the latter being a measure of the solvent size), the behavior of the scaling function in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Phi_z}) is

\begin{equation}\label{eq:Theta_minus}
\Theta(z/\xi)_{(\pm,\pm)} (z/\xi\gg 1) =  \pi A_{(\pm,\pm)} (z/\xi) e^{-(z/\xi)}
\end{equation}

\noindent where the $(\pm,\pm)$ signs are related to  different BCs, i.e., to the different  absorption preferences of the confining surfaces with respect to the solvent: $(+,+)$ or $(-,-)$ corresponds to symmetric BC and  $(+,-)$ (or equivalently $(-,+)$) to asymmetric BC. Experimental results have shown that it is possible to generate repulsive and attractive critical Casimir forces between a colloid and a substrate by modifying the BC of the substrate~\cite{hertleinnat451}. Moreover it has been shown that is possible to continuously  tune the force from attractive to repulsive  by producing a gradient
in the physico-chemical properties of the substrate~\cite{NellenEPL88}. This can be exploited for inducing orientationl-dependent effective forces in colloids close to chemically patterned surfaces~\cite{GambassiSM7,soykaprl101}. Critical Casimir forces have also been observed when the
critical behavior of the host medium refers not to the solvent itself but  to the presence
of small interacting co-solutes added in solution.  If the inter-cosolutes interaction becomes
strong enough, a phase separation (the analog of the gas-liquid) takes place in which the co-solutes partition themselves  in two phases of different concentration.  Close to the corresponding critical point, the critical fluctuations in co-solute concentration generate critical Casimir forces. Such mechanism has been exploited in the experimental study of
Buzzaccaro and coworkers~\cite{Buzzaccaro}, in which PMMA colloidal particles are dispersed in an interacting micellar solution.
In the same work, the authors presented an interesting connection between depletion forces generated by the presence of the micelles far from the critical point and Casimir forces generated by the critical fluctuations close to the micellar critical point.

Most of the theoretical and numerical investigations  of Critical Casimir forces have been based on studies
of lattice models, exploiting the universality properties of the phenomenon. In a recent study~\cite{GnanSM8},
we have reported  a numerical evaluation of the effective interaction potential between two
spherical hard-sphere colloidal particles immersed in a critical depletant, modeled as short-ranged square-well attractive potential, with the aim of exploring how the interaction potential changes from the
depletion shape occurring far from the critical point, to the universal shape induced by critical fluctuations close to the depletant critical point.  We have confirmed the critical nature of the effective potential close to the critical point
by showing that  the quantity $\xi$ entering in the effective potentials  (see Eq.~\ref{eq:Theta_minus}) is consistent with the bulk correlation length of the critical co-solute extracted from the static structure factors.  Interestingly enough, we have found that the strength of the effective potential
between the two hard-sphere colloids (when the colloid-depletant interaction is only controlled by excluded volume, and hence in the $(-,-)$ BC class) is sufficient to drive bulk phase separation of the colloidal solution well before the
critical region is approached.

In this article we explore  the changes in the effective potential when the colloid-cosolute interaction is continuously modified from hard-core repulsion to strong attraction, continuously moving from the $(-,-)$ to the $(+,+)$ BC.
We also explore the interesting case in which $(+,-)$ BC are present, i.e. the case of two colloids interacting
in different ways with the cosolutes, again interpolating between the $(-,-)$ and the $(+,-)$ limits on changing  (this time only for one of the two colloids) the
colloid-cosolute interaction strength.   We calculate numerically the effective potential both at a high $T$, where critical phenomena are absent as well as close to the co-solute critical point.

\section{models and methods}
The total colloid-colloid interaction potential $\phi_{CC}$  results from the sum of the bare colloid-colloid interaction $V_{CC}$ and of the effective potential $V_{eff}$ arising from the integration of the solvent and cosolute degrees of freedom,
\begin{equation}
\phi_{CC}(r_{12})=V_{CC}(r_{12})+V_{eff}(r_{12})
\end{equation}

We model  $V_{CC}$    as a excluded volume interaction  between two colloids of size $\sigma_c$
\begin{equation}
V_{CC}(r_{12})=\begin{cases} \infty, & r_{12}<\sigma_c \\
 0 & r_{12}\geq \sigma_c
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

Inspired by the work of Buzzaccaro and coworkers~\cite{Buzzaccaro}, we model the critical medium as a
fluid of interacting co-solutes dispersed in an implicit solvent.  The co-solutes,
of size $\sigma_s$  interact via a pairwise square-well potential (SW)
\begin{equation}
V_{SS}(r_{ij})=\begin{cases} \infty, & r_{ij}<\sigma_s \\
-\varepsilon_s, & \sigma_{s}\leq r_{ij}< (1+\delta) \sigma_s \\
 0 & r_{ij}\geq (1+\delta)\sigma_s\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

\noindent  where $\varepsilon_s$ controls the strength of the interaction and $\delta $ the relative
(respect to $\sigma_s$) width of the well. $\sigma_s$ and $\varepsilon_s$ are chosen as unit of length and energy. The temperature T is measured in units of $\varepsilon_s$. The co-solute is characterized by a gas-liquid critical point located at $(T_c=0.478,\phi_c=0.25)$~\cite{largojcp128}, where $\phi_c=(\pi/6)\rho_c \sigma_s^3$ is the critical packing fraction of the co-solute and $\rho_c$ is its number density.  For this model, it has been shown~\cite{GnanSM8} that
the correlation length and the susceptibility extracted from the static structure factors close to the critical point
diverge with a power-law with the respective Ising critical exponents.   The size ratio $q\equiv \sigma_s/ \sigma_c$ between the co-solute and the colloids is fixed at $q=0.1$.

To evaluate the effective potential, we perform Monte Carlo simulations of two colloids in a fluid of
co-solute particles, in the canonical ensemble at fixed $T$ and $\rho_s$ in a parallelepiped shape.
The two colloids are constrained to move only along the $x-$axis, sampling only a
limited range of distances. Several overlapping relative distances windows are simulated, evaluating for each window $P(r)$, the probability of observing the two colloids at relative distance $r$.  Splicing together
the $P(r)$ evaluated in different windows provides an effective (and parallel) way for evaluating the entire
$P(r)$. The logarithm of $P(r)$ is by definition the effective potential (apart from an overall constant which is fixed imposing $V_{eff}(\infty)=0$).  To minimize finite-size effects at the temperatures investigated, the dimensions of the box ($L_x$;$L_y$;$L_z$) are chosen in such a way that the surface-to-surface colloidal distance evaluated via the boundary conditions is more than twice the distance over which the effective potential goes to zero.
Moreover, along all directions, the solvent density profile reaches a constant  value on approaching the box boundaries.  Close to the critical point and along the critical isochore, the size of the box is $[L_x = 52;L_y = 26;L_z = 26]$, requiring 16000 co-solute particles. The bulk density is estimated a posteriori by calculating the local density far from the two colloids.

We also evaluate the co-solute density profile for different BC by selecting  a volume centered  along the $x-$axis  of transversal section  equal to $\sigma_s^2$ and we average the local density with a mesh of the order of $0.1 \sigma_s$.

In this paper, when discussing the critical behavior, we will show results for effective potentials and density profiles evaluated at the critical packing fraction and at the reduced temperature $T/T_c=1.0251$, corresponding to a critical correlation length $\xi=2.5\sigma_s$~\cite{GnanSM8}.

\section{Results}

\subsection{$(-,-)$ BC}
In our previous work~\cite{GnanSM8} we have discussed the evolution of the effective potential when
the interaction between the colloids and the solvent  $V_{CS}$ are treated as hard-spheres. In such condition, close to the colloid surface, the density of the solution is smaller than the average, effectively generating a $(-,-)$ BC.
We have shown that close to the critical point, $V_{eff}$  is long-ranged, signaling the onset of criticality.
Its radial dependence is well described by the exponential decay of Eq.~\ref{eq:Phi_z}, with the same characteristic length $\xi$ of the bulk critical fluctuations.

To get more insight into the mechanism which drives attraction between colloids close to the critical point in the $(-,-)$ BC case, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig1} the co-solute density profile along the horizontal $x$-axis for two different relative colloid-colloid distances. Notice that the two colloids are always located symmetrically with respect to the origin. Thus the density profile is symmetric with respect to $x=0$. For this reason in Fig.~\ref{fig1} we show only the positive
$x$ region. In between the two colloids, the density is significantly lower than the bulk density, a typical depletion effect.  Outside, the density relaxes toward the bulk value with an exponential decay, again controlled by the bulk critical correlation length.
It is interesting to discuss the physical origin of the net attractive force between the two colloids. Since the co-solute colloid interaction is modeled via an hard-sphere potential, it is possible to prove that the effective force results
from the mismatch in the contact density along the two sides of each colloid. Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows that indeed, at contact, the density outside is slightly larger than inside. The figure also shows that the  mismatch decreases on increasing the relative distance between the two colloids in parallel with the decrease of the effective force.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f1}}
\caption{\label{fig1}
Normalized co-solute density profiles with respect to the bulk density $\rho_0$ along the horizontal $x$-axis at $T/T_c = 1.0251$ and at the critical density $\phi_c=0.2501$.  Co-solute particles interact with a short-range SW attraction while colloid-cosolute interaction is modeled with a HS repulsion.  The two profiles are evaluated for two different colloid-colloid distances, namely for $r=\sigma_c+3\sigma_s$ and $r=\sigma_c+4\sigma_s$, with $\sigma_c=10\sigma_s$. The box is centered at $x=0$ and the two colloids are centered at $\pm r/2$  along the $x$-axis. Being the profiles symmetric with respect to $x=0$ only positive $x$ are shown here. Note that each colloid excludes the solvent in a region equal to $\sigma_c+\sigma_s$. The dashed lines highlight the mismatch in the density at contact between the inner and outer side of the colloid. The inset shows that the outer part of the density profile is well fitted by an exponential $\rho=\rho_0+A \exp(-r/\xi)$, where $\xi$ has been fixed to $\xi=2.5\sigma_s$, i.e. to the bulk critical correlation length value for $T/T_c=1.0251$ at $\phi_c$. In this case the fit parameter $A<0$.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{From the $(-,-)$ to the $(+,+)$ BC}

To drive the transition from $(-,-)$ toward $(+,+)$ BC we tune the strength of a
short-range attraction in the  colloids-cosolute interaction $V_{CS}$.
The attraction gives rise to an enhanced accumulation close to the surface of the colloids, at first compensating and then inverting the depletion characteristic effect of the excluded volume interaction~\cite{KaranikasJCP128,foffijpcb114}.

