\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
\def\thesection.\arabic{equation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\ell}{\ell}

\newcommand{\notag \\}{\notag \\}
\newcommand{u}{u}
\newcommand{v}{v}
\def{\mathcal O}{{\mathcal O}}
\def\eq#1 { \begin{equation} #1 \end{equation} }
\def\eqn#1{ \begin{align} #1 \end{align} }
\newcommand{\bar{\beta}}{\bar{\beta}}

\newcommand{h_0}{h_0}

\newcommand\para{\paragraph{}}
\newcommand{\ft}[2]{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}

\newcommand\mf{\mathcal{F}}
\newcommand\ma{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand\Q{\mathcal{Q}}
\newcommand\R{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand\Z{\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand\F{\mathbb{F}}
\newcommand\ml{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand\Pf{\mathrm{Pf}}
\newcommand\D{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand\cp{\mathbb{CP}}
\newcommand\C{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand\T{\mathbb{T}}
\newcommand\diff{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\partial}{\partial}
\newcommand{\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{i}}
\newcommand{\overline\nabla}{\overline\nabla}
\newcommand{\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{vol}}{\mathrm{vol}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{Vol}}{\mathrm{Vol}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{Y}^{p,q}}{\mathscr{Y}^{p,q}}

\newcommand{\bar{r}}{\bar{r}}

\newcommand{\mathrm{tr}}{\mathrm{tr}}

\newlength{\sswidth}
\newcommand{\sla}[1]{
   \settowidth{\sswidth}{$#1$}
   \mbox{$\not{\hspace*{-0.3\sswidth}#1}$}}

\DeclareMathOperator{\image}{\mathrm{Im}\,}

\newcommand\s{\mathcal{\sigma}}
\newcommand\n{\mathcal{\beta}}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\newcommand{\jpg}[1]{{\bf [jpg: #1]}}

\def\note#1{{\bf \color{red}{[#1]}}}

\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}

\vfill

\begin{flushright}
Imperial/TP/2022/JG/02\\
\end{flushright}

\vfill

\begin{center}
   \baselineskip=16pt
   {\Large\bf Leigh-Strassler compactified on a spindle\symfootnote{No physicists were harmed in carrying out the research reported here.}}
  \vskip 1cm

Igal Arav$^1$,  Jerome P. Gauntlett$^2$\\
Matthew M. Roberts$^2$ and Christopher Rosen$^3$\\
     \vskip 1cm
                          \begin{small}
                                \textit{$^1$Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Amsterdam,\\
                                Science Park 904, PO Box 94485,\\
                                1090 GL Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
        \end{small}\\
        \begin{small}\vskip .3cm
      \textit{$^2$Blackett Laboratory,
  Imperial College\\ London, SW7 2AZ, U.K.}
        \end{small}\\
             \begin{small}\vskip .3cm
      \textit{$^3$Crete Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, University of Crete,\\
71003 Heraklion, Greece}
        \end{small}\\
                       \end{center}
\vfill

\begin{center}
\textbf{Abstract}
\end{center}
\begin{quote}
We construct a new class of supersymmetric $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions of type IIB supergravity,
where $Y_7$ is an $S^5$ fibration over a spindle, which are dual to $d=2$, $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ SCFTs.
The solutions are constructed in a sub-truncation of $D=5$, $SO(6)$ maximal gauged supergravity and they all lie within the anti-twist class. We show that the central charge computed from the gravity solutions agrees with an anomaly polynomial calculation associated with compactifying the $\mathcal{N}=1$, $d=4$ Leigh-Strassler SCFT on a spindle.

\end{quote}

\vfill

\end{titlepage}

\tableofcontents

\newpage

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

A fruitful way to engineer supersymmetric conformal field theories (SCFTs) is to compactify higher-dimensional
SCFTs. An important paradigm \cite{Maldacena:2000mw} is to consider a SCFT on the product of flat spacetime
with a compact manifold and then, in order to preserve supersymmetry,
switch on background magnetic fluxes which encapsulate a partial topological twist of the SCFT. In favourable situations,
the system will then flow to a new SCFT at low energies. If the parent SCFT field theory has a large $N$ holographic dual
one can study the resulting renormalisation group (RG) flow holographically by appropriately constructing dual supergravity solutions. In fact such holographic solutions
provide an important tool in establishing whether or not the compactified SCFT flows to a new SCFT in the IR.

Recently it has been appreciated that this well studied paradigm can be modified in two interrelated ways. Firstly, one can relax
the condition that the compact space is a manifold and instead consider orbifolds. In particular, starting with \cite{Ferrero:2020laf}, there has been
considerable work studying SCFTs compactified on a spindle, a two-dimensional orbifold which is topologically a two sphere but with conical deficit angles at the north and south poles.
Secondly, supersymmetry is no longer realised by the standard topological twist. For spindles with an azimuthal symmetry, which
is the class that has been studied, there are just two ways to preserve supersymmetry called the ``twist" and
the ``anti-twist" \cite{Ferrero:2021etw}, which are characterised by the $R$-symmetry flux through the spindle. The twist is in the same topological class as the standard topological twist but there are some differences: for example the spinors on the spindle that are associated with the preserved supersymmetry are no longer constant and chiral. The anti-twist on a spindle is a new way of preserving supersymmetry.

The analysis of \cite{Ferrero:2020laf} was in the context of $\mathcal{N}=1$, $d=4$ SCFTs which are dual to $AdS_5\times SE_5$ solutions of type IIB supergravity, that are then reduced on a spindle. It was shown that these give rise to $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$, $d=2$ SCFTs
that are dual to $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions of type IIB supergravity, first found in \cite{Gauntlett:2006af}, where $Y_7$ is a smooth seven-dimensional manifold consisting of a fibration of the five-dimensional Sasaki-Einstein manifold, $SE_5$, over the spindle $\Sigma$.
These supergravity solutions, which are all in the anti-twist class, were constructed as $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions of $D=5$ minimal gauged supergravity and then uplifted on $SE_5$ to type IIB. It is particularly interesting that for $SE_5$ in the regular class,
the orbifold singularities of the spindle are eliminated after uplifting to the type IIB solutions.
For the specific case of $\mathcal{N}=4$, $d=4$ SYM, one can include
additional background magnetic fluxes on the spindle and the corresponding $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions can be
constructed using the $D=5$ STU theory  \cite{Hosseini:2021fge,Boido:2021szx,Ferrero:2021etw}.
The STU theory arises as a consistent truncation of type IIB on $S^5$ and has a bosonic content consisting of a metric, $U(1)^3$ gauge fields and two neutral scalars \cite{Cvetic:1999xp}. In this setting it was shown that in addition to anti-twist solutions \cite{Hosseini:2021fge,Boido:2021szx},
twist solutions \cite{Ferrero:2021etw} are also possible depending on the value of the magnetic fluxes and the deficit angles on the spindle.
In all of these examples, it is straightforward to calculate the central charge of the $d=2$ SCFT from the gravity solution. This can be compared with a field theory calculation that uses anomaly polynomials and $c$-extremisation \cite{Benini:2012cz}, and one finds exact agreement.

Similar investigations of SCFTs in $d=3,5, 6$ dimensions that are compactified on a spindle have also been made \cite{Ferrero:2020twa,Ferrero:2021wvk,Cassani:2021dwa,Ferrero:2021ovq,Couzens:2021rlk,Faedo:2021nub,Giri:2021xta,Couzens:2021cpk}. Furthermore, compactifying on higher-dimensional orbifolds is also possible: the case of the $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$, $d=6$ SCFT arising on M5-branes and then reduced on four-dimension orbifolds, including a spindle fibred over a spindle, was studied in \cite{Cheung:2022ilc}. The goal of the present paper is to report on an investigation of the $d=4$ Leigh-Strassler (LS) SCFT compactified on a spindle.

Recall that the LS fixed point is a strongly coupled $\mathcal{N}=1$, $d=4$ SCFT which was identified in \cite{Leigh:1995ep}.
It can be obtained as the IR end point of an RG flow that starts in the UV from $SU(N)$ $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory with the addition
of a mass deformation for one of the three adjoint chiral superfields. The LS fixed point has $SU(2)\times U(1)_R$ global symmetry which is inherited from the $SU(4)$ $R$-symmetry of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM.
In the large $N$ limit the LS fixed point is holographically dual to an $AdS_5\times S^5_{LS}$ solution first found in \cite{Khavaev:1998fb,Pilch:2000ej}.
Moreover, the holographic RG flow solution that starts from $AdS_5\times S^5$ in the UV, dual to
the mass deformed $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM, and then flows to $AdS_5\times S^5_{LS}$ in the IR was constructed in \cite{Freedman:1999gp}.
An analysis of the LS theory placed on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_g$ with a standard topological twist,
where $\Sigma_g$ is a Riemann surface of genus $g$, was made in \cite{Bobev:2014jva}. For genus $g>1$,
by constructing $AdS_3\times \Sigma_g$ solutions of a sub-truncation $D=5$ maximal supergravity it was shown that the compactified LS theory flows to an $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$, $d=2$ SCFT in the IR in the large $N$ limit.

Here we consider the $d=4$ LS theory placed on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma$
where $\Sigma$ is a spindle with an azimuthal symmetry. Using the same sub-truncation of $D=5$ maximal gauged supergravity that was used in \cite{Bobev:2014jva}
we will construct an associated class of supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions. After uplifting to type IIB  these give rise to a new class of $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions, with $Y_7$
a smooth manifold consisting of an $S^5$ fibration over $\Sigma$, that are dual to a new class of $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$, $d=2$ SCFTs.
A novel feature is that the $D=5$ gauged supergravity solution contains both neutral and charged scalar fields. Ensuring that the charged scalars are regular at the poles of the spindle requires a generalisation of the analysis of \cite{Ferrero:2021etw}.
While we have constructed some analytic $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions to the BPS equations,
the generic solutions, all of which are in the anti-twist class, have been constructed numerically.
However, remarkably, we are able to show that the central charge can be expressed analytically in terms of the deficit angles of the poles and the magnetic flux through the spindle.
This enables us to make a comparison with a field theory calculation associated with the LS theory using anomaly polynomials and $c$-extremisation, and we find exact agreement.

The plan of the rest of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec:sugramodel} we introduce the $D=5$ supergravity model that we use to construct the new solutions. In section \ref{sec:ads3}
we present the $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ ansatz of interest and analyse the resulting BPS equations, which consist of a set of coupled ODEs.
We identify conserved charges as well as
elucidate the boundary conditions that are required in order to obtain an $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solution with appropriately quantised fluxes and regular scalar fields. This allows us to obtain an analytic expression for the central charge and also the fluxes in terms of the boundary conditions.
In section \ref{sec:results} we present the analytic solutions
as well as discuss the numerically constructed solutions. Section \ref{sec:fthy} carries out a field theory computation of the central charge.
We conclude with some discussion in section \ref{sec:disc}, including some
outlook on the possibility of constructing RG flow solutions that would connect with our new solutions.

