1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{amsmath, amsthm}

3: \usepackage{multirow}

4: \usepackage{amsfonts}

5: \usepackage{amssymb,graphics,psfrag}

6: \usepackage{array,epsfig,multirow,stmaryrd,graphicx}

7: \usepackage{comment}

8: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}

9: \topmargin -.5cm

10: \textheight 21cm

11: \oddsidemargin -.125cm

12: \textwidth 16cm

13: 

14: 

15: %\usepackage{cite}

16: %\usepackage{showkeys}

17: %

18: %

19: %\def\hybrid{\topmargin -20pt    \oddsidemargin 0pt

20: %        \headheight 0pt \headsep 0pt

21: %       \textwidth 6.5in        % US paper

22: %       \textheight 9in         % US paper

23: %        \textwidth 6.25in       % A4 paper

24: %        \textheight 9.5in       % A4 paper

25: %        \marginparwidth .875in

26: %       \parskip 5pt plus 1pt   \jot = 1.5ex}

27: %       The default is set to be hybrid

28: %\hybrid

29: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

30: \numberwithin{table}{section}\setlength{\multlinegap}{25pt}

31: 

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: 

34: 

35: \let\ex=\times          %\def\ShowPolyData{} %\def\ShowOtherConData{}

36: 

37: \def\ZZ{{\mathbb Z}}

38: \def\bT{{\mathbb T}}

39: \def\bC{{\mathbb C}}

40: \def\IF{{\mathbb F}}

41: \def\WP{{\mathrm W\mathbb P}}

42: \let\D=\Delta \let\s=\sigma \let\Th=\Theta \let\S=\Sigma

43: \def\2{{1\over2}}

44: \let\<=\langle \let\>=\rangle

45: \def\new#1\endnew{{\bf #1}}

46: \def\ifundefined#1{\expandafter\ifx\csname#1\endcsname\relax}

47: \ifundefined{draftmode}\else    \input draftmode        \fi

48: \let\Msize=\footnotesize        \def\VL{\;\vrule\;}     \def\v{\nu^*}

49: \def\BM{\Msize\begin{matrix}}           \def\EM{\end{matrix}}

50: \def\MN M:#1 #2 N:#3 #4 {{(#1_{#2},#3_{#4})}}

51: \def\MNH M:#1 #2 N:#3 #4 H:#5,#6 [#7]{{(#1_{#2},#3_{#4})^{#5,#6}_{#7}}}

52: \newcommand{\um}{\phantom{-}}

53: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

54: \newcommand{\cF}{{\cal F}}

55: \newcommand{\cM}{{\cal M}}

56: \newcommand{\cK}{{\cal K}}

57: \def\dd{\mathrm{d}}

58: \def\cI{\mathcal{I}}

59: \def\sO{\mathscr{O}}

60: 

61: 

62: \DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rk} \DeclareMathOperator{\ch}{c}

63: \def\CY{Calabi--Yau }

64: \def\Vol{\mathrm{Vol}}

65: \def\conv{\mathrm{conv}}

66: \def\r{\mathrm{r}}

67: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm Tr}}

68: \newcommand{\zb}{\bar z}

69: \newcommand{\refb}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

70: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}

71: \newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

72: \newcommand{\sectiono}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

73: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

74: 

75: 

76: %%Useful symbols%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: 

78: \def\ZZ{{\mathbb Z}}

79: \def\bT{{\mathbb T}}

80: \def\bC{{\mathbb C}}

81: \def\IF{{\mathbb F}}

82: \def\WP{{\mathrm W\mathbb P}}

83: 

84: \def\ket{\rangle}

85: \def\bra{\langle}

86: \def\CA{{\cal A}}

87: \def\CB{{\cal B}}

88: \def\CC{{\cal C}}

89: \def\CD{{\cal D}}

90: \def\CE{{\cal E}}

91: \def\CF{{\cal F}}

92: \def\CG{{\cal G}}

93: \def\CH{{\cal H}}

94: \def\CI{{\cal I}}

95: \def\CJ{{\cal J}}

96: \def\CK{{\cal K}}

97: \def\CL{{\cal L}}

98: \def\CM{{\cal M}}

99: \def\CN{{\cal N}}

100: \def\CO{{\cal O}}

101: \def\CP{{\cal P}}

102: \def\CQ{{\cal Q}}

103: \def\CR{{\cal R}}

104: \def\CS{{\cal S}}

105: \def\CT{{\cal T}}

106: \def\CU{{\cal U}}

107: \def\CV{{\cal V}}

108: \def\CW{{\cal W}}

109: \def\CX{{\cal X}}

110: \def\CY{{\cal Y}}

111: \def\CZ{{\cal Z}}

112: 

113: %macros

114: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\em \small {#1}}\marginpar{$\Longleftarrow$}}

115: \newcommand{\labell}[1]{\label{#1}}

116: \newcommand{\bbibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1}\marginpar{#1}}

117: \newcommand{\llabel}[1]{\label{#1}\marginpar{#1}}

118: \newcommand{\dslash}[0]{\slash{\hspace{-0.23cm}}\partial}

119: 

120: % macros for the conical defect paper

121: \newcommand{\sphere}[0]{{\rm S}^3}

122: \newcommand{\su}[0]{{\rm SU(2)}}

123: \newcommand{\so}[0]{{\rm SO(4)}}

124: %\newcommand{\sl}[0]{{\rm SL(2,R)}}

125: \newcommand{\bK}[0]{{\bf K}}

126: \newcommand{\bL}[0]{{\bf L}}

127: \newcommand{\bR}[0]{{\bf R}}

128: \newcommand{\tK}[0]{\tilde{K}}

129: \newcommand{\tL}[0]{\bar{L}}

130: \newcommand{\tR}[0]{\tilde{R}}

131: 

132: 

133: \newcommand{\btzm}[0]{BTZ$_{\rm M}$}

134: \newcommand{\ads}[1]{{\rm AdS}_{#1}}

135: \newcommand{\eds}[1]{{\rm EdS}_{#1}}

136: \newcommand{\sph}[1]{{\rm S}^{#1}}

137: \newcommand{\cosm}[0]{R}

138: \newcommand{\hdim}[0]{\bar{h}}

139: \newcommand{\bw}[0]{\bar{w}}

140: \newcommand{\bz}[0]{\bar{z}}

141: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

142: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

143: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

144: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

145: \newcommand{\pat}{\partial}

146: \newcommand{\lp}{\lambda_+}

147: \newcommand{\bx}{ {\bf x}}

148: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}

149: \newcommand{\bb}{{\bf b}}

150: \newcommand{\BB}{{\bf B}}

151: \newcommand{\tp}{\tilde{\phi}}

152: \hyphenation{Min-kow-ski}

153: 

154: 

155: %%Commonly used constants and symbols%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

156: \def\apr{\alpha'}

157: \def\a{\alpha}

158: \def\str{{str}}

159: \def\lstr{\ell_\str}

160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

161: %%% math symbols for Z,C,R... %%%

162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

163: \def\IZ{{\mathbb Z}}

164: \def\IR{{\mathbb R}}

165: \def\IC{{\mathbb C}}

166: \def\IP{{\mathbb P}}

167: \def\IT{{\mathbb T}}

168: \def\IS{{\mathbb S}}

169: 

170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

171: %  others     %%%%%%%%%%%%%

172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

173: \newcommand{\re}{{\rm e}}

174: \newcommand{\ri}{{\rm i}}

175: \newcommand{\rd}{{\rm d}}

176: 

177: 

178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

179: %  equations     %%%%%%%%%%%%%

180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

181: 

182: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{aligned}}

183: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{aligned}}

184: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle}

185: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}

186: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

187: 

188: \def\gstr{g_\str}

189: \def\Mstr{M_\str}

190: \def\lpl{\ell_{pl}}

191: \def\Mpl{M_{pl}}

192: \def\varep{\varepsilon}

193: \def\del{\nabla}

194: \def\grad{\nabla}

195: \def\tr{\hbox{tr}}

196: \def\perp{\bot}

197: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

198: \def\p{\partial}

199: \def\perp{\bot}

200: \def\eps{\epsilon}

201: 

202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

203: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Fig.~\protect\ref{#1}}

204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

205: 

206: 

207: 

208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

209: 

210: \def\blfootnote{\xdef\@thefnmark{}\@footnotetext}

211: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%

212: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnote[#1]{#2}\endgroup}

213: 

214: \begin{document}

215: 

216: 

217: \begin{titlepage}

218: 

219: \hfill\vbox{

220: \hbox{MAD-TH-07-05}

221: \hbox{CERN-PH-TH/2007-070}

222: }

223: 

224: \vspace*{ 2cm}

225: 

226: \centerline{\Large \bf Black Holes and Large Order Quantum Geometry}

227: 

228: \medskip

229: 

230: \vspace*{4.0ex}

231: 

232: 

233: 

234: \centerline{\large \rm

235: Min-xin Huang$^{a}$, Albrecht Klemm$^{a,b}$, Marcos Mari\~no$^{c}$ and Alireza Tavanfar$^{c,d}$}

236: 

237: 

238: \vspace*{4.0ex}

239: \begin{center}

240: {\em $^a$Department of Physics and $^b$Department of Mathematics, \\[.1 cm]

241: University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}

242: 

243: \vspace*{1.8ex}

244: {\em $^c$Department of Physics, CERN\\[.1cm]

245: Geneva 23, CH-1211 Switzerland}

246: 

247: \vspace*{1.8ex}

248: 

249: {\em $^d$Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics (IPM) \\[.1cm]

250: P.O. Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran}

251: 

252: \symbolfootnote[0]{\tt minxin@physics.wisc.edu,\

253: aklemm@physics.wisc.edu, \, marcos@mail.cern.ch, \,

254: alireza.tavanfar@cern.ch}

255: 

256: 

257: \vskip 0.5cm

258: \end{center}

259: 

260: \centerline{\bf Abstract}

261: \medskip

262: We study five-dimensional black holes obtained by compactifying

263: M theory on Calabi--Yau threefolds. Recent progress in solving

264: topological string theory on compact, one-parameter models

265: allows us to test numerically various conjectures about these black holes. We

266: give convincing evidence that a microscopic description based on Gopakumar--Vafa invariants

267: accounts correctly for their macroscopic entropy, and we check that highly nontrivial cancellations --which seem

268: necessary to resolve the so-called entropy enigma in the OSV conjecture-- do in

269: fact occur. We also study analytically small 5d black holes obtained by wrapping M2 branes in the

270: fiber of K3 fibrations. By using heterotic/type II duality we obtain

271: exact formulae for the microscopic degeneracies in various geometries, and we compute their asymptotic

272: expansion for large charges.

273: \vskip 1cm

274: 

275: 

276: 

277: 

278: 

279: \noindent April 2007

280: \end{titlepage}

281: 

282: 

283: 

284: \tableofcontents

285: 

286: 

287: \section{Introduction}

288: 

289: String theory can provide in many situations a precise microscopic description of supersymmetric

290: black holes which reproduces for large charges the Bekenstein--Hawking entropy \cite{sv}. 

291: Degeneracies of microstates that are highly protected by supersymmetry are often

292: counted by mathematically well understood quasitopological quantities related to the compactification 

293: manifold. For example, the computation of microstates of the D1--D5 system is encoded in the elliptic 

294: genus of a symmetric product of a hyperK\"ahler manifold (see \cite{d,david} for a review of these computations).

295: 

296: A very challenging class of black holes in string theory is obtained by compactifying M theory on a 

297: Calabi--Yau manifold $X$ with generic $SU(3)$ holonomy. These are five dimensional black holes, which 

298: are characterized by a membrane charge $Q \in H_2(X,\IZ)$ and an angular momentum $m$. It 

299: was proposed in \cite{kkv} that the microscopic entropy of these black holes is accounted for 

300: by BPS states associated to M2 branes wrapping the cycle $Q$ and with left spin $m=2j_L$ in five dimensions. 

301: Accoording to the proposal of \cite{kkv} their degeneracies are encoded in the five dimensional supersymmetric index 

302: %

303: \begin{equation}

304: I(\alpha,\beta)={\rm Tr}(-1)^{2 j_L+2 j_R} \exp(-\alpha j_L- \beta H).

305: \label{5dindex} 

306: \end{equation} 

307: %

308: The information captured by this index can be extracted from the all-genus expansion of 

309: the holomorphic free energy of the topological string, computed at the large radius point of $X$ \cite{gv},

310: %

311: \begin{equation} 

312: \lim_{\bar t\rightarrow \infty} F(t,\bar t,g_s)=\sum_{g=0}^\infty g_s^{2g-2} F_g(t).

313: \label{freeenergy} 

314: \end{equation} 

315: %

316: In this identification 

317: the BPS degeneracies are mapped to the Gromov--Witten invariants of genus $g$ holomorphic 

318: maps. Since the topological string could not be solved on compact Calabi-Yau threefolds 

319: at higher genus, progress in understanding the microscopic degeneracies in 

320: the general case was very limited. On the boundary of the K\"ahler cone the 

321: problem might reduce effectively to a counting problem on a two complex dimensional 

322: surface, which is mathematically simpler, but the situation is also physically  

323: more degenerate. When the compactification manifold is $X=X_2 \times \IT^2$, where $X_2=\IT^4$ or K3, 

324: one obtains the five dimensional black hole solutions constructed in \cite{bmpv}, and 

325: the microscopic degeneracies are encoded in the elliptic genus of symmetric products of $X_2$.

326: 

327: In this paper we study the microscopic counting proposed in \cite{kkv} in two different situations, by using 

328: numerical and analytic methods. First of all, we consider 5d black holes obtained by compactifying M--theory on 

329: the one--parameter Calabi--Yau spaces studied in \cite{hkq}. This explores a generic direction in the 

330: K\"ahler cone and allows to describe generic 5d black holes, which have non-vanishing classical horizon area and can 

331: carry spin. In \cite{hkq} significant progress was made in solving the topological string on compact Calabi-Yau threefolds. 

332: By combining the holomorphic anomaly of \cite{bcov} with modularity properties of the topological string 

333: partition function $Z=\exp(F)$, effective action arguments, and Castelnouvo theory, it was possible 

334: to calculate the topological string free energy up to genus $53$.

335: 

336: In order to make contact with black hole physics on the (super)gravity side, one has

337: to obtain the asymptotic expansion of the microscopic degeneracies for large charge $Q$ 

338: and $Q\gg m$. For fixed $g$ the expansion of $F_g(t)$ around large radius is 

339: convergent and under analytic control by mirror symmetry. In contrast, the 

340: genus expansion in (\ref{freeenergy}) is expected to be asymptotic, as in noncritical 

341: string theories \cite{shenker} (see \cite{order} for a recent discussion of this issue in the 

342: context of topological strings). To obtain a large $Q$ expansion for the degeneracies of the 

343: $(Q,m)$ states one needs information at genus $g\sim Q^2$ and is hence 

344: facing the issues of the behavior of string theory at large genus. 

345: Although we don't have enough control of the degeneracies to obtain analytical

346: results on the large charge expansion, the situation is suited to a 

347: numerical study by using the method of Richardson transforms\footnote{For sub-sub leading 

348: terms we use the Pad\'e approximation.}. This method 

349: merely relies on the knowledge of the form of the series and makes it possible to 

350: extract its coefficients from the value of the degeneracies at finitely many points. 

351: The analysis is complicated by the fact that the 

352: large charge expansion of the degeneracies is an asymptotic expansion, but 

353: we find that the Richardson transforms converge rapidly to the expected macroscopic values for the asymptotic

354: coefficients. To estimate its accuracy

355: we sample over the thirteen Calabi-Yau, which have a

356: sufficently wide variety of topological data. Using this sample we

357: can conclude that, given our present data of the higher genus instanton expansion,

358: the leading coefficient of the asymptotic expansion is correct within

359: $2\%$ and the first subleading one within $12\%$. With this information at hand, we 

360: give convincing evidence that the topological string accounts correctly 

361: for the entropy of 5d spinning black holes, as conjectured in \cite{kkv}\footnote{For a 

362: recent study of this question by using an approach totally different from ours, see \cite{Guica:2007gm}.}.

363: 

364: 

365: Some aspects of the genus expansion (\ref{freeenergy}) are much 

366: better understood in terms of D-brane invariants like Gopakumar--Vafa or 

367: Donaldson--Thomas invariants, rather than Gromov--Witten invariants. 

368: In particular, for a given charge $Q\in H_2(X,\mathbb{Z})$ and $Q\neq 0$ 

369: one gets the complete genus information from a finite number 

370: of GV invariants. We use the results for $F_g$ in \cite{hkq} to obtain precise 

371: information on the Donaldson--Thomas invariants of the one-parameter models. This allows 

372: us to study numerically the scaling exponent $k$ considered in \cite{dm} (and defined below 

373: in (\ref{dtscaling}) and (\ref{limit})), 

374: which governs the growth 

375: of the Donaldson--Thomas invariants under rescalings of the charges. Our numerical 

376: study indicates that $k=2$. As argued in \cite{dm}, this value indicates that  highly nontrivial 

377: cancellations occur between the contributions to the Donaldson--Thomas invariants, which in turn 

378: seem necessary to resolve the so called entropy 

379: enigma \cite{dm} in the OSV conjecture \cite{osv}.

380: 

381: The second class of black holes we study has a different flavor. These are

382: 5d black holes which are obtained when the Calabi--Yau is a K3 fibration and the charge $Q$ is restricted to the

383: K3 fiber. Their classical horizon area is zero (i.e. they are small black holes) and have no spin. By using

384: heterotic/type II duality one

385: can obtain analytic formulae for the $F_g$ amplitudes at all $g$ \cite{agnt,mm,kkrs,km,gkmw},

386: and from them one can extract the exact microscopic degeneracies for the

387: corresponding small 5d black holes. Of course,

388: as explained for example in \cite{dm}, the most delicate aspects of

389: 5d spinning black holes, as well as of the OSV conjecture,

390: cannot be tested with small black holes. This reflects the fact that the Gromov--Witten theory of K3 fibers

391: (which is closely related to the theory of Hilbert schemes) is much simpler than the

392: Gromov--Witten theory of generic Calabi--Yau manifolds. However, having an exact

393: microscopic counting might be important in understanding some detailed aspects of the entropy.  As in the 4d case

394: considered in \cite{ddmp}, the 5d degeneracies are closely related to modular forms, but

395: one cannot use the Rademacher expansion featured in \cite{dmmv,ddmp}. We find however

396: an exact asymptotic expansion for the microscopic degeneracies in powers of the inverse charge (albeit

397: corrected by terms which are exponentially suppressed for large charges). The leading

398: term of the asymptotics is in agreement with a macroscopic computation using the 4d/5d

399: connection of \cite{gsy} and the 4d attractor equations for a D6/D2 system.