 We  model the attraction via a pairwise SW potential

\begin{equation}
V_{CS}(r_{ij})=\begin{cases} \infty, & r<\sigma_{cs} \\
-\varepsilon, & \sigma_{cs}\leq r<  \sigma_{cs} + \Delta \sigma_s\\
 0 & r\geq \sigma_{cs} + \Delta \sigma_s\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

where $\sigma_{cs}=(\sigma_s+\sigma_c)/2$ and $\Delta=0.35$.
The width $\Delta \sigma_{s}$ has been chosen as a compromise between limiting the colloid-cosolute interaction to the nearest-neighbor shell and maximizing the volume over which
cosolute bind to the colloid.    The parameter $\varepsilon$ is used as control parameter to drive the cross-over from the hard-sphere like behavior ($\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$) to the wetting case $\varepsilon/kT  \gtrsim 1$).

We start by discussing the behavior of the effective potential at high $T$, where critical phenomena are not present. The evolution of the effective potential  upon changing $\varepsilon$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. When $\varepsilon=0$,  the well known depletion
interaction potential is observed.  On increasing $\varepsilon$, the depletion attractive interaction is progressively weakened, and the potential at contact becomes repulsive.
For  even large $\varepsilon$ values, the colloid becomes surrounded by a persistent layer
of co-solutes which extent the effective radius of the colloid, making it impossible
to attract a neighboring colloid for distances closer than $\sigma_c+\sigma_s$~\cite{GrestJCP104}.
Under such strong coupling conditions, the effective  potential acquires an oscillatory character, with minima originating from the preferential distances  allowing for an integer number of co-solute layers between the colloids.  The configuration associated to the
first minimum, called bridging, is the most energetically favorable since one co-solute particle is bonded with both  colloids. The other minima are related to particular configurations in which bridging is obtained by particle chains. A sketch of such situation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. The intermediate maxima occur when the co-solute particles (or particle chains) are not bonded to both colloids. For example the first maximum corresponds to a situation, also illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, in which a single co-solute particle cannot be bonded to both colloids, since $r>\sigma_s$.
 The evolution of the effective potential reported in Fig.~\ref{fig2}  clearly show how the minimum at contact progressively turns into a maximum,  and simultaneously a new minimum develops at the bridging distance. Intermediate values of $\varepsilon$ thus provide  a viable mechanism for contrasting depletion interaction  and favoring colloidal stability.  The case $\varepsilon=0.5$ is emblematic, since the
minimum at contact has essentially disappeared while the new minimum at distance $1.1\sigma_c$  has not yet developed, such that the effective potential
is  never (in absolute value) significantly larger than $k_B T$.   For very large $\varepsilon$ values, $V_{eff}$  becomes again sufficiently intense to drive a colloid phase separation.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f2}}
\caption{\label{fig2}
Effective potential for two large colloids interacting through a hard-core repulsion at $T/T_c=2.09$ and $\phi=\phi_c=0.25$. Colloids are in solution with co-solute particles interacting (among themselves) via a SW attraction of width $\delta\sigma_s=0.1\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon_s$.
The two colloids interact  with co-solute particles via a SW attraction of width $\Delta\sigma_s=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon$.
Sketches in the figures represent particular configurations adopted by the co-solute  for different colloid-colloid distances. Such configurations give rise to maxima and minima in the potential. }
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f3}}
\caption{\label{fig3}
Effective potential of two large colloids close to the critical point of the co-solute ($T/T_c=1.0251$ and $\phi=\phi_c=0.25$). The two colloids interact  with co-solute particles via a SW attraction of width $\Delta\sigma_s=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon$. The two colloids have therefore (+,+) BC. The increase of the attraction strength give rise to large oscillations associated to bridging effects as discussed in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.}
\end{figure}

Close to the critical point, critical Casimir forces add to the standard effects described
before.  Differently from the pure $(-,-)$ case, the presence of an
attractive interaction between the colloid and the solvent brings in two new features that are distinguishable for medium and large values of $\varepsilon$:
a repulsive contribution to the effective potential at short distances and
the presence of oscillations induced by the granularity of the cosolutes.
The theory on critical Casimir forces predicts that at distances larger than $\xi$ the  effective potential develops an attractive exponential tail, so that the effective potential behaves the same for the  $(-,-)$ BC  and the  $(+,+)$ BC cases.  Fig.~\ref{fig3} shows how the effective potential evolves on increasing the value of  $\varepsilon$.  As expected the contact value becomes repulsive  but the long tail behavior remains always attractive and has the same exponential character of the  $\varepsilon=0$ case~\cite{GnanSM8}.  Even for large values  of $\varepsilon$,  where the same oscillations characterizing the high T effective potentials modulate the  shape,   the overall behavior can be represented by an exponential function.
The density profile for the $(+,+)$ case is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}. Close to the colloidal surfaces a significant layering of the cosolutes is observed,  consistent with the presence of oscillations in $V_{eff}(r)$.  On the external sides, beyond the oscillations, the density decays again with an exponential shape controlled once more by $\xi$.
In comparison with the $(-,-)$ case, the resulting interaction between the two particles is more difficult to visualize, since it arises from the competition between the density at contact  (in which the solvent pushes the colloid)  and the density the well boundary (where the solvent attracts the colloid). Indeed, in the case of a colloid of diameter $sigma_C$ interacting via square-well attraction with solvent particles, the pressure originates from the two points of discontinuity of the potential,
the colloid-cosolute hard-wall distance (HWD) and the square-well distance (SWD) $\sigma_cs+\Delta\sigma_s$ according to the expression~\cite{HansenMcDonald}:

\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:pressure}
\frac{\beta P^{ex}}{\rho}&=&\frac{2}{3}\pi\rho [\sigma_{cs}^3 g(\sigma_{cs}^{+}) \nonumber \\
&-&(\sigma_{cs}+\Delta\sigma_s)^3 g(\sigma_{cs}+\Delta\sigma_s^{-})(1-e^{\beta u_0})].
\end{eqnarray}

\noindent where $g(\sigma_{cs})$ is the pair correlation function evaluated at the HWD and $g(\sigma_{cs}+\Delta\sigma_s)$ at the SWD.
From Eq.~\ref{eq:pressure} one can notice that the density at the hard-wall generates a positive contribution to the pressure, while the density at the well boundary provides a negative contribution. Figure~\ref{fig4} shows that indeed the density at the SWD inner side (left side of Fig.~\ref{fig4}) is significantly higher than the density at the SWD outer side (right side of Fig.~\ref{fig4}), and it is responsible for the
resulting net attractive force between the two colloids. Indeed, the excluded volume contribution in this case would tend to
separate the two colloids, being the contact density outside slightly larger than the contact density inside.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f4}}
\caption{\label{fig4}
Normalized co-solute density profile  with respect to the bulk density $\rho_0$ along the horizontal $x-$axis at $T/T_c=1.0251$ and at the critical density $\phi_c=0.2501$.  Co-solute particles interact with a short-range SW attraction of width $\delta\sigma_s=0.1\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon_s$ while colloid-cosolute interaction is modeled with a SW interaction of width $\Delta\sigma_s=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon=1\varepsilon_s$.
The box is centered at $x=0$ and the two colloids are centered at $\pm r/2$  along the $x$-axis.
Being the profile symmetric with respect to $x=0$ only positive $x$ are shown here. Note that each colloid excludes the solvent in a region equal to $\sigma_c+\sigma_s$. The dashed segments highlight the mismatch in the density at contact (HWD) and at the well boundary (SWD) between the inner and outer side of the colloid.The profile is associated to the effective potential in Fig. 3 (squares). As for Fig. 1, the criticality of the co-solute can be caught from the exponential decay of the density outside the colloids towards $\rho_s(x)/\rho_0=1$. The exponential fit shown in the figure (solid line), has been performed by fixing the exponential decay with the value of the bulk critical correlation length for the temperature and density investigated, i.e. $\xi=2.5\sigma_s$.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{From the $(-,-)$ to the $(+,-)$ BC}

We now  discuss the situation in which one of the two colloids $(C_1)$ interact with the co-solute through a square-well attraction ($V_{C_1S}(r_{1i})$) while the other colloid $(C_2)$ experience only excluded volume interactions ($V_{C_2S}(r_{2i})$). More precisely

\begin{equation}
V_{C_1S}(r_{1i})=\begin{cases} \infty, & r_{1i}<\sigma_{cs} \\
-\varepsilon, & \sigma_{cs}\leq r_{1i}< \sigma_{cs}+\Delta \sigma_{s} \\
 0 & r_{1i}\geq \sigma_{cs}+\Delta \sigma_{s} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

 and

\begin{equation}
V_{C_2S}(r_{2j})=\begin{cases} \infty, & r_{2j}<\sigma_{cs} \\
 0 & r_{2j}\geq \sigma_{cs}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

Also in this case we start investigating a $T$ significantly larger than the critical one  for different interaction strengths $\varepsilon$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f5}}
\caption{\label{fig5}
Effective potentials for two large colloids interacting through a hard-core repulsion at $T/T_c=2.09$ and $\phi=\phi_c=0.25$. Co-solute particles, in solution with the two colloids, interact through a SW attraction of width $\delta=0.1\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon_s$.
One of the two colloids ($C_1$) interact with co-solute particles via a SW attraction of width $\Delta=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon$. The other colloid($C_2$) has instead a HS repulsion with the co-solute.}
\end{figure}

The trend is similar to the one observed going from $(-,-)$ to the $(+,+)$ case; (i) the contact value of the effective potential
grows continuously on increasing  $\varepsilon$, progressively offsetting the original $\varepsilon=0$ depletion interaction.  Still, the strength of the repulsion is significantly smaller than the one observed in the  $(+,+)$ case.
(ii) only weak oscillations (with amplitude smaller than $k_BT$) characterize the radial dependence of the effective potential, signaling the absence of a strong layering of the cosolute between the colloids.  We notice that similar features have also been observed in the case of non-additive HS mixtures~\cite{LouisJPCM2001,RothPRE2001}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f6}}
\caption{\label{fig6}
Evolution of the effective potential of two colloids close to the critical point of the co-solute ($T/T_c=1.0251$ and $\phi=\phi_c=0.25$) on increasing $\varepsilon$. One of the two colloids ($C_1$) interact with co-solute particles via a second SW attraction of width $\Delta=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon$. The other colloid($C_2$) interacts via a HS repulsion with the co-solute. This setting provides a realization of $(+,-)$ BC.}
\end{figure}