We have five appendices. In appendix \ref{app:a} we discuss how the supergravity model arises from a truncation of maximal $D=5$ gauged supergravity, with some small differences in detail with regard to \cite{Khavaev:2000gb} and other papers.
Our discussion  in the appendix is for a more general class of theories, as in \cite{Bobev:2010de}, that maintain three gauge fields and two neutral scalar fields, as in the STU model, plus four complex scalar fields. We also discuss a truncation to minimal $D=5$ gauged supergravity that is associated with the $AdS_5$ LS fixed point which allows us to construct the analytic $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions.
In appendix \ref{susyvars} we derive the BPS equations for the $AdS_3$ ansatz of interest. We also show that the BPS equations can be
recast as supersymmetric $D=4$ Janus-like equations of the type discussed in a $D=5$ context in \cite{Arav:2020obl} which provides a helpful alternative perspective. In appendix \ref{app:c} we generalise the analysis of supersymmetric spindles
given in \cite{Ferrero:2021etw} to include charged complex scalar fields.
In appendix \ref{app:e} we analyse the possibility of having specific charged conformal Killing spinors on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times\Sigma$, which would naturally arise on the boundary of putative RG flow solutions from $AdS_5$ to $AdS_3\times \Sigma$, finding that they only arise in the context of the standard topological twist.
In appendix \ref{app:d} we recall some features of the analytic $AdS_3\times\Sigma$ solutions of the STU model and discuss how RG flows from these fixed points to the new fixed points might be possible.

\section{The supergravity model}\label{sec:sugramodel}
We will use a $U(1)^3\subset SO(6)$ consistent truncation of maximal gauged supergravity in $D=5$ that
keeps a metric, three gauge fields $A^{(1)},A^{(2)},A^{(3)}$, two real and neutral scalars $\alpha,\beta$
and a single complex scalar field $\zeta\equiv \varphi e^{i\theta}$ which is charged with respect to a specific linear combination of the three $U(1)$'s. This model was used in \cite{Bobev:2014jva} and can be obtained as a truncation of a more general class of models with four charged scalar fields that was
presented in \cite{Khavaev:2000gb,Bobev:2010de} (see appendix \ref{app:a} for further discussion).
The bosonic part of the Lagrangian, in a \emph{mostly minus} signature, is given by
\begin{align}\label{model1text}
\mathcal{L} =& -\tfrac{1}{4} R
 + \tfrac{1}{2}(\partial \varphi)^2+  \tfrac{1}{8}\sinh^2 2\varphi \left(D\theta \right)^2
 + 3 (\partial \alpha)^2 + (\partial \beta)^2   - \mathcal{P} \notag \\
&
 - \tfrac{1}{4}\left[ e^{4\alpha-4\beta} F^{(1)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(1)\mu\nu}
+ e^{4\alpha+4\beta} F^{(2)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(2)\mu\nu}
+ e^{-8\alpha} F^{(3)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(3)\mu\nu} \right]\notag \\
&+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma\delta}F^{(1)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(2)}_{\rho\sigma}A^{(3)}_\delta\,,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{dthetastext}
 D\theta&\equiv d \theta +g \left(A^{(1)} + A^{(2)} - A^{(3)} \right)\,.
\end{align}
The scalar potential $\mathcal{P}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{model2text}
\mathcal{P} = \frac{g^2}{8} \left[ \left( \frac{\partial W}{\partial \varphi} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{6}  \left( \frac{\partial W}{\partial \alpha} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial W}{\partial \beta} \right)^2 \right] - \frac{g^2}{3} W^2 \, ,
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the ``superpotential" defined by
\begin{align}\label{superpottext}
W = -\frac{1}{4} \Big[
 &( e^{-2\alpha-2\beta}+e^{-2\alpha+2\beta } - e^{ 4\alpha } ) \cosh2\varphi
 + ( e^{-2\alpha-2\beta}+e^{-2\alpha+2\beta } +3 e^{ 4\alpha } )   \Big] \, .
\end{align}
Notice that the model has a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry
\begin{align}\label{z2symact}
\beta\to-\beta,\qquad A^{(1)}\leftrightarrow A^{(2)}\,.
\end{align}

The gravity theory \eqref{model1text}-\eqref{superpottext} is not supersymmetric but we can determine the conditions needed to be satisfied in order that a solution preserves some of the supersymmetry of the maximal gauged supergravity theory.
From the gravitino variations we require
\begin{align}\label{firstgravpass2text}
&\Big(\nabla_\mu -iQ_\mu-\frac{ig}{6}W\gamma_\mu
-\frac{1}{12}H_{\nu\rho}(\gamma^{\nu\rho}\gamma_\mu+2\gamma^\nu\delta^\rho_\mu)\Big)\epsilon=0\,,
\end{align}
where $\epsilon$ is a complex $D=5$ Dirac spinor, $\nabla_\mu=\partial_\mu+\tfrac{1}{4}\omega_{\mu ab}\gamma^{ab}$ and
\begin{align}\label{HQdefstext}
H_{\mu\nu} &\equiv  e^{2\alpha-2\beta} F^{(1)}_{\mu\nu} + e^{2\alpha + 2\beta} F^{(2)}_{\mu\nu} + e^{-4\alpha} F^{(3)}_{\mu\nu}  \, ,\notag \\
Q_\mu&\equiv -\frac{g}{2}(A^{(1)}_\mu+A^{(2)}_\mu+A^{(3)}_\mu)
-\frac{1}{4}(\cosh2\varphi-1)D_\mu\theta\,.
\end{align}
We highlight that the supersymmetry parameters are charged just with respect to the $R$-symmetry gauge field given by
\begin{align}\label{rgfielddeftext}
A^R_\mu \equiv -g(A^{(1)}_\mu+A^{(2)}_\mu+A^{(3)}_\mu)\,,
\end{align}
and have charge $1/2$. Also, notice that for vanishing complex scalar, $\varphi=0$, we have $A^R_\mu=2Q_\mu$.
Vanishing of the remaining supersymmetry variations is guaranteed if
\begin{align}\label{gauginovarstext}
[\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu \alpha +\frac{ig}{12}\partial_\alpha W-\frac{1}{12}(e^{2\alpha-2\beta} F^{(1)}_{\mu\nu} + e^{2\alpha+2\beta} F^{(2)}_{\mu\nu} - 2 e^{-4\alpha} F^{(3)}_{\mu\nu} )\gamma^{\mu\nu}]\epsilon&=0\,,\notag \\
{}[\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu \beta +\frac{ig}{4}\partial_\beta W-\frac{1}{4}(-e^{2\alpha-2\beta} F^{(1)}_{\mu\nu} +e^{2\alpha+2\beta} F^{(2)}_{\mu\nu})\gamma^{\mu\nu}]\epsilon&=0\,,\notag \\
{}[\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu \varphi +\frac{ig}{2}\partial_{\varphi}W+i\partial_{\varphi} Q_\mu\gamma^\mu]\epsilon&=0\,.
\end{align}

This gravity model admits the maximally supersymmetric $AdS_5$ vacuum solution with vanishing scalar fields and the $AdS_5$ metric having radius squared equal to $4/g^2$.
Within the associated dual $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory we can identify the scalar fields $\alpha,\beta$ with bosonic mass deformations living in ${\bf 20}'$ of $SO(6)$ and $\zeta$ with fermionic mass deformations living in the ${\bf 10}$ of $SO(6)$.
If $X_a$ are the six real scalars and $\lambda$ one of the four fermions of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory then we have, schematically,
\begin{align}\label{opfieldmapztext}
\Delta=2:\qquad \qquad  \alpha &\quad \leftrightarrow \quad \mathrm{tr}(X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2+X_4^2-X_5^2-X_6^2)\,,\notag \\
   \beta &\quad \leftrightarrow \quad \mathrm{tr}(X_1^2+X_2^2-X_3^2-X_4^2)\,,\notag \\
\Delta=3:\qquad \qquad  \zeta &\quad \leftrightarrow \quad \mathrm{tr}(\lambda\lambda+\text{cubic in $X_a$})\,,
\end{align}
where $\Delta$ is the conformal scaling dimension of the operator.
It also admits\footnote{The model also admits an $SU(3)$ invariant $AdS_5$ solution which does not preserve supersymmetry and is known to be unstable \cite{Bobev:2010de}.}
a supersymmetric LS $AdS_5$ solution \cite{Khavaev:1998fb} with radius squared equal to $9/(2^{4/3}g^2)$ with
\begin{align}\label{lsfpsc}
e^{6\alpha}=2,\qquad e^{2\varphi}={3}\,,\qquad \beta=0\,,
\end{align}
and, of course, vanishing gauge fields.
This solution preserves $SU(2)\times U(1)_R$ symmetry and, after uplifting to type IIB \cite{Pilch:2000ej},
are dual to the $d=4$, $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS SCFT \cite{Leigh:1995ep}.
As is well known there is an RG flow between $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM, deformed by the relevant fermion mass operator with $\Delta=3$ given in \eqref{opfieldmapztext}, and the corresponding holographic solution was found in \cite{Freedman:1999gp}.

It is also helpful to consider some further truncations of the gravity model.
If we set the charged scalar field to zero, $\zeta=0$, in \eqref{model1text} we obtain the STU model \cite{Cvetic:1999xp}, with two real scalars $\alpha,\beta$ and
three gauge-fields.
From the STU model, we can further truncate to minimal $D=5$ gauged supergravity by setting all gauge fields equal
$A^{(1)}=A^{(2)}=A^{(3)}$ as well as setting the real scalars to zero $\alpha=\beta=0$.
In particular, the $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions of the STU model \cite{Ferrero:2021etw} (extending \cite{Hosseini:2021fge,Boido:2021szx})
and of minimal gauged supergravity \cite{Ferrero:2020laf}
arise in this model, and can be uplifted on $S^5$ to obtain solutions of type IIB, as discussed in those papers.

There is also a different way to truncate to $D=5$ minimal gauged supergravity, associated with the LS fixed point. One sets the scalar fields
as in \eqref{lsfpsc} and also sets $A^{(1)}=A^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}A^{(3)}$ (see appendix \ref{mingstrunc}). Thus, the
$AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions of minimal gauged supergravity \cite{Ferrero:2020laf}  can be uplifted on $S^5$ in a different way to that discussed in
\cite{Ferrero:2020laf} and are dual to new $d=2$, $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ SCFTs; we shall discuss this further in section \ref{sec:resultsanalytic}.
We can also relax this truncation by just setting $A^{(1)}=A^{(2)}$ as well as $\beta=0$. This model preserves
$SU(2)\times U(1)_R$ symmetry. It contains the LS fixed point solution and also the RG flow solution that starts off with the vacuum
$AdS_5$ in the UV and ends at the LS $AdS_5$ solution in the IR. One might have thought that this ``LS truncation" would be a good starting point to  construct additional $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions but, as it turns out, there are no further solutions
in this sector. Thus, we continue with
the larger truncation \eqref{model1text}-\eqref{superpottext} which preserves $U(1) \times U(1)_R$ symmetry, which we refer to as the \emph{extended LS truncation}.