400: 

401: The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we review the macroscopic and microscopic computation of the

402: entropy for 5d spinning black holes. In section 3 we analyze numerically the asymptotic properties of the

403: degeneracies for the Calabi--Yau manifolds studied in \cite{hkq}. 

404: In section 4 we study the asymptotic properties of Donaldson--Thomas invariants to address 

405: the entropy enigma of \cite{dm}. In section 5 we study small black holes in K3 fibrations and compute their degeneracies

406: as well as the asymptotic expansion. Finally, in section 6 we list some conclusions and open problems.

407: 

408: 

409: 

410: 

411: 

412: \section{Microscopic and macroscopic counting for 5d black holes}

413: 

414: \subsection{Macroscopic description}

415: 

416: Let us start with the macroscopic description of black hole

417: entropy. We will consider 5d black holes obtained by compactifying M theory on

418: a Calabi--Yau threefold $X$, and characterized by a charge $Q\in H_2(X,\IZ)$ and

419: $SU(2)_L\subset SO(4)$ angular momentum $m$. We will introduce a basis $\Sigma^A$ for $H_2(X,\IZ)$, where

420: $A=1, \cdots, b_2(X)$, as well

421: as a dual basis $\eta_A$ for $H^2(X)$. With respect to the $\Sigma^A$ basis, the charge $Q$

422: will be given by a set of integers $Q_A$.

423: The classical entropy of these black holes, denoted as $S_0$, is one

424: quarter of the horizon area

425: %

426: \begin{eqnarray} \label{entropy1}

427: S_0= 2\pi\sqrt{\CQ^3-m^2},

428: \end{eqnarray}

429: %

430: where $\CQ$ is the graviphoton charge of the black hole.

431: This charge is related to the membrane charge $Q$ by the

432: attractor mechanism in five dimensions \cite{Ferrara:1996dd}, which states that

433: %

434: \be

435: \CQ^{3/2} =\frac{1}{6}C_{ABC}y^A y^B y^C,

436: \ee

437: %

438: where

439: %

440: \be

441: {1\over 2} C_{ABC} y^B y^C =Q_A,

442: \ee

443: %

444: and

445: %

446: \be

447: C_{ABC}=\int_X \eta_A \wedge \eta_B \wedge \eta_C

448: \ee

449: %

450:  are the triple intersection numbers of $X$. For one-parameter models, the

451: membrane charge will be identified with the degree $d$ of

452: the holomorphic map in topological string computations, and we will denote the single

453: intersection number by $C_{ABC}=\kappa$. From the above equations it follows that

454: %

455: \be \label{graviphoton-03-17}

456: \CQ=\biggl(\frac{2}{9\kappa}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{3}}d.

457: \ee

458: %

459: 

460: There is a correction to the black hole entropy from

461: the $R^2$ term of the supergravity effective action, which we

462: denote as $S_1$ for convenience. The $R^2$ term correction to the

463: black hole entropy scales like $\CQ^{\frac{1}{2}}$ in the large charge

464: limit, and was computed in \cite{Guica:2005ig} by using Wald's

465: formula \cite{wald} for the $R^2$ in 5d. The result reads,

466: %

467: \begin{eqnarray} \label{entropy-03-17-01}

468: S_1=\frac{\pi}{24}\sqrt{Q^3-m^2}~c_2\cdot

469: Y\biggl(\frac{3}{Q}+\frac{m^2}{Q^4}\biggr)

470: \end{eqnarray}

471: %

472: where

473: %

474: \be

475: Y^A ={1\over \CQ^{1/2}} y^A,

476: \ee

477: %

478: and

479: %

480: \be

481: \label{ctwo}

482: c_{2A} =\int_{X} c_2(X) \wedge \eta_A.

483: \ee

484: %

485: For $m=0$ this formula has been rederived in \cite{Castro:2007hc,Alishahiha:2007nn} by using

486: the full 5d SUGRA action. In the one-parameter case, this correction reads

487: %

488: \begin{eqnarray} \label{entropy-03-17-02}

489: S_1=\frac{\pi

490: c_2}{8}\biggl(\frac{6}{\kappa}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{3}}~\sqrt{Q^3-m^2}

491: \biggl(\frac{1}{Q}+\frac{m^2}{3Q^4}\biggr)

492: \end{eqnarray}

493: %

494: 

495: 

496: Besides the corrections that we have considered, there are well known correction terms in the low

497: energy effective action of the form $F^{2g-2}R^2$, $g\geq 2$,

498: where $F$ is the graviphoton field strength. The leading

499: contribution comes from a classical term, which is the

500: contribution of the constant map from a genus $g$ world-sheet to

501: the Calabi-Yau manifold. It is of the form, 

502: %

503: \be

504: \label{constantmap-03-17}

505: d_g \chi

506: \ee

507: %

508: where $\chi$ is the Euler number of the Calabi-Yau 3-fold and 

509: %

510: \begin{equation} 

511: \label{dg}

512: d_g=\frac{(-1)^g |B_{2g}B_{2g-2}|}{4g(2g-2)(2g-2)!}.

513: \end{equation}

514: %

515: We denote the correction to black hole entropy due to the

516: $F^{2g-2}R^2$ term as $S_g$. We can roughly estimate the

517: correction for non-spinning black holes $m=0$ as follows.

518: 

519: The graviphoton charge is the integral of its field strength over

520: the horizon of black hole,

521: \begin{eqnarray}

522: \CQ \sim \int_{\textrm{Horizon}}F

523: \end{eqnarray}

524: %

525: Since the area of the horizon scales like $A\sim \CQ^{\frac{3}{2}}$, the

526: graviphoton field strength goes like

527: %

528: \begin{eqnarray}

529: \label{FQ}

530: F\sim \CQ^{-\frac{1}{2}}

531: \end{eqnarray}

532: %

533: The $R^2$ term contributes a factor $\CQ^{-1}$ in Wald's formula

534: for the black hole entropy, and taking into account also the factor of

535: horizon area $A\sim \CQ^{\frac{3}{2}}$, we find the scaling behavior

536: of the $F^{2g-2}R^2$ term correction to black hole entropy to be

537: %

538: \begin{eqnarray} \label{highergenus-03-17}

539: S_g\sim \chi \CQ^{\frac{3}{2}-g}

540: \end{eqnarray}

541: %

542: where we have included the Euler number from

543: (\ref{constantmap-03-17}). The constant of proportionality in

544: (\ref{highergenus-03-17}) is now universal, and independent of

545: specific Calabi-Yau geometries and the black hole charge. We will

546: be able to make a rough test of (\ref{highergenus-03-17}) for the

547: genus $2$ case, which is the sub-sub-leading correction in the large

548: $\CQ$ limit.

549: 

550: There are other worldsheet instanton corrections to the low

551: energy effective action that can be computed also by topological

552: strings. However, these terms are exponentially small in large

553: charge $\CQ$ limit where the supergravity description is valid, and

554: are much suppressed compared to the $\CQ^{-1}$ power corrections

555:  in (\ref{highergenus-03-17}). In this paper we will not need

556: to consider these world-sheet instanton corrections in the

557: macroscopic description of the black hole entropy. Interestingly

558: these world-sheet instanton corrections are closely related to the BPS

559: states that we will count in the microscopic description of the

560: black hole entropy.

561: 

562: 

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: \subsection{Microscopic description}

567: 

568: Microscopically, a 5d

569: black hole with

570: membrane charge $Q \in H_2(X,\IZ)$ is engineered by wrapping M2 branes around the two--cycle $Q$.

571: This leads to a supersymmetric spectrum of BPS states in 5d

572: which are labeled by $Q$ and by their spin content $(j_L, j_R)$. As argued in

573: \cite{gv}, in order to obtain an index one has to

574: trace over $j_R$ (with an insertion of $(-1)^{2 j_R}$). The resulting spectrum for a membrane charge $Q$ can be

575: represented as

576: %

577: \be

578: \label{repQ}

579: R_Q=\sum_{r=0}^g n_Q^{r}I_{r+1}

580: \ee

581: %

582: where

583: %

584: \be

585: I_{\ell}=\biggl[ 2({\bf 0}) + \biggl( {\bf 1\over 2}\biggr)\biggr]^{\ell}

586: \ee

587: %

588: encodes the spin content $j_L$, and $n_Q^r$ are the Gopakumar--Vafa invariants \cite{gv}.

589: Notice that in (\ref{repQ}), the sum over $r$ is finite and the highest spin $g$ appearing

590: in the sum depends on the membrane charge $Q$. In other words, for any given

591: $Q$ there are only finitely many $g$ for which the $n_Q^r$ are nonzero.

592: 

593: We can now write down a generating

594: function for the supersymmetric degeneracies of BPS states with membrane charge $Q$, keeping

595: track of their left spin $j_L$, by computing

596: %

597: \be

598: \sum_m \Omega(Q,m)= \sum_Q \tr_{R_Q} (-1)^{2j_L}y^{j_L}.

599: \ee

600: %

601: Using the decomposition (\ref{repQ}) one finds

602: %

603: \be

604: \label{degs}

605: \Omega(Q,m) = \sum_{r}  {2r+2 \choose m+r+1} n_Q^r.

606: \ee

607: %

608: where $m=2j_L$. In \cite{kkv} it was proposed that this quantity

609: gives the microscopic degeneracies for a spinning 5d black hole of charge $Q$ and spin $J=m$. The computation

610: of these degeneracies reduces then to the computation of the Gopakumar--Vafa invariants $n_Q^r$. The most effective way to determine these is

611: by computing the genus $r$ amplitudes $F_r$ of topological string theory on $X$. As shown in \cite{gv},

612: the total free energy

613: %

614: \be

615: \label{totalf}

616: F(t,g_s)=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} F_r (t) g_s^{2r-2}

617: \ee

618: %

619: can be written in terms of the Gopakumar--Vafa invariants as

620: %

621: \be

622: F(t,g_s)=\sum_{r=0}^\infty  \sum_{Q \in H_2(X)} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}

623: n^r_Q {1\over k}

624: \left(2 \sin {k g_s \over 2}\right)^{2 r-2}  {\rm e}^{-k Q\cdot t}.

625: \label{gova}

626: \ee

627: %

628: This means, in particular, that one can obtain the $n^r_Q$ for all $Q$ by knowing $F_0, \cdots, F_r$.

629: The black hole entropy is given by  logarithm of the number of microstates

630: %

631: \begin{eqnarray}

632: S(Q,m)=\log(\Omega(Q,m)).

633: \end{eqnarray}

634: %

635: This should agree with the macroscopic result in the large charge limit $Q\gg 1$ and $Q\gg m$.

636: 

637: As explained in \cite{kkv}, this proposal for the microscopic counting of states of 5d black holes can be regarded as a generalization of the

638: elliptic genus, which computes BPS degeneracies of the D1--D5 system. Indeed, if one considers M theory compactified on $X={\rm K3} \times \IT^2$,

639: the generic M2 brane charge in this compactification is

640: %

641: \be

642: \label{prodcharge}

643: Q=[C] + n [\IT^2], \quad n \in \IZ,

644: \ee

645: %

646: and $C$ is a curve in K3. By standard dualities this system can be related to type IIB on K3$\times \IS^1$ with D--brane charge $[C]$ and $M$ units

647: of momentum around $\IS^1$, which is a close cousin of the D1--D5 system.

648: As it is well known (see for example \cite{d}), the BPS degeneracies of this system can be computed from the

649: elliptic genus of the symmetric product of K3. Let

650: %

651: \be

652: \label{egenera}

653: \chi({\rm K3};q,y)=\sum_{m,\ell}c(m,\ell) q^m y^{\ell}

654: \ee

655: %

656: be the elliptic genus of K3. The generating function of elliptic genera of the symmetric product $S^k {\rm K3}$

657: %

658: \be

659: \label{egsym}

660: \chi(S_p {\rm K3};q,y) =\sum_{k=0}^p \chi (S^k {\rm K3};q,y)p^k =\sum_{k,n,m} c(k,n,m) p^k q^n y^m

661: \ee

662: %

663: can be computed from the coefficients in (\ref{egenera}) in terms of an infinite product

664: \cite{dmvv}

665: %

666: \be

667: \label{egip}

668: \chi(S_p {\rm K3};q,y)= \prod_{N,M\ge 0, \ell} (1-p^N q^M y^{\ell})^{-c(N M, \ell)}.

669: \ee

670: %

671:  The supersymmetric degeneracies of  BPS states for this system are then given by the coefficients of the

672:  expansion in (\ref{egsym}),

673:  %

674:  \be

675:  \label{egcounting}

676:  \Omega(Q,m)=c\Bigl({1\over 2} C^2 +1, n, m\Bigr),

677:  \ee

678:  %

679: where $Q$ is of the form (\ref{prodcharge}). One can show that, for large charges \cite{dvv,d},

680: %

681: \be

682: \log \, \Omega(Q,m) \sim 2\pi {\sqrt { {n\over 2} C^2  -m^2}}.

683: \ee

684: %

685: It is easy to check that this is precisely the macroscopic entropy (\ref{entropy1}) computed for K3$\times \IT^2$.

686: Of course, the degeneracies (\ref{degs}) are in general much more difficult to compute, since they correspond to

687: black holes with only $\CN=1$ supersymmetry in 5d.

688: 

689: \sectiono{One--parameter models}

690: 

691: \subsection{Topological strings on one--parameter models}

692: 

693: In \cite{hkq} the topological B model was integrated on thirteen one-parameter

694: Calabi-Yau spaces which can be realized as

695: hypersurfaces or complete intersections in (weighted) projective

696: spaces. We have listed these spaces and some of their topological data in table \ref{onep}.

697: These data are the intersection numbers $C_{ABC}=\kappa$, the second

698: Chern classes $c_2$, and the Euler numbers $\chi$. They are needed for

699: computations of the macroscopic entropy.

700: %

701: 

702: \begin{table} [t] \label{table1}

703: \begin{centering}

704: \begin{tabular}{|r|rrr||r|rrr|}

705: \hline CY & $\chi$& $c_2\cdot \eta$ & $\kappa$& CY          & $\chi$& $c_2\cdot \omega$ & $\kappa$\\   \hline

706: $X_5(1^5)$   &-200   &50                 &  5      & $X_6(1^4,2)$& -204&                 42 & 3 \\

707: $X_8(1^4,4)$  &-296   &44                 &  2      & $X_{10}(1^3,2,5)$& -288&            34 & 1 \\

708: $X_{3,3}(1^6)$&-144   &54                &  9      & $X_{4,2}(1^6)$& -176&               56 & 8 \\

709: $X_{3,2,2}(1^7)$&-144   &60              &  12     & $X_{2,2,2,2}(1^8)$    & -128&       64 & 16 \\

710: $X_{4,3}(1^5,2)$&-156   &48              &  6      & $X_{4,4}(1^4,2^2)$ & -144&          40 & 4 \\

711: $X_{6,2}(1^5,3)$&-256   &52              &  4      & $X_{6,4}(1^3,2^2,3)$& -156&         32 & 2 \\

712: $X_{6,6}(1^2,2^2,3^2)$&-120   &32        &  1      & & &                  &  \\

713: \hline

714: \end{tabular}

715: \caption{The sample of 13 one-parameter complete intersection CYs in weighted projective spaces.

716: A CICY of degree $d_1,\ldots, d_k$ in weighted projective space $\mathbb{P}^{l-1}(w_1,\ldots,w_l)$

717: is denoted $X_{d_1,\ldots, d_k}( w_1,\ldots,w_l)$, i.e. weights

718: $w$ with repetition $m$ are abbreviated by $w^m$. $\chi = \int_X c_3$ is the Euler number, $\kappa$ 

719: is the triple intersection number, and $c_2\cdot \eta $ is defined in (\ref{ctwo}).}

720: \end{centering}

721: \label{onep}

722: \end{table}

723: 

724: The complex moduli space of these threefolds is ${\cal M}=\mathbb{P}^1\setminus \{\infty,1,0\}$, and

725: the three special points are the large radius degeneration point, a conifold point and

726: a further point either of finite (Gepner point) or infinite branching order. The modular group

727: $\Gamma_X \in {\rm SP}(4,\mathbb{Z})$ can hence be generated e.g. by the large

728: radius and the conifold monodromies.

729: 

730: 

731: The  conceptual obstacle in integrating the B-model holomorphic anomaly~\cite{bcov}

732: is the holomorphic ambiguity which arises in each integration step.

733: Invariance of  the topological string amplitudes under $\Gamma_X$

734: and effective action arguments, which govern the behaviour of the genus

735: $g$ amplitudes at special points, restrict the ambiguity to

736: $3g-3$ unknowns~\cite{kkv}. By using a refined effective action analysis, which gives

737: rise to the ``gap condition" at the conifold, regularity at the orbifold, and Castelnouvo's bound for

738: the Gromow--Witten invariants at large radius, it is possible to fix the unknows,

739: and one can calculate the free energy of the topological

740: string to arbitrary degree and up to genus $12-53$.

741: 

742: Instead of using the generic solution of holomorphic anomaly equation

743: suggested by the world-sheet degenerations~\cite{bcov} we use the

744: constraints of $\Gamma_X$ on the topological string amplitudes directly 

745: when integrating the holomorphic anomaly equations genus by genus~\cite{Yamaguchi:2004bt}\cite{gkmw}. 

746: This results in an alogarithm, which constructs the genus $g$ amplitudes  

747: as weight $3g-3$ polynomials over a ring of three an-holomorphic- and one holomorphic 

748: modular objects of weight $(1,2,3,1)$. As a consequence the number of terms in the $F_g$

749: grows polynomial with $g$ and not exponentially as in the approach of~\cite{bcov}\footnote{Nevertheless 

750: the limiting factor in advancing to higher $g$ is presently not the ambiguity but the 

751: computing time. The reason is that the numerators in the coefficents of the 

752: polynomials grow exponentially.}. 