Close to the critical point,  the theory predicts that, on increasing $\varepsilon$, $V_{eff}$
changes from an attractive to a repulsive exponential decay, on changing the boundary conditions from
$(-,-)$ to $(-,+)$.  The effective potentials for different $\varepsilon$ close to the critical point are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
While for $r<1.3 \sigma_c$ the echo of the layering effects is still visible, for larger $r$ values the decay of all curves is compatible with the same exponential function decay, again supporting the identification of the interaction potential in this spatial region as arising from the universal behavior imposed by the critical fluctuations.
As in the case of $(-,-)$ BC, for $(+,-)$ BC the density profile provides useful informations on the mechanism that gives rise to the repulsion. Fig.~\ref{fig7} shows the co-solute particles density profile along the $x-$axis. The different colloid-cosolute interaction result in a different density profile around the two colloids.  Around $C_2$ ($-$ BC), the solvent density is lower than the average, while the opposite behavior is observed for $C_1$ ($+$ BC).  The repulsive force on $C_2$ originates from the slight mismatch of the  contact density (larger inside than outside), while the repulsive force on $C_1$ originates from larger density at the SWD on the outside, compared to the inside.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f7}}
\caption{\label{fig7}
Normalized co-solute density profile  with respect to the bulk density $\rho_0$ along the horizontal $x-$axis at $T/T_c=1.0251$ and at the critical density $\phi_c=0.25$.
Co-solute particles interact with a short-range SW attraction of width $\delta=0.1\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon_s$. One of the two colloids ($C_1$) interacts with co-solute particles via a SW attraction of width $\Delta=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon=1\varepsilon_s$. The other colloid($C_2$) interacts via a HS repulsion with the co-solute. The profile is associated to the effective potential in Fig.~\ref{fig6} (squares).
The different colloid-cosolute interaction results in a different density profile around the two colloids.  Around $C_2$ (colloid on the right), the solvent density is lower than the average, while the opposite behavior is observed on $C_1$ (colloid on the left).  The repulsive force $C_2$ colloid originates  from the slight mismatch of the  contact density (larger inside than outside), while the repulsive force on $C_2$  originates from larger density at the square-well location on the outside, compared to the inside.
The exponential fits (solid lines) have been done by setting the exponential decay to the value of the bulk critical correlation length $\xi=2.5\sigma_s$.}
\end{figure}
Contrary to what observed in the $(-,-)$ to $(+,+)$ BC case, here tuning the attraction strength allows us to modify the sign of the effective force~\cite{hertleinnat451}. In fact we observe that for small $\varepsilon$ the effect of the colloid-cosolute attraction is not sufficiently strong to substantially  change the shape of the effective potential,  which remains completely attractive. For higher values of $\varepsilon$ the potential turns into a completely repulsive one and no sign of oscillations driven by co-solute structures is visible.
It is interesting to note that under these conditions it is in principle possible to tune finely $\varepsilon$ in order to obtain a flat co-solute density profile (apart from the layering at contact). This corresponds to impose Dirichlet BC~\cite{MaciolekPRE79} and from a conceptual point of view to identify a sort of $\Theta$ condition, in analogy with polymer solutions~\cite{Likos}, where the effective interaction potential is close to zero.
\subsection{From the $(+,+)$ to the $(+,-)$ BC}
According to theoretical predictions~\cite{gambassipre80} the effective potential is expected to change in the transition from $(+,+)$ to $(+,-)$ exactly as in the case from $(-,-)$ to $(+,-)$.  These predictions refer to the scaling region of the potential.
In the present numerical study, we also access the short distances, where the effective potential probes the
non-universal aspects of the solvent-colloid interaction.  To highlight the difference at short distances between the two cases, Fig.~\ref{fig8} shows the evolution of the effective potential when the attraction between only one of the two colloids and the co-solute is progressively reduced.  Differently from the results of Fig.~\ref{fig6}, in this case only the long distance behavior changes sign, while the short distance part of the potential remains always repulsive.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f8}}
\caption{\label{fig8}
Evolution of the effective potential for two colloids close to the critical point of the co-solute ($T/T_c=1.0251$ and $\phi=\phi_c=0.25$). One of the two colloids ($C_1$) interacts with co-solute particles via a SW attraction of width $\Delta=0.35\sigma_s$ and depth $\varepsilon_1=1.0\varepsilon_s$. The other colloid ($C_2$) interacts with the co-solute through a SW attraction as well with the same width $\Delta$ but depth $\varepsilon_2$. Starting from $\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_1$, i.e. $(+,+)$ BC, the interaction strength $\varepsilon_2$ is decreased down to the limit case of $\varepsilon_2=0$ corresponding to $(+,-)$ BC. Contrary to the case illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig6}, here only the long distance tail can be tuned from attractive to repulsive, while the short range part of the potential remains repulsive.}
\end{figure}
Finally in  Fig.~\ref{fig9} we plot cases differing in their BCs, but all at the same temperature and co-solute critical packing fraction.  In all cases, the long-distance behavior of $V_{eff}$ can be described, as expected theoretically, by an exponential decay, with a correlation length  consistent with the bulk critical correlation length $\xi$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{f9}}
\caption{\label{fig9} Effective potentials for different BC, evaluated at the co-solute critical packing fraction and at $T/T_c=1.0251$. In the critical region, independently on the BC, the long range part of the effective potential decays exponentially. According to eq. (\ref{eq:Phi_z}) it is possible to extract the characteristic length  that controls the decay of the exponential. To extract this value the three curves have been interpolated in the same range with eq. (\ref{eq:Phi_z}) starting from $r=1.3\sigma_c$. For the three cases we find $\xi_{(-,-)}=2.24\sigma_s$, $\xi_{(+,+)}=2.49\sigma_s$, and $\xi_{(+,-)}=2.20\sigma_s$ which is consistent the bulk correlation length $\xi=2.5\sigma_s$ of the co-solute for this $T/T_c$~\cite{GnanSM8}. The non universal amplitudes found from the exponential fits are $A_{(-,-)}=-0.63$ $A_{(+,+)}=-0.45$ $A_{(+,-)}=0.48$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this article we have discussed how the effective potential, resulting from confining critical co-solute particles between the surfaces of two large colloids, depends on  the colloid-cosolute interaction.
In a previous study~\cite{GnanSM8} we have already investigated the case of $(-,-)$ BC, i.e. when only colloid-cosolute hard-core repulsion is present. In such case we have shown that the resulting potential for $T/T_c\rightarrow 1$ at the co-solute critical packing fraction is monotonic, attractive and long range. The co-solute density profile along the $x-$axis of the simulation box shows that for $(-,-)$ BC the density close to colloids is lower than the bulk density and it relaxes exponentially to the bulk value far from the two colloids.
Upon switching on the colloid-cosolute attraction $\varepsilon$ , depletion effects are progressively weakened and the co-solute density close to the colloid varies from values smaller than the bulk to values larger than the bulk. Correspondingly,  the contact value of the potential varies from negative to positive while the long distance part of $V_{eff}(r)$, dominated by critical fluctuations, remains always attractive  as theoretically predicted in the $(+,+)$ BC case.   The increase in $\varepsilon$  has instead a  profound effect on the non-universal short-distance part of the potential,  which
progressively develops large oscillations. Such oscillations are related to specific geometries
at characteristic lengths associated to integer number of co-solutes between the two colloids. At these
specific distances, the local energy is minimized.   For intermediate values of $\varepsilon$  the colloid-cosolute
attraction  compensates the depletion interaction, effectively reducing the short-distances interaction potential.
We have also addressed the case of two colloids interacting differently with the co-solutes,
a realization of the so-called  $(+,-)$ BC case.  In this case, the local density close to the
two colloids is respectively lower and higher than the bulk value and the critical Casimir forces
are expected to be repulsive.  We have shown that indeed, when the asymmetry in the interaction potential
is sufficiently intense to drive different BC,  the potential becomes repulsive at all length scales.
We have shown that, independently on the BCs,  the critical long range part of the effective potential
is always described by an exponential whose decay is controlled by the critical correlation length $\xi$ corresponding to the thermal correlation length of the bulk co-solute close to the critical point, in full agreement with theoretical predictions~\cite{gambassipre80}.
We have investigated the behavior of the density profile in all examined BC cases.  Building on the
fact that all interactions are modeled as excluded volume or as square-well attraction, the net pressure over the
colloids can be estimated simply by the density of co-solute at contact and at the square-well distance (in the case of attraction between the colloid and the cosolute). The density profiles confirm that in the $(-,-)$ case, the
contact density inside is smaller than outside, determining the net attraction. In the $(+,+)$ case a different mechanism for attraction is observed:  the leading contribution arises from the mismatch of the density at the well distance, larger  inside than outside, determining a net attraction. Finally, in the $(+,-)$ case, repulsion is
driven by two different mechanisms for the two colloids. The hard-sphere colloid is pushed out by the
larger contact density inside. The attractive colloid is dragged out by a larger density at the square well distance.

The possibility of varying the potential from repulsive to attractive and to finely control its shape and intensity by tuning the BC, provides a guidance for controlling equilibrium properties of colloids dispersed in precritical suspensions. This is important for future applications, for instance in the case in which the confining surfaces are chemically patterned colloidal particles, such as patchy~\cite{SciortinoCurr2011} or Janus particles~\cite{janus-softmatter,GambassiSM7}. In this case, the introduction of a geometrical constraint in the colloid-cosolute interaction would give rise to a torque that can be used to control the orientation of colloids, as shown for chemically patterned substrates~\cite{soykaprl101}, and that could give rise to new unexplored phases. More in general, our results provides useful informations for designing interaction potentials which can be exploited to control the stability of colloidal systems.