\section{$AdS_3$ ansatz}\label{sec:ads3}
We are interested in constructing $AdS_3\times\Sigma$ solutions lying within the ansatz
\begin{align}\label{ads3ans}
ds^2&=e^{2V}ds^2(AdS_3)-(f^2dy^2+h^2 dz^2)\,,\notag \\
A^{(i)}&=a^{(i)}dz\,,
\end{align}
where $ds^2(AdS_3)$ is a unit radius metric on $AdS_3$ and $V,f,h,a^{(i)}$ are functions of $y$ only. Notice that we can use different gauge choices for $f$ by changing the $y$ coordinate
and later we will choose\footnote{If we dimensionally reduce on the $z$ direction
one gets a Janus-type ansatz in a conformal gauge  as discussed in appendix \ref{janusapp}.}
``conformal gauge"  with $f=e^V$.
We also assume that the scalar fields $\alpha,\beta,\varphi$ are functions of $y$ only.
To avoid PDEs, from the gauge equations of motion we must then take the phase of the complex scalar field, $\theta$,
to be linear in $z$, $\theta=\bar\theta z$, with $\bar\theta$ a constant. In particular, we then have
\begin{align}
Q_\mu dx^\mu\equiv Q_z dz\,,
\end{align}
with $Q_z =Q_z(y)$.

We are particularly interested in solutions where $\Sigma$, the space parametrised by $(y,z)$, is a compact spindle with an azimuthal symmetry generated by $\partial_z$. Compactness can be achieved by taking $y\in [y_1,y_2]$, with $h(y_i)=0$ and $z$ to be a periodic coordinate.
 The precise boundary conditions on the other fields at the poles of
the spindle, located at $y=y_i$ will be discussed below. We will be interested in such $AdS_3\times\Sigma$ solutions that preserve
supersymmetry and hence are dual to $d=2$ $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ SCFTs. The associated BPS equations will be summarised below.

We will utilise an orthonormal frame
\begin{align}\label{orthframe}
e^a=e^V \bar e^a,\qquad e^3=f dy,\qquad e^4=hdz\,,
\end{align}
where $\bar e^a$ is an orthonormal frame for $ds^2(AdS_3)$.
The frame components of the field strengths can then be written as
\begin{align}
F^{(i)}_{34}=f^{-1}h^{-1}(a^{(i)})'\,.
\end{align}

It will be very helpful to note that with this ansatz, two of the equations of motion for the gauge fields can be immediately integrated.
Explicitly, we find the gauge equations of motion are equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{gaugeintmot}
e^{3V}\left(e^{4\alpha-4\beta}F^{(1)}_{34}-e^{4\alpha+4\beta}F^{(2)}_{34}\right)&=\mathcal{E}_F\,,\notag \\
e^{3V}\left(e^{4\alpha-4\beta}F^{(1)}_{34}+e^{4\alpha+4\beta}F^{(2)}_{34}+2e^{-8\alpha}F^{(3)}_{34}\right)&=\mathcal{E}_R\,,\notag \\
(e^{3V-8\alpha}F^{(3)}_{34})'&=-e^{3V}fh^{-1}\frac{g}{4}\sinh^2 2\varphi D_z\theta \,,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{E}_F$ and $\mathcal{E}_R$ are constants and $D_z\theta= (\bar\theta+ga^{(1)}+ga^{(2)}-ga^{(3)})$.

\subsection{BPS equations}\label{susyvarstext}
To analyse the Killing spinor equations\footnote{The analysis is somewhat similar to that of \cite{Bobev:2010de} who considered double wick rotated backgrounds
with the $AdS_3$ factor replaced by an $S^3$.}
we use the orthonormal frame given in \eqref{orthframe}.
We next decompose the Clifford algebra via
\begin{align}\label{eq:5d_clifford_deftext}
\gamma^m = & \Gamma^m \otimes \sigma^3, \qquad
\gamma^3 =  {1} \otimes i  \sigma^1, \qquad
\gamma^4 =   {1} \otimes  i  \sigma^2,
\end{align}
with $\Gamma^m=(\sigma^2,  i\sigma^3, i\sigma^1)$ gamma matrices in $D=3$.
We write the Killing spinor as
\begin{align}
\epsilon=\psi\otimes\chi\,,
\end{align}
with $\psi$ a two component spinor on $AdS_3$ which satisfies
\begin{align}
D_m\psi=\frac{i}{2}\kappa\Gamma_m \psi\,,
\end{align}
with $\kappa=\pm 1$ determining the chirality of the supersymmetry of the
dual $d=2$ SCFT i.e. $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ or $(2,0)$.
 After some analysis, summarised in appendix \ref{susyvars}, we find that the two component spinor $\chi$ can be
be written in the form
\begin{align}\label{chiralityspin}
\chi  =e^{V/2}e^{is z}\begin{pmatrix}\sin\frac{\xi}{2} \\ \cos\frac{\xi}{2} \end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{align}
where the constant $s$ is the gauge-dependent charge of the spinor under the action of the azimuthal Killing vector $\partial_z$.
Notice, for later use, that at points where
$\xi=0$ the spinor $\chi$ has negative chirality with respect to $\sigma^3$, while when
$\xi=\pi$ the spinor $\chi$ has positive chirality.

The solutions of interest to us have $\sin\xi$ not identically equal to zero. Then, as we show in the appendix \ref{susyvars}, for points with $\sin\xi\ne 0$ the
BPS equations associated with these Killing spinors can be written in the form
\begin{align}\label{summbbpsapptext}
f^{-1}\xi'&=gW\cos\xi+2\kappa e^{-V}\,,\notag \\
f^{-1} V' &= \frac{g}{3} W \sin\xi\,,\notag \\
f^{-1}\alpha'&=-\frac{g}{12}\partial_\alpha W\sin\xi\,,\notag \\
f^{-1}\beta'&=-\frac{g}{4}\partial_\beta W\sin\xi\,,\notag \\
f^{-1}\varphi'&=-\frac{g}{2}\frac{\partial_{\varphi}W}{\sin\xi}\,,\notag \\
f^{-1}\frac{h'}{h}&=\frac{1}{\sin\xi}\Big(2\kappa e^{-V}\cos\xi+\frac{gW}{3}(1+2\cos^2\xi)\Big)\,,
\end{align}
along with the two constraint equations
\begin{align}\label{summconstext}
(s-Q_z)\sin\xi&=-\frac{1}{2}g  Wh\cos\xi-\kappa h e^{-V}\,,\notag \\
\frac{g}{2}\partial_{\varphi}W\cos\xi&=\partial_{\varphi} Q_z \sin\xi h^{-1}\,.
\end{align}
Furthermore the field strength components in the orthonormal frame are given by
\begin{align}\label{fstrengthsbpstext}
e^{2\alpha-2\beta}F^{(1)}_{34}&=-\frac{g}{12}[4W-\partial_\alpha W+3\partial_\beta W]\cos\xi-\kappa e^{-V}\,,\notag \\
e^{2\alpha+2\beta}F^{(2)}_{34}
&=-\frac{g}{12}[4W-\partial_\alpha W-3\partial_\beta W]\cos\xi-\kappa e^{-V}\,,\notag \\
e^{-4\alpha}F^{(3)}_{34}
&=-\frac{g}{6}[2W+\partial_\alpha W]\cos\xi-\kappa e^{-V}\,.
\end{align}

\subsection{Integrals of motion}
An important observation is that we can integrate a combination of the BPS equations. Specifically,
by calculating the derivative of $he^{-V}$ we deduce that
\begin{align}\label{hemvszeqtext}
he^{-V}=k \sin\xi\,,
\end{align}
where $k$ is a constant.
This shows that at points where $h$ vanishes, which
will correspond to the poles of the spindle in the solutions of interest, $\sin\xi$ also vanishes. It is also helpful to notice that from \eqref{summbbpsapptext}, \eqref{summconstext}
we can then also write the equation for $\xi'$ as
\begin{align}\label{xiderivnice}
\xi'&=-2k^{-1}(s-Q_z)(e^{-V}f)\,,
\end{align}
while the two constraints \eqref{summconstext} can now be written in the form
\begin{align}\label{summconstext2}
(s-Q_z)&=-k[\frac{1}{2}g  We^V\cos\xi+\kappa]\,,\notag \\
\frac{g}{2}\partial_{\varphi}W\cos\xi&=k^{-1}e^{-V}\partial_{\varphi} Q_z\,.
\end{align}

We can also use the expressions for the field strengths \eqref{fstrengthsbpstext}
to rewrite the two integrals of motion \eqref{gaugeintmot}, arising from the gauge field equations of motion, to obtain
\begin{align}\label{conschges}
\mathcal{E}_R&=e^{2V}[2ge^V \cos\xi-2\kappa(e^{-4\alpha}+e^{2\alpha}\cosh 2\beta)]\,,\notag \\
\mathcal{E}_F&=2\kappa e^{2V}e^{2\alpha}\sinh 2\beta\,.
\end{align}

\subsection{Boundary conditions for spindle solutions}\label{bcsspinsols}
It is convenient to now work in conformal gauge with
\begin{align}\label{confgauge}
f=e^V\,,
\end{align} so that the metric takes the form
\begin{align}
ds^2&=e^{2V}[ds^2(AdS_3)-ds^2_\Sigma]\,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
ds^2_\Sigma=dy^2+k^2\sin^2\xi dz^2\,,
\end{align}
and the constant $k$ defined in \eqref{hemvszeqtext}.

We are interested in constructing supersymmetric solutions where $ds^2_\Sigma$ is a metric on a spindle with an azimuthal symmetry, which is specified by two relatively prime integers $n_N,n_S\ge 1$.
The poles are
taken to lie at $y=y_{N,S}$ and with deficit angles $2\pi(1-\frac{1}{n_{N,S}})$, respectively, and $z$ is a periodic coordinate with period $\Delta z$ which we fix to be
\begin{align}
\Delta z=2\pi\,.
\end{align}
In order to ensure that the gauge fields $gA^{(i)}$ are connections on $U(1)$ orbibundles over $\Sigma$ we need to impose that the magnetic fluxes through the spindle are suitably quantised:
\begin{align}\label{genfluxqc}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma gF^{(i)}=\frac{p_i}{n_N n_S}\,,\qquad p_i\in\mathbb{Z}\,,
\end{align}
as discussed in \cite{Ferrero:2021etw} and also summarised in appendix \ref{app:c}. This normalisation is fixed by how the $D=5$ solution
is uplifted on $S^5$ to give a type IIB solution\footnote{From the uplifting formula (2.1) of \cite{Cvetic:1999xp} we see that
$[gA^{i}]_{them}$ is a canonically normalised $U(1)$ connection since their $\phi_i$ are periodic coordinates on $S^5$ with periods
$\Delta\phi_i=2\pi$. By comparing their (2.9) with
our \eqref{model1text} we conclude that $g_{us}=2g_{them}$, $A^{(i)}_{us}=1/2 A^{i}_{them}$ and hence
$[gA^{(i)}]_{us}$ is canonically normalised.}
and ensures that we will obtain an $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solution with $Y_7$ a smooth manifold consisting of an $S^5$ bundle over the spindle $\Sigma$ \cite{Ferrero:2021etw}.