753: 

754: 

755: The approach of \cite{hkq} views the topological string partition function as a wave function over

756: $H^3(X,\IR)$. Choices of polarization are necessary in order to expand the effective action

757: at different points in the moduli space $\CM$, in appropriate local holomorphic coordinates.

758: Most of the black hole issues that we will discuss involve the degeneracies

759: extracted from the topological string at the large radius limit.

760: Therefore we will discard for now most of the global

761: information and focus only the holomorphic limit of the topological string

762: partition function at this limit, where it encodes the degeneracy of

763: bound states of a single D6 brane and arbitrary D2-D0 branes.

764: 

765: \subsection{Static black holes}

766: 

767: We first consider the case of non-spinning black hole $J\equiv

768: m=0$ and denote $N_d=\Omega(d,0)$. The entropy formula including the

769: first few orders (\ref{entropy1}), (\ref{entropy-03-17-02}),

770: (\ref{highergenus-03-17}) is in this case

771: %

772: \begin{eqnarray} \label{entropy2}

773: S=b_0d^{\frac{3}{2}}+b_1d^{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{b_2}{d^{\frac{1}{2}}}+\mathcal{O}\biggl(\frac{1}{d^{\frac{3}{2}}}\biggr),

774: \end{eqnarray}

775: %

776: where the first two coefficients are

777: %

778: \begin{eqnarray} \label{coefficients-03-17}

779: b_0=\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt{2\kappa}},~~~~ b_1=\frac{\pi

780: c_2}{4\sqrt{2\kappa}},

781: \end{eqnarray}

782: %

783: and we have used the graviphoton charge relation

784: (\ref{graviphoton-03-17}). The coefficient $b_1$ of the

785: sub-leading term is consistent with the results in \cite{vafabh, Castro:2007hc, Alishahiha:2007nn},

786: where it was

787: observed that the $b_1$ can be produced by a shift of the 2-brane

788: charge

789: %

790: \be

791: d\rightarrow d+\frac{c_2}{8}

792: \ee

793: %

794: in the leading term.

795: 

796: 

797: To compare with the microscopic counting we define the following

798: function

799: %

800: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fd}

801: f(d)= \frac{\log(N_d)}{d^\frac{3}{2}}.

802: \end{eqnarray}

803: %

804: The macroscopic black hole entropy predicts that the large order

805: behavior of $f(d)$ is

806: %

807: \begin{eqnarray} \label{functionexpand-03-17}

808: f(d)=b_0+\frac{b_1}{d}+\frac{b_2}{d^2}+\cdots

809: \end{eqnarray}

810: %

811: Since we have available only the values of $f(d)$ for positive

812: integer $d$ up to a finite degree, it is appropriate to use

813: well-known numerical methods to extrapolate the asymptotic value

814: $b_0$. From the form of the sub-leading corrections in

815: (\ref{functionexpand-03-17}), it is appropriate to use the

816: Richardson extrapolation method (see for example \cite{bo}).

817: 

818: The basic idea of this numerical method is simple. To

819: cancel the sub-leading corrections in (\ref{functionexpand-03-17})

820: 		   up to order $1/d^N$, one defines

821: %

822: \begin{eqnarray} \label{extra-03-17}

823: A(d,N)=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{f(d+k)(d+k)^N(-1)^{k+N}}{k!(N-k)!},

824: \end{eqnarray}

825: %

826: One can show that if the perturbation series

827: (\ref{functionexpand-03-17}) truncates at order $1/d^N$,

828: the expression (\ref{extra-03-17}) will give exactly the

829: asymptotic value $b_0$. Ideally ,the larger $N$ and $d$ are, the

830: closer $A(d,N)$ is to the asymptotic value. But due to the

831: limitation of our data, the sum $d+N$ must not exceed the maximal

832: degree $d_{max}$ of the topological string computations.

833: 

834: %------------------------------------------------------------

835: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

836: \begin{center}

837: \epsfig{file=leadingquintic.eps, width=8cm}\epsfig{file=leadingbicubic.eps, width=8cm}

838: \end{center}

839: \caption{Microscopic data for $f(d)$ ({\tiny{$\Box$}}), and the Richardson transforms  

840: $A(d,2)$ ({\tiny{$\triangle$}}), $A(d,3)$ ($\diamond$), and $A(d,4)$ ($\star$). 

841: The  straight line corresponds to the macroscopic prediction 

842: $b_0=\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt{2\kappa}}$. For the quintic this value 

843: is $b_0\approx 1.359$ and for the available degree $14$ 

844: the Richardson transforms lie $1.8$, $2.1$, $1.2$ \% from the macroscopic  

845: prediction. For the bi-cubic $b_0\approx 0.967$, the available degree is higher, $18$, and the

846: microscopic counting is within $.9$, $1.2$, $.3$ \% from the macroscopic  

847: prediction.  As an example we give BPS numbers used for the analysis 

848: at degree $18$ of the bi-cubic in table (A.1).} 

849: \label{leading}

850: \end{figure}

851: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

852: 

853: 

854: Fig. \ref{leading} shows the convergence of the leading terms in  

855: $f(d)$ and of the Richardson transforms $A(d,N)$, $N=2,3,4$  

856: for the quintic  and the bi-cubic. It is obvious from the two examples 

857: in  Fig. \ref{leading} that the Richardson method 

858: improves impressively  the convergence of the series, i.e. it provides 

859: a model independent and consistent scheme to supress the subleading corrections.  

860: Using $N=2-4$ is good enough for our purpose of estimating the asymptotic 

861: value. We conduct the analysis for all 13 models using $N=3$ and 

862: the maximal degree available. The results are summarized in 

863: Table \ref{table3-03-17}, and are in very good agreements 

864: with the expected asymptotic values $b_0$ in

865: (\ref{coefficients-03-17}). More detailed results 

866: on all the analysis carried out in this paper can be found 

867: in a script and in a data base at \cite{webpage}.      

868: 

869: 

870: \begin{table}

871: \begin{centering}

872: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|}

873: \hline Calabi-Yau &  $d_{max}$ & $A(d_{max}-3,3)$ & $b_0=\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt{2\kappa}}$ & error \\

874: \hline  $X_{5}(1^5)$  & 14 & 1.35306 & 1.32461 &

875: 2.15 \%  \\

876:  \hline   $X_{6}(1^4,2)$  & 10 & 1.75559 & 1.71007 & 2.66 \%

877: \\

878: \hline   $X_{8}(1^4,4)$  & 7 & 2.11454 & 2.0944 & 0.96 \%

879: \\

880: \hline  $X_{10}(1^3,2,5)$  & 5 & 2.99211 & 2.96192 & 1.02 \%

881: \\

882: \hline  $X_{3, 3}(1^6)$  & 17 & 1.00204 & 0.987307 & 1.49 \%   \\

883: \hline  $X_{4, 2}(1^6)$   & 15 & 1.07031 & 1.0472 & 2.21 \%  \\

884: \hline  $X_{3, 2, 2}(1^7)$  &  10 & 0.821169 & 0.855033 & -3.96 \% \\

885: \hline  $X_{2, 2, 2, 2}(1^8)$  & 13 & 0.722466 & 0.74048  &

886: -2.43 \%  \\

887: \hline  $X_{4, 3}(1^5,2)$  & 11 & 1.21626 & 1.2092 & 0.58  \%  \\

888: \hline  $X_{6, 2}(1^5, 3)$  & 11 & 1.52785 & 1.48096 & 3.17  \% \\

889: \hline  $X_{4, 4}(1^4,2^2)$  & 7 & 1.42401 & 1.48096 &

890: -3.85 \% \\

891: \hline  $X_{6, 4}(1^3,2^2, 3)$  & 5 & 2.06899 & 2.0944 & -1.21 \%

892: \\

893: \hline  $X_{6, 6}({1^2, 2^2, 3^2})$  & 4 & 2.95082 & 2.96192 &

894: -0.37 \% \\

895:  \hline

896: \end{tabular}  \caption{\label{table3-03-17} Comparing the extrapolated value of $b_0$ with the macroscopic prediction.}

897: \end{centering}

898: \end{table}

899: 

900: 

901: We can further extract the sub-leading coefficient $b_1$ from the

902: data. Define

903: %

904: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fd1}

905: f_1(d)&=& (f(d)-b_0)d ,\nonumber \\

906: A_1(d,N)&=&

907: \sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{f_1(d+k)(d+k)^N(-1)^{k+N}}{k!(N-k)!},

908: \end{eqnarray}

909: %

910: and the asymptotic value of $f_1(d)$ should be $b_1$. We apply the

911: same Richardson extrapolation method to $f_1(d)$ and we compare it with

912: the macroscopic black hole predictions. Two typical examples for the 

913: behaviour of the Richardson transforms are plotted in Fig. \ref{subleading}.  

914: The results for all models are summarized in Table \ref{table4-03-17}.

915: 

916: 

917: %------------------------------------------------------------

918: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

919: \begin{center}

920: %\epsfxsize=10cm

921: %\epsfbox{Flam.eps}

922: \epsfig{file=subleading62.eps, width=8cm}\epsfig{file=subleadingbicubic.eps, width=8cm}

923: \end{center}

924: \caption{

925: Microscopic data for $f(d)$ ({\tiny{$\Box$}}), and the Richardson transforms  

926: $A(d,4)$ ({\tiny{$\triangle$}}), $A(d,5)$ ($\diamond$), and $A(d,6)$ ($\star$).

927: The  straight line corresponds to the macroscopic prediction 

928: $b_1=\frac{\pi c_2}{4\sqrt{2\kappa}}$. 

929: For the degree $X_{6,2}$ complete intesection 

930: this value is $b_1\approx 14.44$ and for the available degree $12$ 

931: the Richardson transforms lie $-11.7$, $-10.4$, $-9.77$ \% below the macroscopic  

932: prediction. For the bi-cubic $b_1\approx 9.994$, the available degree is  $18$ and the

933: microscopic counting is  $-7.15$, $-6.88$, $-6.63$ \%  below the macroscopic  

934: prediction.}

935: \label{subleading}

936: \end{figure}

937: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

938: 

939: 

940: \begin{table}

941: \begin{centering}

942: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|}

943: \hline Calabi-Yau & $d_{max}$  & $A_1(d_{max}-3,3)$ &

944: $b_1=\frac{\pi

945: c_2}{4\sqrt{2\kappa}}$ & error & estimated $b_2$ \\

946: \hline  $X_{5}(1^5)$  & 14 & 11.2668 & 12.4182 & -9.27 \%  & -11.9503  \\

947: \hline  $X_{6}(1^4,2)$  & 10 & 11.9237 & 13.4668 & -11.5 \%  & -12.1848  \\

948: \hline  $X_{8}(1^4,4)$  & 7 & 14.0537 & 17.2788 & -18.7 \%  & -14.9973  \\

949: \hline  $X_{10}(1^3,2, 5)$  &5 & 15.2509 & 18.8823 & -19.2 \%  & -14.9817  \\

950: \hline  $X_{3, 3}(1^6)$  & 17 & 9.29062 & 9.99649 & -7.06 \%  & -9.63958  \\

951: \hline  $X_{4, 2}(1^6)$  & 15 & 10.0226 & 10.9956 & -8.85 \%  & -10.7834  \\

952: \hline  $X_{3, 2, 2}(1^7)$  & 10 & 8.45163 & 9.61912 & -12.1 \%  & -9.3828   \\

953: \hline  $X_{2, 2, 2, 2}(1^8)$  & 13 & 7.84595 & 8.88577 & -11.7 \%  & -8.88773  \\

954: \hline  $X_{4, 3}(1^5, 2)$  & 11 & 9.5981 & 10.8828 & -11.8 \%  & -9.96404   \\

955: \hline  $X_{6, 2}(1^5, 3)$  & 11 & 12.5614 & 14.4394 & -13.0 \%  & -14.2582   \\

956: \hline  $X_{4, 4}({1^4, 2^2})$  & 7 & 9.70091 & 11.1072 & -12.7 \%  & -9.41295  \\

957: \hline  $X_{6, 4}(1^3, 2^2, 3)$  & 5 & 11.1008 & 12.5664 & -11.7 \%  & -10.0821   \\

958: \hline  $X_{6, 6}(1^1, 2^2, 3^3)$  & 4 & 11.1378 & 12.2179 & -8.84 \%  & -8.15739  \\

959: \hline

960: \end{tabular}  \caption{\label{table4-03-17} Comparing the extrapolated value with the macroscopic prediction of $b_1$.}

961: \end{centering}

962: \end{table}

963: 

964: Despite our rather successful verifications of the numerical

965: coefficients $b_0$ and $b_1$, we should note that the expansion in inverse powers of the charge

966: (\ref{functionexpand-03-17}) is actually an asymptotic series. The asymptotic character 

967: of the large charge expansions of microscopic degeneracies is manifest in the explicit computations for 

968: small black holes in \cite{ddmp} and also in the examples we will discuss in section 5. In our case, we can relate 

969: the asymptotic expansion of (\ref{functionexpand-03-17}) to a large genus behavior in a string series, since 

970: the coefficients in (\ref{functionexpand-03-17}) are 

971: proportional to the constant map contribution

972: %

973: \begin{eqnarray} \label{constant-03-29}

974: b_g\sim d_g,

975: \end{eqnarray}

976: %

977: where $d_g$ is given in (\ref{dg}). This coefficient grows at large $g$ as 

978: %

979: \be

980: d_g \sim (2\pi)^{-4g} (-1)^g (2g)!,

981: \ee

982: %

983: which is the typical behavior found in string perturbation theory \cite{shenker}.

984: It then follows that the series expansion (\ref{functionexpand-03-17}) for $f(d)$ 

985: has zero radius of convergence for any value of $d$ and it is 

986: rather an asymptotic expansion. Indeed, the $d_g$ are the coefficients of the asymptotic 

987: expansion of the MacMahon function (see \cite{ddmp}, Appendix E, for a detailed 

988: derivation). For these kinds of expansions, the best approximation to their true value (which in 

989: this case is the function $f(d)$ computed from topological strings) is obtained by 

990: truncating the sum at the order $\CN$ which minimizes the error. For an asymptotic series of the form

991: %

992: \be

993: \label{asympa}

994: f(w) =\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k w^k, \qquad b_k \sim A^{-k} (\beta k)! 

995: \ee

996: %

997: the optimal truncation occurs generically at 

998: %

999: \be

1000: \CN \sim \frac{1}{\beta} \biggl( \frac{A}{|w|}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{\beta}} .

1001: \ee

1002: %

1003: In our case $\beta=2$ and we can estimate $\CN$ as follows. According to the connection between 4D/5D black holes \cite{gsy}, the attractor 

1004: value for the topological string coupling constant is $g_s =4\pi$ \cite{Guica:2005ig}. This should 

1005: be roughly the numerical constant that relates the graviphoton 

1006: field strength to the charge $\CQ$ in (\ref{FQ}), and it contributes to the

1007: coefficients $b_g$ an extra factor $g_s^{2g-2}$, so that we can refine (\ref{constant-03-29}) to

1008: %

1009: \be

1010: b_g \sim (4 \pi)^{2g} d_g, 

1011: \ee

1012: %

1013: and the constant in (\ref{asympa}) is $A=\pi^2$. Therefore, the optimal truncation is at 

1014: %

1015: \be

1016: \CN \sim \frac{\pi}{2} d^{\frac{1}{2}} .

1017: \ee

1018: %

1019: For the small values of $d$ that we are considering we should therefore expect 

1020: an optimal truncation around $\CN \sim 5-10$. 

1021: 

1022: These considerations have implications for our numerical analysis. The Richardson method (\ref{extra-03-17}) is 

1023: designed in principle for convergent expansions. For asymptotic expansions, we should expect it 

1024: to give increasing precision and convergence to the true coefficients as long as the order of the 

1025: transformation $N$ in (\ref{extra-03-17}) is lower than the truncation order $\CN$. This is the underlying reason that

1026: prevents us from improving the precision of the leading

1027: coefficients by simply increasing the truncation order $N$ in the

1028: Richardson method, and we indeed find an oscillating behavior around the expected true 

1029: value for the Richardson transforms with $N >5$. 

1030: 

1031: 

1032: 

1033: 

1034: 

1035: We try to go one step further and give a rough estimation of the

1036: coefficient $b_2$ in (\ref{entropy2}), which has not been studied

1037: in the literature from the supergravity point of view. It turns

1038: out that the naive method we use for computing the sub-leading

1039: coefficient $b_1$ gives too big an estimate, which might be a

1040: result that the optimal truncation scheme is no longer a good

1041: approximation at this order. In order to improve this, we use the

1042: Pad\'{e} approximation which is well-known for summing divergent

1043: series. Given an asymptotic series

1044: \begin{eqnarray} \label{originalseries-03-29}

1045: f(z)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}b_iz^i, \end{eqnarray} one can evaluate

1046: the asymptotic value by  defining the following Pad\'{e}

1047: approximation

1048: \begin{eqnarray} \label{pade-03-29}

1049: P^{N}_M(z)=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^NA_iz^i}{1+\sum_{i=1}^MB_iz^i}

1050: \end{eqnarray}

1051: where the coefficients $A_i$ and $B_i$ are fixed by Taylor

1052: expanding the above equation (\ref{pade-03-29}) around $z=0$ and

1053: match to the first $M+N+1$ terms of the original series

1054: (\ref{originalseries-03-29}).