\section{Acknowledgments:} We acknowledge support from MIUR-PRIN Project 2008 CX7WYL and ERC-226207-PATCHYCOLLOIDS.
\bibliographystyle{empty}


\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
                               {-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex
                               {2.3ex \@plus.2ex}%
                               {\normalfont\large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
                                 {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%
                                 {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
                                 {\normalfont\bfseries}}
\makeatother

\def{\it i.e.}{{\it i.e.}}
\def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\mathchoice
{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}
{\lower.9pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}} {\lower1.2pt\hbox{\cmsss
Z\kern-.4em Z}}\else{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}\fi}
\def\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}
\def{\it e.g.}{{\it e.g.}}
\def{\hbox{ 1\kern-.8mm l}}{{\hbox{ 1\kern-.8mm l}}}
\def{\rm gh}{{\rm gh}}
\def{\rm sgh}{{\rm sgh}}
\def{\rm NS}{{\rm NS}}
\def{\cal R}{{\rm R}}
\def{\rm i}{{\rm i}}
\def{\bar z}{{\bar z}}
\def\comm#1#2{\left[ #1, #2\right]}
\def\acomm#1#2{\left\{ #1, #2\right\}}
\def\operatorname{tr\:}}     \def\Tr{\operatorname{Tr\,}{{\rm tr\,}}
\newcommand{{\cal N}}{{\cal N}}
\newlength{\bredde}
\def\slash#1{\settowidth{\bredde}{$#1$}\ifmmode\,\raisebox{.15ex}{/}
\hspace*{-\bredde} #1\else$\,\raisebox{.15ex}{/}\hspace*{-\bredde}
#1$\fi}
\newcommand{\ft}[2]{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}
\newcommand  {\Rbar} {{\mbox{\rm$\mbox{I}\!\mbox{R}$}}}
\newcommand  {\Hbar} {{\mbox{\rm$\mbox{I}\!\mbox{H}$}}}
\newcommand {\Cbar}
{\mathord{\setlength{\unitlength}{1em}
 \begin{picture}(0.6,0.7)(-0.1,0)
    \put(-0.1,0){\rm C}
    \thicklines
    \put(0.2,0.05){\line(0,1){0.55}}
 \end {picture}}}
\newsavebox{\zzzbar}
\sbox{\zzzbar}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{0.9em}
\begin{picture}(0.6,0.7)
\thinlines
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){0.6}}
\put(0,0.75){\line(1,0){0.575}}
\multiput(0,0)(0.0125,0.025){30}{\rule{0.3pt}{0.3pt}}
\multiput(0.2,0)(0.0125,0.025){30}{\rule{0.3pt}{0.3pt}}
\put(0,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.15}}
\put(0.015,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.1}}
\put(0.03,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.075}}
\put(0.045,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.05}}
\put(0.05,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.025}}
\put(0.6,0){\line(0,1){0.15}}
\put(0.585,0){\line(0,1){0.1}}
\put(0.57,0){\line(0,1){0.075}}
\put(0.555,0){\line(0,1){0.05}}
\put(0.55,0){\line(0,1){0.025}}
\end{picture}}
\newcommand{\mathord{\!{\usebox{\zzzbar}}}}{\mathord{\!{\usebox{\zzzbar}}}}
\def{\rm Im ~}{{\rm Im ~}}
\def{\rm Re ~}{{\rm Re ~}}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle{#1}|}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}
\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle{#1}|{#2}\rangle}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\sect}[1]{Section~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}}
\newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\fig}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\chap}[1]{Chapter~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\end{equation}}{\end{equation}}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def{\bf K}{{\cal K}}
\def{\cal N}{{\cal N}}
\def{\cal H}{{\cal H}}
\newcommand{{1\over2}}{{1\over2}}
\newcommand{{\rm Tr}}{{\rm Tr}}

\usepackage{graphicx}

\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\delta{\delta}
\def\epsilon{\epsilon}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def{\bf r}{\rho}
\def\tilde{\tilde}
\def\varphi{\varphi}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def{\cal N}{{\cal N}}
\def\operatorname{O}}         \def\SO{\operatorname{SO}{{\cal O}}
\def{\cal R}{{\cal R}}
\def{\bf R^3}{{\bf R^3}}
\def\({\left (}
\def\){\right )}
\def\[{\left [}
\def\[{\right ]}
\def{\cal S}{{\cal S}}
\def{(\phi_{,r})}{{(\phi_{,r})}}
\def\operatorname{tr\:}}     \def\Tr{\operatorname{Tr\,}{\mathrm{tr}}
\def\rightarrow{\rightarrow}

\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\mu{\mu}
\def\nu{\nu}
\def\Delta{\Delta}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def {\bf B}{{\bf B}}
\def {\bf K}{{\bf K}}
\def \partial{\partial}
\def {\bf r}{{\bf r}}
\def {\bf A}{{\bf A}}
\def {\bf L}{{\bf L}}
\def {\bf M}{{\bf M}}
\newcommand{\eqn}[1] {(\ref{eq:#1})}
\input amssym.def
\input amssym.tex

\newcommand{\red}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\em \small {#1}}\marginpar{$\Longleftarrow$}}
\newcommand{\labell}[1]{\label{#1}\qquad_{#1}}
\newcommand{\bbibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1}\marginpar{#1}}
\def\Bibitem#1{\bibitem{#1}%
  \smash{\hbox to0pt{\raise1ex\hbox{\tiny[#1]}\hss}}}
\newcommand{\llabel}[1]{\label{#1}\marginpar{#1}}
\newcommand{\figref}[1]{Fig. \ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\secref}[1]{Sec. \ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\tableref}[1]{Table \ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\appref}[1]{Appendix \ref{#1}}
\def\Label#1{\label{#1}%
  \smash{\hbox to0pt{\raise1ex\hbox{\tiny[#1]}\hss}}}
\def\let\Label=\label{\let\Label=\label}
\def\let\bbibitem=\bibitem{\let\bbibitem=\bibitem}
 \def\let\Bibitem=\bibitem{\let\Bibitem=\bibitem}

\newcommand{\vspace{4mm}}{\vspace{4mm}}
\newcommand{\hrule width \textwidth}{\hrule width \textwidth}
\def\erf#1{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{{\cal A}}  \newcommand{\cB}{{\cal B}}{{\cal A}}  \newcommand{\cB}{{\cal B}}
\newcommand{{\cal C}}  \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}{{\cal C}}  \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}
\newcommand{{\cal E}}  \newcommand{\cF}{{\cal F}}{{\cal E}}  \newcommand{\cF}{{\cal F}}
\newcommand{{\cal G}}  \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}{{\cal G}}  \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}
\newcommand{{\cal I}}  \newcommand{\cJ}{{\cal J}}{{\cal I}}  \newcommand{\cJ}{{\cal J}}
\newcommand{{\cal K}}  \newcommand{\cL}{{\cal L}}{{\cal K}}  \newcommand{\cL}{{\cal L}}
\newcommand{{\cal M}}  \newcommand{\cN}{{\cal N}}{{\cal M}}  \newcommand{\cN}{{\cal N}}
\newcommand{{\cal O}}  \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}{{\cal O}}  \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}
\newcommand{{\cal Q}}  \newcommand{\cR}{{\cal R}}{{\cal Q}}  \newcommand{\cR}{{\cal R}}
\newcommand{{\cal S}}  \newcommand{\cT}{{\cal T}}{{\cal S}}  \newcommand{\cT}{{\cal T}}
\newcommand{{\cal U}}  \newcommand{\cV}{{\cal V}}{{\cal U}}  \newcommand{\cV}{{\cal V}}
\newcommand{{\cal W}}  \newcommand{\cX}{{\cal X}}{{\cal W}}  \newcommand{\cX}{{\cal X}}
\newcommand{{\cal Y}}  \newcommand{\cZ}{{\cal Z}}{{\cal Y}}  \newcommand{\cZ}{{\cal Z}}

\newcommand{{\mathbb A}}  \newcommand{\bbB}{{\mathbb B}}{{\mathbb A}}  \newcommand{\bbB}{{\mathbb B}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb C}}  \newcommand{\bbD}{{\mathbb D}}{{\mathbb C}}  \newcommand{\bbD}{{\mathbb D}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb E}}  \newcommand{\bbF}{{\mathbb F}}{{\mathbb E}}  \newcommand{\bbF}{{\mathbb F}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb G}}  \newcommand{\bbH}{{\mathbb H}}{{\mathbb G}}  \newcommand{\bbH}{{\mathbb H}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb I}}  \newcommand{\bbJ}{{\mathbb J}}{{\mathbb I}}  \newcommand{\bbJ}{{\mathbb J}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb K}}  \newcommand{\bbL}{{\mathbb L}}{{\mathbb K}}  \newcommand{\bbL}{{\mathbb L}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb M}}  \newcommand{\bbN}{{\mathbb N}}{{\mathbb M}}  \newcommand{\bbN}{{\mathbb N}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb O}}  \newcommand{\bbP}{{\mathbb P}}{{\mathbb O}}  \newcommand{\bbP}{{\mathbb P}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Q}}  \newcommand{\bbR}{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathbb Q}}  \newcommand{\bbR}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb S}}  \newcommand{\bbT}{{\mathbb T}}{{\mathbb S}}  \newcommand{\bbT}{{\mathbb T}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb U}}  \newcommand{\bbV}{{\mathbb V}}{{\mathbb U}}  \newcommand{\bbV}{{\mathbb V}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb W}}  \newcommand{\bbX}{{\mathbb X}}{{\mathbb W}}  \newcommand{\bbX}{{\mathbb X}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Y}}  \newcommand{\bbZ}{{\mathbb Z}}{{\mathbb Y}}  \newcommand{\bbZ}{{\mathbb Z}}

\newcommand{{\mathbf A}}{{\mathbf A}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf B}}  \newcommand{\bC}{{\mathbf C}}{{\mathbf B}}  \newcommand{\bC}{{\mathbf C}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf E}}  \newcommand{\bH}{{\mathbf H}}{{\mathbf E}}  \newcommand{\bH}{{\mathbf H}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf K}}  \newcommand{\bL}{{\mathbf L}}{{\mathbf K}}  \newcommand{\bL}{{\mathbf L}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf M}}  \newcommand{\bN}{{\mathbf N}}{{\mathbf M}}  \newcommand{\bN}{{\mathbf N}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf P}}  \newcommand{\bQ}{{\mathbf Q}}{{\mathbf P}}  \newcommand{\bQ}{{\mathbf Q}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf R}}  \newcommand{\bS}{{\mathbf S}}{{\mathbf R}}  \newcommand{\bS}{{\mathbf S}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf T}}  \newcommand{\bU}{{\mathbf U}}{{\mathbf T}}  \newcommand{\bU}{{\mathbf U}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf V}}  \newcommand{\bW}{{\mathbf W}}{{\mathbf V}}  \newcommand{\bW}{{\mathbf W}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf X}}  \newcommand{\bZ}{{\mathbf Z}}{{\mathbf X}}  \newcommand{\bZ}{{\mathbf Z}}