A novel feature in the present set up is the presence of the complex scalar field
$\zeta$ which is charged under a particular linear combination of the three $U(1)$'s. We analyse the boundary conditions that need to be imposed on such scalars in appendix \ref{app:c}, extending the analysis of \cite{Ferrero:2021etw}.
We show there that if $\zeta$ is non-vanishing at a pole then we must have the gauge invariant condition $D\theta=0$ at that pole:
\begin{align}\label{textdthetazero}
\varphi|_{N,S}\ne 0 \quad \Rightarrow\quad D\theta|_{N,S}=0\,,
\end{align}
respectively.
Furthermore, in the case that
$\zeta$ is non-vanishing at \emph{both} poles, which is the case that we shall study\footnote{It would be interesting to determine
whether or not there are spindle solutions where the complex scalar vanishes at just one of the poles.},
the associated $U(1)$ flux through the spindle must vanish:
\begin{align}\label{nobrokenflux}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma g(F^{(1)}+F^{(2)}-F^{(3)})&=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma d(D\theta)\notag \\
&=0\,.
\end{align}
Given that the $R$-symmetry flux is quantised, as we recall in a moment, we just need to impose one more condition to ensure that
the general flux quantisation conditions \eqref{genfluxqc} are satisfied for all gauge-fields.

We now consider the fermions. The coupling of the fermions to the $R$-symmetry gauge field $A^R$, defined in
\eqref{rgfielddeftext}, is exactly the same as in \cite{Ferrero:2021etw}. There are then
two cases, the twist and the anti-twist, which are specified by the $R$-symmetry flux:
\begin{align}\label{rsymflux}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma F^R\equiv\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma -g(F^{(1)}+F^{(2)}+F^{(3)})&=\pm\frac{n_N+n_S}{n_N n_S}\,,\qquad \text{Twist}\,,\notag \\
&=\pm\frac{n_S-n_N}{n_N n_S}\,,\qquad \text{Anti-twist}\,.
\end{align}
The $\pm$ signs refer to the chirality of the spinors at the poles, as we make more precise below, and we recall that for the twist class, the spinors have the same chirality at the two poles while
for the anti-twist class they have opposite chirality.

The behaviour of the $R$-symmetry gauge field and the azimuthal charge of the spinor at the poles, which depends on the choice of gauge, was discussed in
\cite{Ferrero:2021etw}. From \eqref{HQdefstext} we note that at the poles of the spindle the $R$-symmetry gauge field
is equal to $2Q_\mu$; this is obviously true if the complex scalar vanishes at the pole, but it is also true if
it doesn't since, as noted above, in this case  we demand that $D\theta=0$ at the pole. Recall, that $s$ is the azimuthal charge of the Killing spinor, in a given gauge. Then from (2.36), (2.37) of  \cite{Ferrero:2021etw} (see also the discussion in appendix \ref{app:c})
we can conclude that the behaviour of the gauge-invariant quantity $s-Q_z$ at the poles can be taken to satisfy
\begin{align}\label{sminqnpoletext}
(s-Q_z)|_N=\pm\frac{1}{2n_N},\qquad (s-Q_z)|_S&=\mp \frac{1}{2n_S},\quad\text{Twist}\,, \notag \\
(s-Q_z)|_S&=\pm  \frac{1}{2n_S},\quad\text{Anti-twist}\,.
\end{align}

With these general comments in mind, we will analyse the BPS equations in more detail.
In doing so we will recover some of these results directly. However, remarkably,
we will be able to achieve significantly more, almost completely fixing the behaviour of all fields at the poles.
Furthermore, we will be able to obtain an analytic expression for
the central charge of the dual field theory in terms of the spindle data $(n_N,n_S)$
for both the twist and the anti-twist class. Consistency of the resulting conditions will in fact eliminate the possibility of any twist solutions, leaving us just with the possibility of anti-twist solutions. The existence of such
solutions can be demonstrated numerically, as we discuss in section \ref{sec:results}.

\subsubsection{Analysis of the BPS equations}

We begin by noting that at the poles of the spindle
we have $k\sin\xi\to 0 $ and hence, taking $k\ne 0$ we have $\cos\xi\to \pm 1$. We write
$\cos\xi_{N,S}= (-1)^{t_{N,S}}$, with $t_{N,S}\in \{0,1\}$.
The poles are located at $y=y_{N,S}$ and we label them so that $y_N<y_S$ and $y\in[y_N,y_S]$. By assumption, the deficit angles at the poles are
$2\pi(1-\frac{1}{n_{N,S}})$, with $n_{N,S}\ge 1$, and hence from the metric we should demand that $|(k\sin\xi)'|_{N,S}=\frac{1}{n_{N,S}}$.
It is convenient to use the symmetry \eqref{sym1} to fix
\begin{align}\label{symassumph}
h\ge 0\,,\qquad \Leftrightarrow\qquad k\sin\xi\ge 0\,,
\end{align}
using \eqref{hemvszeqtext}.
We then must have $(k\sin\xi)'|_N>0$ and $(k\sin\xi)'|_S<0$.
With $y\in [y_N,y_S]$ we therefore
impose
\begin{align}
(k\sin\xi)'|_{N,S}=\frac{(-1)^{l_{N,S}}}{n_{N,S}},\qquad l_N=0,l_S=1\,.
\end{align}

From the general analysis of \cite{Ferrero:2021etw} we know that there are two classes to consider, the twist and the anti-twist. In the twist class the preserved spinors have the same chirality at the two poles
while in the anti-twist class they have opposite chirality. Thus, we have\footnote{\label{footsym3}In the anti-twist case we could utilise the symmetry \eqref{sym3} and a relabelling of the poles to reduce to either $(t_N,t_S)=(1,0)$ or $(t_N,t_S)=(0,1)$, but to simplify the presentation we don't do that.}
\begin{align}\label{coszetapole}
\cos\xi|_{N,S}= (-1)^{t_{N,S}}\,;\qquad &\text{Twist:} \qquad\quad \,\,(t_N,t_S)=(1,1)\quad\, \text{or} \quad(0,0) ,\notag \\
&\text{Anti-Twist:} \quad \,\,(t_N,t_S)=(1,0)\quad \text{or} \quad(0,1) \,.
\end{align}

Next, from the BPS equation \eqref{xiderivnice} we have $(k\sin\xi)'=-2\cos\xi(s-Q_z)$ and hence we can write
\begin{align}\label{qresults}
(s-Q_z)|_{N,S}=\frac{1}{2n_{N,S}}(-1)^{l_{N,S}+t_{N,S}+1}\,,
\end{align}
exactly as in \eqref{sminqnpoletext}.
We can now obtain an expression for the $R$-symmetry flux. From
\eqref{HQdefstext} we have $\tfrac{1}{2}F^R=dQ+d(\frac{1}{4}(\cosh2\varphi-1)D\theta)$. Given our ansatz and integrating over the spindle,
the second term on the right hand side will not contribute since either $\varphi=0$ at a pole or if not then $D_z\theta=0$ at that pole as in \eqref{textdthetazero} (see appendix \ref{app:c}). The contribution from
the first term can be evaluated using \eqref{qresults} and we obtain
\begin{align}\label{rsymflux2}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma F^R\equiv\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma -g(F^{(1)}+F^{(2)}+F^{(3)})
&= \frac{n_N (-1)^{t_S+1} + n_S(-1)^{t_N+1}}{n_N n_S} \, ,
\end{align}
exactly as in \eqref{rsymflux}.

Continuing, we next note that $\partial_{\varphi}Q_z= -\frac{1}{2}\sinh 2\varphi D_z\theta$ and hence using the same argument
as in the previous paragraph, we deduce that $\partial_{\varphi}Q_z=0$ at the poles. From the BPS constraint \eqref{summconstext2} we then
deduce $\partial_{\varphi}W=0$ at the poles. Thus,
\begin{align}\label{betbc}
\partial_{\varphi}Q_z|_{N,S}=\partial_{\varphi}W|_{N,S}=0.
\end{align}
It is interesting to point out that we can reach this conclusion another way: from the BPS equation for $\varphi$ in \eqref{summbbpsapptext}, we see that whenever $\sin\xi=0$ we require $\partial_{\varphi}W$ to also vanish to ensure
that $\varphi$ stays finite. Thus, at a pole we deduce $\partial_{\varphi}W|_{N,S}=0$ and hence from \eqref{summconstext2}
$\partial_{\varphi}Q_z|_{N,S}=0$ also.

To make further progress we will now assume that the complex scalar is non-vanishing at both poles which implies (see appendix \ref{app:c})
\begin{align}\label{nonvancsc}
\varphi|_{N},\varphi|_{S}\ne 0\,,
\qquad\Rightarrow \qquad D_z\theta|_{N}= D_z\theta|_{S}= 0\,.
\end{align}
This immediately implies that the flux of the $U(1)$ which the complex scalar is charged under must vanish, as in \eqref{nobrokenflux}:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma g(F^{(1)}+F^{(2)}-F^{(3)})&= (D_z\theta)|^{y_S}_{y_N}=0\,.
\end{align}
With the $R$-symmetry flux quantised as in \eqref{rsymflux2}, we just need to impose one more condition to ensure that
the general flux quantisation condition \eqref{genfluxqc} is satisfied for all gauge-fields.