1055: 

1056: We take the theoretical values of $b_0$ and $b_1$ from

1057: (\ref{coefficients-03-17}), and use the Monte Carlo method to

1058: randomly generate the sub-leading coefficients $b_2$, $b_3$ etc,

1059: then use the Pad\'{e} approximation to evaluate the asymptotic

1060: series (\ref{originalseries-03-29}) for $z=\frac{1}{d}$, where

1061: $d=1,2,\cdots,d_{max}$. We pick the sub-leading coefficients $b_i$

1062: ($i\geq 2$) that minimize the difference of the Pad\'{e}

1063: evaluation with the expected value $f(d)$  from topological

1064: strings, i.e. we minimize

1065: \begin{eqnarray}

1066: \sum_{d=1}^{d_{max}}(\frac{P^N_M(\frac{1}{d})}{f(d)}-1)^2

1067: \end{eqnarray}

1068: We find different values of $N$, $M$ in the Pad\'{e} approximation

1069: give qualitatively similar results. In the last column in Table

1070: \ref{table4-03-17}, we give the estimated values of

1071: sub-sub-leading coefficient $b_2$ using the scheme $N=2,M=1$.

1072: 

1073: Assuming the constant map contribution is the most significant

1074: contribution at this order in $\CQ$, the coefficient $b_2$ should

1075: behave like

1076: %

1077: \begin{eqnarray} \label{genustwo-03-17}

1078: b_2 \sim \chi \kappa^{\frac{1}{6}}.

1079: \end{eqnarray}

1080: %

1081: We can verify the relation (\ref{genustwo-03-17}) by plotting

1082: $b_2$ against the Euler number $\chi\kappa^{\frac{1}{6}}$ for the

1083: 13 Calabi-Yau models we studied. We find as the best fit

1084: coefficient

1085: %

1086: \begin{eqnarray}

1087: b_2=0.047 \chi\kappa^{\frac{1}{6}},

1088: \end{eqnarray}

1089: %

1090: see the plot in Figure \ref{euler-03-17}, which is reasonably

1091: consistent with the expectation (\ref{genustwo-03-17}).

1092: 

1093: \begin{figure}

1094: \begin{center}

1095: %\epsfxsize=10cm

1096: %\epsfbox{Flam.eps}

1097: \epsfig{file=subsubleading.eps, width=12cm}

1098: \end{center}

1099: \medskip

1100: \caption{The plot of $-b_2$ vs. $(-\chi\kappa^{\frac{1}{6}})$ for

1101: 13 Calabi-Yau models.} \label{euler-03-17}

1102: \end{figure}

1103: 

1104: {}From the second row of the Table \ref{constant-03-29}, we can find

1105: the numerical values of the genus two constant map contribution

1106: $b_2\sim 0.00017g_s^2 \chi\kappa^{\frac{1}{6}}$. Taking into

1107: account that $g_s \sim \mathcal{O}(10)$, this is the same order

1108: of magnitude as our estimate value of $0.047$ from microscopic

1109: topological string computation.

1110: 

1111: 

1112: \subsection{Spinning black holes}

1113: 

1114: We can try to extract the spin dependence of the black hole

1115: entropy from (\ref{entropy1}). Assuming $\CQ \gg J$, and expanding in $J/\CQ$,

1116: we find the following macroscopic

1117: prediction for the topological string data,

1118: %

1119: \begin{eqnarray} \label{spindependence}

1120: g_m(d)\equiv \frac{d^{\frac{3}{2}}}{m^2}

1121: \log \biggl(\frac{\Omega(d,0)}{\Omega(d,m)}\biggr)=p_0+\mathcal{O}\biggl(\frac{1}{d}\biggr)

1122: \end{eqnarray}

1123: %

1124: where

1125: %

1126: \be

1127: \label{asympo}

1128: p_0=3\pi\biggl(\frac{\kappa}{2}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}}.

1129: \ee

1130: 

1131: For a fixed value $m$ we use again the Richardson extrapolation

1132: method to find the asymptotic value of $g_m(d)$ for large $d$. We

1133: list the values of $g_m(d)$ and its first Richardson extrapolation

1134: $A_m(d,1)$ for spin $m=1,2,3$, using the quintic as an example.

1135: 

1136: We note that the contribution to entropy from angular momentum is

1137: proportional to $d^{-3/2}$, as compared to the

1138: leading static contribution (\ref{entropy2}) of order

1139: $d^{3/2}$. Although the prediction (\ref{spindependence})

1140: should be the leading spinning contribution, there could be some

1141: small statistical fluctuation of topological string data which is

1142: random for the different spins, and which might become comparable

1143: to the spinning contribution in (\ref{spindependence}) and result

1144: in the deviation for large degree $d$. This can be seen in the

1145: quintic example in Table \ref{table5-03-17}. We find that the

1146: Richardson series does not converge to an asymptotic value, instead

1147: the series approach a maximal value before deviating again for large

1148: degree $d$. In order to minimize the effect of statistical

1149: fluctuation of topological string data, we propose to use the

1150: extremal values in the Richardson series $A_m(d,1)$ to estimate

1151: the asymptotic value of $p_0$.

1152: This is indeed a relatively good estimate for the quintic case

1153: where $p_0=14.9019$. Other Calabi-Yau manifolds are analyzed in~\cite{webpage}.

1154: 

1155: 

1156: 

1157: \begin{table}

1158: \begin{centering}

1159: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}

1160: \hline   $d$   & $g_1(d)$ & $A_1(d,1)$ & $g_2(d)$ & $A_2(d,1)$ &$g_3(d)$ & $A_3(d,1)$  \\

1161: \hline 1 & 0.693147 & 3.22789 & NA & NA & NA & NA  \\

1162: \hline 2 & 1.96052 & 6.85432 & NA & NA & NA & NA  \\

1163: \hline 3 & 3.59178 & 10.9389 & 9.03347 & 12.2117 & NA & NA  \\

1164: \hline 4 & 5.42856 & 14.4696 & 9.82804 & 13.0403 & 12.1257 & 6.55334  \\

1165: \hline 5 & 7.23677 & 16.4156 & 10.4705 & 12.8183 & 11.0112 & 10.2148  \\

1166: \hline 6 & 8.76658 & 16.1819 & 10.8618 & 11.6135 & 10.8785 & 9.98996  \\

1167: \hline 7 & 9.82591 & 13.9173 & 10.9692 & 9.71239 & 10.7516 & 8.81357  \\

1168: \hline 8 & 10.3373 & 10.4832 & 10.8121 & 7.53259 & 10.5093 & 7.27017  \\

1169: \hline 9 & 10.3535 & 7.02869 & 10.4477 & 5.51774 & 10.1494 & 5.73628  \\

1170: \hline 10 & 10.021 & 4.41912 & 9.9547 & 3.9872 & 9.70809 & 4.46946  \\

1171: \hline 11 & 9.51178 & 2.9195 & 9.4122 & 3.04128 & 9.23185 & 3.58335  \\

1172: \hline 12 & 8.96242 & NA & 8.88129 & NA & 8.76114 & NA  \\

1173: \hline

1174: \end{tabular}  \caption{\label{table5-03-17} The Richardson method for the quintic with spin $m=1,2,3$.}

1175: \end{centering}

1176: \end{table}

1177: 

1178: 

1179: 

1180: We analyze the 13 Calabi-Yau models using the above approach.

1181: Let us define the extremal value of the first Richardson extrapolation

1182: over the degree $d$ as

1183: \begin{eqnarray}

1184: \tilde{g}_m=A_m(d,1)|_{\textrm{max}},

1185: \end{eqnarray}

1186: For various Calabi-Yau models and spin $m=1,2,3$, we compare the

1187: value of $\tilde{g}_m$ with the expected coefficient

1188: $p_0$ given in (\ref{asympo}). The results are

1189: summarized in Table \ref{table6-03-17}. We see that for larger angular

1190: momentum $m$ the deviations become bigger, as expected.

1191: 

1192: \begin{table}

1193: \begin{centering}

1194: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}

1195: \hline Calabi-Yau & $p_0=3\pi(\frac{\kappa}{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ &

1196: $\tilde{g}_1$ & $\tilde{g}_1$ error & $\tilde{g}_2$ &

1197: $\tilde{g}_2$ error & $\tilde{g}_3$ &

1198: $\tilde{g}_3$ error \\

1199: \hline\ $X_{5}(1)$ & 14.9019 & 16.4156 & 10.2\% & 13.0403 &

1200: -12.5\% & 10.2148 & -31.5\%  \\ \hline   $X_{6}(1^4,2)$ & 11.5429

1201: & 12.1492 & 5.25\% & 10.1828 & -11.8\% & 8.21085 & -28.9\%

1202:  \\

1203: \hline   $X_{8}(1^4,4)$ & 9.42478 & 10.4854 & 11.3\% & 8.1382 &

1204: -13.7\% & 5.3473 & -43.3\%

1205: \\

1206: \hline  $X_{10}(1^3,2,5)$ & 6.66432 & 6.77436 & 1.65\% & 5.89201 &

1207: -11.6\% & 3.62439 & -45.6\%

1208:  \\ \hline  $X_{3, 3}(1^6)$

1209: &19.993 & 22.1786 & 10.9\% & 17.7804 & -11.1\% & 14.8114 & -25.9\%

1210: \\

1211: \hline  $X_{4, 2}(1^6)$ &18.8496 & 21.0741 & 11.8\% & 16.569 &

1212: -12.1\% & 12.9935 & -31.1\%

1213: \\

1214: \hline  $X_{3, 2, 2}(1^7)$ &23.0859 & 25.9065 & 12.2\% & 20.4996 &

1215: -11.2\% & 16.5636 & -28.3\%

1216: \\

1217: \hline  $X_{2, 2, 2, 2}(1^8)$ &26.6573 & 30.1999 & 13.3\% &

1218: 23.6923 & -11.1\% & 19.2311 & -27.9\%  \\

1219: \hline  $X_{4, 3}(1^5,2)$ &16.3242 & 17.7685 & 8.85\% & 14.4772

1220: & -11.3\% & 12.2514 & -24.9\%   \\

1221: \hline  $X_{6, 2}(1^5, 3)$ &13.3286 & 15.2332 & 14.3\% &

1222: 11.2819 & -15.4\% & 8.06844 & -39.5\%  \\

1223: \hline  $X_{4, 4}(1^4,2^2)$ &13.3286 & 13.9081 & 4.35\% & 11.618 &

1224: -12.8\% & 10.6901 & -19.8\%

1225: \\

1226: \hline  $X_{6, 4}(1^3,2^2, 3)$ &9.42478 & 9.02611 & -4.23\% &

1227: 7.87731 & -16.4\% & 7.56862 & -19.7\% \\

1228: \hline $X_{6, 6}({1^2, 2^2, 3^2})$ &6.66432 & 5.42333 & -18.6\%

1229: & 4.91355 & -26.3\% & 4.5984 & -31.0\%  \\

1230:  \hline

1231: \end{tabular}  \caption{\label{table6-03-17} The Richardson method for the 13 Calabi-Yau models with spin $m=1,2,3$.}

1232: \end{centering}

1233: \end{table}

1234: 

1235: 

1236: 

1237: 

1238: \section{Asymptotics of the Donaldson--Thomas invariants}

1239: 

1240: As we already mentioned, the  total free energy of the topological string (\ref{totalf}) can be

1241: reorganized in terms of

1242: Gopakumar--Vafa invariants as in (\ref{gova}). A remarkable property of (\ref{gova}) is that for a given class

1243: $Q \in H_2(X,\mathbb{Z})$, the expression is exact in

1244: the string coupling. This is because Castelnuovo's

1245: theorem for the ambient space yields $n_d^g=0$ for $d > \alpha

1246: \sqrt{g}$ for certain $\alpha$.

1247: 

1248: For example, for the quintic the maximal genus $g_{\rm max}$ such that

1249: $n_Q^{g_{\rm max}}\neq 0$ fulfills a bound

1250: %

1251: \begin{equation}

1252: g_{\rm max} \le \frac{1}{10}(10+ 5 d +d^2) \ \label{bound}

1253: \end{equation}

1254: %

1255: with a decreasing relative deviation in the large $d$ limit. The bound is saturated for curves of total degree $5 m$ which are

1256: complete intersections of degree $(1,5,m)$ in $\mathbb{P}^4$,

1257: which are smooth curves in the quintic. For $5>m>1$ we can

1258: describe the moduli space of the D2 brane as follows. The

1259: linear constraint has as a parameter space $\mathbb{P}^4$  and

1260: allows to eliminate one variable from the degree $m$ constraint,

1261: which has as many homogeneous parameters as monomials in four

1262: variables, i.e. as many as there are integer solutions to

1263: $\sum_{i=1}^4 n_i=m$ namely $\left(m+4-1\atop m\right)$. The

1264: moduli spaces of the curves are therefore fibrations of

1265: $\mathbb{P}^{\left(m+4-1\atop m\right)-1}$ over $\mathbb{P}^4$. Using the

1266: results of \cite{kkv} we get for the GV invariant

1267: %

1268: \begin{equation}

1269: n_{5 m}^{g_{\rm max}}=(-1)^{\left(m+4-1\atop m\right)-1} \cdot 5 \cdot

1270: \left(m+4-1\atop m\right).

1271: \end{equation}

1272: %

1273: If the bound (\ref{bound}) is not saturated for small $d$ the

1274: relative deviation can become somewhat larger as seen in the

1275: Figure \ref{Castelnuovo-03-17}.

1276: 

1277: 

1278: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

1279: \begin{center}

1280: %\epsfxsize=10cm

1281: %\epsfbox{Flam.eps}

1282: \epsfig{file=Castelnouvo2.eps, width=11cm}

1283: \end{center}

1284: \caption{Castelnuovo's bound for higher genus curves on the

1285: quintic. The dots represent $n_{d}^{g_{\rm max}}$ and the curve is

1286: (\ref{bound}).} \label{Castelnuovo-03-17}

1287: \end{figure}

1288: 

1289: 

1290: 

1291: Let us denote by $F'(\lambda, t)$ the total free energy without the

1292: contribution (\ref{constantmap-03-17}). After exponentiation one finds~\cite{kkrs}

1293: %

1294: \begin{equation}

1295: Z'_{\rm GV}(X,q,t)=\prod^\infty_{d=1}\left[

1296: \left(\prod_{r=1}^\infty (1-q^r \re^{-dt})^{r n_d^0}\right)

1297: \prod_{g=1}^\infty \prod_{l=0}^{2g-2}(1-q^{ g-l-1}

1298: \re^{-dt})^{(-1)^{g+l} \left(2 g-2\atop l\right) n_d^{g}}\right], \label{zhol}

1299: \end{equation}

1300: %

1301: where

1302: %

1303: \be

1304: q=\re^{\ri \lambda}

1305: \ee

1306: %

1307: and we have assumed that there is only one K\"ahler parameter, so that $Q$ is labeled by a single

1308: integer $d$. On the other hand, the conjecture of \cite{mnop} relating the Donaldson--Thomas invariants $D_{d,n}$

1309: to Gromov--Witten invariants leads to

1310: %

1311: \begin{equation}

1312: Z_{DT}(q,t)=\sum_{d,n} D_{d,n} q^n \re^{-dt}= Z'_{\rm

1313: GV}(-q,t)M(-q)^{\chi(X)},

1314: \end{equation}

1315: %

1316: where

1317: %

1318: \be

1319: M(q)=\prod_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{(1-q^n)^n}

1320: \ee

1321: %

1322: is the MacMahon

1323: function. This  term reinstalls the constant map contribution. We

1324: list for reference a few Donaldson--Thomas invariants $D_{d,n}$ on

1325: the quintic in Table \ref{table7-03-17}.

1326: 

1327: \begin{table}

1328: \begin{centering}

1329: \begin{tabular}{|r|rrrrrr|}

1330: \hline

1331: d/n & -3 &-2 &-1& 0& 1& 2  \\

1332: \hline

1333: 0&  0& 0& 0& 0& 2875& 569250 \\

1334: 1&  0& 0& 0& 0& 609250& 124762875 \\

1335: 2&  0& 0& 0& 609250& 439056375& 76438831000 \\

1336:  3&  0& 8625& 2294250& 4004590375& 1010473893000& 123236265797125 \\

1337:  \hline

1338: \end{tabular}  \caption{\label{table7-03-17} Donaldson-Thomas invariants.}

1339: \end{centering}

1340: \end{table}

1341: 

1342: 

1343: After an extensive discussion of possible tests of the OSV

1344: conjecture \cite{osv}, the  authors of~\cite{dm} isolate as a crucial

1345: question for the validity of the latter the growth behaviour of

1346: the Donaldson-Thomas invariants. This behaviour is encoded in the scaling

1347: exponent $k$, defined as

1348: %

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: \label{dtscaling}

1351: \log(D_{ \lambda^2 d, \lambda^3 n})\sim \lambda^k\ .

1352: \end{equation}

1353: %

1354: The question is relevant in the range  $d^3-n^2>0$ for which

1355: stable black hole configurations exist.

1356: 

1357: Because of Castelnouvo's bound,  and

1358: since our data are up to genus 31, we can calculate the Donaldson--Thomas invariants 

1359: exactly in the range $0\leq d\leq 15$ and for

1360: arbitrary high $n$ for the quintic. We are interested in the limit

1361: %

1362: \begin{equation}

1363: \label{limit}

1364: k=\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow \infty}\frac{ \log\log| D_{ \lambda^2

1365: d, \lambda^3 n}|}{\log \lambda}\ .

1366: \end{equation}

1367: %

1368: In order to evaluate it for given values $(d,n)$ we chose

1369: $\lambda$ so that $d+l=\lambda^2 d$ for $d,l\in \mathbb{N}$ and use the fact

1370: that $\log|D_{d+l, n}|$ for fixed $d,k$ scales in good approximation

1371: linearly with $n$ to calculate the interpolated value of the

1372: $D_{d+l,n'}$  at $n'=\lambda^3(d,l) n$, with $\lambda(d,l)=\sqrt{\frac{d+l}{d}}$.

1373: For $(d,0)$  the latter interpolation is of course completely

1374: irrelevant and for charges for which the $n'$ values become

1375: large it is not very relevant.

1376: 

1377: The leading correction to (\ref{limit}) is of order

1378: $1/(\log(\lambda))$. It makes therefore sense to eliminate

1379: this leading correction by logarithmic Richardson--Thomas transforms.

1380: We define

1381: %

1382: \begin{equation}

1383: k^{(0)}_{l}=\frac{\log\log| D_{ \lambda(d,l)^2

1384: d, \lambda(d,l)^3 n}|}{\log \lambda(d,l)},

1385: \end{equation}

1386: %

1387: and the  $m$th logarithmic Richardson-Thomas transform as

1388: %

1389: \begin{equation}

1390: k^{(m)}_l=\frac{ k^{(m-1)}_{l+1}\log(l+1)- k^{(m-1)}_{l}\log(l)}{\log(l+1)-\log(l)}.