\newcommand{{\mathbf g}}  \newcommand{\by}{{\mathbf y}}{{\mathbf g}}  \newcommand{\by}{{\mathbf y}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf k}}  \newcommand{\bq}{{\mathbf q}}{{\mathbf k}}  \newcommand{\bq}{{\mathbf q}}
\newcommand{{\mathbf x}}  \newcommand{\bxi}{{\mathbf \xi}}{{\mathbf x}}  \newcommand{\bxi}{{\mathbf \xi}}

\def\boldsymbol{k}} \def\bsp{\boldsymbol{p}{\boldsymbol{k}} \def\bsp{\boldsymbol{p}}
\def\boldsymbol{\xi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}

\def{\mathfrak a}} \def\gtkb{{\mathfrak b}{{\mathfrak a}} \def\gtkb{{\mathfrak b}}
\def{\mathfrak d}} \def\gtkg{{\mathfrak g}{{\mathfrak d}} \def\gtkg{{\mathfrak g}}
\def{\mathfrak h}} \def\gtks{{\mathfrak s}{{\mathfrak h}} \def\gtks{{\mathfrak s}}
\def{\mathfrak{w}}}  \def\qn{{\mathfrak{q}}{{\mathfrak{w}}}  \def\qn{{\mathfrak{q}}}

\def{\mathfrak G}} \def\gtkH{{\mathfrak H}{{\mathfrak G}} \def\gtkH{{\mathfrak H}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray*}}  \newcommand{\eeann}{\end{eqnarray*}}{\begin{eqnarray*}}  \newcommand{\eeann}{\end{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand{\begin{figure}} \newcommand{\efig}{\end{figure}}{\begin{figure}} \newcommand{\efig}{\end{figure}}
\newcommand{\begin{center}} \newcommand{\ecen}{\end{center}}{\begin{center}} \newcommand{\ecen}{\end{center}}
\newcommand{\begin{tabular}} \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabular}}{\begin{tabular}} \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabular}}
\newcommand{\nonumber}{\nonumber}
\def\operatorname{U}}         \def\SU{\operatorname{SU}{\operatorname{U}}         \def\SU{\operatorname{SU}}
\def\operatorname{O}}         \def\SO{\operatorname{SO}{\operatorname{O}}         \def\SO{\operatorname{SO}}
\def\operatorname{Sp}}       \def\SL{\operatorname{SL}{\operatorname{Sp}}       \def\SL{\operatorname{SL}}
\def\operatorname{tr\:}}     \def\Tr{\operatorname{Tr\,}{\operatorname{tr\:}}     \def{\rm Tr}{\operatorname{Tr\,}}
\def\operatorname{rank}}   \def\dim{\operatorname{dim}{\operatorname{rank}}   \def\dim{\operatorname{dim}}
\def\operatorname{deg}}     \def\diag{\operatorname{diag}{\operatorname{deg}}     \def\diag{\operatorname{diag}}
\def\operatorname{Res}}     \def\sign{\operatorname{sign}{\operatorname{Res}}     \def\sign{\operatorname{sign}}
\renewcommand{{\rm Re ~}}{\mathop{\rm Re}}   \renewcommand{{\rm Im ~}}{\mathop{\rm Im}}

\newcommand{\vev}[1]{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\Rightarrow}{\Rightarrow}
\newcommand{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}}
\newcommand{$\mathop{\rm AdS_5\times{}S^5}$\,}{$\mathop{\rm AdS_5\times{}S^5}$\,}
\def{\mathfrak{w}}}  \def\qn{{\mathfrak{q}}{{\mathfrak{w}}}  \def\qn{{\mathfrak{q}}}

\def{\cal N}\!=\!1} \def\Ntwo{{\cal N}\!=\!2} \def\Nfour{{\cal N}\!=\!4{{\cal N}\!=\!1} \def\Ntwo{{\cal N}\!=\!2} \def\Nfour{{\cal N}\!=\!4}
\newcommand{\int\!\dd^4x\,\dd^2\theta\,\dd^2\overline\theta~}{\int\!{\rm d}^4x\,{\rm d}^2\theta\,{\rm d}^2\overline\theta~}
\newcommand{\int\!\dd^4x\,\dd^2\theta~}{\int\!{\rm d}^4x\,{\rm d}^2\theta~}
\newcommand{\int\!\dd^4x\,\dd^2\overline\theta~}{\int\!{\rm d}^4x\,{\rm d}^2\overline\theta~}
\newcommand{\wtil}[1]{\widetilde{#1\,}}
\def\widetilde{H}} \def\Nt{\widetilde{N}} \def\Qt{\widetilde{Q}{\widetilde{H}} \def\Nt{\widetilde{N}} \def\Qt{\widetilde{Q}}
\def\widetilde{R}} \def\St{\widetilde{S}} \def\Ut{\widetilde{U}{\widetilde{R}} \def\St{\widetilde{S}} \def\Ut{\widetilde{U}}
\def\widetilde{V}} \def\Wt{\widetilde{W}} \def\ft{{\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{V}} \def\Wt{\widetilde{W}} \def\ft{{\widetilde{f}}}
\def\widetilde{s}} \def\wtt{\widetilde{t\,}} \def\wtw{\widetilde{w\,}{\widetilde{s}} \def\wtt{\widetilde{t\,}} \def\wtw{\widetilde{w\,}}

\def{\widehat N}} \def\hq{{\widehat Q}} \def\hp{{\widehat \Phi}{{\widehat N}} \def\hq{{\widehat Q}} \def\hp{{\widehat \Phi}}
\def{\widehat S}} \def\ha{{\widehat A}} \def\hx{{\widehat X}{{\widehat S}} \def\ha{{\widehat A}} \def\hx{{\widehat X}}
\def{\widehat Y}} \def\hf{{\widehat f}} \def\hb{{\widehat B}{{\widehat Y}} \def\hf{{\widehat f}} \def\hb{{\widehat B}}
\newtheorem{Proposition}{Proposition}[section]
\newtheorem{Definition}{Definition}[section]
\newtheorem{Theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{Lemma}{Lemma}[section]
\newtheorem{Corrolary}{Corrolary}[section]

\newcommand{\begin{Proposition}}   \newcommand{\ep}{\end{Proposition}}{\begin{Proposition}}   \newcommand{\ep}{\end{Proposition}}
\newcommand{\begin{Theorem}}   \newcommand{\et}{\end{Theorem}}{\begin{Theorem}}   \newcommand{\et}{\end{Theorem}}
\newcommand{\begin{Lemma}}     \newcommand{\el}{\end{Lemma}}{\begin{Lemma}}     \newcommand{\el}{\end{Lemma}}
\newcommand{\begin{Corrolary}} \newcommand{\ec}{\end{Corrolary}}{\begin{Corrolary}} \newcommand{\ec}{\end{Corrolary}}

\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
TAUP-2854/12\\
NSF-KITP-12-169
\end{flushright}
\vfill
\begin{center}
{\Large \bf Chern-Simons diffusion rate in a holographic Yang-Mills theory}

\vskip 10mm

{\large Ben Craps$^{a}$, Carlos Hoyos$^{b}$, Piotr Sur\'owka$^{a}$, Pieter Taels$^{a}$}

\vskip 7mm

$^a$Theoretische Natuurkunde, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and\\
\hspace*{0.15cm}International Solvay Institutes, \\
\hspace*{0.15cm} Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. \\
$^b$Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences\\
School of Physics and Astronomy \\
\hspace*{0.15cm} Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv 69978, Israel.\\

\vskip 3mm
\vskip 3mm
{\small\noindent  {\tt Ben.Craps@vub.ac.be, choyos@post.tau.ac.il, Piotr.Surowka@vub.ac.be, Pieter.Taels@vub.ac.be}}

\end{center}
\vfill

\begin{center}
{\bf ABSTRACT}
\vspace{3mm}
\end{center}
Using holography, we compute the Chern-Simons diffusion rate of 4d gauge theories constructed by wrapping D4-branes on a circle. In the model with antiperiodic boundary conditions for fermions, we find that it scales like $T^6$ in the high-temperature phase. With periodic fermions, this scaling persists at low temperatures. The scaling is reminiscent of 6d hydrodynamic behavior even at temperatures small compared to compactification scales of the M5-branes from which the D4-branes descend. We offer a holographic explanation of this behavior by adding a new entry to the known map between D4 and M5 hydrodynamics, and suggest a field theory explanation based on ``deconstruction'' or ``fractionization''.
\vfill

\end{titlepage}

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}

The classical vacua of a non-Abelian gauge theory are labeled by an integer topological charge, the Chern-Simons number. Quantum tunneling (instantons) as well as thermal processes (sphalerons) can change the Chern-Simons number:
\begin{equation}\label{NCS}
\Delta N_{CS}=\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\int d^4x \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \, F^a_{\mu\nu} F^a_{\rho\sigma}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding Chern-Simons diffusion rate is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{GammaCS}
\Gamma_{CS}=\frac{\langle (\Delta N_{CS})^2\rangle}{Vt}= \int d^4x\left\langle  \frac{1}{64\pi^2} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\, F^a_{\mu\nu} F^a_{\rho\sigma}(x)\;   \frac{1}{64\pi^2} \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\, F^b_{\alpha\beta} F^b_{\gamma\delta}(0) \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $Vt$ is the volume of space-time. This quantity is of great interest in the context of the chiral magnetic effect in heavy ion collisions \cite{Kharzeev:2004ey,Kharzeev:2007tn,Kharzeev:2007jp,Fukushima:2008xe}. Event-by-event fluctuations of the topological charge can produce an imbalance between left- and right- handed quarks in the quark-gluon plasma phase, generating a net axial charge. Then, in non-central collisions, strong magnetic fields can produce an electric current with a magnitude proportional to the axial charge, an effect due to the chiral anomaly. From the experimental point of view this could lead to a measurable separation of charge in the final products of the collisions. The Chern-Simons diffusion coefficient is also important for models of electroweak baryogenesis (see e.g. \cite{Cohen:1993nk}), since it is related to baryon number violation in the standard model. At weak coupling it takes the form \cite{Bodeker:1998hm,Bodeker:1999gx},
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{CS}^{YM}\propto g_{YM}^{10}\log(1/g_{YM}^2)\,T^4, \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for}\ SU(2),\  g_{YM}^2\ll 1.
\end{equation}
At strong coupling it has been computed for $\cN=4$ super Yang-Mills (SYM) at  large $N$ and strong coupling, using holographic methods \cite{Son:2002sd}:
\begin{equation}\label{GCSSYM}
\Gamma_{CS}^{SYM}=\frac{\lambda^2}{256 \pi^3}\,T^4, \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for}\ \lambda\equiv g_{YM}^2N\gg1,
\end{equation}
where the $T^4$ scaling follows from dimensional analysis for a 4d conformal field theory, while the $\lambda$-dependence is a nontrivial result. More recently this result has been extended to include strong magnetic fields \cite{Basar:2012gh}:
\begin{equation}\label{GCSSYM2}
\Gamma_{CS}^{SYM}=\frac{\lambda^2}{384 \sqrt{3}\pi^5}\,B T^2, \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for}\ B\gg T.
\end{equation}
In these cases, the dependence on the temperature and the magnetic field is determined by the underlying conformal invariance of the theory, but in a strongly coupled non-conformal theory there could be sizeable  deviations from this behavior. It is then well motivated to try to extend the analysis to more realistic models of holographic QCD.

In  \cite{Witten:1998zw}, Witten obtained a closer holographic analogue of QCD by wrapping D4-branes on a circle with anti-periodic boundary conditions for fermions. For small values of the effective 4d 't~Hooft coupling, $\lambda_4\ll 1$, the model behaves as 4d pure Yang-Mills theory at distances large compared to the radius $R_4$. In the opposite regime, $\lambda_4\gg 1$, the model is well-described by a weakly curved and weakly coupled 10d gravity dual up to energies that diverge with $N$  in the large-$N$ limit  \cite{Witten:1998zw}. This is the regime we will be studying. Flavors can be added to the model by introducing ``flavor branes'' in a probe approximation \cite{Kruczenski:2003uq, Sakai:2004cn}, and chiral symmetry breaking is nicely realized. In the large-$N$ limit we will be working in, flavor branes will not affect our considerations, so we will not consider them here.

In the gravity approximation, the D4-brane model with antiperiodic fermions undergoes a deconfinement phase transition at temperature $T=1/(2\pi R_4)$  \cite{Witten:1998zw}. Beyond this temperature, the dominant geometry is a black D4-brane solution with one of the spatial worldvolume dimensions compactified on a circle.

In this paper, we are interested in the Chern-Simons diffusion rate in the high temperature phase of this model.
For the calculation we follow Son and Starinets \cite{Son:2002sd}, and we find
\begin{equation}\label{CShighT}
\Gamma _{CS} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\lambda_4 ^3}{3^6\pi^2} (2\pi R_4)^2 T^6.
\end{equation}
The $T^6$ scaling should be contrasted with the $T^4$ scaling of large-$N$, strongly coupled ${\cal N}=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory, and suggests a 6d origin. Naively, one might have expected 5d behavior instead, because the inverse temperatures we consider are small compared to $R_4$ but large compared to the M-theory circle (which scales like $1/N$ in the large-$N$ limit).  In order to try and gain some insight into this, we also consider D4-branes wrapped on a circle with susy-preserving periodicity conditions. Now we find the result \eq{CShighT} even for a range of temperatures below the Kaluza-Klein scale, which appears even more puzzling.

However, $T^6$ scaling was previously observed for the free energy of D4-branes \cite{Klebanov:1996un, Klebanov:1997kv}, which already suggested that D4-brane thermodynamics knows about a sixth dimension even at low energies compared to the scale set by the M-theory circle. The 6d behavior of D4-branes was explained from a holographic point of view in \cite{Kanitscheider:2008kd, Kanitscheider:2009as}, using a generalized conformal symmetry the D4 inherits from the conformal M5-brane theory. This has been used to derive relations between D4 and M5 hydrodynamic quantities \cite{Kanitscheider:2009as}.

We therefore look for a higher-dimensional interpretation of the Chern-Simons diffusion rate, and find that the 4d Chern-Simons diffusion rate is related to an instanton current diffusion rate in 5d and to the shear viscosity of M5-branes. This adds an entry to the D4/M5 hydrodynamic dictionary \cite{Kanitscheider:2009as}. Finally, following \cite{HoyosBadajoz:2010td} we suggest a field theory interpretation of the 6d behavior using ``deconstruction'' or ``fractionization''.

To summarize, the main results of our work are the computation of the Chern-Simons diffusion rate in the high-temperature phase of Witten's holographic 4d Yang-Mills model, an added entry in the map between D4-brane and M5-brane hydrodynamics and a suggested field theory interpretation of the 6d behavior.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{models} we review the holographic Yang-Mills models based on compactified D4 branes, with and without anti-periodic boundary conditions for fermions. In section \ref{CS} we present our calculation of the Chern-Simonds diffusion rate in  the high temperature phase.
Finally, in section \ref{6d} we discuss the result in terms of quantities in a six-dimensional conformal field theory and suggest an explanation for this behavior.

\section{Holographic models based on D4-branes on a circle}\label{models}

The models we will be interested in are based on the near horizon limit of a stack of D4 branes with one of the world-volume directions compactified on a circle, with radius $R_4$. In Witten's model \cite{Witten:1998zw}, supersymmetry is broken by imposing antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions. In the regime in which the gravity approximation is reliable, two classical geometries will compete in the partition function. Depending on the temperature, one or the other will dominate. At temperatures low compared to the Kaluza-Klein scale, $T<1/(2\pi R_4)$, the dominant spacetime is%
\footnote{
We use a notation similar to that of \cite{Kruczenski:2003uq, Aharony:2006da}.
}
\begin{align}\label{lowTmetric}
\notag &ds^2=\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{3/2}\left[-dt^2+\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j+f(r)(dx^4) ^2\right] +\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^{3/2}\left[\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2d\Omega_4^2\right],  \\
&F^{(4)}=\frac{2\pi N}{V_4}\,\epsilon_4,\ \ \ \ e^\phi=g_s\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{3/4},\ \ \ \   f(r)=1-\left(\frac{r_\Lambda}{r}\right)^3,
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}\label{R}
R^3=\pi g_s N \ell_s^3.
\end{equation}
The coordinates $r$ and $x^4$ span a cigar geometry, which is non-singular if $x^4$ is periodically identified with period
\begin{equation}\label{rLambda}
2\pi R_4=\frac{4\pi}{3}\left(\frac{R^3}{r_\Lambda}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
In \eq{lowTmetric}, $V_4=8\pi^2/3$ is the volume of the unit 4-sphere and $\epsilon_4$ the corresponding volume element. The 4d 't~Hooft coupling at the compactification scale is
\begin{equation}\label{lambda4}
\lambda_4=g_4^2N=\frac{2\pi g_s\ell_sN}{R_4}.
\end{equation}
The typical masses of glueballs in this model are of order $1/R_4$, whereas the QCD string tension is of order $\lambda_4/R_4^2$. The geometry \eq{lowTmetric} is weakly curved in the regime $\lambda_4\gg 1$, and the dilaton is small as long as we consider energies small compared to an energy scale that scales like $N^{4/3}$ in the 't~Hooft large-$N$ limit (which we will do in this paper; at higher energies, an M-theoretic description in terms of M5-branes would have to be used). Note that in the gravity regime the Kaluza-Klein scale is comparable to the mass gap, so that the dynamics is not really four-dimensional. On the other hand, in the regime  $\lambda_4\ll 1$, the field theory is weakly coupled  and the low-energy modes are described by 4d pure Yang-Mills theory.

In the high-temperature regime, $T>1/(2\pi R_4)$, the dominant spacetime is the near-horizon geometry of near-extremal D4-branes:
\begin{align}\label{highTmetric}
\notag &ds^2=\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{3/2}\left[- f(r)dt^2+\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j+(dx^4) ^2\right] +\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^{3/2}\left[\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2d\Omega_4^2\right],  \\
&F^{(4)}=\frac{2\pi N}{V_4}\,\epsilon_4,\ \ \ \ e^\phi=g_s\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{3/4},\ \ \ \ f(r)=1-\left(\frac{r_T}{r}\right)^3.
\end{align}
Now the Kaluza-Klein radius $R_4$ is arbitrary, but the temperature is fixed by regularity of the Wick-rotated geometry ($t=-i\tau$):
\begin{equation}\label{rT}
\frac{1}{T}=\frac{4\pi}{3}\left(\frac{R^3}{r_T}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Outside the horizon, in terms of the 5d 't~Hooft coupling,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_5 \equiv (2\pi)^2g_s\ell_s N,
\end{equation}
the spacetime \eq{highTmetric} is weakly curved  if $T\gg 1/\lambda_5$ and $\lambda_5 \gg \ell_s$. The length of the circle along $x^4$ is large compared to the string length if $T\gg 1/(R_4^{2/3}\lambda_5^{1/3})$. Finally, the string coupling is small if $T\ll N^{2/3}/\lambda_5$.

One assumes/hopes that the phase transition between the geometries \eq{lowTmetric} and \eq{highTmetric} (at $\lambda_4\gg 1$) is related to the deconfinement phase transition of large-$N$ Yang-Mills theory (at $\lambda_4\ll 1$). However, as discussed in \cite{Aharony:2006da, Mandal:2011ws}, the connection cannot be a direct continuation because the center symmetry in the spatial direction is broken in the deconfined phase but not in the phase described by the black D4 brane.

Later on, we will also be interested in the supersymmetric model with periodic boundary conditions along $x^4$ on the fermions. In this case, the spacetime \eq{lowTmetric} is not allowed, and the spacetime  \eq{highTmetric} always dominates when it is a reliable supergravity solution. It follows from the discussion above that if $\lambda_5\gg R_4$, the regime of validity of the supergravity approximation includes a range of temperatures below the Kaluza-Klein scale,
\begin{equation}\label{Trange}
1/(R_4^{2/3}\lambda_5^{1/3})\ll T < 1/R_4,
\end{equation}
where one might expect 4d physics.

\section{Computing the Chern-Simons diffusion rate}\label{CS}

Upon dimensional reduction, the worldvolume action of a flat D4-brane wrapped around a circle with radius $R_4$ contains the terms
\begin{equation}
S_{D4} \supset -\left(\frac{R_4}{2\pi g_s\ell_s}\right)\int d^4x\,\frac{1}{4} F_{ab} F^{ab}\,+\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\int d^4x\left(\frac{4\pi R_4 C^{(1)}_4}{g_s\ell_s}\right)\epsilon^{abcd}F_{ab}F_{cd},
\end{equation}
where from an AdS/CFT point of view the first term justifies the identification \eq{lambda4}, while the second term implies that the asymptotic behavior of the Ramond-Ramond one-form component along the circle corresponds to the axion (whose constant mode plays the role of a theta angle) \cite{Witten:1998uka},
\begin{equation}\label{thetaC}
\theta=\frac{4\pi R_4 C^{(1)}_4}{g_s\ell_s}.
\end{equation}

In terms of its field strength $F^{(2)}_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu C^{(1)}_\nu - \partial_\nu C^{(1)}_\mu$ and the spacetime metric $G_{\mu\nu}$, the kinetic term of the Ramond-Ramond one-form is
\begin{equation}\label{kinetic}
-\frac{1}{256 \pi^7 g_s^2 \ell_s^8}\int d^{10}x\sqrt{-G}\frac12 G^{\mu\nu} G^{\rho\sigma} F^{(2)}_{\mu\rho} F^{(2)}_{\nu\sigma}.
\end{equation}

In order to calculate the Chern-Simons diffusion rate in the high-temperature phase, we apply the method developed in \cite{Son:2002sd} to the geometry \eq{highTmetric}, to which we apply a coordinate transformation $u=r_{T}/r$:
\begin{equation}
ds^{2} = \left(\frac{r_{T}}{R u}\right)^{3/2}\left[-(1-u^{3})dt^{2}+\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j+(dx^4)^{2}\right]
 +R^{3/2}r_{T}^{1/2}\left[\frac{du^{2}}{u^{5/2}(1-u^{3})} +\frac{1}{u^{1/2}}d\Omega_4^2\right],
\end{equation}
so that the boundary and horizon values of $u$ are $u_B=0$ and $u_H=1$, respectively. In this geometry, the kinetic term \eq{kinetic} for the component $C^{(1)}_4$ reduced to 5d takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{action}
&&-\frac{R_4 r_T^3}{48\pi^4g_s^2\ell_s^8}\int d^4x\, du \left[\frac{1-u^3}{u^2}\,\partial_u C_4^{(1)}\partial_u C_4^{(1)} -\frac{R^3}{r_T u^3(1-u^3)}\,\partial_t C_4^{(1)}\partial_t C_4^{(1)}\right. \nonumber\\
&&\left.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \frac{R^3}{r_T u^3}\,\partial_i C_4^{(1)}\partial_i C_4^{(1)} \right],
\end{eqnarray}
leading to the equation of motion
\begin{equation}\label{eom}
\frac{r_T(1-u^3)}{ u^2}\partial_u^2 C_4^{(1)} -\frac{r_T(2+u^3)}{ u^3}\partial_u C_4^{(1)} -\frac{R^3}{ u^3(1-u^3)}\partial_t^2 C_4^{(1)} +\frac{R^3}{ u^3}\partial_i^2 C_4^{(1)}=0.
\end{equation}
Following  \cite{Son:2002sd}, and taking into account the relative normalization \eq{thetaC} between $C^{(1)}_4$ and $\theta$, we Fourier transform
\begin{equation}\label{Fourier}
C_4^{(1)} =\frac{g_s\ell_s}{4\pi R_4}\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} e ^{i k\cdot x}f_k (u) \theta_0(k),
\end{equation}
where the modes $f_k$ satisfy incoming-wave boundary conditions at the horizon, and approach 1 at the boundary, $f_k(u_B)=1$. The coefficients $\theta_0(k)$ are then determined by the boundary profile of $C^{(1)}_4$:
\begin{equation}
C_4^{(1)}(u_B,x) =\frac{g_s\ell_s}{4\pi R_4}\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi) ^4} e ^{i k\cdot x}\theta_0(k).
\end{equation}
On-shell, the action then reduces to the surface terms
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm on-shell}=\int\frac{d^{4}k}{(2\pi)^{4}}\theta_0(-k)\left.\mathcal{F}(k,u)\theta_0(k)\right|^{u=u_{B}}_{u=u_{H}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{calF}
\mathcal{F}(k,u)=\frac{r_T^3}{2^8\,3\pi^6\ell _s^6R_4}\frac{1-u^3}{u^2}f_{-k}(u)\partial_{u}f_{k}(u).
\end{equation}
According to Son and Starinets \cite{Son:2002sd}, the retarded Green's function for $(1/(64\pi^2))\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\, F^a_{\mu\nu} F^a_{\rho\sigma}$, the operator sourced by the rescaled Ramond-Ramond potential \eq{thetaC}, is given by
\begin{equation}\label{GR}
G^R (k)=-2 \mathcal{F}(k,u)|_{u=u_B=0}.
\end{equation}
From this retarded propagator, the Chern-Simons diffusion rate can be computed using the Kubo formula
\begin{equation}\label{Kubo}
\Gamma _{CS} =  -\lim_{\omega\rightarrow0}\frac{2T}{\omega}\mathrm{Im}\, G^{R}(\omega,\vec 0).
\end{equation}
To complete the computation of the Chern-Simons diffusion rate, we therefore need to determine the modes $f_k(u)$, at least for vanishing spatial momenta $\vec k$ and small frequency $\omega$. Up to an overall normalization factor that goes to 1 in the limit of small frequencies and momenta, the solution to the mode equation following from \eq{eom} with the boundary conditions mentioned after \eq{Fourier} is
\begin{equation}
f_k(u)=(1-u)^{-\frac{i\omega}{4\pi T}}\left[1-\frac{i\omega}{4\pi T}\ln(1+u+u^2)\right] + O(\omega^2,\vec k^2)=1-\frac{i\omega}{4\pi T}\ln(1-u^3) + O(\omega^2,\vec k^2).
\end{equation}
Using \eq{calF} and \eq{GR}, this leads to
\begin{equation}
G^R (k)=-\frac{i\omega r_T^3}{2^9\pi^7R_4\ell_s^6T}+ O(\omega^2,\vec k^2),
\end{equation}
after which \eq{Kubo}, \eq{R}, \eq{lambda4} and \eq{rT} lead us to the following result for the Chern-Simons diffusion rate in the high-temperature phase:
\begin{equation}\label{GCSresult}
\Gamma _{CS} = \frac{2 \lambda_4 ^3 R_4^2 T^6}{3^6 \pi}.
\end{equation}
In the supersymmetric model with periodic fermions (in which the ``low-temperature'' bulk geometry does not exist), this result is also valid in the temperature range \eq{Trange}.

\section{Relation to six dimensions}\label{6d}

The $T^6$ scaling of \eq{GCSresult} contrasts with the $T^4$ scaling of \eq{GCSSYM}, which was guaranteed by 4d conformal invariance. One may wonder whether it reflects an underlying 6d conformal field theory, namely that of the M-theory M5-branes the D4-branes descend from. Naively, it sounds strange that 6d behavior would be visible at temperatures small compared to the inverse size of the M-theory circle (whose radius scales like $1/N$ in the 't~Hooft limit, so it will always be small for our considerations). In the supersymmetric version of the model, the $T^6$ scaling of the Chern-Simons diffusion rate persists even  in the temperature range \eq{Trange}, where the system would seem to be clearly four-dimensional, which appears even more puzzling. In this section, we attempt to gain some intuition for this behavior.

\subsection{Free energy}

A first hint comes form studying the entropy density of D4-branes wrapped on a circle. Again, at high temperatures one might have naively expected the simplest possible behavior in a five-dimensional theory, namely
\begin{equation}
s\sim N^2 T^4,
\end{equation}
while in the supersymmetric model one might have expected that at low temperatures the entropy is similar to a four-dimensional theory, with corrections coming from the massive Kaluza-Klein modes on the fifth direction
\begin{equation}
s\sim N^2T^3\left(1+O(T e^{-1/(R_4T)})\right).
\end{equation}
However, this is not the case: at any temperature the 5d entropy density is \cite{Klebanov:1996un, Klebanov:1997kv}
\begin{equation}
s_{D4}=\frac{2^6\pi^2}{3^6}g_5^2 N^3 T^5; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ g_5^2\equiv 4\pi^2g_s\ell_s.
\end{equation}
This coincides with the entropy of the black M5 brane compactified on a circle of radius $R_{11}$, as already pointed out in \cite{Klebanov:1997kv}:
\begin{equation}
s_{D4}=\frac{2^6\pi^2}{3^6}g_{5}^2 N^3 T^5=(2\pi R_{11})\frac{2^7\pi^3}{3^6}N^3 T^5=(2\pi R_{11})s_{M5},
\end{equation}
where the value of $s_{M5}$ was computed in \cite{Klebanov:1996un}.

The coincidence between the entropies suggests that the finite temperature theory knows about its six-dimensional origin, no matter how small the temperature is compared to the inverse of the compactification radius. This point of view is reinforced by the analysis of \cite{Kanitscheider:2008kd}, mapping the energy-momentum tensor of the two theories, which was subsequently used to derive the hydrodynamics of the D4 theory from the M5 theory \cite{Kanitscheider:2009as}. We will now show that our result on the Chern-Simons diffusion rate indeed descends from 6d hydrodynamics and provides an additional entry in the D4/M5 hydrodynamics correspondence explored in \cite{Kanitscheider:2009as}.

\subsection{Conductivity of the instanton current and M5 shear viscosity}

In \cite{Kanitscheider:2008kd} Kanitscheider, Skenderis and Taylor derived the holographic D4 energy-momentum tensor from the M5 theory using holographic renormalization. They showed that the components of the energy-momentum tensor and the ``gluon condensate'' (the operator dual to the dilaton) in the D4 and M5 theory are simply related to components of the M5 energy-momentum tensor
\begin{align}
\notag &R_{11}\vev{T_{MN}}^{D4}\sim \vev{T_{MN}}^{M5}, \ \ M,N=0,1,2,3,4.\\
&R_{11}\vev{\cal O_\phi} \sim \vev{T_{55}}^{M5}.
\end{align}
In \cite{Kanitscheider:2009as} this was used to derive relations between thermodynamic quantities, like the relation between the entropies we have just discussed, and relations between transport coefficients.\footnote{The analysis there was not limited to the D4 but we will discuss only this case here.} For instance, from the reduction one can show that the speed of sound of the D4 theory is the same as in the M5, $c_s^2=1/5$, and that the bulk over shear viscosity ratio obeys the bound
\begin{equation}
\frac{\zeta_{D4}}{\eta_{D4}}\geq 2\left(\frac{1}{4}-c_s^2 \right).
\end{equation}

Let us therefore interpret the Chern-Simons diffusion rate of D4-brane models on a circle in terms of M-theory. Upon lifting to M-theory, the component $C^{(1)}_4$ is related to the metric component $G^{(11)}_{45}$, with the index 5 labeling the M-theory circle. The D4-brane instanton current
\begin{equation}
J={}^{*_5} \operatorname{tr\:}}     \def\Tr{\operatorname{Tr\,}(F\wedge F)
\end{equation}
lifts to a current of momentum along the M-theory circle; its component $J_4$ corresponds to the stress-tensor component $T^{M5}_{45}$. When the D4-branes are compactified along the $x^4$ direction, the $J_4$ component becomes the topological charge density of the 4d theory, $\operatorname{tr\:}}     \def\Tr{\operatorname{Tr\,}(F\wedge F)$.  The Chern-Simons diffusion rate should therefore be related to the shear viscosity of M5-branes. This shear viscosity can be computed using the Kubo formula
\begin{equation}\label{KuboM5}
\eta=-\lim_{\omega\to 0}\frac{1}{\omega} G_{45,45}(\omega,\vec{q}=0),
\end{equation}
where $G_{45;45}(\omega,\vec{q})$ is the Fourier transform of the retarded correlator of the $T_{45}^{M5}$ components of the energy-momentum tensor on the M5. Using the AdS/CFT correspondence, its value was computed in \cite{Herzog:2002fn},
\begin{equation}\label{etaresult}
\eta=\frac{s_{M5}}{4\pi}=\frac{2^5\pi^2}{3^6}N^3 T^5.
\end{equation}
We now show how to reproduce our Chern-Simons diffusion rate \eq{GCSresult} starting from the shear viscosity \eq{etaresult} of the M5 theory. First, note that the Kubo formula \eq{KuboM5} does not contain the factor $2T$ present in \eq{Kubo}; so let us multiply \eq{etaresult} by $2T$. Next, multiply by $(g_s\ell_s)^2/(4\pi R_4)^2$ to account for the relative normalization \eq{thetaC} between $\theta$ and $C^{(1)}_4$. Then convert the 6d density in a 4d density by multiplying by the lengths of the two compactification circles, $2\pi g_s\ell_s$ and $2\pi R_4$. Finally, use \eq{lambda4}. The result of these manipulations is exactly \eq{GCSresult}.

\subsection{Relations to the spectrum of M5-branes on a torus}

The fact that the M5 and D4 brane have the same thermodynamics is relatively straightforward from the perspective of the gravity dual: the D4 geometry can be obtained applying dimensional reduction on the M5 geometry and therefore their action is the same. As we have discussed before, from the field theory perspective the relation is more mysterious, especially at temperatures small compared to the inverse radii of compactification $1/R_4$ and $1/R_{11}\equiv1/(g_s\ell_s)$. What makes the D4 brane look six-dimensional even at such temperatures?

We will argue below that the Kaluza-Klein spectrum of a collection of $N$ M5-branes is not set by the compactification radii $R_4$ and $R_{11}$, but by effective compactification radii $NR_4$ and $NR_{11}$. Because we are working in a regime in which $R_{11}\ll R_4$, this would imply that 6d behavior would be expected for $T \gg 1/(NR_{11})$. This would match perfectly with the fact that \eq{highTmetric} is weakly curved outside the horizon precisely for such temperatures. For lower temperatures, the gravity approximation is not valid and there is no reason to expect 6d behavior. So what remains to be shown is why the effective Kaluza-Klein radii are $N$ times larger than the naive ones. We will give two (related) arguments.

The first argument relies on the concept of ``fractionization'' used in the context of counting black hole microstates; see, for instance, \cite{Mathur:2005ai} for a review. It is well-known that $N$ fundamental strings wrapping a circle of radius $R$ can reconnect so as to become one fundamental string wrapping the circle $N$ times. The total length of the string is then $2\pi NR$, and the smallest non-zero momentem the string can carry is $1/(NR)$ rather than $1/R$. Dualizing the $N$ fundamental strings to $N$ M5-branes, one finds that the latter can also reconnect and carry momenta $N$ times smaller than one would naively have thought. A similar situation can be found in more ordinary conformal field theories at large-$N$, and as explained in \cite{Unsal:2010qh,Poppitz:2010bt} this leads to the independence of some quantities of the volume of compactification (See \cite{Mandal:2011ws} for a related discussion in the present context). Perhaps similar arguments can be generalized to the M5 theory in the regime described by supergravity.

The second argument, which we will describe in the rest of this section, uses ``deconstruction''. First apply T-duality along the $x^4$ direction in the D4 geometry. At the level of supergravity one simply apply Buscher's rules, which in this particular case take the simple form
\begin{equation}
g_{44}'=1/g_{44}, \ \ e^{2\phi'}=e^{2\phi}/g_{44}, \ \ C_{0123}'=C_{01234}.
\end{equation}
The resulting geometry is dual to a smeared configuration of $N$ D3 branes. Note that {\em at the level of supergravity} one cannot get a localized D3 brane configuration, since the isometry along the $x^4$ direction is preserved by the T-duality transformation. The length of the $x^4$ direction is $\ell_s^2/(2\pi R_4)$ in the D3 geometry.

The same geometry as the smeared $N$ D3 branes can be obtained by considering a uniform (evenly spaced)  distribution of D3 branes along the $x^4$ direction. The separation between neighbouring D3 branes is $\sim \ell_s^2/(N R_4)$, and when $N$ is very large it cannot be resolved at the level of supergravity. Therefore, the leading large-$N$ thermodynamics of the D4 branes will be the same as for this uniform distribution. From the point of view of the $\cN=4$ $SU(N)$ super Yang-Mills theory that describes the D3 branes at low energies, their relative separation translates into expectation values of the scalar fields belonging to the vector supermultiplet. Therefore, the uniform distribution corresponds to a particular vacuum in the $\cN=4$ Coulomb branch.

Note that if we take as a starting point a uniform distribution of D3 branes along the $x^4$ direction and apply T-duality, the resulting configuration is a D4 brane with a non-trivial Wilson line along the $x^4$ direction, which will also produce some Higgsing in the D4 gauge theory.

An explanation for the six-dimensional behavior of the theory for the smeared D3 geometry is based on deconstruction: the low-energy dynamics of a distribution of D3 branes on a circle reproduces the M5 theory, as was shown in \cite{ArkaniHamed:2001ie} for the Higgs branch of an orbifold of $\cN=4$ super Yang-Mills, and at low energies for a Coulomb branch configuration with a distribution of eigenvalues on a line in \cite{HoyosBadajoz:2010td}, on which we base the argument below.

The low-energy spectrum consists of $N$ $\cN=4$ $U(1)$ massless vector multiplets, one for each D3 brane, and supermultiplets of W bosons whose mass is generated by the separation of the D3 branes that produces the breaking $SU(N)\to U(1)^{N-1}$. The mass of the W bosons is proportional to the separation between D3 branes times the string tension. Since we assume that D3 branes are evenly separated, the mass spectrum of W bosons will take the form
\begin{equation}
m_W\sim \frac{n}{N R_4} \ \ \ n=1,2,\cdots
\end{equation}
For $n=1$, $m_W$ corresponds to the modes between two neighbouring D3 branes. For D3 branes set further apart the mass of the associated W bosons increases with the distance. Note that the resulting spectrum can also be interpreted as a tower of Kaluza-Klein modes on a circle of radius
\begin{equation}
\tilde{R}_4\sim NR_4.
\end{equation}
From the $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ invariance of the $\cN=4$ theory, one can deduce that there should be similar tower of states for magnetically charged objects, forming in total a Kaluza-Klein tower of modes on a tours. The mass of the purely magnetically charged states, which correspond to stretched D1-branes, is
\begin{equation}
m_{\widetilde W}\sim \frac{n}{g^2_{YM} N R_4}\sim \frac{n}{\lambda_4 R_4} , \ \ \ n=1,2,\cdots
\end{equation}
so the radius of the second direction in the torus will be
\begin{equation}
\tilde{R}_5\sim \lambda_4R_4\sim NR_{11}.
\end{equation}
This is what we set out to show. This system has 16 supercharges, because it is a vacuum state of $\cN=4$ SYM theory in four dimensions. The $(2,0)$ theory that describes the low-energy physics of the M5 brane has a similar spectrum to the 1/2 BPS states described by the $W$ bosons and their dyonic versions.

A deconstruction argument can also be formulated directly in the D4 field theory. In this case, the tower of massive states will be generated by the breaking of the gauge group $SU(N)\to U(1)^{N-1}$ by a Wilson line along the $x^4$ direction. There is no $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ symmetry, so  only one additional direction will be generated, resulting again in six-dimensional behavior.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We would like to thank T.~Morita for clarifying comments on the phases of the black D4 brane, and U.~G\"ursoy and A.~O'Bannon for pointing out an incorrect statement in the published version of this paper.
This research was supported in part by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office through the Interuniversity Attraction
Pole IAP VI/11, by FWO-Vlaanderen through project G011410N, by the Israel Science Foundation (grant number 1468/06) and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.\ PHY11-25915.
BC is grateful to the Newton Institute, the KITP and the University of Amsterdam for hospitality and partial support while this work was in progress.
PS is a Postdoctoral Researcher of FWO-Vlaanderen, and would like to thank University of Witwatersrand and Oxford University for hospitality and partial support during the course of this work.