Proceeding, given \eqref{nonvancsc}, the second condition in \eqref{betbc} and the expression for $W$ in \eqref{superpottext}
imply that
\begin{align}\label{betbc2}
(e^{6\alpha}-2\cosh 2\beta)|_{N,S}=0\,,\quad\Rightarrow \quad
W|_{N,S}=-e^{4\alpha}|_{N,S}\,.
\end{align}
We now want to examine the value of the conserved charges $\mathcal{E}_R, \mathcal{E}_F$, given in \eqref{conschges}, at both poles.
It is convenient to first define two quantities
\begin{align}\label{emmbc}
M_{(1)}\equiv g e^{4\alpha} e^V,\qquad M_{(2)} \equiv -2\kappa + 2 M_{(1)} \cos\xi\,,
\end{align}
and for future reference we note that $M_{(1)}>0$.
 We then notice
from \eqref{conschges} that we can write
\begin{align}\label{eesemmms}
\mathcal{E}_R &= \frac{M_{(1)}^2}{g^2} \left[ -\kappa + M_{(2)} e^{-12\alpha} \right]+
\kappa e^{2V+2\alpha}(e^{6\alpha}-2\cosh 2\beta)\, ,\notag \\
(\mathcal{E}_F)^2 &= \frac{M_{(1)}^4}{g^4} \left[ 1 - 4e^{-12\alpha} \right]
+\frac{M_{(1)}^4}{g^4}e^{-12\alpha} \left[ 4\cosh^2 2\beta-e^{12\alpha} \right]
\,,
\end{align}
and observe that the second term on the right hand side vanishes at the poles, for both lines, as a consequence of
\eqref{betbc2}. Furthermore, using \eqref{betbc2} and
the first constraint equation in \eqref{summconstext2} we deduce that at the poles
\begin{align}\label{emmbcpoles}
M_{(1)}|_{N,S}&= 2 (-1)^{t_{N,S}} \kappa - \frac{1}{kn_{N,S}} (-1)^{l_{N,S}}\,,\notag \\
M_{(2)}|_{N,S}&= 2\kappa - \frac{2}{k n_{N,S}} (-1)^{l_{N,S}+t_{N,S}} \,.
\end{align}
We can now evaluate $\mathcal{E}_R$ at each of the two poles and, being constant,
these values must be equal to each other. The same applies to $ (\mathcal{E}_F)^2 $ and
so we deduce that $\alpha_{N,S}$ are fixed by solving a set of linear equations:
\begin{equation}\label{emmlinsys}
\begin{pmatrix}
-4 M_{(1)}^4|_N & 4 M_{(1)}^4|_S \\
M_{(1)}^2 |_NM_{(2)}|_N & - M_{(1)}^2|_S M_{(2)}|_S
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-12\alpha_{N}} \\
e^{-12\alpha_{S}}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
M_{(1)}^4|_S - M_{(1)}^4|_N \\
-\kappa M_{(1)}^2|_S + \kappa M_{(1)}^2|_N
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}

We now take stock of these results. For a given $\kappa=\pm1 $, consider fixing spindle data $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S}$,
along with the constant $k$. Solving \eqref{emmlinsys} then allows us to obtain $\alpha$ at both poles of the spindle, $\alpha_{N,S}$, in
terms of $(n_N, n_S, t_{N,S},k)$.
We can then also obtain\footnote{\label{signbetaftn}Notice that the sign of $\mathcal{E}_F$ is the sign of $\kappa\beta$. Therefore, for any solution for
$\alpha_{N,S}$, one gets two possible boundary conditions of $\beta$ for a given $\kappa$.} $\beta$ and $V$ at both poles using \eqref{betbc2} and the definition of $M_{(1)}$ in
\eqref{emmbc}. Notice from \eqref{eesemmms} we must have
\begin{align}\label{alphconst}
0 < e^{-12\alpha_{N,S}}\leq 1/4\,,
\end{align}
and this restricts the allowed range
of $k$ for given spindle data $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S}$. We also highlight that from \eqref{emmbcpoles}, the values of $\alpha,\beta$ and $V$
at the poles just depend\footnote{The two-forms $F_{34}e^3\wedge e^4$ evaluated at the poles have an
additional explicit dependence on $k$.}
on the combinations $kn_{N}$ and $kn_S$.

Thus, for each $\kappa=\pm 1$, given spindle data $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S}$ and the constant $k$ satisfying the above constraint, we have specified the values of $\alpha,\beta,V$
at both poles. We also have $\xi$ at both poles from \eqref{coszetapole}. We therefore just need to specify the value of $\varphi$ at one
of the poles, and recall we have assumed that this is non-vanishing, in order to obtain a solution to the BPS equations. We will construct such solutions numerically in section \ref{sec:results}. Before doing that we will show that further progress can be made by analysing the fluxes.

\subsubsection{Fluxes}
We now show, remarkably, that we can obtain expressions for the overall fluxes of the three gauge fields on the spindle in terms of
the spindle data at the poles as expressed in the previous subsection in terms of $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S},k$. Furthermore, we will be able to invert these and obtain an expression for $k$
in terms of $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S}$ and the quantised flavour flux $p_F\equiv p_1-p_2$, where $p_i$ are defined in \eqref{genfluxqc}.

We first note that we can use the BPS equations \eqref{summbbpsapptext} to re-express the field strengths \eqref{fstrengthsbpstext} as total $y$ derivatives of expressions that depend only on the scalar fields, warp factors, the angle $\xi$ and $k$:
\begin{equation}
F^{(i)}_{yz} = (a^{(i)})' = (\mathcal{I}^{(i)})' \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}\label{eq:IntegratedFluxesExpr1}
& \mathcal{I}^{(1)} \equiv \frac{1}{2} k e^V \cos\xi \, e^{-2\alpha+2\beta} \, , \quad
\mathcal{I}^{(2)} \equiv \frac{1}{2} k e^V \cos\xi \, e^{-2\alpha-2\beta} \, , \quad
 \mathcal{I}^{(3)} \equiv \frac{1}{2} k e^V \cos\xi \, e^{4\alpha} \, .
\end{align}
In appendix \ref{sec:b1} we comment on how we obtained these expressions.
This immediately allow us to express the fluxes in terms of pole data:
\begin{equation}
\frac{p_i}{n_N n_S} \equiv
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_\Sigma g F^{(i)} = g \left. \mathcal{I}^{(i)} \right|^S_N\,.
\end{equation}

On the other hand, we can use the expressions from the previous subsection
to relate these expressions at the poles to $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S},k$ as follows:
\begin{align}\label{iidefs}
& \mathcal{I}^{(1)} |_{N,S}= \frac{1}{2} ( \mathcal{I}_0 \pm \mathcal{I}_\Delta )|_{N,S} \, , \notag \\
& \mathcal{I}^{(2)} |_{N,S}= \frac{1}{2} ( \mathcal{I}_0 \mp \mathcal{I}_\Delta ) |_{N,S}\, , \notag \\
& \mathcal{I}^{(3)} |_{N,S}= \mathcal{I}_0 |_{N,S}\, ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{eq:IntegratedFluxesI0}
&\mathcal{I}_0|_{N,S} \equiv \frac{1}{2g} k M_{(1)}|_{N,S} (-1)^{t_{N,S}}  \, ,\notag \\
&\mathcal{I}_\Delta|_{N,S} \equiv \frac{1}{2g} k M_{(1)}|_{N,S} (-1)^{t_{N,S}} \sqrt{1-4e^{-12\alpha_{N,S}}} \, ,
\end{align}
and the $\pm$ sign in \eqref{iidefs} depends on the chosen sign of $\beta$ (see footnote \ref{signbetaftn} and we also note that we could fix this sign using the symmetry \eqref{z2symact} if desired).
Notice that $\mathcal{I}_0|^S_N$ is independent of $k$, and in fact
\begin{align}\label{fluxioexp}
g \mathcal{I}_0 |^S_N =\frac{1}{2} (\mathcal{I}^{(1)} +\mathcal{I}^{(2)}+\mathcal{I}^{(3)})|^S_N &=\frac{1}{2} \frac{n_N (-1)^{t_S} + n_S(-1)^{t_N}}{n_N n_S} \, ,\notag \\
(\mathcal{I}^{(1)} +\mathcal{I}^{(2)}-\mathcal{I}^{(3)})|_{N,S}&=0\,.
\end{align}
in agreement with the overall $R$-symmetry flux and vanishing of the flux of the broken $U(1)$, respectively.
Furthermore,
proper quantization conditions for all three fluxes then imply the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ p_3 = n_N n_S\, g \mathcal{I}_0 |^S_N \in \mathbb{Z} $. This condition depends only $n_N, n_S$, and is satisfied as long as $ n_N (-1)^{t_S} + n_S(-1)^{t_N}\, $ is even.
\item $ p_F \equiv p_1 - p_2 = \text{sign}(\beta) n_N n_S\, g \mathcal{I}_\Delta |^S_N \in \mathbb{Z} $. This condition translates to a condition on $k$.
\item Notice that $p_3=2p_1-p_F$ and hence $ p_3, p_F $ are both even or both odd.
\end{enumerate}

We can now invert the above relations to obtain $k$ in terms of $n_N, n_S, t_{N,S}$ and $p_F$. To this end, we first note that from \eqref{eq:IntegratedFluxesI0} we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}_\Delta |_{N,S} = \frac{g}{2} k \frac{(-1)^{t_{N,S}}}{M_{(1)} |_{N,S}} |\mathcal{E}_F | \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}_F$ is the conserved charge given in \eqref{eesemmms}.
Using the fact that $\mathcal{E}_F$ is conserved and in particular the same value at the two poles, we have
\begin{equation}
g \mathcal{I}_\Delta |^S_N = \frac{g^2}{2} k |\mathcal{E}_F| \left[ \frac{(-1)^{t_S}}{M_{(1)}|_S} - \frac{(-1)^{t_N}}{M_{(1)}|_N} \right] =
g^2 |\mathcal{E}_F| \frac{(-1)^{t_N+t_S+1}}{M_{(1)}|_S M_{(1)}|_N} \left(   g\mathcal{I}_0 |^S_N \right) \, ,
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation}
\frac{p_F^2}{p_3^2} = \frac{(M_{(1)}|_N)^2}{(M_{(1)}|_S)^2} (1 - 4 e^{-12\alpha_N}) \, .
\end{equation}
We also note that $\text{sign}(\beta)=\text{sign}(p_F)\text{sign}(p_3)(-1)^{t_N+t_S+1}$.
Using the previous expressions for $M_{(1)}$ and $e^{-12\alpha}$ at the poles expressed in terms of $n_N, n_S, t_S$ and $k$ obtained by solving \eqref{emmlinsys}, we can invert this expression and find an expression for $k$. In the twist class, labelled by $t_N$ as in \eqref{coszetapole},
we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:IntegratedFluxeskExprTwist}
k = {\kappa}(-1)^{1+t_N} \frac{(n_N+n_S)^2 (n_N^2 - n_N n_S + n_S^2) - 4 n_N n_S p_F^2}{n_N n_S (n_N - n_S) \left( 3(n_N + n_S)^2 + 4 p_F^2 \right)} \, ,\quad\text{Twist}\,,
\end{equation}
while for the anti-twist class, labelled by $t_N$ as in \eqref{coszetapole},  we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:IntegratedFluxeskExprAntiTwist}
k ={\kappa}(-1)^{t_N} \frac{(n_N-n_S)^2 (n_N^2 + n_N n_S + n_S^2) + 4 n_N n_S p_F^2}{n_N n_S (n_N + n_S) \left( 3 (n_N - n_S)^2 + 4 p_F^2 \right)} \, ,
\quad\text{Anti-Twist}\,.
\end{equation}

\subsubsection{Central charge}\label{cchgecalc}
We now obtain an expression for the central charge of the dual $d=2$, $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ SCFT.
We first note that the five-dimensional Newton's constant is given by $(G_{(5)})^{-1}=N^2g^3/(4\pi)$. This is associated with
the $AdS_5\times S^5$ vacuum solution, dual to $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM with gauge group $SU(N)$,
having an $a$-central charge $a^{\mathcal{N}=4}=\pi R^3/8G_{(5)}=N^2/4$, where recall that the radius of the $AdS_5$ space for this solution is $R=2/g$.
Similarly the $LS$ $AdS_5$ solution with radius $R^{LS}=3/(2^{2/3}g)$ gives an $a$-central charge $a^{LS}=27N^2/128$.
The three-dimensional Newton's constant for a theory admitting a unit radius $AdS_3$ solution is then
$(G_{(3)})^{-1}=(G_{(5)})^{-1}\Delta z\int^{y_S}_{y_N} e^V |f h| dy$ (not using conformal gauge \eqref{confgauge} here) and the
$d=2$ central charge is given by $c=(3/2)(G_{(3)})^{-1}$.

We next note the remarkable result that the integrand appearing in the central charge can again be expressed as a total derivative,\begin{align}
e^V f h=ke^{2V}f\sin\xi=-\frac{k}{2\kappa}\left(e^{3V}\cos\xi\right)'\,,
\end{align}
and hence the central charge can be expressed in terms of data at the poles. Recall that we have been working in conformal gauge \eqref{confgauge} so that the integrand appearing in the central charge integral is $e^{2V}|h|$. Recall,
furthermore, that we used a symmetry of the BPS equations to set $h\ge 0$ in
\eqref{symassumph} and so we can remove the absolute value in the integrand. We thus obtain
\begin{align}
c&=6N^2\left(\frac{g}{2}\right)^3(-\frac{k}{2\kappa})[e^{3V}\cos\xi]^S_N\notag \\
&=-\frac{3N^2 k}{8\kappa}(M^3_{(1)}|_Se^{-12\alpha_S}(-1)^{t_S}-M^3_{(1)}|_Ne^{-12\alpha_N}(-1)^{t_N})\,,
\end{align}
where we used $\Delta z =2\pi$.
Using the results for $k$ and $M_{(1)}$ in terms of $n_N, n_S, t_S$ and $p_F$ from the previous subsections, we can now get expressions for the central charge in terms of these parameters.

For the twist case we find
\begin{equation}\label{twistcentchgegrav}
c =  \kappa(-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{3(n_S + n_N) \left[ (n_N+n_S)^2 - 4 p_F^2 \right] \left[ 3 (n_N + n_S)^2 + 4 p_F^2 \right]}{32n_N n_S \left[ (n_N+n_S)^2 (n_N^2 - n_N n_S + n_S^2) - 4 n_N n_S p_F^2  \right]}N^2\, .
\end{equation}
By construction $c>0$. Recall that we also have $M_{(1)}|_{N,S}>0$ and in addition that
$ 0 < e^{-12\alpha_{N,S}} \leq 1/4$ from \eqref{alphconst}.  Remarkably we find that these inequalities eliminate the twist case completely!

On the other hand for the anti-twist case we find
\begin{equation}\label{cchgeat}
c = \kappa(-1)^{t_N}\frac{3 (n_N - n_S) \left[ (n_N-n_S)^2 - 4 p_F^2 \right] \left[ 3 (n_N - n_S)^2 + 4 p_F^2 \right]}{32n_N n_S \left[ (n_N-n_S)^2 (n_N^2 + n_N n_S + n_S^2) + 4 n_N n_S p_F^2  \right]}N^2 \, .
\end{equation}
Imposing exactly the same positivity conditions we just mentioned, imposes the
following constraints for the anti-twist class:
\begin{align}\label{attslambdaf}
t_N=0,\kappa>0,\quad\text{or}\quad t_N=1,\kappa<0 \qquad \Rightarrow\quad (n_N-n_S)>2|p_F|\ge 0\,,\notag \\
t_N=0,\kappa<0,\quad\text{or}\quad t_N=1,\kappa>0 \qquad \Rightarrow\quad (n_S-n_N)>2|p_F|\ge 0\,.
\end{align}
We also recall from the conclusions listed just below \eqref{fluxioexp} that in order for $p_3$ to be an integer we require $n_N-n_S$ to be even and $p_3,p_F$ are both even or both odd.
The individual fluxes for these anti-twist solutions
can be expressed in the form
\begin{align}\label{indivflux}
p_1&=(-1)^{t_N}\frac{n_S-n_N}{4n_N n_S}+\frac{p_F}{2}\,,\notag \\
p_2&=(-1)^{t_N}\frac{n_S-n_N}{4n_N n_S}-\frac{p_F}{2}\,,\notag \\
p_3&=(-1)^{t_N}\frac{n_S-n_N}{2n_N n_S}\,.
\end{align}

We find it remarkable that we have been able to obtain these results without solving the BPS equations. Our numerical investigations indicate that providing the above conditions are satisfied
then a spindle solution to the BPS equations in the anti-twist class with properly quantised flux does in fact always exist.

For the special case that we set $p_F=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{cchgeatsimp}
c = \kappa(-1)^{t_N}\frac{4 (n_N - n_S)^3 }{3n_N n_S  (n_N^2 + n_N n_S + n_S^2) }a^{LS} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $a^{LS}=27N^2/128$ is the $a$-central charge of the $d=4$ LS SCFT. We also recall from point 3 below \eqref{fluxioexp}
that for this case $n_N - n_S$ must be divisible by 4 to ensure that we have properly quantised fluxes.
In fact for the $p_F=0$ case there is an associated class of analytic $AdS_3\times\Sigma$ solutions to the BPS equations, as
we discuss in the next section.
Notice that the central charge \eqref{cchgeatsimp} for these solutions has the same form
as other type IIB solutions obtained by uplifting solutions of minimal gauged supergravity on Sasaki-Einstein spaces \cite{Ferrero:2020laf}.

\section{Solving the BPS equations}\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Analytic solutions for $p_F=0$}\label{sec:resultsanalytic}
When $p_F=0$ we can find analytic $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions in the anti-twist class
by utilising the truncation to minimal $D=5$ gauged supergravity
that is associated with the LS $AdS_5$ solution (see appendix \ref{mingstrunc}) and the class of $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions given in
\cite{Ferrero:2020laf}. Note that these solutions are not given in the conformal gauge \eqref{confgauge}.

Specifically we find that the following solves the general BPS equations given in
\eqref{summbbpsapptext}-\eqref{summconstext} along with \eqref{fstrengthsbpstext}.
We set the scalars to have the same values as in the LS $AdS_5$ vacuum solution,
\begin{align}\label{lsfpsc2}
e^{6\alpha}=2,\qquad e^{2\varphi}={3}\,,\qquad \beta=0\,,
\end{align}
and set $\theta=0$. The metric and gauge fields are given by
\begin{align}\label{minlssol}
ds^2&=\frac{9}{2^{4/3} g^2}\left[ \frac{4y}{9}ds^2(AdS_3)-\frac{y}{q(y)} dy^2-\frac{q(y)}{36 y^2}c_0^2 dz^2\right]\,,\notag \\
A^{(1)}=A^{(2)}=\tfrac{1}{2} A^{(3)}&=-\left[\frac{c_0\kappa}{8g}\left(1-\frac{a}{y}\right)+\frac{ s}{2g}\right]dz\,,
\end{align}
and we also have
\begin{align}
\sin\xi=-\frac{\sqrt{q(y)}}{2y^{3/2}},\qquad
\cos\xi=\kappa\frac{3y-a}{2 y^{3/2}}\,.
\end{align}
The function $q(y)$ is the cubic
\begin{align}
q(y)=4y^3-9y^2+6 ay-a^2\,,
\end{align}
where the constant $a$ and the constant $c_0$ given in \eqref{minlssol} are given by
\begin{align}
a&=\frac{ (n_S-n_N)^2(2n_S+n_N)^2(n_S+2n_N)^2     }{4(n_S^2+n_S n_N+n_N^2)^3}\,,\notag \\
c_0&=\frac{2(n_S^2+n_S n_N+n_N^2)}{3n_S n_N(n_S+n_N)}\,.
\end{align}
We take $n_S>n_N$ with $y\in [y_N,y_S]$ where $y_N,y_S$ are the two smallest roots of the cubic $q(y)$ given by
\begin{align}
y_N&=\frac{(n_S^2+n_S n_N -2n_N^2)^2}{4(n_S^2+n_S n_N+n_N^2)}\,,\qquad
y_S=\frac{(n_N^2+n_S n_N -2n_S^2)^2}{4(n_S^2+n_S n_N+n_N^2)}\,.
\end{align}

The central charge of the dual $d=2$ SCFT can be calculated directly from this solution
and we precisely recover \eqref{cchgeatsimp} for the case $(-1)^{t_N+1}\kappa=+1$.

\subsection{Numerical solutions for $p_F\ne 0$}
We now use the results of section \ref{bcsspinsols} to numerically construct $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions to the BPS equations in the anti-twist class when
$p_F\ne 0$.
In section \eqref{bcsspinsols}, which we recall used the conformal gauge \eqref{confgauge},
 we showed how given spindle data $n_N, n_S, t_S$ and for each $\kappa=\pm 1$, we can obtain
the values of $\alpha,\beta,V$ and $\xi$ at both poles of the spindle.
Furthermore, for a specified value of the flux $p_F$
the integration constant $k$ is fixed via \eqref{eq:IntegratedFluxeskExprAntiTwist}.
Thus, we can search an $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solution by specifying the value of $\varphi$ at one of the poles, integrating the BPS equations and then looking for a solution for which $\sin\xi$ vanishes for some other finite value of the coordinate $y$.

More explicitly, we start the integration at $y=y_N$, say, and for convenience we take $y_N=0$. At this pole we have
$\sin\xi=0$ by assumption. For generic values of $\varphi$ at $y=0$ we find that solving the BPS equations with a given $k$ and initial values for all functions as described above leads to solutions which do not have another finite value of $y=y_S$ for which $\sin\xi=0$ and hence will not give rise to a solution with $\Sigma$ a compact spindle (in fact the solutions have divergent $\varphi$ at some finite value of $y$). We therefore need to scan over a range of initial values for $\varphi$ in order to find the compact spindle solutions. When we do find such a solution then our procedure automatically guarantees that the fluxes are all suitably quantised. We have carried
out this procedure for about 100 different values\footnote{Note that the symmetry \eqref{z2symact} can be used to flip the sign of $p_F$.} of $n_N,n_S,p_F$ and provided that the condition given in
\eqref{attslambdaf} is satisfied we have always found an explicit (and unique) spindle solution. This provides strong evidence that the condition
\eqref{attslambdaf} is sufficient for the anti-twist solutions to exist.

We have used the numerically constructed $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions to directly calculate the central charge
by carrying out the integral discussed in section \ref{cchgecalc}. Our numerical solutions are such that we find agreement with
the analytic result \eqref{cchgeat} to the numerical accuracy that we used, roughly of order $10^{-8}$.
In figure \ref{fig:example_wavefns} we have plotted the metric and scalar functions for a representative example with
$n_N=1$, $n_S=7$ and $p_F=\pm 1$. For this example we found the explicit value of the scalar field at the poles
are given by $\varphi|_N\sim 0.50516$ and  $\varphi|_S\sim 0.51895$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{wavefn.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{wavefn2.pdf}
\caption{An $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solution in the anti-twist class with $n_N=1$, $n_S=7$ and $p_F = 1$. In the left panel we have
plotted the metric functions $e^V$ and $h$ while in the right panel we have plotted the three scalar functions $\alpha,\beta$ and $\varphi$.}
\label{fig:example_wavefns}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In table \ref{table1} we have presented the values of $\varphi$ at the poles for a few more illustrative solutions.
Recall that we require $n_S-n_N$ to be even and that $p_F=0$ solutions exist when $n_S-n_N$ is divisible by four.
The individual fluxes are given in \eqref{indivflux}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
$(n_N,n_S)$ & $\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad$ Value of $(\varphi_N$, $\varphi_S)$ \\\hline
(1,5)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\\\hline
(1,7)&$|p_F|=1$: (0.50516, 0.51895);\\\hline
(1,9)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\quad $|p_F|=2$: (0.44938, 0.47913);\\\hline
(1,11)&$|p_F|=1$: (0.53187, 0.54025);\quad $|p_F|= 3$: (0.40487, 0.44471);\\\hline
(1,13)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\quad $|p_F|= 2$: (0.50093, 0.52388);\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad$|p_F|= 4$: (0.37019, 0.41593);\\\hline
(3,7)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\\\hline
(3,11)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\quad $|p_F|= 2$: (0.45936, 0.46794);\\\hline
(3,13)&$|p_F|=1$: (0.53441, 0.53747);\quad $|p_F|= 3$: (0.41749, 0.43002);\\\hline
(5,9)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\\\hline
(5,11)&$|p_F|= 1$: (0.51118, 0.51257);\\\hline
(5,13)&$p_F=0$: ($\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$, $\tfrac{1}{2}\ln 3$);\quad $|p_F|= 2$: (0.46175, 0.46547);\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of the scalar field $\varphi$ at the north and south pole, $(\varphi_N$, $\varphi_S$), for some representative
$AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions for spindle data $n_N,n_S$ and flavour flux $p_F$. In general we have
$n_S-n_N$ even. The $p_F=0$ solutions exist when $n_S-n_N$ is divisible by four; these are the analytic solutions of section \ref{sec:resultsanalytic}.\label{table1}}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{Field theory analysis}\label{sec:fthy}
In this section we analyse the $\mathcal{N}=1$ $d=4$ LS SCFT compactified on a spindle. Assuming that the resulting theory flows to an $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ $d=2$ SCFT at low energies, we can can calculate the central charge using anomaly polynomials and $c$-extremisation. The calculation runs along similar lines to \cite{Ferrero:2020laf}.

The LS SCFT has $U(1)_R\times SU(2)$ symmetry. We want to focus on an abelian
subgroup of the flavour symmetry,
$U(1)_F\subset SU(2)$. From table 2 of \cite{Bobev:2014jva}, in the large $N$ limit
we have
\begin{align}
Tr(R^3)&=\frac{3N^2}{4}\,,\qquad
Tr(R F^2)=-\frac{N^2}{4}\,,\qquad
Tr(R^2 F)=Tr(F^3)=0\,,
\end{align}
where the trace is over chiral fermions. We can thus write the 6-form anomaly polynomial for the LS theory, in the large $N$ limit, as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A}_{LS}=\frac{N^2}{8}[c_1(R)^3 -c_1(R) c_1(F)^2]\,,
\end{align}
where $c_1(R)$ and $c_1(F)$ are the first Chern classes for the $U(1)_R$ and $U(1)_F$ bundles.

We now consider the LS theory compactified on a spindle $\Sigma$ with an azimuthal symmetry,
specified by relatively prime integers $n_N,n_S\ge 1$,
and background magnetic fluxes for both $U(1)_R$, consistent with supersymmetry, and $U(1)_F$. We want to carry out $c$-extremisation
 \cite{Benini:2012cz} for the resulting $d=2$ theory allowing for a mixing of the $U(1)_R$, $U(1)_F$ and $U(1)_J$ symmetries, where $J$ generates azimuthal rotations on
the spindle.

We let $y,z$ parametrise the spindle with $y\in [y_N,y_S]$ and $\Delta z=2\pi$.
Following \cite{Ferrero:2020laf} we introduce connection one-forms
\begin{align}
\mathscr{A}^{(R)} &=  \rho_R(y)\left(d z+\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{J}}\right)\,,\qquad
\mathscr{A}^{(F)} =  \rho_F(y)\left(d z+\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{J}}\right)\,,
\end{align}
with curvatures $\mathscr{F}^{(R)} =  d\mathscr{A}^{(R)}$, $\mathscr{F}^{(F)} =  d\mathscr{A}^{(F)}$ where
\begin{align}
\mathscr{F}^{(R)} &=  \rho'_R(y)d y \wedge \left(dz+\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{J}}\right)+\rho_I(y)\,\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{J}}\,,\notag \\
\mathscr{F}^{(F)} &=  \rho'_F(y)d y \wedge \left(dz+\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{J}}\right)+\rho_F(y)\,\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{J}}\,,
\end{align}
and $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{J}}=d \mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{J}}$.
We have the flux conditions
\begin{align}\label{rhodiffs}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma \mathscr{F}^{(R)}  &=  [\rho_R]^{y_S}_{y_N} =  \frac{p_R}{n_N n_S}\,,\notag \\
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Sigma \mathscr{F}^{(F)}  &=  [\rho_F]^{y_S}_{y_N} =  \frac{p_F}{n_N n_S}\,,
\end{align}
with $p_R, p_F\in \mathbb{Z}$.

There are two possibilities, the twist and the anti-twist \cite{Ferrero:2021etw}. We will work in a gauge for the $R$-symmetry in
which the spinors on the spindle are independent of the $z$ coordinate and we can write
\begin{align}\label{rhoR}
\rho_R(y_N)=\frac{(-1)^{t_N}}{n_N},\quad\rho_R(y_S)=\frac{(-1)^{t_S+1}}{n_N}\,.
\end{align}
with $p_R= \frac{(-1)^{t_S+1}}{n_N}+\frac{(-1)^{t_N+1}}{n_S}$. We have
$t_N=(0,1)$ and $t_S= t_N$ for the twist case and $t_S=t_N+1$ for the anti-twist case.
From the expression for the
flavour symmetry flux we can write
\begin{align}
\rho_F(y_N)=\alpha_0,\quad\rho_F(y_S)=\frac{p_F}{n_N n_S}+\alpha_0\,,
\end{align}
where $\alpha_0$ is arbitrary; we will se that $\alpha_0$ will drop out of the final expressions for the central charge.

The curvature forms $\mathscr{F}^{(R)},\mathscr{F}^{(F)}$ define corresponding first Chern classes
$c_1(\mathcal{L}_R) = [\mathscr{F}^{(R)}/2\pi]$, $c_1(\mathcal{L}_F) = [\mathscr{F}^{(F)}/2\pi]$,
and similarly we define
$c_1(\mathcal{J})=[\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{J}/2\pi]$. Following \cite{Ferrero:2020laf},
to obtain the $d=2$ anomaly polynomial $\mathcal{A}_{2\diff}$ we make the following substitution
in the $d=4$ anomaly polynomial $\mathcal{A}_{4\diff}$ :
\begin{align}
c_1(R)&\to c_1(R)+\frac{1}{2}c_1(\mathcal{L}_R)\,,\qquad
c_1(F)\to c_1(F)+c_1(\mathcal{L}_F)\,,
\end{align}
and then  integrate over $\Sigma$. Here the factor of 1/2 arises because\footnote{If the supercharge has charge 1 with respect to the gauge
field $A^R$, then it has charge 1/2 with respect to $2A^R$.} the field theory $R$-symmetry generator is normalised
so that the supersymmetry generator has charge 1, whereas the expressions in \eqref{rhoR} are for when it has charge 1/2, as in our earlier supergravity calculation. Performing the integral we find\footnote{Note that we can rewrite this expression as a ```gluing formula" analogous to section 4.1 of \cite{Hosseini:2021fge}.}
\begin{align}\label{anomaly2d}
\mathcal{A}_{2\diff}=  \int_{\Sigma}\mathcal{A}_{4\diff}\,
 =
&\frac{N^2}{8}\Big\{
 c_1(R)^2(\frac{3}{2}[\rho_R]^{y_S}_{y_N})
 -c_1(F)^2( \frac{1}{2}[\rho_R]^{y_S}_{y_N})
\notag \\
& +c_1(\mathcal{J})^2(\frac{1}{8}[\rho_R^3]^{y_S}_{y_N}- \frac{1}{2} [\rho_R\rho_F^2]^{y_S}_{y_N} )
-c_1(R)c_1(F)(2 [\rho_F]^{y_S}_{y_N})
 \notag \\
 &+c_1(R)c_1(\mathcal{J})(\frac{3}{4}[\rho_R^2]^{y_S}_{y_N}- [\rho_F^2]^{y_S}_{y_N} )
 -c_1(F)c_1(\mathcal{J})( [\rho_R\rho_F]^{y_S}_{y_N})
\Big\}\,.
 \end{align}

Assuming that the LS theory compactified on a spindle flows to a SCFT in the IR we can determine
the $d=2$ superconformal $R$-symmetry and central charge via $c$-extremisation \cite{Benini:2012cz}. Specifically,
the $d=2$ superconformal $R$-symmetry extremises the trial function
\begin{align}\label{centralfromtrace}
c_{\text{trial}}\, = \, 3\,\text{tr}\,\gamma_3 R^2_{\text{trial}}\,,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
R_{\text{trial}}\, = \, R+x F+\varepsilon\,\mathcal{J}\,,
\end{align}
with $x$ and $\varepsilon$ parametrising the mixing with the flavour symmetries.
Now the coefficient of $\frac{1}{2}c_1(L_i)c_1(L_j)$ in $\mathcal{A}_{2\diff}$ is $Tr\gamma^3 Q_i Q_j$ where
the global symmetry $Q_i$ is associated to the $U(1)$ bundle $L_i$ and $\gamma_3$ is the $d=2$ chirality operator.
From \eqref{anomaly2d}  we therefore have
\begin{align}
c_{\text{trial}}   =
\frac{3N^2}{4}\Big[&
\frac{3}{2}[\rho_R]^{y_S}_{y_N}
-x^2(\frac{1}{2}[\rho_R]^{y_S}_{y_N})
+\varepsilon^2(\frac{1}{8}[\rho_R^3]^{y_S}_{y_N}-\frac{1}{2}  [\rho_R\rho_F^2]^{y_S}_{y_N} )\notag \\
&-x(2 [\rho_F]^{y_S}_{y_N})
+\varepsilon(\frac{3}{4}[\rho_R^2]^{y_S}_{y_N}- [\rho_F^2]^{y_S}_{y_N})
-x \varepsilon([\rho_R\rho_F]^{y_S}_{y_N})
\Big]\, .
\end{align}

We can now extremise with respect to $x,\varepsilon$ and then get a prediction for the central charge.
First consider the twist case with $t_S=t_N$. We find the on-shell central charge is given by
\begin{equation}\label{cctwistcase}
c = (-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{3(n_S + n_N) \left[ (n_N+n_S)^2 - 4 p_F^2 \right] \left[ 3 (n_N + n_S)^2 + 4 p_F^2 \right]}{32n_N n_S \left[ (n_N+n_S)^2 (n_N^2 - n_N n_S + n_S^2) - 4 n_N n_S p_F^2  \right]}N^2\, .
\end{equation}
This extremum occurs at
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_*&=(-1)^{t_N}\frac{(n_N-n_S)n_S n_N(  3(n_S+n_N)^2+4p_F^2    )}
{[(n_S+n_N)^2(n_S^2-n_S n_N+n_N^2)-4n_S n_N p_F^2]}\,, \notag \\
x_*&=(-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{(n_S+n_N)^2(n_N-2n_S)p_F+4n_Np_F^3}{(n_S+n_N)^2(n_S^2-n_S n_N+n_N^2)-4n_S n_N p_F^2}-\alpha_0\varepsilon_*\,.
\end{align}
Notice that $\alpha_0$ has dropped out of the expression of the on-shell central charge. Furthermore
note that there is a preferred value for $\alpha_0$ for which $x_*=0$.
Remarkably, the result for the central charge for the twist case given in \eqref{cctwistcase} is
exactly the same as the gravity result \eqref{twistcentchgegrav} with $\kappa=+1$ (which has been implicitly assumed in the
field theory computation). However, we recall that there are, in fact, no supergravity solutions for the twist case.

Also, still for the twist case, notice that when we set $n_S=n_N=1$ we find that at the extremal point we have
\begin{align}\label{bobevpilchcase}
c&=(-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{3N^2}{4}(3+{p_F^2}),\quad \varepsilon_*=0,\quad x_*={p_F}\,.
\end{align}
We can now compare with the calculation for the case of a topological twist on an $S^2$ as discussed in
\cite{Bobev:2014jva}. Setting their genus $g=0$, if we identify our flavour $x$ mixing parameter with their $\epsilon$ and
our $p_F/2$ with their $\mathfrak{b}$ (which they note is half integer valued for $g=0$ just below their (2.12)), then we get exact agreement
for the on-shell central charge\footnote{We also note that if we set $\varepsilon=0$ at the start of the above calculation along with $n_N=n_S=1$ then we would find
an off-shell central charge $c_{trial}=(-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{3N^2}{4}(3+2(-1)^{t_N}{p_F}x-x^2)$, which similarly aligns with the result in
\cite{Bobev:2014jva}.}, up to an overall sign. In fact we must have $t_N=+1$ for \eqref{bobevpilchcase} to be positive.

We now consider the anti-twist case with $t_S=t_N+1$.
We find the on-shell central charge is given by
\begin{equation}\label{cchgeatapp}
c = (-1)^{t_N}\frac{3 (n_N - n_S) \left[ (n_N-n_S)^2 - 4 p_F^2 \right] \left[ 3 (n_N - n_S)^2 + 4 p_F^2 \right]}{32n_N n_S \left[ (n_N-n_S)^2 (n_N^2 + n_N n_S + n_S^2) + 4 n_N n_S p_F^2  \right]}N^2 \, .
\end{equation}
This result agrees exactly with the gravity calculation \eqref{cchgeat} $\kappa=+1$, and we recall that supergravity solutions do
exist for the anti-twist case.
This extremum occurs at
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_*&=(-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{(n_N+n_S)n_S n_N(  3(n_S-n_N)^2+4p_F^2    )}
{(n_N-n_S)^2(n_S^2+n_S n_N+n_N^2)+4n_S n_N p_F^2}\,, \notag \\
x_*&=(-1)^{t_N}\frac{(n_N-n_S)^2(n_N+2n_S)p_F+4n_N p_F^3}{(n_N-n_S)^2(n_S^2+n_S n_N+n_N^2)+4n_S n_N p_F^2)}-\alpha_0\varepsilon_*\,.
\end{align}
Note in the special case when we set $p_F=0$, we get the on-shell results
\begin{align}
c&=(-1)^{t_N}\frac{9(n_N-n_S)^3}{32n_S n_N (n_S^2+n_S n_N +n_N^2)}N^2\,,\notag \\
\varepsilon_*&=(-1)^{t_N+1}\frac{3(n_S+n_N)n_S n_N}{ n_S^2+n_S n_N +n_N^2}\,,\notag \\
x_*&=-\alpha_0\varepsilon_*\,.
\end{align}
in alignment with \eqref{cchgeatsimp}.

\section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
We have constructed a new class of supersymmetric $AdS_3\times\Sigma$ solutions of the extended LS model, a sub-truncation of $D=5$ maximal gauged supergravity.
All of the solutions lie within the anti-twist class.
After uplifting to $D=10$ these give rise to supersymmetric $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions of type IIB supergravity with $Y_7$ a compact manifold that consists of an $S^5$ fibration over the spindle $\Sigma$. The fact that the orbifold singularities of the spindle disappear in the
uplift to $Y_7$ is a consequence of the fact that the $U(1)^3$ fluxes in the $D=5$ solution have been suitably quantised \cite{Ferrero:2020laf,Ferrero:2020twa,Ferrero:2021etw}.

A remarkable aspect of our analysis of the BPS equations is that we derived analytic expressions for the overall fluxes of the three gauge fields on the spindle in terms of the spindle data at the poles as well as an integration constant $k$. Furthermore, this enabled us to obtain
an analytic expression for the central charge of the dual SCFT expressed in terms of the deficit angles of the poles and the flavour magnetic flux through the spindle. It would be desirable to have a better understanding as to why this was possible, as it seems likely that it
will also apply in the context of some other supersymmetric solutions of supergravity theories.

The $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions are dual
to a new class of $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$, $d=2$ SCFTs and we have calculated the associated central charge in the
large $N$ limit. We have also made a direct comparison with a field theory computation. Specifically, we considered
the LS $d=4$ SCFT compactified on a spindle and, assuming that the resulting theory flows to an $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ SCFT
in the IR, we computed the central charge using anomaly polynomials and $c$-extremisation. Remarkably we find exact agreement with the gravity computation.

It is curious that all of the new $AdS_3\times\Sigma$ solutions lie within the anti-twist class. This is despite the fact that the associated
field theory computation for the central charge does not seem to rule out the twist case. This situation is
somewhat  parallel to the analysis of the LS theory compactified on a Riemann surface of genus $g$, $\Sigma_g$ \cite{Bobev:2014jva}.
It was shown in \cite{Bobev:2014jva} that $c$-extremisation doe not obviously rule out the genus $g=0$ or $g=1$ cases and yet
$AdS_3\times \Sigma_g$ solutions were only found for $g>1$. It seems likely that these results are not unrelated.

It would be very interesting to construct black string solutions of type IIB supergravity that started off at the $AdS_5\times S^5_{LS}$ solution in the UV and ended up at the new $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions in the IR. However, there are obstacles in constructing such solutions in a straightforward way. One might hope for solutions within gauged supergravity that preserves supersymmetry along the flow as
well as preserving the azimuthal symmetry of the spindle and the flavour symmetry preserved by the IR solution.
Correspondingly the conformal boundary should be  of the form $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma$ and preserve these symmetries.
For the simplest class of $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions with vanishing flavour flux, $p_F=0$, which we constructed analytically using minimal $D=5$ gauged supergravity, the boundary of such black string solutions within this theory should then
admit $d=4$ conformal Killing spinors charged under the $R$-symmetry \cite{Cheng:2005wk,Klare:2012gn,Cassani:2012ri}. However, in appendix \ref{app:e} we show that the only such solutions
lie within the twist class (in fact the usual topological twist) and not the anti-twist class. Perhaps black string solutions can be constructed
within a bigger truncation of gauged supergravity or in type IIB supergravity itself, allowing for more general deformations on
the boundary and relaxing one or more of the conditions of supersymmetry, azimuthal and flavour symmetry

Similar issues also arise for the $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions constructed in $D=5$
 minimal gauged supergravity that are then uplifted on a $D=5$ Sasaki-Einstein space \cite{Ferrero:2020laf}.
Furthermore, analogous issues have been encountered for the class of supersymmetric $AdS_2\times \Sigma$ solutions of $D=4$ minimal gauged supergravity in the anti-twist class \cite{Ferrero:2020twa}. There it was shown
that a general class of magnetically charged and accelerating black hole solutions in $AdS_4$
approach $AdS_2\times \Sigma$ solutions in the near horizon limit. The solutions that approach the supersymmetric locus have the peculiar feature that the conformal boundary gets pierced by an acceleration horizon and degenerates into
two pieces, each realising supersymmetry via a topological twist, but a different one on each component. It was also shown
that for a more general class of accelerating black hole solutions with the addition of
electric charge and rotation, solutions to the conformal Killing spinor equation do exist
\cite{Ferrero:2020twa} and furthermore there are additional potential connections with a locus of complex solutions as discussed in \cite{Cassani:2021dwa}. It is clearly desirable to have a better understanding of anti-twist black hole and black string solutions.

In a complementary direction, it is also interesting to ask if there are RG flows that connect the new $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions of the extended LS model with the analytic $AdS_3\times \Sigma$ solutions of the STU model \cite{Hosseini:2021fge,Boido:2021szx,Ferrero:2021etw}. For this to be possible
 we should demand that the fluxes through the spindle are the same for both solutions. This implies that we should consider the sub-class of STU models which have vanishing flux
for the $U(1)$ that is carried by the complex scalar in the extended LS model.
In appendix \ref{app:d} we show that imposing this condition on the solutions of the STU model
eliminates the twist class, in alignment with the fact that
we don't find any twist solutions of the extended LS model. On the other hand one finds that
there is a family of anti-twist solutions in the STU model with the same restrictions on the spindle data and fluxes
as in the extended LS model solutions. Furthermore, we find that central charge of these STU model solutions is always bigger than the central charge of the extended LS model solutions.
This strongly suggests that there should be supersymmetric RG flows that start off with the STU solutions in the UV and end up at the extended LS solutions in the IR.

A final comment is that it would be interesting to further analyse the geometry of $Y_7$ in the uplifted $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solution.
There has been significant recent progress in understanding the GK geometry \cite{Kim:2005ez,Gauntlett:2007ts}
on $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions of type IIB supergravity, dual to $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ $d=2$ SCFTS,
 which only have non-vanishing five-form flux, starting with \cite{Couzens:2018wnk}. The new $AdS_3\times Y_7$ solutions will have additional fluxes switched on and it would be very interesting to cast the geometry in the language of \cite{Couzens:2019iog}. Indeed this exercise could lead to the construction of additional new classes of solutions.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

\noindent
We thank Seyed Morteza Hosseini for helpful discussions.
This work was supported in part by STFC grant ST/T000791/1. JPG is supported as a Visiting Fellow at the Perimeter Institute.