1391: \end{equation}

1392: %

1393: With our knowledge of the topological string up to $g=31$ for the quintic we can evaluate

1394: the Donaldson-Thomas invariants up to degree $15$.  We plot in the first two graphs

1395: (\ref{DTdx0quintic}) the data for the $k^{(0)}_l$ and its  first two logarithmic

1396: Richardson-Thomas transforms.  The graphs clearly indicate

1397: that the convergence is improved by the transform. So even if there

1398: are subleading terms of other forms, we certainly managed to supress the

1399: leading correction and speed up the convergence. The data further show

1400: that there is an universal behaviour independent of $d$ and that the

1401: value of $k$ is within the $2\%$ range close to $2$. The higher

1402: logarithmic Richardson-Thomas transforms are consistent with

1403: this value but do not determine it better as we also have

1404: to take into account values with smaller $l$ hence smaller

1405: $\lambda$. We next test the universality of these results

1406: for other charges $(d,n)$ in \figref{DTdx1quintic}. If $n\neq0$ we need the

1407: interpolation for the $n'$ values. This introduces some

1408: random subleading errors, which are of the order of the improvement

1409: by the second logarithmic Richardson-Thomas transform. However as

1410: in the figure for $(2,0)$ we see that higher $d$ seems to lower

1411: the coefficient of the  sub-sub-leading  correction and makes already the second

1412: Richardson transform to converge reasonably well --well enough at least to

1413: conclude that the $k$ is considerably lower then $3$ and very well compatible

1414: with the value $k=2\pm 0.03$ found for the previous charges. We solved 

1415: the bicubic in $\mathbb{P}^5$ up to genus $29$, which yields complete 

1416: informations about the Donaldson-Thomas invariants up to degree $18$. A similar 

1417: analysis as above confirms the analysis for the quintic. The corresponding plots 

1418: are in Fig. \ref{DTdx0bicubic} and  Fig. \ref{DTdx1bicubic}. Again a detailed

1419: summary of the data for more models can be found at~\cite{webpage}. 

1420: We note a slight noise in the  transform $k^{(1)}$ in Fig. \ref{DTdx1bicubic}, 

1421: which is presumably due to the interpolation in the $n$ value of $D_{d,n}$ 

1422: described above. The results for the other models are similar, but somewhat 

1423: less precise due to smaller values of $d$ that are currently available.    

1424: 

1425:   

1426: To summarize: our analysis indicates that the value of $k$ is indeed universal  and close to $k=2$. This

1427: strongly suggests that the ``mysterious cancellations" \cite{dm} that eventually

1428: make possible to extend the the OSV conjecture to small coupling, actually take place.

1429: 

1430: 

1431: 

1432: \begin{figure}

1433: \begin{center}

1434: \epsfig{file=510.eps,width=8cm}\epsfig{file=520.eps,width=8cm}

1435: \end{center}

1436: \vskip -1.2 truecm

1437: {\hskip 7.8 truecm $\lambda$ \hskip 7.4 truecm   $\lambda $ }

1438: \vskip .1truecm

1439: \caption{Scaling data $k^{(0)}$ ({\tiny{$\Box $}}) and the transforms $k^{(1)}$ 

1440: ({\tiny{$\triangle$}}), $k^{(2)}$ ($\diamond$) for the Donaldson-Thomas 

1441: invariants on the quintic  in $\mathbb{P}^4$ 

1442: starting for $(d,0)$ states.} \label{DTdx0quintic}

1443: \end{figure}

1444: 

1445: 

1446: \begin{figure}

1447: \begin{center}

1448: \epsfig{file=521.eps,width=8cm}\epsfig{file=531.eps,width=8cm}

1449: \end{center}

1450: \vskip -1.2 truecm

1451: {\hskip 7.8 truecm $\lambda$ \hskip 7.4 truecm   $\lambda $ }

1452: \vskip .1truecm

1453: \caption{Scaling data $k^{(0)}$ ({\tiny{$\Box $}}) and the first transform  

1454: $k^{(1)}$ ({\tiny{$\triangle$}})  for the Donaldson-Thomas invariants on 

1455: the quintic in $\mathbb{P}^4$ for the $(2,1)$ and 

1456: $(3,1)$ states.} \label{DTdx1quintic}

1457: \end{figure}

1458: 

1459: 

1460: \begin{figure}

1461: \begin{center}

1462: \epsfig{file=3310.eps,width=8cm}\epsfig{file=3320.eps,width=8cm}

1463: \end{center}

1464: \vskip -1.2 truecm

1465: {\hskip 7.8 truecm $\lambda$ \hskip 7.4 truecm   $\lambda $ }

1466: \vskip .1truecm

1467: \caption{Scaling data $k^{(0)}$ ({\tiny{$\Box $}}) and the transforms $k^{(1)}$ 

1468: ({\tiny{$\triangle$}}), $k^{(2)}$ ($\diamond$) for the Donaldson-Thomas invariants 

1469: on the bic-cubic complete intersection in $\mathbb{P}^5$ 

1470: starting for $(d,0)$ states.} \label{DTdx0bicubic}

1471: \end{figure}

1472: 

1473: 

1474: 

1475: \begin{figure}

1476: \begin{center}

1477: \epsfig{file=3331.eps,width=8cm}\epsfig{file=3332.eps,width=8cm}

1478: \end{center}

1479: \vskip -1.2 truecm

1480: {\hskip 7.8 truecm $\lambda$ \hskip 7.4 truecm   $\lambda $ }

1481: \vskip .1truecm

1482: \caption{Scaling data $k^{(0)}$ ({\tiny{$\Box $}}) and the first transform  

1483: $k^{(1)}$ ({\tiny{$\triangle$}}) for the

1484: Donaldson-Thomas invariants on the bic-cubic complete intersection in $\mathbb{P}^5$ for the $(3,1)$ and 

1485: $(3,2)$ states.} \label{DTdx1bicubic}

1486: \end{figure}

1487: 

1488: 

1489: \sectiono{K3 fibrations}

1490: 

1491: \subsection{Topological strings on K3 fibrations}

1492: 

1493: We will now consider Calabi--Yau manifolds $X$ that have the structure of a K3 fibration, i.e. there is a fibration of the form

1494: %

1495: \be

1496: \pi: X \rightarrow \IP^1,

1497: \ee

1498: %

1499: where the fibers are K3 surfaces. When the fibration is regular the homology of $X$ can be written as

1500: %

1501: \be

1502: H_2(X,\IZ) =\langle [\IP^1]\rangle \oplus {\rm Pic}({\rm K3}),

1503: \ee

1504: %

1505: where ${\rm Pic}({\rm K3})$ is the Picard lattice of the K3 fiber. The rank of this lattice will be denoted by

1506: $\rho$, and $\Sigma^a$, $a=1, \cdots, \rho$ will denote a basis for this

1507: lattice. Let $\omega$ be the complexified K\"ahler form on $X$. The complexified K\"ahler parameters of $X$ are given by

1508: %

1509: \be

1510: S=\int_{\IP^1} \omega, \qquad t^a =\int_{\Sigma^a} \omega, \quad a=1, \cdots, \rho.

1511: \ee

1512: %

1513: We will denote by $\eta_S$, $\eta_a$ the two--forms which are dual

1514: to $\IP^1$, $\Sigma^a$.

1515: 

1516: It turns out that type IIA string theory compactified on these manifolds is very often

1517: dual to heterotic string theory compactified on K3$\times \IT^2$ \cite{kv,klm}. Under this duality,

1518: $S$ becomes the axidilaton of the heterotic string. It follows

1519: that in the regime $S\rightarrow \infty$ one can map computations in the type IIA theory to perturbative computations in the heterotic string. In particular,

1520: the $F_g$ couplings of topological string theory (which are graviphoton couplings in type IIA theory) can be computed exactly at one--loop in the heterotic string, provided

1521: the K\"ahler parameters are restricted to the K3 fiber \cite{kv,klm,hm,agnt}. We will now review here some of these results.

1522: 

1523: The topological string amplitudes $F_g(S,t)$ on these fibrations have the following structure,

1524: %

1525: \be

1526: \label{fgfibs}

1527: \ba

1528: F_0(S,t)& ={1\over 6}C_{abc} t^a t^b t^c +{1\over 2} C_{ab}S t^a t^b +{\zeta (3)\over 2} \chi(X) +\CF_0(t) +\CO(\re^{-S}), \\

1529: F_1(S,t)&={1\over 24}(c_S S + c_at^a) +\CF_1(t) +\CO(\re^{-S}),\\

1530: F_g(S,t)&=d_g \chi(X) + \CF_g(t) + \CO(\re^{-S}), \qquad g\ge 2.

1531: \ea

1532: \ee

1533: %

1534: In these formulae, $C_{abc}$ and $C_{ab}$ are triple intersection numbers in the fiber and in the mixed fiber/base direction, respectively.

1535: Notice that

1536: %

1537: \be

1538: C_{abc}=\int_X \eta_a \wedge \eta_b \wedge \eta_c, \qquad C_{ab}=\int_X \eta_S \wedge \eta_a \wedge \eta_b.

1539: \ee

1540: %

1541: We also have

1542: %

1543: \be

1544: c_a =\int_X c_2(X) \wedge \eta_a,  \quad a=1, \cdots, \rho, \qquad c_S=\int c_2(X) \wedge \eta_S.

1545: \ee

1546: %

1547: For K3 fibrations with trivial fundamental group one has $c_S=24$~\cite{Oguiso}, but for the Enriques Calabi--Yau 

1548: (which we will also analyze), $c_S=12$. The coefficient $d_g$ is the contribution

1549: of constant maps written down in (\ref{dg}).

1550: In (\ref{fgfibs}), $\CF_g(t)$ denotes the contribution of

1551: worldsheet instantons in the K3 fiber. It follows from \cite{agnt,hm,kawai,mm,kkrs} that

1552: the $\CF_g(t)$ can be completely determined in terms of a single modular form that

1553: we will denote $f_X(q)$. In order to write down an explicit formula for $\CF_g(t)$, we have to introduce the quasimodular forms $\CP_g(q)$ which are defined by

1554: %

1555: %

1556: \be

1557: \label{defpg}

1558: \biggl( { 2\pi  \eta^3 \lambda \over \vartheta_1(\lambda|\tau)}\biggr)^2=

1559: \sum_{g=0}^{\infty} (2 \pi \lambda)^{2g} {\cal P}_{g}(q).

1560: \ee

1561: %

1562: The quantities ${\cal P}_{g}(q)$ can be explicitly written in terms of generalized Eisenstein series \cite{mm}, and one has for example

1563: %

1564: \be

1565: \label{casesps}

1566: \CP_1(q)={1\over 12}E_2(q), \,\,\,\,\,\, \CP_2(q)={1 \over 1440} (5 E_2^2 + E_4).

1567: \ee

1568: %

1569: We now introduce the coefficients $c_g(n)$ through

1570: %

1571: \be

1572: \label{defcg}

1573: {\cal P}_{g} (q) f_X(q)=\sum_n c^{X}_g(n) q^n.

1574: \ee

1575: %

1576: One then has the following expression for the heterotic $\CF_g(t)$:

1577: %

1578: \be

1579: \label{fgex}

1580: \CF_g(t)= \sum_{Q\in {\rm Pic}({\rm K3})} c^{X}_g(Q^2/2){\rm Li}_{3-2g}({\rm e}^{-Q\cdot t}),

1581: \ee

1582: %

1583: where ${\rm Li}_{n}$ is the polylogarithm of index $n$

1584: %

1585: \be

1586: {\rm Li}_n (x) =\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} {x^k \over k^n}.

1587: \ee

1588: %

1589: In (\ref{fgex}) we have also denoted

1590: %

1591: \be

1592: Q\cdot t = n_a t^a, \qquad Q^2=C^{ab}n_a n_b,

1593: \ee

1594: %

1595: where $C^{ab}=C_{ab}^{-1}$ is the intersection form of the Picard lattice ${\rm Pic}({\rm K3})$.

1596: 

1597: We will particularly interested in three special K3 fibrations: the STU model, the ST model, and the Enriques Calabi--Yau. Let us give some extra details for these cases:

1598: 

1599: \begin{itemize}

1600: 

1601: \item The STU model has $\rho=2$ and it can be realized by a complete intersection in a weighted projective space which

1602: is frequently denoted by $X_{24}(1,1,2,8,12)$. It has Euler characteristic $\chi=-480$. The classical prepotential can be

1603: obtained from the nonvanishing intersection numbers,

1604: %

1605: \be

1606: C_{111} =8, \quad C_{112}=2, \quad C_{11}=2, \quad C_{12} =1,

1607: \ee

1608: %

1609: while the classical part of $F_1(S, t)$ is encoded by

1610: %

1611: \be

1612: c_1=92, \quad c_2=c_S=24.

1613: \ee

1614: %

1615: The modular form encoding the information about topological string amplitudes in the fiber is given by \cite{mm}

1616: %

1617: \be\label{STUform}

1618: f_{\rm STU}(q)=  -{2 E_4 E_6  \over \eta^{24}}(q).

1619: \ee

1620: %

1621: It is sometimes useful to parametrize the K\"ahler cone in terms of the variables

1622: %

1623: \be

1624: T=t_1+ t_2, \qquad U=t_1,

1625: \ee

1626: %

1627: In this basis one has $Q^2/2=mn$.

1628: 

1629: \item The ST model has $\rho=1$ and is realized in type IIA by the CY $X_{12}(1,1,2,2,6)$. It has $\chi=-252$ and the

1630: classical intersection numbers

1631: %

1632: \be

1633: C_{111}=4, \quad C_{11}=2,

1634: \ee

1635: %

1636: as well as

1637: %

1638: \be

1639: c_1=52,\qquad c_S=24.

1640: \ee

1641: %

1642: The K\"ahler parameter along the fiber is usually denoted as

1643: %

1644: \be

1645: T=t_1.

1646: \ee

1647: %

1648: The relevant modular form is \cite{kawai,kkrs}

1649: %

1650: \be

1651: \label{STform}

1652: f_{\rm ST}(q)=-{2 \theta E_4 F_6  \over \eta^{24}}(q),

1653: \ee

1654: %

1655: where

1656: %

1657: \be

1658: \ba

1659: \theta(q)& =\sum_{n \in \IZ} q^{n^2 \over 4}=\vartheta_3(\tau/2), \\ F_2&={1\over 16} \vartheta_2^4(\tau/2), \\F_6& =E_6-2 F_2 (\theta^4 -2 F_2)(\theta^4 -16 F_2).\ea

1660: \ee

1661: %

1662: Notice that $Q^2/2=n^2/4$.

1663: 

1664: \item The Enriques Calabi--Yau is given by the free quotient $({\rm K3} \times \IT^2)/\IZ_2$, and was introduced in the context of

1665: type II/heterotic duality in \cite{fhsv}. It is an elliptic fibration with $\rho=10$. It has $C_{abc}=0$, while $C_{ab}$ is given by the intersection

1666: numbers of the Enriques surface $E$. The Picard lattice is

1667: %

1668: \be

1669: {\rm Pic}({\rm K3})=\Gamma^{1,1} \oplus E_8(-1),

1670: \ee

1671: %

1672: and

1673: %

1674: \be

1675: c_a=0, \qquad c_S=12.

1676: \ee

1677: %

1678: The topological string amplitudes in the fiber were obtained in \cite{km} (see also \cite{gkmw}). They are also controlled by a single

1679: modular form

1680: %

1681: \be\label{Eform}

1682: f_E(q)=-{2\over \eta^{12}(q^2)},

1683: \ee

1684: %

1685: but their form is slightly different from (\ref{fgex})

1686: %

1687: \be

1688: F_g(t)=\sum_{Q\in  {\rm Pic}({\rm K3})} c^E_g(Q^2) \bigg\{ 2^{3-2g} {\rm Li}_{3-2g}(\re^{-Q\cdot t}) - {\rm Li}_{3-2g}(\re^{-2 Q\cdot t})\biggr\},

1689: \label{heteroticprediction}

1690: \ee

1691: %

1692: where $c^E_g(n)$ are defined again by (\ref{defcg}).

1693: \end{itemize}

1694: 

1695: 

1696: \subsection{Microscopic degeneracies and their asymptotic expansion}

1697: 

1698: We have seen that, at least in the case of topological strings on K3 fibrations, and for classes $Q$ restricted to the K3 fiber, one can obtain

1699: closed formula for the topological string amplitudes at all genera. It should be therefore possible to extract a closed

1700: formula for the generating functional of Gopakumar--Vafa invariants. In fact, by using the product formula

1701: %

1702: \be

1703: \label{prodone}

1704: \vartheta_1(\nu|\tau)=-2 q^{1\over 8} \sin (\pi \nu) \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1-q^n) (1-2 \cos (2 \pi \nu) q^n + q^{2n})

1705: \ee

1706: %

1707: one finds from the expression (\ref{fgex}) and the structure (\ref{gova})

1708: %

1709: \be

1710: \label{gvhet}

1711: \sum_{Q \in {\rm Pic (K3)}}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}

1712: n^r_Q z^{2r} p^{Q^2/2} =f_X (p) \xi^2(z),

1713: \ee

1714: %

1715: where $\xi(z)$ is the function that appears in helicity supertraces,

1716: %

1717: \be

1718: \label{helicityxi}

1719: \xi(z)=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} {(1-p^n)^2 \over (1-p^n)^2 + z^2 p^n}=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} {(1-p^n)^2 \over (1-p^n y)(1-p^ny^{-1})},

1720: \ee

1721: %

1722: where we have set $z=-\ri(y^{1\over 2} -y^{-{1\over 2}})$.

1723: 

1724: We can now obtain a closed formula for the microscopic degeneracies. In order to have a description

1725: which incorporates as well the elliptic genus, we will count the microstates as in (\ref{degs}) but with

1726: $r\rightarrow r-1$. With this definition, the l.h.s. of (\ref{gvhet}), expanded in $q,y$,

1727: is precisely the generating function of microscopic degeneracies $\Omega(Q,m)$, summed over

1728: all $m, Q$. We then arrive to the expression

1729: %

1730: \be

1731: \label{exdegs} \sum_{Q\in {\rm Pic}({\rm K3})} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\Omega(Q,m)y^mp^{Q^2/2}=f_X(p)\xi^2(\nu,\sigma),

1732: \ee

1733: %

1734: where we have written

1735: %

1736: \be

1737: y=\re^{2 \pi\ri \nu}, \qquad p=\re^{2\pi \ri \sigma}.

1738: \ee

1739: %

1740: Notice that if we consider $X={\rm K3} \times \IT^2$ and restrict to classes $Q$ in the fiber, the counting

1741: of microstates given by the elliptic genus is

1742: %

1743: \be

1744: \chi(S_p{\rm K3};q,y)_{q^0}= \prod_{N=1}^{\infty} {1\over (1-p^N)^{20} (1-p^N y)^2 (1-p^Ny^{-1})^2} =

1745: {p\over \eta^{24}(p)} \xi^2(y).

1746: \ee

1747: %

1748: This has the same form than (\ref{exdegs}) with

1749: %

1750: \be

1751: f_{{\rm K3} \times T^2}(p)=\frac{1}{\eta^{24}(p)},

1752: \ee

1753: %

1754: therefore we can consider the ``small" D1--D5 system as a particular case of our analysis.

1755: 

1756: The expression (\ref{exdegs}) tells us that the microscopic degeneracies we are looking for are simply the Fourier coefficients of the object in the

1757: r.hs. We can then invert it to write

1758: %

1759: \be

1760: \label{omegaint}

1761: \Omega(N,m)=\int_{-\frac{1}{2}+\ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+\ri  0^{+}}\rd \sigma\int^{1}_{0} \rd\nu \,  \re^{-2 \pi \ri (N\sigma+m\nu)}

1762: \Phi(\nu,\sigma), \qquad N=Q^2/2,

1763: \ee

1764: %

1765: where we defined

1766: %

1767: \be

1768: \label{phif}

1769: \Phi(\nu,\sigma)=f_X(p)\xi^2(\nu,\sigma). \ee

1770:  %

1771: and we have assumed that $N$ is a non-negative integer (this can be guaranteed by rescaling $p \rightarrow p^k$ for some appropriate $k$).

1772: The contour in (\ref{omegaint}) has been chosen to avoid the poles in the integrand.

1773: 

1774: We will now evalute the asymptotic expansion of $\Omega(N) \equiv

1775: \Omega(N,0)$ in inverse powers of $N$. Nonzero values of the spin $m=0$ can be analyzed in a similar way. The expression we will find is exact up to corrections which are exponentially suppressed in the large charge

1776: limit $N \rightarrow \infty$. Notice that in our situation we can not appeal to the Rademacher expansion which was used in \cite{dmmv,ddmp}, since

1777: (\ref{phif}) is not a Jacobi form (it can be regarded as a Jacobi form with {\it negative} index).

1778: It is likely that an analog of the Rademacher expansion exists, but we will perform a direct evaluation of

1779: the integral (\ref{omegaint}) in the spirit of the counting of states with spin in Appendix C of \cite{ddmp} and in \cite{dabholkar}.

1780: 

1781: First of all, we reexpress the integrand (\ref{phif}) in terms of $\vartheta_{1}(\nu|\sigma)$ as,

1782: %

1783: \be

1784: \Phi(\nu,\sigma)=4\sin^{2}(\pi \nu)\eta^{6}(p)\frac{f_X(p)}{\vartheta_{1}^2(\nu|\sigma)}.

1785: \ee

1786: %

1787: Using the modular behavior of $\vartheta_{1}(\nu|\sigma)$ under the $S$ transformation

1788: $\sigma \rightarrow \tilde \sigma =-1/\sigma$ we get,

1789: %

1790: \be

1791: \label{inverse}

1792: \vartheta_{1}(\nu,\sigma)=-\frac{2 \ri}{\sqrt{-\ri \sigma}}\re^{\frac{\pi}{\ri \sigma}(\nu^2+\frac{1}{4})}\sin\Bigl(\frac{\pi \nu}{\sigma}\Bigr)\Bigl\{1+

1793: O(\re^{-\frac{2\pi\ri}{\sigma}})\Bigr\}.

1794: \ee

1795: %

1796: It is easy to see that the saddle point evaluation of (\ref{omegaint}) is governed by

1797: %

1798: \be

1799: \label{saddle}

1800: \sigma_{*}=\frac{\ri}{\sqrt{N}}+\CO\Bigl(\frac{1}{N}\Bigr).

1801: \ee

1802: %

1803: Therefore, the corrections to (\ref{inverse}) will be exponentially suppressed. Using the modularity of $\eta(p)$, and taking the part of the

1804: $\sin$ in the denominator which is not exponentially suppressed, we obtain,

1805: %

1806: \be \Phi(\nu,\sigma)\sim -4 \sigma^{-2}\re^{2\frac{\ri \pi}{\sigma}(\nu^2-\nu)}\sin^{2}(\pi \nu) f_X(p).

1807: \ee

1808: %

1809: Therefore, in order to compute the asymptotics of (\ref{omegaint}) we just need

1810: %

1811: \be

1812: \Omega(N)\sim -4\int_{-\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}\rd\sigma \, \re^{-2\pi \ri N \sigma}\frac{f_X(p)}{\sigma^{2}}\int^{1}_{0}

1813:  \rd\nu\, \re^{2\frac{\ri \pi}{\sigma}(\nu^2-\nu)}\sin^{2}(\pi \nu).

1814:  \ee

1815:  %

1816: The integral over $\nu$ is easily worked out in terms of the error function ${\rm Erf}(x)$, as follows,

1817: \be\label{Erfint}

1818: \ba

1819: &  \int^{1}_{0}

1820:  \rd\nu\, \re^{2\frac{\ri \pi}{\sigma}(\nu^2-\nu)}\sin^{2}(\pi \nu) =

1821:   \sqrt{\frac{\ri \sigma}{8}}\re^{ \frac{\pi}{2 \ri \sigma}}

1822: {\rm Erf}\Bigl( \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 \ri \sigma}}\Bigr)\\

1823: &\, \,  + \sqrt{\frac{\ri \sigma}{32}}\re^{ \frac{ \pi}{2 \ri}(\sigma+\frac{1}{\sigma})} \biggl\{{\rm Erf}\Bigl( \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 \ri \sigma}}(\sigma+1)\Bigr)-

1824: {\rm Erf}\Bigl(

1825: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 \ri \sigma}}(\sigma-1)\Bigr)\biggr\}.

1826: \ea

1827: \ee

1828: %

1829: Due to (\ref{saddle}) we can use the asymptotic expansion of the

1830: ${\rm Erf}$ function,

1831: %

1832: \be\label{asympErf}

1833: {\rm Erf}(x) \sim 1-\frac{\re^{-x^2}}{\sqrt{\pi} }\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}(-1)^r \frac{(2r-1)!!}{2^r} x^{-(2 r+1)}, \qquad |x|\rightarrow \infty,\,\, |{\rm arg}(-x)|<\pi.

1834: \ee

1835: %

1836: Ignoring terms which are exponentially suppressed at large $N$, we find,

1837: %

1838: \be \int^{1}_{0}

1839:  \rd\nu\, \re^{2\frac{\ri \pi}{\sigma}(\nu^2-\nu)}\sin^{2}(\pi \nu)\sim -\frac{1}{4}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{\ri^{1+3 r}}{\pi^{1+r}}(2 r -1)!!

1840: G_{r}(\sigma),

1841: \ee

1842: %

1843: with,

1844: %

1845: \be

1846: G_{r}(\sigma)=\sigma^{r+1}\biggl( 2 + \frac{1}{(\sigma-1)^{1+2 r}} - \frac{1}{(\sigma+1)^{1+2 r}}\biggr).

1847: \ee

1848: %

1849: Again, due to (\ref{saddle}), we can expand it around $\sigma=0$,

1850: %

1851: \be G_{r}(\sigma)=-2\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{ 2 (1+s+r) \choose 2 r} \sigma^{3 + 2 s + r}.

1852: \ee

1853: %

1854: Putting all together, we obtain,

1855: %

1856: \be

1857: \Omega (N)\sim 2\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{(2 r-1)!!}{(\ri \pi)^{r+1}}\sum_{s=0}^{\infty} { 2 (1+s+r) \choose 2 r}

1858: \int_{-\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}\rd \sigma \, \re^{-2\pi \ri N \sigma}f_X(p)\sigma^{1+2s+r}.

1859: \ee

1860: %

1861: We now work out the integral,

1862: %

1863: \be

1864: A_{s,r}(N)\equiv\int_{-\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}\rd\sigma \,

1865: \re^{-2\pi \ri N \sigma}f_X(p)\sigma^{1+2s+r}.

1866: \ee

1867: %

1868: We assume that $f_X(p)$ has modular weight $w$, so that $f_X(p)=

1869: \sigma^{-w}f_X(\tilde{p})$, where $\tilde{p} =\re^{-\frac{2 \pi \ri}{\sigma}}$. For the modular forms that we consider here,

1870: $f_X(\tilde{p})=c \tilde{p}^{-\alpha}+\cdots$, and the integral above gives a modified Bessel function

1871: %

1872: \be

1873: A_{s,r}(N)\sim c\ri^{1+2 s+r-w}\hat{I}_{2 s+r+2-w}(4\pi\sqrt{\alpha N}). \ee

1874: %

1875: We end up then with the following result for the exact asymptotics of the microscopic black hole degeneracy,

1876: %

1877: \be\label{takelog}

1878: \Omega (N) \sim 2c\ri^{w}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{(2 r-1)!!}{\pi^{r+1}}\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{s} {2 (1+s+r) \choose 2 r}

1879: \hat{I}_{2 s+r+2-w}(4 \pi \sqrt{\alpha N}).

1880: \ee

1881: %

1882: Using now the formula for the asymptotic expansion of $\hat{I}$ functions (see for

1883: example App. A of \cite{ddmp}), we find for the entropy $S(N) =\log\, \Omega(N)$ the following 

1884: expansion

1885: %

1886: \be\label{f5}

1887: S \sim 4 \pi \sqrt{\alpha N} - \frac{5-2 w}{4}\log(N)+\log\biggl(\frac{\sqrt{2} \ri^w \alpha^{\frac{2w-5}{4}}c}{\pi}\biggr)

1888: +\frac{177+16 w-4 w^2}{32 \pi \sqrt{\alpha}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

1889: + \CO(N^{-1}).

1890: \ee

1891: %

1892: The expansion in powers of $1/N^{1\over 2}$ in (\ref{takelog}), which is obtained by using the asymptotics 

1893: of modified Bessel functions, is the expansion of the original integral around the saddle point (\ref{saddle}). This can be 

1894: verified by an explicit computation of the first few orders of the saddlepoint expansion. 

1895:  

1896: Let us now evaluate (\ref{f5}) in some examples. For K3$\times \IT^2$ we have $(w,\alpha, c)  = (-12, 1,1)$, and the entropy reads

1897: %

1898: \be

1899: S \sim  4 \pi \sqrt{ N} - \frac{29}{4}\log(N)+\log\biggl(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}\biggr)-\frac{591}{32 \pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

1900: + \CO(N^{-1}).

1901: \ee

1902: %

1903: For the STU model, with the values $(w,\alpha,c)=(-2,1,-2)$, we find

1904: %

1905: \be\label{f6}

1906: S \sim 4 \pi \sqrt{ N} - \frac{9}{4}\log(N)+\log\biggl(\frac{\sqrt{8}}{\pi}\biggr)+\frac{129}{32 \pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

1907: + \CO(N^{-1}).

1908: \ee

1909: %

1910: 

1911: The ST model is slightly different, since in $f_{\rm ST}(p)$

1912: both integer and rational powers of $p$ appear. As mentioned above, we should redefine $p \rightarrow p^4$ and write down the

1913: generating functional for the degeneracies as

1914: %

1915: \be

1916: \label{4exdegs} \sum_{Q\in {\rm Pic}({\rm K3})} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\Omega(Q,m)y^mp^{2 Q^2}=f_{\rm ST}(p^4)\xi^2(\nu,4 \sigma),

1917: \ee

1918: %

1919: where we recall that $M \equiv 2 Q^2 = n^2$ is an integer. The asymptotics is given by the integral

1920: %

1921: \be

1922: \label{omegaintST}

1923: \Omega_{\rm ST}(M) \sim -\int_{-\frac{1}{2}+\ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+\ri  0^{+}}\rd \sigma\;\re^{-2 \pi \ri M\sigma} \frac{f_{\rm ST}(p^4)}{4 \sigma^2}

1924: \int^{1}_{0} \rd\nu \,\sin^2(\pi \nu ) \re^{\frac{\ri \pi}{2 \sigma}(\nu^2-\nu)}.

1925: \ee

1926: %

1927: The integral over $\nu$ is given by (\ref{Erfint}) upon replacing $\sigma \rightarrow 4 \sigma$. Since,

1928: %

1929: \be

1930: f_{\rm ST}(p^4)=-2\frac{E_4(p^4)F_6(p^4)}{\eta^{24}(p^4)}\vartheta_{3} (2 \sigma) \sim -16 \sqrt{2 \ri} \sigma^{\frac{3}{2}} \re^{\frac{\ri \pi}{2 \sigma}},

1931: \ee

1932: %

1933: one finds in the end,

1934: %

1935: \be

1936: \Omega_{\rm ST}(M) \sim \sqrt{2}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{(2 r-1)!!}{\pi^{r+1}}\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{s} {2 (1+s+r) \choose 2 r}

1937: \hat{I}_{\frac{7}{2}+2 s+r}(2 \pi \sqrt{M}),

1938: \ee

1939: %

1940: and from here one can read the entropy,

1941: %

1942: \be\label{STentropy}

1943: S(Q)\sim 4 \pi {\sqrt{{1\over 2} Q^2}}-2 \log(Q^2)+\cdots

1944: \ee

1945: %

1946: 

1947: Finally we turn to the case of Enriques CY manifold. It follows from (\ref{heteroticprediction}) that one has to distinguish two types of

1948: homology classes: the classes $Q$ whose entries contain at least an odd

1949: integer (which were called odd classes in \cite{km}), and the classes $Q$ for which all entries are even (called even classes).

1950: A simple calculation shows that the generating function of Gopakumar--Vafa invariants for the

1951: odd classes is given by

1952: %

1953: \be

1954: \label{odd}

1955: \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \sum_{Q\,\ {\rm odd}} n_Q^r p^{Q^2} z^{r-1}={f_E(q) \over 4 \sin^2 \, \bigl({\pi \nu  \over 2} \bigr)} \Bigl( \xi^2(\nu/2,p) -\xi^2(\nu/2,-p) \Bigr).

1956: \ee

1957: %

1958: while for the even classes is given by

1959: %

1960: \be

1961: \label{even}

1962: \ba

1963: \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \sum_{Q\,\, {\rm even}} n_Q^r p^{Q^2} z^{r-1}&={f_E(q) \over 4 \sin^2 \, \bigl({\pi \nu  \over 2} \bigr)} \Bigl(\xi^2(\nu/2,p) -\xi^2(\nu/2,-p) \Bigr)\\

1964: &  -f_E(q^4)

1965: \Bigl( \xi^2(\nu, p^4) -\xi^2(\nu, -p^4) \Bigr).

1966: \ea

1967: \ee

1968: %

1969: Notice that for even classes $Q^2\equiv 0$ mod $4$, while for odd classes one only has $Q^2 \equiv 0$ mod $2$. In contrast to the previous K3 fibrations, in the above 

1970: generating function we have $p^{Q^2}$, instead of $p^{Q^2/2}$, and this will lead to a different leading term as compared for example to the STU model.

1971: 

1972: The computation of the asymptotics of the microstates is similar to the one that we just performed. Let us begin with odd classes. Using the identity,

1973: %

1974: \be

1975: \xi^{2}(\nu,-p)=4 \sin^{2}(\pi \nu) \frac{ \eta^{6}(2 \sigma) \vartheta_{3}^{2}(2 \sigma)}{\vartheta_{1}^{2}(\nu|2 \sigma)\vartheta_{3}^{2}(\nu|2 \sigma)},

1976: \ee

1977: %

1978: and proceeding as in the previous case, we find,

1979: %

1980: \be

1981:  \Omega_{\rm odd}(N)=\Omega_{1}(N) + \Omega_{2}(N),\qquad N=Q^2/2,

1982:  \ee

1983:  %

1984: where,

1985: %

1986: \be

1987: \ba

1988: \Omega_1(N)&\sim 16 \int_{-\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}} \rd \sigma \, \re^{-4\pi \ri N \sigma} \sigma^2 \eta^{6}(2 \sigma)

1989: \vartheta_{3}^{2}(2 \sigma) f_E(p) \int_{0}^{1} \rd\nu \sin^2(\pi \nu) \re^{\frac{\ri \pi}{2 \sigma}(\nu^2-\nu+\frac{1}{2})}, \\

1990: \Omega_2(N)&\sim -4 \ri \int_{-\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}} \rd\sigma \,  \re^{-4\pi \ri N \sigma} \sigma \eta^{6}(\sigma)

1991: f_E(p) \int_{0}^{1} \rd\nu \sin^2(\pi \nu) \re^{\frac{\ri \pi}{2 \sigma}(\nu-1)^2}.

1992: \ea

1993: \ee

1994: %

1995: As before, we evaluate the integrals over $\nu$ in terms of the Erf function and its asymptotic expansion. We then use the modularity properties of the

1996: different functions involved here to obtain,

1997: \be\label{oddOmega}

1998: \Omega_{\rm odd} (N)\sim \frac{1}{16}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{(2 r-1)!!}{\pi^{r+1}}\sum_{s=0}^{\infty} (-1)^s {2 (1+s+r) \choose 2 r}

1999: (1-4^{-(1+r+s)})\hat{I}_{8+2 s+r}(\pi \sqrt{8N}).

2000: \ee

2001: %

2002: Let us now consider the even classes, (\ref{even}). Comparing (\ref{even}) with (\ref{odd}), we see that,

2003: %

2004: \be

2005: \Omega_{\rm even}(N)=\Omega_{\rm odd}(N)-\widetilde{\Omega}(N)

2006: \ee

2007: %

2008: where,

2009: %

2010: \be\label{ref0}

2011: \tilde{\Omega}(N)= \int_{-\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}+ \ri 0^{+}} \rd \sigma \int_{0}^{1} \rd\nu \, \re^{-4 \ri \pi N \sigma}

2012: 4 \sin^2(\pi \nu)f_E(p^4)\Bigl( \xi^2(\nu, p^4) -\xi^2(\nu, -p^4) \Bigr).

2013: \ee

2014: %

2015: A computation similar to the one we performed shows that $\widetilde \Omega (N)$ is exponentially suppressed with respect to

2016: $\Omega_{\rm odd}(N)$, since it leads to terms that go like $\exp(\pi \sqrt{2 N})$ and $\exp(\pi \sqrt{6 N})$. Therefore, as an

2017: asymptotic expansion in $1/{\sqrt {N}}$, $\Omega_{\rm even}(N)\sim \Omega_{\rm odd}(N)$, and the asymptotics does not

2018: distinguish between the even and the odd classes. We finally obtain, for the small Enriques black hole,

2019: %

2020: \be\label{Enrientropy}

2021: S_{E}(Q)\sim2 \pi {\sqrt {Q^2}} - \frac{17}{2} \log {\sqrt {Q^2}} + \cdots.

2022: \ee

2023: %

2024: 

2025: The main conclusion of our analysis is that, in all cases, the leading term of the microscopic entropy for these black holes is given by

2026: %

2027: \be

2028: \label{microentropy}

2029: S(Q) \sim 2 \pi {\sqrt {  {c_S \over 12} Q^2}},

2030: \ee

2031: %

2032: since $c_S=24$ for K3$\times \IT^2$, the STU and the ST models, but $c_S=12$ for the Enriques CY. Of course, our analysis has also

2033: given precise formulae for the subleading terms. 

2034: 

2035: The leading behavior (\ref{microentropy}) can be also verified by a numerical analysis similar to the one 

2036: performed in sections 3 and 4. For example, for the STU model we have computed the quantity $f(N)=S(N)/ {\sqrt {N}}$ 

2037: for $1\le N <50$, where $S(N)=\log\, \Omega(N)$. In order to subtract the 

2038: logarithmic term in the asymptotic expansion (\ref{f6}) we consider the transform, 

2039: %

2040: \be

2041: \label{rstu}

2042: A(N)= { (N+1)S(N+2) -(2N+1) S(N+1)  + N S(N) \over 

2043: (N+1){\sqrt {N+2}} -(2N+1) {\sqrt {N+1}} + N {\sqrt {N}} }. 

2044: \ee

2045: %

2046: In \figref{stu} we plot $f(N)$ (bottom) and $A(N)$ (top). The horizontal 

2047: line is the expected asymptotic value $4\pi$ for both quantities as $N \rightarrow \infty$. As before, the 

2048: transform $A(N)$ improves rapidly the convergence.  

2049: 

2050: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

2051: \begin{center}

2052: \epsfig{file=stu.eps, width=9.5cm}

2053: \end{center}

2054: \caption{Microscopic data for $f(N)=S(N)/ {\sqrt {N}}$ (bottom) and its transform $A(N)$ (top), defined in (\ref{rstu}), for the STU model, and for $1\le N<50$. The horizontal line 

2055: is the expected asymptotic value $4\pi$.} \label{stu}

2056: \end{figure}

2057: 

2058: 

2059: \subsection{Macroscopic entropy for small black holes}

2060: 

2061: The 5d black holes obtained by wrapping the M2 branes along cycles in the K3 fiber have actually vanishing

2062: classical entropy and are therefore {\it small} black holes. Indeed, as we have seen, the leading asymptotic degeneracy scales

2063: like $Q$, and not like $Q^{3/2}$. This is also what is found for small 4d black holes \cite{ddmp}.

2064: 

2065: Let us briefly show that the classical area of these black holes is zero for any set of intersection numbers $C_{abc}$, $C_{ab}$. In order to do this,

2066: we can use the 5d attractor mechanism described in section 2. Equivalently, by using the 4d/5d connection of \cite{gsy}, we can

2067: map the 5d black hole to a 4d black hole with D6 charge $p^0=1$ and D2 charges $Q_A$. At the level of the leading macroscopic entropy, the

2068: 4d computation gives the same result as the 5d computation \cite{gsy}. In the 4d language, we start with the tree level SUGRA prepotential

2069: %

2070: %

2071: \be\label{prepo}

2072: F=-\frac{1}{2}C_{ab}\frac{X^S X^a X^b}{X^0}-\frac{1}{6}C_{abc}\frac{X^a X^b X^c}{X^0}.

2073: \ee

2074: %

2075: We will do the computation for a generic D6-D2 charge, i.e. we will start with generic charges $p^0$, $Q_a$, $Q_S$, and then

2076: take the charge $Q_S\rightarrow 0$ at the end of the

2077: computation (as well as setting $p^0=1$). This will guarantee that we obtain generic solutions to the

2078: attractor mechanism.

2079: 

2080: Let us first assume that $C_{abc}=0$, as it happens in K3$\times \IT^2$ and the Enriques Calabi--Yau. In this case, the attractor equations are easily solved as,

2081: %

2082: \be\label{atstar}

2083: (X^{0}_{*},X^{S}_{*},X^{a}_{*}) = \biggl( p^0,\ri \sqrt{\frac{p^0 Q^2}{2 Q_S}},\ri \sqrt{ {2 Q_S p^0 \over Q^2}}Q^a\biggr),

2084: \ee

2085: %

2086: where

2087: %

2088: \be

2089: Q^2 =C^{ab}Q_a Q_b, \qquad Q^a=C^{ab}Q_b.

2090: \ee

2091: %

2092: The entropy is given by

2093: %

2094: \be

2095: \label{smallentropy}

2096: S=\pi \sqrt{2 p^0 Q_S Q^2},

2097: \ee

2098: %

2099: and it vanishes in the limit $Q_S \rightarrow 0$. This is as expected.

2100: 

2101: If we now consider a general prepotential with nonvanishing $C_{abc}$, the attractor equations are now solved at

2102: %

2103: \be\label{Xy}

2104: (X^0,X^S,X^a) = \biggl(p^0\;,\ri \sqrt{\frac{p^0}{2 Q_S}} \xi^S\;,\ri \sqrt{2 p^0 Q_S} \xi^a\biggr),

2105: \ee

2106: %

2107: where the $\xi^A$ are solutions to,

2108: %

2109: \be

2110: \label{equ1}

2111: \ba

2112: \xi^a \xi_a &= 1,\\

2113: Q^a &= \xi^S \xi^a + Q_S C^{ab}C_{bef}\xi^e \xi^f.

2114: \ea

2115: \ee

2116: %

2117: Notice that, in these variables, the model with $C_{abc}=0$ corresponds to the smooth values,

2118: %

2119: \be

2120: (\xi_{*}^S\;,\;\xi_{*}^a)\;=\Bigr({\sqrt{Q^2}}, {Q^a \over {\sqrt {Q^2}}}\Bigl).

2121: \ee

2122: %

2123: We can already see that, in the limit $Q_S\rightarrow 0$, the perturbation by $C_{abc}$ in (\ref{equ1}) vanishes, therefore

2124: in the limit of zero charge in the base the presence of nontrivial intersection numbers in the fiber should be unimportant. More formally, it is easy

2125: to see that one can construct

2126: a consistent solution of (\ref{equ1}) of the form,

2127: %

2128: \be

2129: \xi^A=\xi^A_* + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} c^A_n Q_S^n,

2130: \ee

2131: %

2132: where the coefficients $c^A_n$ depend on $C_{abc}$ and can be calculated order by order. In terms of the $\xi^A$ the macroscopic entropy is 

2133: %

2134: \be

2135: S=\pi \sqrt{2 p^0 Q_S} \biggl( C_{ab}  \xi^a \xi^b \xi^S+ \frac{2}{3}Q_S C_{abc}\xi^a \xi^b \xi^c \biggr),

2136: \ee

2137: %   

2138: and, in the limit

2139: $Q_S \rightarrow 0$, it will vanish irrespectively of the value of $C_{abc}$. Therefore, 5d black holes whose membrane charge

2140: is restricted to the K3 fiber of a K3 fibration are always small. This can be checked as well by detailed computations in different models

2141: (like the STU and ST models considered above).

2142: 

2143: Since the leading contribution to the entropy vanishes we should now look at the subleading terms in the macroscopic entropy. As we explained in section 2, it

2144: was shown in \cite{Guica:2005ig,Alishahiha:2007nn,Castro:2007hc} that these terms are obtained by performing the shift

2145: %

2146: \be

2147: \label{Qshifted}

2148: Q_A \rightarrow \widehat Q_A=Q_A + \zeta c_{2A}, \qquad \zeta={1\over 8}.

2149: \ee

2150: %

2151: The leading term in the entropy for the small 5d black hole is given (for large charge $Q$) by performing this

2152: shift in (\ref{smallentropy})

2153: %

2154: \be

2155: \label{sublead}

2156: S=2 \pi {\sqrt { {\zeta c_S \over 2} Q^2}}.

2157: \ee

2158: %

2159: This can be derived in detail by solving the attractor equations with shifted charges (\ref{Qshifted}) as a power series in $1/Q$, and then taking the limit

2160: $Q_S \rightarrow 0$. Notice that the entropy (\ref{sublead}) only depends on $C_{ab}$ and $c_S$. Also, in this regime, the solutions of the attractor equations occur at values of the

2161: K\"ahler parameters which are of the order of the string size, and the SUGRA calculation might be problematic. Indeed, it is easy to see that (\ref{sublead})

2162: does {\it not} agree with the leading term of the asymptotics that we obtained in the previous subsection. By comparing (\ref{microentropy}) with (\ref{sublead})

2163: we find that the formula agree if we set instead $\zeta=1/6$. This is the value of $\zeta$ that is predicted by the 4d/5d connection of

2164: \cite{gsy}.

2165: 

2166: In \cite{Guica:2005ig,Castro:2007hc} it was noticed that the subleading correction (\ref{Qshifted}) obtained in a macroscopic

2167: 5d computation was not in accord with the subleading correction predicted by \cite{gsy} and the 4d attractor mechanism.

2168: We now find that, for {\it big} 5d black holes, the subleading correction for the microscopic entropy is in rough agreement with (\ref{Qshifted}), while

2169: for {\it small} 5d black holes the leading asymptotics is in accord with a 4d computation for a small D6/D2 system with $p^0=1$. As we already mentioned,

2170: in the case of small black holes, the SUGRA computations with which we are comparing our results

2171: should receive large corrections, but in other situations they still lead to results which are in 

2172: agreement with the microscopic counting, as in \cite{ddmp,df}. In our case we obtain a result in 

2173: disagreement with the 5d computation but in agreement with the 4d computation. It would be 

2174: interesting to resolve this puzzle.

2175: 

2176: 

2177: 

2178: 

2179: 

2180: \section{Conclusions}

2181: In this paper we have studied the microscopic counting of 5d black hole states

2182: by using topological string theory. In the case of big black holes, we have given convincing numerical evidence

2183: that the BPS invariants encoded in the topological string amplitudes account correctly for the

2184: macroscopic entropy of spinning black holes. Moreover, we have also shown that the data 

2185: favour the ``mysterious cancellation"

2186: of \cite{dm} that makes possible to extend the validity of the OSV conjecture, and we were able to

2187: explore new aspects of black hole entropy which have not been studied

2188: before using supergravity. Clearly, it would be very desirable to improve our numerical results with more

2189: data. Using the interplay between modularity and an-holomophicity in topological 

2190: string theory~\cite{Yamaguchi:2004bt,hkq,gkmw}, analytic results on the asymtotics might be not out 

2191: of reach\footnote{Recently beautiful analytic proofs of the asymptotic of the Fourier coefficents 

2192: of Mock-Theta functions have been obtained using a somewhat similar interplay~\cite{KO}.}.

2193: 

2194: We also gave exact formulae for microscopic degeneracies of

2195: a class of small 5d black holes, which are obtained by wrapping M2 branes in the fiber of a K3 fibration, 

2196: and we computed the asymptotic expansion in inverse powers of the charge. As expected, 

2197: the calculation shows that for small black holes the leading term in the entropy scales like $S\rightarrow \lambda S$ when the 

2198: charges are scaled with $\lambda$. We found however that the coefficient of the leading term does not agree with 

2199: the shift of charges obtained in \cite{Guica:2005ig,Alishahiha:2007nn,Castro:2007hc} in a 5d SUGRA computation. 

2200: In principle there is no reason why these two computations should agree, since small $\CN=1$ black holes are 

2201: generically beyond the SUGRA approximation. On the other hand, the microscopic results are well reproduced by 

2202: the 4d/5d connection of \cite{gsy} and a 4d attractor computation. We should emphasize however that for big 

2203: black holes the 5d shift (\ref{Qshifted}) fits our data better than the 4d shift with $\zeta=1/6$. 

2204: It would be very interesting to understand this better.

2205: 

2206: 

2207: 

2208: 

2209: 

2210: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2211: It is a pleasure to thank Davide Gaiotto, Thomas Grimm, Aki Hashimoto, Sheldon Katz, Wei Li, Boris Pioline, 

2212: Nick Warner and Xi Yin for helpful

2213: discussions, and Frederik Denef for a very useful correspondence. We would like to thank as well Gregory Moore and Cumrun Vafa 

2214: for their comments on the manuscript. Many thanks also to Max Kreuzer for generously granting us computer

2215: time. This work is partially supported by the DOE grant DE-F602-95ER40896. AT is supported by a Marie Curie fellowship.

2216: 

2217: \appendix

2218: 

2219: \section{General features of the instanton expansion} \label{instantons}

2220: 

2221: The asymptotic behaviour at the conifold, Castelnouvo's theory, and the 

2222: calculation via degenerate Jacobians, suggest some general features of 

2223: the Gopakumar--Vafa expansion. Our data for the $13$ one-parameter models 

2224: suggest further universal features. The purpose of this appendix is 

2225: to describe some of these general features. Typical data for high degree 

2226: look as is table \ref{33degree18} 

2227: 

2228: \begin{table}

2229: \begin{centering}

2230: \begin{tabular}{|r|c|}

2231: \hline

2232: genus & degree=18 \\

2233: \hline

2234: 0&  144519433563613558831955702896560953425168536  \\

2235: 1&  491072999366775380563679351560645501635639768 \\

2236: 2&  826174252151264912119312534610591771196950790 \\

2237: 3&  866926806132431852753964702674971915498281822\\

2238: 4&  615435297199681525899637421881792737142210818\\

2239: 5&   306990865721034647278623907242165669760227036 \\

2240: 6&   109595627988957833331561270319881002336580306 \\

2241: 7&   28194037369451582477359532618813777554049181 \\

2242: 8&   5218039400008253051676616144507889426439522 \\

2243: 9&   688420182008315508949294448691625391986722 \\

2244: 10&  63643238054805218781380099115461663133366  \\

2245: 11&  4014173958414661941560901089814730394394  \\

2246: 12&   166042973567223836846220100958626775040 \\

2247: 13&  4251016225583560366557404369102516880  \\

2248: 14&   61866623134961248577174813332459314 \\

2249: 15&   451921104578426954609500841974284 \\

2250: 16&   1376282769657332936819380514604 \\

2251: 17&   1186440856873180536456549027 \\

2252: 18&   2671678502308714457564208 \\

2253: 19&   -59940727111744696730418 \\

2254: 20&   1071660810859451933436 \\

2255: 21&   -13279442359884883893 \\

2256: 22&   101088966935254518, \\

2257: 23&    -372702765685392\\

2258: 24&    338860808028\\

2259: 25&   23305068 \\

2260: 26&   -120186 \\

2261: 27&   -5220 \\

2262: 28&   -90 \\

2263: 29&   0 \\

2264:  \hline

2265: \end{tabular}  \caption{\label{33degree18} Gopakumar--Vafa invariants $n_d^g$ 

2266: in the class $d=18$ for the complete intersection $X_{3,3}(1^6)$.}

2267: \end{centering}

2268: \end{table}

2269: 

2270: The last nonzero entry is from the smooth genus $28$ complete intersection 

2271: curve\footnote{A complete intersection curve $(1,n,3,3)$ with degree $9n$ has in general 

2272: genus $\tilde g=\frac{1}{2}( 1+ 3 n) (2 + 3 n)$.}    $(1,2,3,3)$ of degree $18$. 

2273: By Castelnouvo's theory $\tilde g=28$ is the largest possible genus for 

2274: degree $18$.   The degree one constraint parametrizes an 

2275: $\mathbb{P}^5$. The moduli space ${\cal M}_{18}^{28}$ is a fibration of 

2276: this  $\mathbb{P}^5$ over a projectivization of the $15$ parameters in 

2277: the quadratic constraint. I.e. ${\cal M}_{18}^{28}$ is the total space of 

2278: $\mathbb{P}^5\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{14}$, 

2279: with Euler number $\chi( {\cal M}_{d=18}^{g=28})=5\times 15 =90$ and $n_{18}^{28}

2280: =(-1)^{5+14} 90=-90$. 

2281: 

2282: As it can further be seen in table \ref{33degree18},  the numbers grow from genus 

2283: $g=0$ to $g=3$ and fall thereafter. This feature might be related to the binomials in 

2284: the description of the moduli of space as a singular fibration of the Jacobian 

2285: ${\rm Jac}_{28}$ of the $g=28$ curve over ${\cal M}_{18}^{28}$. In 

2286: this description  the contribution of a $g=\tilde g-\delta$ curve 

2287: comes from degenerating the genus $28$ curve with $\delta$ nodes. As 

2288: explained in \cite{kkv} the contribution of the degenerate Jacobians 

2289: can be expressed by the Euler numbers of relative Hilbert schemes 

2290: ${\cal C}^{(n)}$ as 

2291: \begin{equation}

2292: n^{\tilde g-\delta}_d=(-1)^{{\rm dim}({\cal M})+\delta} \sum_{p=0}^\delta b(\tilde g-p,\delta-p)

2293: \chi({\cal C}^{(n)})\ , 

2294: \label{hilbertscheme}

2295: \end{equation} 

2296: %    

2297: with $b(g,k)=\left(2 g-2 \atop k\right)$.  

2298: A simple Gauss approximation of binomials fits the behaviour of the $n^g_d$ for large 

2299: $d$ relatively well. We show this in Fig. \ref{binomial} for the bi-cubic at degree $27$. 

2300: The numbers $n^g_d$ are exact and in contrast to (\ref{hilbertscheme}) they  count 

2301: correctly all contribution from colliding nodes, all contributions from 

2302: reducible curves as well as contributionsfrom smooth curves 

2303: in the class $d$ with genus $\tilde {\tilde g} < \tilde g$.

2304: 

2305: Very important for the cancellations in the asymptotic behaviour of the Donaldson--Thomas 

2306: invariants  is the occurrence of negative numbers. While it is clear that such contributions

2307: can arise if the dimensions of the D-brane moduli space is odd, we do not understand a priori 

2308: the remarkable pattern with which these signs occur. The first occurrence of negative signs at 

2309: $g_{neg}(d)$  is graphed for the quintic and the bi-cubic in \figref{negative}. The data 

2310: suggest that $g_{neg}(d)$ follows a parabola similar to the Castelnouvo bound. From the first 

2311: occurrence of the negative sign the $n^g_d$ are alternating in sign for $g\ll \tilde g$. 

2312: For  $g\sim \tilde g$ the behaviour becomes more erratic. The Gauss approximation for the absolute 

2313: values of the $n^g_d$ and the sign pattern is very characteristic of the degeneracies of 

2314: microstates of a large black hole. In contrast the absolute value of the $n^g_d$ is falling and the   

2315: signs are alternating with $(-1)^g$ starting at $g=0$ for small black holes as shown for 

2316: example for the ST-model.          

2317: 

2318: \vskip 5 mm {\vbox{\small{

2319: $$

2320: \vbox{\offinterlineskip\tabskip=0pt \halign{\strut \vrule#& 

2321: &\hfil~$#$ 

2322: &\hfil~$#$ 

2323: &\hfil~$#$ 

2324: &\hfil~$#$ 

2325: &\hfil~$#$

2326: &\hfil ~$#$

2327: &\hfil ~$#$

2328: &\hfil ~$#$

2329: &\vrule#\cr \noalign{\hrule} 

2330: &g&d=1&2         &3          &4       &5       &6       &7 &\cr

2331: \noalign{\hrule}

2332: &0&2496&223752&38637504&9100224984&2557481027520&805628041231176&\ldots&\cr 

2333: &1&0&-492&-1465984&-1042943520&-595277880960&-316194812546140&\ldots&\cr 

2334: &2&0&-6&7488&50181180&72485905344&70378651228338&\ldots&\cr 

2335: &3&0&0&0&-902328&-5359699200&-10869145571844&\ldots&\cr 

2336: &4&0&0&0&1164&228623232&1208179411278&\ldots& \cr 

2337: &5&0&0&0&12&-4527744&-94913775180&\ldots& \cr 

2338: &6&0&0&0&0&17472&4964693862&\ldots& \cr 

2339: &7&0&0&0&0&0&-152682820&\ldots&\cr

2340: &8&0&0&0&0&0&2051118&\ldots&\cr 

2341: &9&0&0&0&0&0&-2124&\ldots&\cr

2342: &10&0&0&0&0&0&-22&605915136&\cr

2343: &11&0&0&0&0&0&0&-9419904& \cr

2344: &12&0&0&0&0&0&0&32448&\cr

2345: \noalign{\hrule}}\hrule}$$}}} 

2346:                    

2347: A further remarkable fact is the very universal scaling for the 

2348: maximal value $M(d)$ for  

2349: $n^g_d$ for given $d$. This value behaves like

2350: %

2351: \begin{equation} 

2352: M(d)=\exp\left((a+bd)^{4/3}\right)\ 

2353: \end{equation}

2354: %

2355: with very  similar values for $a$ and $b$ for different one-parameter models, as shown for the quintic and 

2356: the bi-cubic in \figref{scaling}. 

2357:    

2358: 

2359: \begin{figure}

2360: \begin{center}

2361: \epsfig{file=binomialbicubic.eps,width=12cm}

2362: \end{center}

2363: \caption{The binomials dominate the behaviour of large $d$ Gopakumar-Vafa 

2364: invariants. For the degree 27 class  on the bi-cubic we find 

2365: $n^g_{27}\sim e^{167.747} e^{-0.0985 (g-9.108)^2}$ }

2366: \label{binomial}

2367: \end{figure}

2368: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

2369: \begin{center}

2370: \epsfig{file=negquintic.eps, width=8cm}\epsfig{file=negcubic.eps, width=8cm}

2371: \end{center}

2372: \caption{The first occurrence of negative $n^g_d$ for the quintic (on the right) and the bi-cubic (on the 

2373: left). The fit is $m(d)=a+ bd +c d^2$ with $a=-4.6$, $b=.94$ and $c=.019$ as well as  

2374: $a=-5.2$, $b=1.0$ and $c=.017$ for these two , respectively.} 

2375: \label{negative}

2376: \end{figure}

2377: 

2378: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

2379: \begin{center}

2380: \epsfig{file=scalingquintic.eps, width=8cm}\epsfig{file=scalingbicubic.eps, width=8cm}

2381: \end{center}

2382: \caption{$m(d)=\log(M(d))^{3/4}$ for the quintic on the right and the bi-cubic on the 

2383: left.  $a=5.164$ and  $b=1.511$ as well as  $a=5.202$ and  $b=1.509$ for the cases plotted.} 

2384: \label{scaling}

2385: \end{figure}

2386: 

2387: 

2388: 

2389:  

2390: 

2391: 

2392: 

2393: 

2394: \newpage 

2395: 

2396: 

2397: 

2398: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2399: \bibliographystyle{plain}

2400: 

2401: 

2402: %\cite{Alishahiha:2007nn}

2403: \bibitem{Alishahiha:2007nn}

2404:   M.~Alishahiha, ``On $R^2$ corrections for 5D black holes,''

2405:   arXiv:hep-th/0703099.

2406:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0703099;%%

2407: 

2408: \bibitem{agnt}

2409: I.~Antoniadis, E.~Gava, K.~S.~Narain and T.~R.~Taylor,

2410: ``N=2 type II heterotic duality and higher derivative F terms,''

2411:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 455}, 109 (1995)

2412:   [arXiv:hep-th/9507115].

2413:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9507115;%%

2414: 

2415: 

2416: \bibitem{bo}

2417: C. Bender and S. Orszag, {\it Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers}, McGraw Hill, New York, 1978.

2418: 

2419: \bibitem{bcov}

2420:   M.~Bershadsky, S.~Cecotti, H.~Ooguri and C.~Vafa,

2421:    ``Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string

2422:   amplitudes,''

2423:   Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 165}, 311 (1994)

2424:   [arXiv:hep-th/9309140].

2425:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9309140;%%

2426: 

2427: \bibitem{bmpv}

2428:  J.~C.~Breckenridge, R.~C.~Myers, A.~W.~Peet and C.~Vafa,

2429:  ``D-branes and spinning black holes,''

2430:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 391}, 93 (1997)

2431:   [arXiv:hep-th/9602065].

2432:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B391,93;%%

2433: 

2434: \bibitem{KO} K.~Bringmann and K.~Ono, ``The $f(q)$ mock theta function conjecture and partition ranks,''

2435: Invent. math. {\bf 165}, 243 (2006).       

2436: 

2437: 

2438: \bibitem{cdwm}

2439:  G.~L. Cardoso, B.~de Wit and T.~Mohaupt,

2440:   ``Corrections to macroscopic supersymmetric black-hole entropy,''

2441:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 451}, 309 (1999)

2442:   [arXiv:hep-th/9812082].

2443:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9812082;%%

2444: 

2445: %\cite{Castro:2007sd}

2446: \bibitem{Castro:2007hc}

2447:   A.~Castro, J.~L.~Davis, P.~Kraus and F.~Larsen, ``5D attractors with higher derivatives,''

2448:   arXiv:hep-th/0702072;

2449:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0702072;%%

2450: ``5D black holes and strings with higher derivatives,''

2451:   arXiv:hep-th/0703087.

2452:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0703087;%%

2453: 

2454: 

2455: 

2456: \bibitem{ddmp}

2457:  A.~Dabholkar, F.~Denef, G.~W.~Moore and B.~Pioline, ``Precision counting of small black holes,''

2458:   arXiv:hep-th/0507014.

2459:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0507014;%%

2460: 

2461: \bibitem{dabholkar}

2462: A.~Dabholkar, N.~Iizuka, A.~Iqubal and M.~Shigemori, ``Precision microstate counting of small black rings,''

2463:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 071601 (2006)

2464:   [arXiv:hep-th/0511120].

2465:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,071601;%%

2466: 

2467: \bibitem{david}

2468: J.~R.~David, G.~Mandal and S.~R.~Wadia, ``Microscopic formulation of black holes in string theory,''

2469:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 369}, 549 (2002)

2470:   [arXiv:hep-th/0203048].

2471:   %%CITATION = PRPLC,369,549;%%

2472: 

2473: \bibitem{dm}

2474:   F.~Denef and G.~W.~Moore,

2475:   ``Split states, entropy enigmas, holes and halos,''

2476:   arXiv:hep-th/0702146.

2477:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0702146;%%

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{df}

2480: D.~E.~Diaconescu and B.~Florea, ``Black hole entropy and Fourier-Mukai transform,''

2481:   arXiv:hep-th/0610068.

2482:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0610068;%%

2483: 

2484: \bibitem{d}

2485: R. Dijkgraaf, ``Strings, matrices, and black holes," in {\it Classical and quantum black holes}, P. Fre et al. (eds.), IOP, 1999,

2486: p. 77--135.

2487: 

2488: \bibitem{dmmv}

2489: R.~Dijkgraaf, J.~M.~Maldacena, G.~W.~Moore and E.~P.~Verlinde, ``A black hole farey tail,''

2490:   arXiv:hep-th/0005003.

2491:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0005003;%%

2492: 

2493: \bibitem{dmvv}

2494:  R.~Dijkgraaf, G.~W.~Moore, E.~P.~Verlinde and H.~L.~Verlinde, ``Elliptic genera of symmetric products and second quantized strings,''

2495:   Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 185}, 197 (1997)

2496:   [arXiv:hep-th/9608096].

2497:   %%CITATION = CMPHA,185,197;%%

2498: 

2499: \bibitem{dvv}

2500:  R.~Dijkgraaf, E.~P.~Verlinde and H.~L.~Verlinde, ``Counting dyons in N = 4 string theory,''

2501:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 484}, 543 (1997)

2502:   [arXiv:hep-th/9607026].

2503:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B484,543;%%

2504: 

2505: \bibitem{fhsv}

2506: S.~Ferrara, J.~A.~Harvey, A.~Strominger and C.~Vafa, ``Second quantized mirror symmetry,''

2507:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 361}, 59 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9505162].

2508:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9505162;%%

2509: 

2510:   %\cite{Ferrara:1996dd}

2511: \bibitem{Ferrara:1996dd}

2512:   S.~Ferrara and R.~Kallosh,

2513:   ``Supersymmetry and Attractors,''

2514:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 1514 (1996)

2515:   [arXiv:hep-th/9602136].

2516:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602136;%%

2517: 

2518: 

2519: 

2520: \bibitem{gsy}

2521: D.~Gaiotto, A.~Strominger and X.~Yin, ``New connections between 4D and 5D black holes,''

2522:   JHEP {\bf 0602}, 024 (2006)

2523:   [arXiv:hep-th/0503217].

2524:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0602,024;%%

2525: 

2526: \bibitem{gv} R.~Gopakumar and C.~Vafa, ``M-theory and topological strings. I\& II,"

2527: [arXiv:hep-th/9809187] and [arXiv:hep-th/9812127].

2528:  %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9809187;%%

2529: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9812127;%%

2530: 

2531: \bibitem{gkmw}

2532: T.~W.~Grimm, A.~Klemm, M.~Mari\~no and M.~Weiss,

2533: ``Direct integration of the topological string,''

2534:   arXiv:hep-th/0702187.

2535:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0702187;%%

2536: 

2537: 

2538: 

2539: %\cite{Guica:2005ig}

2540: \bibitem{Guica:2005ig}

2541:   M.~Guica, L.~Huang, W.~Li and A.~Strominger,

2542:   ``R**2 corrections for 5D black holes and rings,''

2543:   JHEP {\bf 0610}, 036 (2006)

2544:   [arXiv:hep-th/0505188].

2545:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0610,036;%%

2546: 

2547: %\cite{Guica:2007gm}

2548: \bibitem{Guica:2007gm}

2549:   M.~Guica and A.~Strominger,

2550:   ``Wrapped M2/M5 duality,''

2551:   arXiv:hep-th/0701011.

2552:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0701011;%%

2553: 

2554: \bibitem{hm}

2555:  J.~A.~Harvey and G.~W.~Moore, ``Algebras, BPS States, and Strings,''

2556:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 463}, 315 (1996)

2557:   [arXiv:hep-th/9510182].

2558:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B463,315;%%

2559: 

2560: \bibitem{hkq}

2561: M.~x.~Huang, A.~Klemm and S.~Quackenbush, ``Topological string theory on compact Calabi-Yau: Modularity and boundary

2562: conditions,''

2563:   arXiv:hep-th/0612125.

2564:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0612125;%%

2565: 

2566: \bibitem{kv}

2567:  S.~Kachru and C.~Vafa,

2568:  ``Exact results for N=2 compactifications of heterotic strings,''

2569:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 450}, 69 (1995)

2570:   [arXiv:hep-th/9505105].

2571:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9505105;%%

2572: 

2573: 

2574: \bibitem{kkv} S.~Katz, A.~Klemm and C.~Vafa,

2575:   ``M-theory, topological strings and spinning black holes,''

2576:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 3}, 1445 (1999)

2577:   [arXiv:hep-th/9910181].

2578:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9910181;%%

2579: 

2580: \bibitem{kawai}

2581: 

2582:  T.~Kawai, ``String duality and modular forms,''

2583:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 397}, 51 (1997)

2584:   [arXiv:hep-th/9607078].

2585:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B397,51;%%

2586: 

2587: \bibitem{kkrs}

2588:  A.~Klemm, M.~Kreuzer, E.~Riegler and E.~Scheidegger,

2589:   ``Topological string amplitudes, complete intersection Calabi-Yau spaces and threshold corrections,''

2590:   JHEP {\bf 0505}, 023 (2005)

2591:   [arXiv:hep-th/0410018].

2592:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410018;%%

2593: 

2594: \bibitem{klm}

2595: A.~Klemm, W.~Lerche and P.~Mayr,

2596:   ``K3 Fibrations and heterotic type II string duality,''

2597:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 357}, 313 (1995)

2598:   [arXiv:hep-th/9506112].

2599:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9506112;%%

2600: 

2601: \bibitem{km}

2602:  A.~Klemm and M.~Mari\~no, ``Counting BPS states on the Enriques Calabi-Yau,''

2603:   arXiv:hep-th/0512227.

2604:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0512227;%%

2605: 

2606: \bibitem{order}

2607:  M.~Mari\~no, ``Open string amplitudes and large order behavior in topological string theory,''

2608:   arXiv:hep-th/0612127.

2609:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0612127;%%

2610:   

2611:  \bibitem{mm}

2612: M.~Mari\~no and G.~W.~Moore, ``Counting higher genus curves in a Calabi-Yau manifold,''

2613:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 543}, 592 (1999)

2614:   [arXiv:hep-th/9808131].

2615:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808131;%%

2616: 

2617: \bibitem{mnop}

2618: D.~Maulik, N.~Nekrasov, A.~Okounkov and R.~Pandharipande, ``Gromov-Witten 

2619: theory and Donaldson-Thomas theory I,"

2620: arXiv:math.AG/0312059.

2621: 

2622: 

2623: \bibitem{Oguiso} K.~Oguiso, ``On algebraic fiber space structures on a Calabi-Yau $3$-fold,'' 

2624: Internat. J. Math.  {\bf 4}, 439  (1993).  

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{osv}

2627: H.~Ooguri, A.~Strominger and C.~Vafa,

2628:   ``Black hole attractors and the topological string,''

2629:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 106007 (2004)

2630:   [arXiv:hep-th/0405146].

2631:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405146;%%

2632: 

2633: \bibitem{shenker}

2634: S.~H.~Shenker, ``The strength of nonperturbative effects in string theory,'' in O. \'Alvarez, E. Marinari and P. Windey (eds.), 

2635: {\it Random surfaces and quantum gravity}, Plenum, New York, 1992.

2636: 

2637: \bibitem{sv}

2638:   A.~Strominger and C.~Vafa, ``Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy,''

2639:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 379}, 99 (1996)

2640:   [arXiv:hep-th/9601029].

2641:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B379,99;%%

2642: 

2643: \bibitem{vafabh}

2644:  C.~Vafa,

2645:   ``Black holes and Calabi-Yau threefolds,''

2646:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 207 (1998)

2647:   [arXiv:hep-th/9711067].

2648:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711067;%%

2649: 

2650: 

2651: %\cite{Wald:1993nt}

2652: \bibitem{wald}

2653:   R.~M.~Wald,

2654:   ``Black hole entropy in the Noether charge,''

2655:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 48}, 3427 (1993)

2656:   [arXiv:gr-qc/9307038].

2657:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,3427;%%

2658: 

2659: 

2660: \bibitem{Yamaguchi:2004bt}

2661:   S.~Yamaguchi and S.~T.~Yau, ``Topological string partition functions as polynomials,''

2662:   JHEP {\bf 0407}, 047 (2004)

2663:   [arXiv:hep-th/0406078].

2664:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0407,047;%%

2665: 

2666: 

2667: \bibitem{webpage} {\tt http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/$\sim$strings/aklemm/blackholedata/}

2668: 

2669: 

2670: \end{thebibliography}

2671: 

2672: \end{document}

2673: