1: 

2: 

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

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

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

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

7: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

8: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

9: 

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

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

12: 

13: 

14: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

15: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}

16: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}

17: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

18: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}

19: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

20: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

21: \newcommand{\vphi}{\varphi}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr}}

24: \newcommand{\diag}{{\rm diag}}

25: \newcommand{\D}{{\rm d}}

26: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial}

27: \newcommand{\rar}{\rightarrow}

28: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}

29: \newcommand{\we}{\wedge}

30: \newcommand{\cN}{\mathcal{N}}

31: \newcommand{\cF}{\mathcal{F}}

32: \newcommand{\cO}{\mathcal{O}}

33: 

34: \newcommand{\PP}{\mathrm{I}\kern -2.5pt \mathrm{P}}

35: \newcommand{\R}{\mathrm{I}\kern -2.5pt \mathrm{R}}

36: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathsf{Z}\kern -5pt \mathsf{Z}}

37: \newcommand{\sR}{\mathrm{I}\kern -1.5pt \mathrm{R}}

38: \newcommand{\sC}{\mathsf{C}\kern -4.1pt \mathsf{I}}

39: \newcommand{\bint}{\int\kern -12.5pt -}

40: 

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

42: 

43: \newcommand{\half}{{\textstyle {1\over 2}}}

44: \newcommand{\ts}{\textstyle}

45: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

46: 

47: \newcommand{\1}{1\kern -3pt \mathrm{l}}

48: 

49: \newcommand{\SU}{\mathrm{SU}}

50: \newcommand{\SO}{\mathrm{SO}}

51: \newcommand{\Sp}{\mathrm{Sp}}

52: \newcommand{\U}{\mathrm{U}}

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: 

57: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

58: 

59: \usepackage{epsfig}

60: \usepackage{amssymb}

61: 

62: \topmargin -1.5 cm

63: \textheight 23 cm

64: \textwidth 15 cm

65: 

66: \oddsidemargin 0.5 cm

67: \evensidemargin 0.5 cm

68: 

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

70: 

71: 

72: %%                        TABLEAUX.TEX

73: %%

74: %%   This  macro file is for producing a ``Young Tableau'' which is

75: %%   an array of little squares sometimes used in mathematical physics.

76: %%   For instance, the command

77: %%

78: %%                              \tableau{6 3 2}

79: %%

80: %%   will produce a tableau with 6 squares in the top row, 3 in the next,

81: %%   and 2 in the last.

82: %%                                OOOOOO

83: %%   This tableau will look like  OOO    but made of squares instead of

84: %%                                OO

85: %%   O's

86: %%   Any number of rows may be present, each having a nonzero number of

87: %%   squares.

88: %%

89: %%   A tableau is math mode material, so use $ or $$ to enclose it.

90: %%

91: %%   The size and line-thickness of the little boxes are controlled by

92: %%   the dimension parameters --

93: %%              \tableauside=1.0ex            %(size)

94: %%              \tableaurule=0.4pt            %(line-thickness)

95: %%   Change them if you want.

96: %%

97: %%                                            -- Doug Eardley

98: %%

99: 

100: \newdimen\tableauside\tableauside=1.0ex

101: \newdimen\tableaurule\tableaurule=0.4pt

102: \newdimen\tableaustep

103: \def\phantomhrule#1{\hbox{\vbox to0pt{\hrule height\tableaurule

104: width#1\vss}}}

105: \def\phantomvrule#1{\vbox{\hbox to0pt{\vrule width\tableaurule

106: height#1\hss}}}

107: \def\sqr{\vbox{%

108:   \phantomhrule\tableaustep

109: 

110: \hbox{\phantomvrule\tableaustep\kern\tableaustep\phantomvrule\tableaustep}%

111:   \hbox{\vbox{\phantomhrule\tableauside}\kern-\tableaurule}}}

112: \def\squares#1{\hbox{\count0=#1\noindent\loop\sqr

113:   \advance\count0 by-1 \ifnum\count0>0\repeat}}

114: \def\tableau#1{\vcenter{\offinterlineskip

115:   \tableaustep=\tableauside\advance\tableaustep by-\tableaurule

116:   \kern\normallineskip\hbox

117:     {\kern\normallineskip\vbox

118:       {\gettableau#1 0 }%

119:      \kern\normallineskip\kern\tableaurule}%

120:   \kern\normallineskip\kern\tableaurule}}

121: \def\gettableau#1 {\ifnum#1=0\let\next=\null\else

122:   \squares{#1}\let\next=\gettableau\fi\next}

123: 

124: 

125: \tableauside=1.5ex

126: \tableaurule=0.2pt

127: 

128: \newcommand{\Ysymm}{\tableau{2}}

129: \newcommand{\Yasymm}{\tableau{1 1}}

130: 

131: 

132: \begin{document}

133: 

134: \begin{flushright}

135: {\tt hep-th/0404125}\\

136: CERN-PH-TH/2004-068 \\

137: \end{flushright}

138: \vspace{1mm}

139: \begin{center}

140: {\bf\Large\sf

141: A note on instanton counting for {\large $\cN=2$} gauge theories \\

142: with classical gauge groups }

143: \end{center}

144: \vskip 5mm

145: \begin{center}

146: Marcos Mari\~{n}o\footnote{Also at Departamento de 

147: Matem\'atica, IST, Lisboa, Portugal} and Niclas Wyllard

148: \end{center}

149: 

150: \begin{center}

151: Department of Physics, CERN, Theory Division, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland \\[3mm]

152: {\tt marcos,wyllard@mail.cern.ch}

153: \end{center}

154: 

155: \vskip 2mm

156: 

157: \begin{abstract}

158: We study the prepotential of $\cN=2$ gauge theories

159: using the instanton counting techniques introduced by Nekrasov.

160: For the $\SO$ theories without matter we find a closed expression

161: for the full prepotential and its string theory gravitational corrections.

162: For the more subtle case of $\Sp$ theories without matter we discuss

163: general features and compute the prepotential

164: up to instanton number three. We also briefly discuss SU theories

165: with matter in the symmetric and antisymmetric representations. We

166: check all our results against the predictions of the corresponding Seiberg-Witten

167: geometries.

168: \end{abstract}

169: 

170: 

171: 

172: \setcounter{equation}{0}

173: \section{Introduction}

174: 

175: The celebrated Seiberg-Witten solution \cite{Seiberg:1994a}

176: of $\cN=2$ gauge theories has been studied in

177: great detail, but until recently no tractable method was known for obtaining

178: the instanton expansion of the prepotential directly from many-instanton calculus.

179: The final stumbling blocks were overcome in \cite{Nekrasov:2002}, building

180: on previous work by several authors (see \cite{Dorey:2002}

181: for a review of many-instanton calculus predating \cite{Nekrasov:2002}).

182: Instanton corrections to the prepotential are determined by an integral

183: over the moduli space of instantons. The crucial idea in~\cite{Nekrasov:2002} was

184: to use localization techniques in a clever way to show

185: that the integral over the moduli space of instantons can be computed

186: from contributions of isolated fixed points, or equivalently, can be

187: recast as a contour integral. This and related contour

188: integrals had actually made an

189: appearance much earlier \cite{Losev:1997}, but

190: the precise connection between these contour integrals

191: and the prepotential was established only in \cite{Nekrasov:2002}.

192: For the gauge theories discussed in \cite{Nekrasov:2002}

193: the contour integral was explicitly evaluated and the result written as

194: a sum over partitions. One surprising fact

195: is that this result also encodes information about all the higher genus

196: gravitational corrections which appear when the gauge theory is embedded in type II

197: string theory. The results for these gravitational corrections were

198: tested using topological strings

199: in~\cite{Klemm:2002,Iqbal:2003a}.

200: Further work inspired by these instanton counting techniques can be

201: found in~\cite{Flume:2002}-\cite{Flume:2004}.

202: 

203: 

204: The calculations in \cite{Nekrasov:2002} were done for the gauge group $\SU(N)$.

205: In this note we also consider the other classical gauge groups, $\SO(N)$ and $\Sp(2N)$.

206: For the $\cN=2$ $\SO(N)$ gauge theory without matter we find the complete

207: solution to the instanton counting problem, and write an explicit formula

208: for the prepotential

209: and its gravitational corrections as a sum over partitions, as was done

210: in \cite{Nekrasov:2002} for $\SU(N)$. For the $\Sp(2N)$ theory, we write down

211: the appropriate contour integral and evaluate it explicitly up to instanton

212: number three. The structure of the poles for the Sp integral

213: turns out to be much more complicated than for the cases of SU and SO gauge groups.

214: We find the locations of all poles of the integrand, but have not been able

215: to determine in closed form which ones are picked out by the contour prescription

216: for arbitrary instanton numbers.

217: 

218: For the $\SU(N)$ theory with one hypermultiplet in the symmetric representation

219: we also find the complete

220: solution to the instanton counting problem in terms of a sum over partitions.

221: On the other hand, for the $\SU(N)$ theory with

222: one hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric representation

223: we encounter problems similar to the ones that occur in the $\Sp(2N)$ theory.

224: 

225: In retrospect, the fact that $\Sp(2N)$ as well as $\SU(N)$ with antisymmetric matter

226: are more

227: complicated is not too surprising. Indeed, these theories are known to be

228: more subtle already at the level of the Seiberg-Witten

229: solution \cite{D'Hoker:1997b,Naculich:1998,Ennes:1999}. More recently, these

230: theories were studied using the Dijkgraaf-Vafa matrix-model

231: approach~\cite{Dijkgraaf:2002} and a modification of

232: the original proposal was found to be required for

233: these models~\cite{Kraus:2003,Naculich:2003b}.

234: 

235: 

236: 

237: The next section contains the analysis of the instanton counting for

238: SO and Sp gauge groups. Explicit results for the prepotential up to

239: instanton number 3 are listed in appendices A and B for SO and Sp,

240: respectively. Section 3 presents the analysis for SU theories with

241: matter hypermultiplets in the symmetric or antisymmetric representation, and

242: explicit results up to instanton number 2 are presented in appendix C.

243: In section 4 we list some open problems.

244: 

245: 

246: 

247: \setcounter{equation}{0}

248: \section{Instanton counting for {\large $\cN=2$ $\SO$/$\Sp$} theories}

249: 

250: In this section we discuss the $\cN =2$ $\SO$/$\Sp$ gauge theories.

251: After briefly discussing the features common to both models we

252: will discuss each case in turn.

253: 

254: \subsection{ADHM data}

255: 

256: A particularly expedient way of obtaining the ADHM instanton

257: equations \cite{Atiyah:1978} for the $\cN=2$ $\SU(N)$ gauge theory is

258: from a system of $k$ D(-1) branes (where $k$ is the instanton number) and  $N$

259: D3-branes \cite{Witten:1996}.

260: The (bosonic) ADHM data can be assembled into the four

261: complex quantities $(B_1,B_2,I,J)$ where $B_1$ and $B_2$ are in

262: the adjoint of $\U(k)$, and $I$ and $J$ belong to the bifundamental

263: representations $(\mathbf{k},\bar{\mathbf{N}})$ and $(\bar{\mathbf{k}},\mathbf{N})$

264: of $\U(k){\times}\SU(N)$, respectively. The $\U(k)$ gauge symmetry acts as

265: %

266: \be

267: \label{gaug}

268: (B_a, I,J) \rightarrow (g B_a g^{-1}, g I, J g^{-1}) \,,

269: \ee

270: %

271: where $g \in \U(k)$. The ADHM equations are (see e.g.~\cite{Flume:2002} for

272: more details)

273: %

274: \ben

275: \mu_{\sR}&=& [B_1, B_1^{\dagger}]+[B_2, B_2^{\dagger}]+I I^{\dagger} -J^{\dagger}J=0\,,

276: \nonumber\\

277: \mu_{\sC}& =& [B_1, B_2] + I J =0\,.

278: \label{adhme}

279: \een

280: %

281: The moduli space of instantons with instanton number $k$ is the

282: space of solutions to the above equations, modulo gauge transformations.

283: As discussed in \cite{Nekrasov:2002},

284: it is actually convenient to consider a deformation of the first equation in

285: (\ref{adhme}) and take $\mu_{\sR}\not=0$. The space of solutions to (\ref{adhme})

286: for $\mu_{\sR}\not=0$ (modulo gauge transformations)

287: gives a resolution of singularities of the ADHM moduli space

288: of instantons and can be regarded as the space of solutions to the second

289: equation modulo {\it complex} gauge

290: transformations, provided a stability condition is imposed (as usual

291: in geometric invariant theory).

292: 

293: Notice that the linearization of the gauge symmetry action (\ref{gaug}) gives

294: a map

295: %

296: \be

297: \label{mapC}

298: C: {\bf g} \rightarrow E\oplus E \oplus (V\otimes W^*) \oplus (V^*\otimes W) \,,

299: \ee

300: %

301: where ${\bf g}$ is the complexified Lie algebra of the instanton symmetry group $U(k)$,

302: $E$ is the representation space

303: associated to the matrices $B_a$ (in this case, since $B_a$ belong to

304: the adjoint representation, $E$ is the complexified

305: Lie algebra), $V$ is the defining vector space of the instanton symmetry group, 

306: and $W$ is the defining vector space of the gauge group. One also has

307: the linearization of the second equation in (\ref{adhme}), which gives a map

308: %

309: \be

310: \label{map}

311: s:   E\oplus E \oplus (V\otimes W^*) \oplus (V^*\otimes W)  \rightarrow {\bf g} \,.

312: \ee

313: %

314: The maps (\ref{mapC}), (\ref{map}) fit together in

315: the instanton deformation complex

316:  %

317: \be

318: \label{idc}

319: {\bf g} \stackrel{C}{\rightarrow} E\oplus E \oplus (V\otimes W^*) \oplus (V^*\otimes W) \stackrel{s}{\rightarrow} {\bf g} \,.

320: \ee

321: %

322: The tangent space to the instanton moduli space is given

323: locally by ${\rm Ker}\, s /{\rm Im}\,C$, see e.g.~\cite{Dorey:2002,

324: Nakajima:1999} for more detailed discussions.

325: 

326: 

327: The ADHM data for $\SO$/$\Sp$ gauge groups can be obtained by a projection of

328: the $\SU$ data. The ADHM equations for $\SO$/$\Sp$ were first

329: obtained in \cite{Corrigan:1978}.

330: 

331: In the D-brane language the projection is implemented by the addition of an

332: orientifold (O3) plane to the D(-1)/D3 system. When placed on top of the

333: stack of D3-branes the orientifold plane does not break

334: any further supersymmetry. Depending

335: on the charge of the orientifold one obtains either $\SO(N)$ or $\Sp(2N)$ as the gauge

336: group on the D3's. Due to the properties of the orientifold

337: projection~\cite{Gimon:1996} one gets the ``opposite'' gauge group on

338: the D(-1)'s i.e. $\Sp(2k)$ and $\SO(k)$, respectively.

339: 

340: Implementing the projection on the ADHM data shows that for the $\SO(N)$

341: ($\Sp(2N)$) theory, the $B_a$'s are {\it not} in the

342: adjoint representation, but rather in the other two-index

343: representation. For $\Sp(2k) $ the adjoint is isomorphic to the symmetric

344: representation whereas the $B_a$'s are in the antisymmetric.

345: For $\SO(k)$ the adjoint is isomorphic to the antisymmetric representation whereas

346: the $B_a$'s are in the symmetric.  The orientifold

347: projection on $I$ and $J$ relate them to their complex conjugates and thus halves

348: the number of components.

349: 

350: The instanton deformation complex for $\SO$/$\Sp$ has the

351: same form as above (\ref{idc}), with the only difference that now $E$

352: is the appropriate representation space. Notice that this

353: description gives the correct number of parameters:

354: the moduli space of instantons on $\R^4$ for a gauge group $G$ has complex dimension

355: $2k g^{\vee}$, where $g^{\vee}$ is the dual Coxeter number of the group.

356: For $\SO(N)$ at instanton number $k$, $I$ and $J$

357: provide $2k N$ complex parameters, while $B_{1,2}$ are in the antisymmetric and give

358: $2(k^2-k)$ complex parameters. The number of complex parameters modulo gauge transformations and the ADHM constraints is therefore $2k(N-2)$ from which it follows

359: that the moduli space of instantons has complex dimension $2k(N-2)$.

360: For $\Sp(2N)$, a similar counting

361: gives $2k(N+1)$, both in agreement with the general formula for the dimension.

362: 

363: \subsection{{\large Instanton counting for $\SO(N)$}} \label{sSO}

364: 

365: The instanton corrections to the Seiberg-Witten prepotential can be computed

366: as integrals over the moduli space of instantons; see \cite{Dorey:2002} for

367: a review. These integrals are difficult to evaluate, but as

368: shown in \cite{Nekrasov:2002} one can use powerful localization

369: techniques to simplify their computation\footnote{See

370: \cite{Hollowood:2002a} for earlier ideas on using

371: localization to evaluate the moduli space integrals. }.

372: The localization is done with

373: respect to the group $\U(1)^N{\times} \U(1)^2$, where

374: $\U(1)^N$ is the Cartan subgroup of the gauge symmetry, and $\U(1)^2$ is a global

375: symmetry corresponding to an $\SO(2){\times} \SO(2)$ rotation in spacetime,

376: i.e.~$\R^4$.

377: This symmetry acts as follows on the ADHM fields: $(t_1, t_2) (B_1, B_2, I, J) =

378: (t_1B_1, t_2 B_2, I, t_1t_2 J)$, where $(t_1, t_2) \in \U(1){\times} \U(1)$.

379: The ADHM equations (\ref{adhme}) are

380: unchanged under this action. It turns out that the fixed loci of this action

381: are points,

382: and this allows one to compute the integrals as sums over contributions coming

383: from the

384: fixed points.

385: 

386: Alternatively, one can start with the twisted version of the ${\cal N}=2$ theory

387: written in terms of the ADHM fields and consider an

388: equivariant extension of the BRST symmetry with respect to the above group action.

389: Since the action is BRST exact, the path integral of the twisted theory

390: can be calculated

391: in the semiclassical approximation. By integrating out $(B_1,B_2,I,J)$ (and their

392: fermionic partners) one can reduce the path integral to a much simpler

393: contour integral over the eigenvalues of a field $\phi$ which is part of the ${\cal N}=2$ topological

394: multiplet (see \cite{Moore:1998,Bruzzo:2002,Flume:2002} for details on this). From

395: this contour integral, obtained from the path integral of the twisted theory,

396: one can in the end extract the prepotential of the original ${\cal N}=2$ theory.

397: It turns out that the poles that contribute to the contour integral are located precisely at

398: the fixed points of the $\U(1)^N {\times} \U(1)^2$ action on the instanton moduli space, and the

399: residue of the integral at each pole is precisely the contribution of the corresponding

400: fixed point in the localization formula.

401: 

402: The analysis of \cite{Nekrasov:2002} extends to the other classical 

403: gauge groups, and

404: one can in fact write down the general form of the resulting

405: contour integral\footnote{See \cite{Braverman:2004} for the generalization to

406: general groups of other aspects

407: of \cite{Nekrasov:2002,Losev:2003,Nekrasov:2003}.}.  As in the $\U(N)$ case, one

408: has to consider an (equivariant) extension with respect to $H {\times} \U(1)^2$,

409: where $H$ is the Cartan subgroup

410: of the gauge group. The field $\phi$ lives

411: in the adjoint representation of the instanton symmetry group $G_k$ at

412: instanton number $k$,

413: which is $\U(k)$, $\Sp(2k)$ and $\SO(k)$ for the gauge groups $\U(N)$,

414: $\SO(N)$ and $\Sp(2N)$, respectively.

415: After diagonalization $\phi$ can

416: be written as a vector ${\bf \phi}=\sum_I \phi_I e_I$ in the root

417: lattice of $G_k$, where $e_I$, $I=1, \cdots, r_k$,

418: is an orthonormal basis and $r_k$ is the rank of $G_k$.

419: Let ${\bf \alpha} \in \Delta$ be the roots of the

420: instanton symmetry group, and let ${\bf \mu} \in \Lambda_B$ be the weights of the

421: representation of the instanton

422: symmetry group where the matrices $B_a$

423: live. Finally, let $\hat a$ be a vector in the Cartan subalgebra ${\bf h}$ of the

424: gauge group, and

425: let $P(\phi_I)= \prod_i (\phi_I-\hat a_i)$. Notice that the $\hat a_i$'s play the

426: role of equivariant parameters with respect to the symmetry action $H$. The integral then reads:

427: %

428: \be

429: \label{generalintegral}

430: Z_k \propto {1\over |{\cal W}_k|}\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{r_k}}\oint \prod_I {d\phi_I \over P(\phi_I) P(\phi_I + \epsilon)} {\prod_{{\bf \alpha} \in \Delta}

431: ({\bf \phi}\cdot {\bf \alpha})({\bf \phi}\cdot {\bf \alpha} +

432: \epsilon) \over \prod_{{\bf \mu} \in \Lambda_B} ({\bf \phi}\cdot {\bf \mu} + \epsilon_1)

433: ({\bf \phi}\cdot {\bf \mu} + \epsilon_2)}\,.

434: \ee

435: %

436: In this formula $\ep=\ep_1{+}\ep_2$, where $\epsilon_{1,2}$ are the equivariant

437: parameters in the Cartan subalgebra of the $\SO(2){\times} \SO(2)$ rotation

438: (in other words, $t_i=e^{\epsilon_i}$), and $|{\cal W}_k|$ is the order of the

439: Weyl group of the instanton symmetry group. In (\ref{generalintegral})

440: we have omitted an overall factor which depends on $\epsilon_{1,2}$.

441: This integral has a nice geometric interpretation in terms of the

442: instanton deformation complex associated to the ADHM equations (\ref{idc}).

443: This complex has an equivariant extension with respect to the

444: $H {\times} \U(1)^2$ action. Let $Q$ be the defining representation space for $\U(1)^2$, and let $W$ be the

445: defining representation for $H$. Then, $(B_1, B_2) \in E \otimes Q$, $I \in

446: V\otimes W^*$ and $J \in V^*\otimes W \otimes\wedge^2 Q$, and we obtain the equivariant complex:

447: %

448: \be

449: \label{eqcomplex}

450: {\bf g} \rightarrow (E\otimes Q) \oplus (V\otimes W^*) \oplus (V^* \otimes W \otimes \wedge^2 Q)

451: \rightarrow {\bf g}\otimes \wedge^2 Q\,.

452: \ee

453: %

454: The integrand in (\ref{generalintegral}) then computes the virtual

455: Euler characteristic of the

456: complex (\ref{eqcomplex}) \cite{Moore:1998,Nekrasov:2002}. The

457: denominator corresponds to the middle term, while the numerator corresponds

458: to the first and third terms.

459: 

460: Let us now consider the ${\cal N}=2$ $\SO(N)$ super Yang-Mills theory.

461: From the analysis of the

462: ADHM data we know that the instanton symmetry group is $\Sp(2k)$ and that the fields $B_a$ live

463: in the antisymmetric representation of $\Sp(2k)$. The contour integral (\ref{generalintegral}) reads

464: in this case\footnote{When integrating out $J$ one seems to get

465: $\sqrt{P(\phi_I+\ep)P(-\phi_I+\ep)}$ rather than $P(\phi_I+\ep)$.

466: However as we exclusively set $\ep_1=-\ep_2$ after evaluating the integral,

467: this difference does not affect our results. When dealing with the $\ep\neq 0$

468: expressions this should be kept in mind. (Similar comments apply to the other

469: contour integrals appearing in this paper.)}

470: %

471: \bea

472: \label{sonintegral}

473: Z_k &= &{1\over 2^k k!} {\epsilon^k\over (\epsilon_1 \epsilon_2)^k}

474: \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^k} \oint \prod_{I=1}^k \D\phi_I

475: { (2\phi_I)^2 ((2\phi_I)^2-\epsilon^2)

476: \over P(\phi_I) P(\phi_I + \epsilon)}  \\

477: &\times & \!\!\! \prod_{I<J}

478: \frac{(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2 ((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep^2) (\phi_I +\phi_J)^2

479: ((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep^2)}

480: {((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)

481: ((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)}\,.

482: \nonumber

483: \eea

484: %

485: For $\SO(2N)$,

486: $P(\phi)=\prod_{i=1}^{N} (\phi^2 - a_i^2)$ whereas for $\SO(2N+1)$,

487: $P(\phi)=\phi \prod_{i=1}^{N} (\phi^2 - a_i^2)$.

488: Notice that the integrand in (\ref{sonintegral}) is

489: invariant under permutations of the $\phi_I$'s (which is a group of order

490: $k!$) and also under the group $\Z_2^m$ generated by

491: $a_i \rightarrow -a_i$, $i=1, \cdots, m$. This is of course nothing but the

492: Weyl group of $\Sp(2k)$.

493: 

494: 

495: The integral (\ref{sonintegral}) can be evaluated by computing residues at the appropriate poles,

496: as in \cite{Moore:1998,Nekrasov:2002,Bruzzo:2002}.

497: In the case of the $\SO(2N)$ integral

498: (\ref{sonintegral}), the poles turn out to be

499: essentially the same as the ones for

500: $\SU(N)$. However, as this is not completely obvious we will give some details.

501: For $\SU(N)$ the location of the fixed points (and consequently the location 

502: of the poles) can be determined

503: by solving the equations

504: \be

505: \ba{lll}

506: [\phi,B_1]=\ep_1 B_1  \,,&  [\phi,B_2] = \ep_2 B_2  \,, &  [B_1,B_2] + IJ = 0\,, \\

507: \phi I - I \hat{a} = 0 \,,& J\phi - \hat{a} J - \ep J =0\,,&

508: \ea

509: \label{fixedeqs}

510: \ee

511: modulo complex gauge transformations.

512: It is important to note that because of the specific choice of integration

513: contour not all solutions to

514: these equations are actually relevant to the evaluation of the integral. 

515: This is natural

516: if we recall that the solutions to $[B_1,B_2] + IJ = 0$ only give solutions

517: to the original ADHM equations (deformed to $\mu_{\sR}\not=0$)

518: provided a certain stability condition is satisfied. It turns out that the poles that

519: contribute to the

520: contour integral are in one-to-one correspondence with the solutions of (\ref{fixedeqs})

521: that satisfy the stability condition. This condition can be phrased as follows. As discussed

522: above $I \in V\otimes W^*$ where $V$ and $W$ are the representation spaces

523: for the fundamental representation of $\U(k)$ and $\SU(N)$ respectively. The

524: solutions which contribute to the integral are the ones which satisfy the

525: condition that $B_1^{n} B_{2}^{m} I$ for $m,n=1,2,\ldots$ span the vector space $V$.

526: 

527: In \cite{Nekrasov:2002} it was shown that the solution to the equations

528: (\ref{fixedeqs}) subject to the stability condition are classified by

529: Young tableaux in the following way.  Each solution at instanton number $k$ is given

530: by a set of $N$ Young tableaux ${\bf Y} = \{Y_1,\ldots,Y_{N}\}$ subject to the

531: constraint that $\sum k_{\ell}=k$ where $k_{\ell}$ is the total number of boxes

532: in the $\ell$th tableau. The boxes in $Y_{\ell}$ are labelled by pairs of

533: integers $(i_{\ell}, j_{\ell})$, where $i_{\ell}$ labels the rows

534: and $j_{\ell}$ the columns. In this language the fixed points are given by

535: %

536: \be

537: \phi_{I_{\ell}} =a_{\ell} -(j_{\ell}-1) \epsilon_1 -(i_{\ell}-1)\epsilon_2\,.

538: \label{fixedson}

539: \ee

540: %

541: 

542: 

543: We will now discuss how one can obtain the solution to the $\SO(2N)$ problem by

544: imposing a projection on the solution for $\SU(2N)$.

545: That one gets solutions by this projection is clear, but it is by no means

546:  a priori obvious that one gets all (relevant) solutions this way. The reason why

547: there might be a problem is that one does not start with the most general

548: solution to the $\SU$ problem, but instead only considers the solutions which satisfy

549: the stability condition.

550: In fact, as we will see later, for $\Sp(2N)$ this naive method does not

551: give all solutions. Nevertheless, the simplified method works for $\SO(N)$ and

552: it is instructive to give some details.

553: The methods we use (and the equations we solve)

554: are similar to the ones used  in $\cite{Naculich:2001}$ to derive all solutions

555: to the classical vacuum equations for $N=1^*$ theories with $\SO/\Sp$ gauge

556: groups\footnote{In that paper the solutions were characterized in terms of $\SU(2)$

557: representations. One could also use this language here, but

558: it is more convenient to work with the Young tableaux.}. After a change of basis to

559: bring $\phi$ into diagonal form the $\Sp(2k)$ conditions on the matrices

560: $\phi$, $B_1$ and $B_2$ can be written

561: \be

562: \ba{lll}

563: \phi^T g = -g \phi   \,, \quad B_1^T g = g B_1  \,, \quad  B_2^T g = g B_2  \,, \quad

564: g^T=-g \, ,\quad gg^*=-\1_{2k} \,.&

565: \ea

566: \label{soproj}

567: \ee

568: If, given a (stable) solution to the $\SU(2N)$ problem, 

569: a $2k{\times} 2k$ matrix $g$ can be found such that these equations

570: are satisfied then the solution will descend to a solution of the

571: $\SO(2N)$ problem.

572: 

573: In matrix notation the solution to (\ref{fixedeqs}) for $\SU(2k)$ schematically

574: takes the block diagonal form

575: \be

576: \phi = \diag( y_1, ..., y_{2k} ) \,, \quad

577: B_1 = \diag( x_1, ..., x_{2k} ) \,, \quad

578: B_2 = \diag( z_1, ..., z_{2k} )\,.

579: \ee

580: Here $y_\ell$ is a diagonal matrix with elements $a_\ell - (i_\ell-1) \ep_1 -

581: (j_\ell-1) \ep_2$  with some ordering for the

582: Young tableau elements ($i_\ell$ and $j_\ell$ label rows and columns as already

583: discussed), for instance left-to-right and down-up.

584: Below we will use that there is a $\Z_2 {\times} \Z_2$ symmetry acting within

585: {\it each} block,

586: \bea

587: && \ep_1 \rar -\ep_1 \,, \quad X_\ell \rar (X_\ell)^T \,, \non \\

588: && \ep_2 \rar -\ep_2 \,, \quad Z_\ell \rar (Z_\ell)^T\,.

589: \label{Z2Z2}

590: \eea

591: (This follows from the form of the equations $[\phi,B_{a}] = \ep_{a} B_{a}$.)

592: 

593: From the $\SO$ condition we get $a_{N+i} = -a_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N$.

594: The $\Sp(2k)$ condition on $\phi$ can be written $(\phi_I + \phi_J) g_{IJ} = 0$

595: where $I,J=1,\ldots,2k$. In order for $g_{IJ}\neq 0$ to be possible $\phi_I + \phi_J$

596: must vanish. For generic $a_{\ell}$, $\ep_1$, and $\ep_2$ this can only happen if $\phi_I$

597: is in block $\ell$ and $\phi_J$ is in block $\ell+N$ (since then $a_\ell + a_{\ell+N} = 0$).

598: At first sight it seems that only for $i=j=1$ in both the $\ell$th and the $(\ell+N)$th

599: block is $\phi_I + \phi_J$ zero. This would contradict the $g^*g = -\1_{2k}$

600: condition and imply that there are no solutions. However, note that one can

601: utilize the symmetry (\ref{Z2Z2}) to change the sign of $\ep_{1,2}$ in block $\ell+N$,

602: $\ell=1,...,N$. After this change, the allowed $g$ takes the form

603: \be

604: g = \left(\ba{cc} 0 & D \\ -D & 0 \ea \right)\,,

605: \ee

606: where $D = \diag(D_1,...,D_N)$ and each $D_i$ is a diagonal matrix. It is also required

607: that there is the same number of elements in blocks $i$ and $i+N$ otherwise some

608: of the $D_i$'s would be rectangular matrices with at least one row (or column)

609: full of zeroes. This would imply that $\det(g)=0$ which contradicts $g^* g = -\1_{2k}$.

610: 

611: The above implies that the tableaux have to come in pairs; in the $\phi$

612: matrix one has to have $y_{i+N} = -y_i$. We are not quite finished since

613: we also have to check that the $\Sp(2k)$

614: conditions on $B_{1,2}$ can be satisfied. The $\Sp(2k)$ condition on $B_{1}$

615: becomes (in matrix notation):

616: $x_i D_i = D_i (x_{i+N})^T $ (and similarly for $z_i$). We can choose a

617: basis in which all the non-zero elements in $B_1$ are normalized to 1, which

618: implies $x_i = (x_{i+N})^T$ from which it can be shown that $D_i$ is proportional

619: to the unit matrix.

620: The condition $g^* g =-\1_{2k}$ then implies that the proportionality constant is

621: a phase, which can be removed by a unitary transformation. One also finds

622: $z_i = (z_{i+N})^T $.

623: 

624: To summarize: we have shown that the (stable) solutions 

625: to (\ref{fixedeqs}), (\ref{soproj})

626: (and hence the locations of the contributing poles)

627: are classified by Young diagrams. Notice that only $\phi_I$ for $I=1,\ldots,k$

628: enter in the integral. However, apart from the solution in (\ref{fixedson})

629: there are also contributing solutions that are obtained by permuting

630: the $k$ $\phi_I$'s, and we also have the possibility of

631: choosing $\pm \phi_I$. This gives an overall factor $2^k k!$ 

632: which cancels the normalization $1/|{\cal W}_k|$ in (\ref{sonintegral}).

633: 

634: 

635: For $\SO(2N+1)$ the only difference compared to $\SO(2N)$ is that there is now an

636: extra $\hat{a}_i$, $\hat{a}_0\equiv0$. The matrix $\phi$ still belongs to the adjoint

637: of $\Sp(2k)$ and the conditions (\ref{soproj}) are unchanged. This means that

638: there is an extra block that is independent of the $a_i$'s. It not hard to show

639: that a projection of the solution for $\SU(2N+1)$ would force this block to be

640: filled with zeroes, but such solutions will always have moduli (giving rise

641: to a vanishing integral) therefore this block has to be empty/absent.

642: The solution is thus the same as for $\SO(2N)$.

643: Note that even though the contributing fixed points are the same the residues

644: are of course different.

645: 

646: 

647: 

648: Using a generalization of the method in \cite{Nakajima:1999,Nekrasov:2002} one may

649: explicitly evaluate the integral in terms of an infinite product. We will only

650: write the expressions for $\ep_2=-\ep_1=\hbar$, which is enough to extract the Seiberg-Witten

651: prepotential and the gravitational corrections. The computation can be easily done if

652: we take into account that the residue at a given pole of the

653: integral (\ref{generalintegral})

654: can be translated into a localization computation: first, we

655: compute the weights of the group action

656: $H {\times} \U(1)^2$ on the different spaces appearing

657: in (\ref{eqcomplex}). This is easily done

658: by using the fact that (\ref{fixedson}) gives the weights associated to the defining

659: representation of the instanton symmetry group. The residue is then given by the product of the weights

660: associated to the first and third terms of (\ref{eqcomplex}), divided by the product of the

661: weights associated to the middle term of (\ref{eqcomplex}).

662: 

663: For a specific partition ${\bf k} = (k_1,\ldots,k_N)$ one finds for $\SO(2N)$

664: \bea

665: \label{sonprod}

666: Z_{\bf k} &=& 16^k\prod_{(i,j)\in Y_{\ell}}

667: [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j - \half)]

668: [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j)]^2 [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j + \half)]   \\

669: & \times &\!\!\! \prod_{Y_{\ell}, Y_{r}} \prod_{m,n=1}^{\infty} \!

670: \frac{ [a_{\ell} - a_{r} + \hbar(k_{\ell,m} {-} k_{r,n} {+}n {-} m)]

671: [a_{\ell} + a_{r} + \hbar(k_{\ell,m} {-} \tilde{k}_{r,n} {+}n {-} m)] }

672: {[a_{\ell} - a_{r} + \hbar(n {-} m)][a_{\ell} + a_{r} + \hbar(n {-} m)]} \,,\non

673: \eea

674: where it is assumed that the points where $(l,m)=(r,n)$

675: are excluded from the product. In (\ref{sonprod}) $k_{\ell,m}$ denotes the number

676: of boxes in the $m$th row of the $\ell$th tableau and $\tilde{k}_{\ell,n}$

677: denotes the number of boxes in the $n$th column of the $\ell$th tableau. These

678: definitions extend to all positive integers $n,m$:

679: $k_{\ell,m}$ and $\tilde{k}_{\ell,n}$ are defined to be identically zero when

680: $n,m$ lie outside the tableau.

681: 

682: For $\SO(2N+1)$ one finds the same product as for $\SO(2N)$ with the only difference that the product over single Young tableaux is instead given by

683: \be

684: \prod_{(i,j)\in Y_{\ell}}

685: [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j - \half)][a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j + \half)]\,.

686: \ee

687: The partition function for $\SO(N)$ at instanton number $k$, $Z_k$, is obtained

688: by summing over all possible partitions ${\bf k}$ with $k$ boxes in total, $Z_{k} = \sum_{\bf k} Z_{\bf k}$,

689: where the sum is over $\bf k$ such that $\sum_{l,m} k_{l,m}=k$.

690: Finally, the complete partition function is $Z=  \sum_k L^{k}Z_k$ with 

691: $L=\La^{2N-4}$.

692: One has the important relation \cite{Nekrasov:2002}

693: \be

694: Z = \exp\bigg[ \frac{1}{\ep_1\ep_2} \cF(a,\ep_1,\ep_2,\La) \bigg] \,,

695: \ee

696: where (for $\ep_2=-\ep_1=\hbar$)

697: \be

698: \cF(a,\hbar,\La) = \sum_{g=0}^{\infty} \hbar^{2g} \cF_g(a,\La) \,,

699: \ee

700: with

701: \be

702: \cF_g(a,\La) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}  L^k F_{g,k}(a) \,.

703: \ee

704: Here $\cF_g(a,\La)$ determines the genus $g$ gravitational coupling, and $F_{g,k}$

705: is the contribution to this coupling at instanton level $k$. In particular, $\cF_0$

706: is the Seiberg-Witten prepotential (excluding the perturbative part 

707: which will be discussed below).

708: 

709: 

710: We have checked that the above results lead to expressions for the first

711: three instanton corrections to the prepotential which are in agreement with

712: the results obtained using the Seiberg-Witten approach.

713: Details about this check are included in appendix A. One can also check

714: the results for the gravitational correction ${\cal F}_1$ against the 

715: general expression

716: in terms of Seiberg-Witten data derived in \cite{Klemm:2002,Dijkgraaf:2002b} (which is

717: easily seen to extend to the $SO(N)$ case). This expression involves the determinant 

718: of the period matrix, whose instanton expansion in powers of $\Lambda^{2N-2}$ 

719: is better calculated with the techniques 

720: of \cite{emm} after rewriting it in terms of hyperelliptic theta functions. Using 

721: this procedure we have checked  the instanton counting result

722: that $F_{1,1}=0$ for $SO(N)$. 

723: 

724: 

725: 

726: It is also of interest to connect the above discussion more directly to the 

727: corresponding Seiberg-Witten geometry. In \cite{Nekrasov:2003} it was shown 

728: how to obtain the Seiberg-Witten data (i.e.~the curve and the differential) 

729: from the instanton counting results for $\SU(N)$. 

730: (Another way to check the equivalence with the Seiberg-Witten approach 

731: was presented in \cite{Nakajima:2003a}; see also \cite{Nakajima:2003b}.)

732: 

733: Here we will briefly discuss how the analysis in \cite{Nekrasov:2003} 

734: is modified for the case of $\SO(N)$. Following \cite{Nekrasov:2003} we introduce 

735: \bea

736: \!\!\!\!  f_{k_\ell}(x,\hbar) &\!\!\!=&\!\! 

737: |x| + \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \bigg[ |x {-} \hbar(k_{\ell,i}{-}i{+}1)|

738: {-}|x{-}\hbar(k_{\ell,i}{-}i)|{+}|x{+}\hbar(i{-}1){+}|x{+}\hbar\, i|\bigg]  \\

739: &=& \!\! |x| + \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \bigg[ |x {+} \hbar(\tilde{k}_{\ell,j}{-}j{+}1)|

740: {-}|x{+}\hbar(\tilde{k}_{\ell,j}{-}j)|{+}|x{-}\hbar(j{-}1)|{+}|x{-}\hbar j|\bigg]\,, \non

741: \eea

742: as well as the function $\ga_{\hbar}(x,\La)$ satisfying

743: \be

744: \ga_{\hbar}(x+\hbar,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(x-\hbar,\La) - 2 \ga_{\hbar}(x,\La) =\ln\bigg(\frac{x}{\La}\bigg) \,.

745: \ee

746: We furthermore define $f_{{\bf k},a}(x,\hbar) = \sum_\ell f_{k_\ell}(x-a_\ell)$. 

747: Using these definitions together with $\frac{\D^2}{\D x^2} |x| = 2\de(x)$ 

748: one can show that 

749: \bea \label{fullZ}

750: \mathcal{Z}_{\bf k} &\!\!=&\!\! \exp\bigg\{ -{\ts \frac{1}{4}} \bint f_{{\bf k},a}''(x)f''_{{\bf k},a}(y)\ga_{\hbar}(x-y,\La)

751: -{\ts \frac{1}{4}} \int  f_{{\bf k},a}''(x)f''_{{\bf k},a}(y)\ga_{\hbar}(x+y,\La) \non \\ &&

752: \qquad \; + \, {\ts \frac{1}{2}} \int f_{{\bf k},a}''(x) [ 2 \ga_{\hbar}(x,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(x+\hbar/2,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(x-\hbar/2,\La) ] \bigg\}

753: \eea

754: is equal to $Z_{\mathrm{pert}} L^k Z_{\bf k}$ where $Z_{\bf k}$ was given in (\ref{sonprod}) and 

755: \bea \label{pertZ}

756: Z_{\mathrm{pert}} &\!\!=&\!\! \exp\bigg\{ -\sum_{\ell\neq r}\ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell-a_r,\La)

757: -\sum_{\ell, r} \ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell+a_r,\La) \non \\ && \qquad\, +\, \sum_{\ell} 

758: [ 2 \ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(a_{\ell}+\hbar/2,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell-\hbar/2,\La) ] 

759: \bigg\} \,.

760: \eea

761: These expressions are valid for $\SO(2N)$; for $\SO(2N+1)$ the $2\ga_{\hbar}(x,\La)$ 

762: terms in (\ref{fullZ}) and (\ref{pertZ}) are absent.

763: 

764: Defining $\cF^{\mathrm{pert}}$ via $Z_{\mathrm{pert}} = \exp[\cF^{\mathrm{pert}}/\hbar^2] $ and using \cite{Nekrasov:2003,Nakajima:2003b}

765: \be \label{ga0}

766: \hbar^2 \ga_{\hbar}(x,\La) = \frac{x^2}{2} \ln\bigg(\frac{x}{\La}\bigg) 

767: - \frac{3x^2}{4} + \cO(\hbar^2) \equiv \ga_{0}(x,\La) + \cO(\hbar^2)\,,

768: \ee

769: it is easy to check that $\cF^{\mathrm{pert}}_{0}$ agrees with the usual perturbative 

770: result for the prepotential

771: \be

772:  \cF^{\mathrm{pert}}_{0} = - \sum_{\al\in\Delta_{+}} (a \cdot \al)^2 

773: \ln\bigg(\frac{a\cdot\al}{\La}\bigg) + \mathrm{quadratic}\,,

774: \ee

775: where the sum is over the positive roots of $\SO(N)$. The higher order terms 

776: in $\cF^{\mathrm{pert}}$ give conjectural expressions for the perturbative part 

777: of the gravitational corrections.

778: 

779: More generally one can analyze the full partition function, $\mathcal{Z}$, obtained by summing over terms of the form (\ref{fullZ}) for all possible partitions at all instanton numbers, in the limit $\hbar\rar0$.  It was argued in \cite{Nekrasov:2003} that in this limit the sum goes over to an integral and $\mathcal{Z}$ can be obtained from the saddle-point of the action ($\mathcal{Z} = \exp[\mathcal{E}/\hbar^2]$)

780: \be \label{E}

781: \mathcal{E} =  -{\ts \frac{1}{4}} \bint f''(x)f''(y)\ga_{0}(x{-}y,\La)

782: -{\ts \frac{1}{4}} \! \int \!\! f''(x)f''(y)\ga_{0}(x{+}y,\La)  +  

783: 2 \!\! \int \!\! f''(x)  \ga_{0}(x,\La) \,,

784: \ee

785: where $f''(x)$ is  a continuous (real) function localized on intervals around the $a_i$'s and $\ga_{0}(x,\La)$ was defined in (\ref{ga0}). Comparing this expression to the one in \cite{Nekrasov:2003} we note the expected connection with the $\SU(2N)$ theory with 4 massless hypermultiplets in the fundamental representation. We also note that at the saddle point (\ref{E}) is equal to the total prepotential (including the perturbative piece), $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{F}_{0, \mathrm{tot}}$. As usual in saddle-point problems of this kind it is convenient to introduce the resolvent 

786: \be

787: R(z) = \half \int \D x \, \frac{f''_{a}(x)}{z-x} \,, 

788: \qquad R(x+i\varepsilon)-R(x-i\varepsilon) = \pi i f_{a}''(x) \,,

789: \ee

790: which satisfies 

791: \be

792: a_i = \frac{1}{2\pi i } \oint_{A_i} z R(z) \, \D z \,, \qquad

793: \frac{1}{2\pi i }  \oint_{A_i} R(z) \, \D z = 1 \,,

794: \ee

795: where $A_i$ is the contour surrounding the $i$th cut.

796: It should also be straightforward to derive 

797: \be

798: \frac{\pa \cF_{0,\mathrm{tot}} }{\pa a_i} = \frac{1}{2\pi i } 

799: \oint_{B_i} z R(z) \, \D z \,, 

800: \qquad \frac{1}{2\pi i } \oint_{B_i} R(z) \, \D z = 0\,,

801: \ee

802: and discuss in more detail the form of the curve following \cite{Nekrasov:2003} (see 

803: also~\cite{Hollowood:2003}) but we will not do so here.

804: 

805: 

806: \subsection{Instanton counting for {\large $\Sp(2N)$}}

807: \label{sSp}

808: 

809: For the $\Sp(2N)$ case, $\phi$ belongs to the adjoint of $\SO(k)$ (where $k$ is

810: the instanton number) and we have to

811: distinguish between odd and even instanton numbers. For $k = 2n{+}1$ we have

812: (using a convenient normalization)

813: \bea

814: Z_{2n+1} &=& \frac{(-1)^n}{2^{n+1} n!} \frac{\ep^n}{(\ep_1 \ep_2)^{n+1}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{P(0)P(\ep)} } \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n} \oint \prod_{I=1}^{n} \D\phi_I

815: \frac{1}{P(\phi_I) P(\phi_I+\ep)} \non \\ & \times &

816: \frac{\phi_I^2 (\phi_I^2-\ep^2)}{(\phi_I^2-\ep_1^2)((2\phi_I)^2 -\ep_1^2)

817: (\phi_I^2-\ep_2^2)((2\phi_I)^2 -\ep_2^2) }  \\

818: &\times & \!\!\! \prod_{I<J}

819: \frac{(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2 ((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep^2) (\phi_I +\phi_J)^2

820: ((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep^2)}

821: {((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)

822: ((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)}

823: \nonumber

824: \eea

825: whereas for $k = 2n$ we instead get

826: \bea

827: Z_{2n} &=&\frac{(-1)^n}{2^n n!}\frac{\ep^n}{(\ep_1\ep_2)^n} \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n}

828: \oint \prod_{I=1}^{n} \D\phi_I

829: \frac{1}{P(\phi_I) P(\phi_I+\ep)} \frac{1}{((2\phi_I)^2-\ep_1^2)((2\phi_I)^2-\ep_2^2))}

830: \non \\

831: &\times & \!\!\! \prod_{I<J}

832: \frac{(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2 ((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep^2) (\phi_I +\phi_J)^2

833: ((\phi_I+\phi_J)^2-\ep^2)}

834: {((\phi_I{-}\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I{-}\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)

835: ((\phi_I{+}\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I{+}\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)}.

836: \eea

837: One can follow the same approach as for $\SO(N)$ and project

838: Nekrasov's solution. However, this procedure does {\it not} give the right result:

839: some solutions are missing. The problem is that some solutions to the fixed point 

840: equations for $\SU(2N)$, which do not satisfy the stability

841: condition turn out to contribute (after projection) to the evaluation of the

842: above integrals. This can be phrased as saying that the stability condition

843: is different in the $\SU$ and $\Sp$ cases.

844:  The new stable solutions not obtained via a projection of Nekrasov's solution

845:  are all of the form $\phi_I = 0 +\cO(\ep_1,\ep_2)$ i.e.~localized near

846: $\phi_I=0$. These extra solutions are the manifestation in the present framework

847: of the extra cut around $x=0$ in the Seiberg-Witten curve (\ref{Spcurve})

848: or equivalently of the ``$\Sp(0)$''

849: factors~\cite{Kraus:2003,Naculich:2003b}

850: in the Dijkgraaf-Vafa matrix model approach.

851: 

852: To get an understanding of the extra solutions, we should consider all solutions to

853: the fixed point equations (\ref{fixedeqs}) together with the $\SO(k)$ projections

854: \be

855: \ba{lll}

856: \phi^T f = -f \phi   \,, \quad B_1^T f = f B_1  \,, \quad  B_2^T f = f B_2  \,, \quad

857: f^T=f \, ,\quad ff^*= \1_{k} \,.&

858: \ea

859: \ee

860: If, given a solution to (\ref{fixedeqs}), we can find 

861: a $k{\times}k$ matrix $f$ such that these conditions

862: are satisfied then the solution to (\ref{fixedeqs}) descend to a solution

863: of the $\Sp(2N)$ $k$-instanton problem.

864: We have solved these equations from first principles using the techniques

865: in~\cite{Naculich:2001}. Some of the solutions have

866: moduli, i.e.~undetermined parameters. These solutions do not contribute since

867: they give a vanishing result for the path integral (see e.g.~\cite{Moore:1998}

868: for a discussion of this point in a similar context). Since the new solutions 

869: not obtained by projection do not depend on the $a_i$'s we focus on the

870: $a_i$-independent solutions (such solutions have $I=J=0$). We have found

871: that these solutions can be represented pictorially in terms of stacks of rows of

872: boxes. Each box corresponds to an eigenvalue of $\phi$. These boxes are placed in the

873: $xy$-plane in a symmetric way. The rows are parallel to the $x$-axis and

874: can be stacked on top of each other. The rules are:

875: \begin{itemize}

876: \item The diagram has to be symmetric under $x\rar -x$ together with $y\rar -y$.

877: \item A row on top of another (above the $x$-axis) can not extend to the right

878: of the row below it.

879: \item Rows with one box are special. Such rows can only be placed to the far

880: left of the row below it.

881: \item A row of length $n_1$ placed on top of a row of length $n_2$ is not allowed

882: if $(n_2-n_1)/2$ is equal to the distance between the right end of the lower row

883: and the right end of the upper row.

884: \end{itemize}

885: In general one has several disconnected diagrams. But no two diagrams

886: are allowed to be the same (this would give moduli). These rules give

887: $a_i$-independent solutions to the fixed-point equations which do not have moduli.

888: This is best illustrated by an example. The allowed connected diagrams with

889: four boxes are

890: \begin{figure}[h]

891: \centering

892: \includegraphics{tableaux}

893: \center{\small {\sf Figure 1:} 

894: Connected diagrams relevant to the $k=4$ calculation.}

895: \end{figure}

896: 

897: \noindent These diagrams correspond to the 

898: solutions: $(\phi_1,\phi_2) = (\ep_2/2,3\ep_2/2)$;

899: $(\ep_1/2,3\ep_1/2)$; $(-\ep_1/2,-\ep_1/2+\ep_2)$; $(-\ep_1+\ep_2/2,\ep_2/2)$, $(-\ep_1/2 + \ep_2/2,\ep_1/2+\ep_2/2)$ (modulo the action of the Weyl group). Here $(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ are the two eigenvalues which enter in the integral (the other two components encoded in the above diagrams are minus these by the $\SO$ projection). The Weyl group acts on these solutions and one would expect that the number of times each type of solution appears in the evaluation of the integral to be  equal to an integer multiple of the number of elements in a Weyl orbit, but explicit calculations indicate that this is not the case.

900: 

901: From the above analysis we know all possible locations of the fixed points.

902: The remaining problem is to determine which of these possibilities are

903: actually realized in the evaluation of the integral and how many times each

904: solution appears. In general, not all

905: solutions are relevant since the choice of integral contour/pole prescription

906: excludes some possibilities. (It turns out that all the diagrams in the above figure

907: contribute in the evaluation of the $k=4$ integral.) It is natural to expect

908: that diagrams

909: which do not look like two Young diagrams glued together (some with the first

910: row (column) of half the height (width)) are to be excluded.

911: There may be some connection between these

912: diagrams with boxes of half the normal height (width)

913: and the spinor representations of

914: $\SO$. In addition to the fact that some diagrams are excluded one also needs to

915: determine how many times each of the diagrams that do contribute occur.

916: Unfortunately we have been unable to solve this combinatorial problem,

917: i.e.~we have not been able to determine what the correct `stability condition'

918: is for the extra solutions appearing in the $\Sp(2N)$ case.

919: 

920: 

921: However, even without an explicit product formula one may still check that the above

922: integrals lead to expressions which agree with previous results.

923: In appendix B we check that the above integrals give rise to expressions

924: for the first three instanton corrections to the prepotential which agree with

925: the ones obtained using the Seiberg-Witten approach.

926: 

927: 

928: 

929: \setcounter{equation}{0}

930: \section{Instanton counting for {\large $\SU(N)$} with $\protect\Ysymm$/$\protect\Yasymm$ matter}

931: 

932: Other examples which can be treated using the methods of \cite{Nekrasov:2002}

933: include $\cN=2$ $\SU(N)$ gauge theories with matter in two-index representations,

934: i.e.~$\Ysymm$ (symmetric) or $\Yasymm$ (antisymmetric). In this section we

935: briefly discuss these two cases.

936: 

937: \subsection{{\large $\SU(N)$} with matter in the $\protect\Ysymm$ representation }

938: \label{sSUS}

939: Going through the same steps as for the previously discussed cases one may derive

940: the contour integral

941: \ben

942: Z_k &= &{1 \over k!} {\epsilon^k\over (\epsilon_1 \epsilon_2)^k}

943: \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^k} \oint \prod_{I=1}^k \D\phi_I

944: { (2\phi_I{+}\ep_1)(2\phi_I{+}\ep_2)\prod_{i=1}^{N} (\phi_I +a_i)

945: \over P(\phi_I) P(\phi_I + \epsilon)} \non \\

946: &\times & \!\!\! \prod_{I<J}

947: \frac{(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2 ((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep^2) (\phi_I +\phi_J+\ep_1)

948: (\phi_I+\phi_J+\ep_2)}

949: {((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)

950: (\phi_I+\phi_J)(\phi_I+\phi_J+\ep)}\,.

951: \label{susintegral}

952: \een

953: %

954: This case was briefly mentioned in \cite{Nekrasov:2002b}\footnote{There is a typo

955: in the formulas given in this reference. The unpublished corrected version

956: agrees with our expression. We thank S. Naculich for correspondence on this point.}.

957: From the integral (\ref{susintegral}) it is easy to see (assuming that the

958: contour is the same as in the case without matter) that

959: the solutions which contribute are the same ones as in the pure $\SU(N)$ theory.

960: Using this result one may derive  

961: \bea

962: Z_{\mathbf{k}} &=& 4^k \prod_{(i,j)\in Y_{\ell}}

963: [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j - \half)]^{1/2}

964: [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j)] [a_{\ell} + \hbar(i - j + \half)]^{1/2}   \\

965: & \times & \prod_{Y_{\ell}, Y_{r}} \prod_{m,n=1}^{\infty}

966: \frac{[a_{\ell} - a_{r} + \hbar(k_{\ell,m} - k_{r,n} +n - m)][a_{\ell} + a_{r}

967: + \hbar(n - m)]^{1/2}}{ [a_{\ell} - a_{r} + \hbar(n - m)]

968: [a_{\ell} + a_{r} + \hbar(k_{\ell,m} - \tilde{k}_{r,n} +n - m)]^{1/2} }

969:  \non

970: \eea

971: where $\hbar = \ep_2 = -\ep_1$. In this expression it is assumed that the

972: points $(\ell,m)=(r,n)$ are excluded.

973: 

974: We have checked that the above expressions agree (up to two instantons)

975: with the results obtained in~\cite{Gomez-Reino:2003}

976: (see appendix C for details).

977: 

978: It should also be possible to analyze this model along the lines 

979: of \cite{Nekrasov:2003} and in particular derive the cubic curve (\ref{suscurve}).

980: As a first step we write down the analogue of (\ref{fullZ}):

981: \bea 

982: \mathcal{Z}_{\bf k} &\!\!=&\!\! \exp\bigg\{ -{\ts \frac{1}{4}} \bint f_{{\bf k},a}''(x)f''_{{\bf k},a}(y)\ga_{\hbar}(x-y,\La)

983: +{\ts \frac{1}{8}} \int  f_{{\bf k},a}''(x)f''_{{\bf k},a}(y)\ga_{\hbar}(x+y,\La) \non \\ &&

984: \qquad \; + \, {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \int f_{{\bf k},a}''(x) [ 2 \ga_{\hbar}(x,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(x+\hbar/2,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(x-\hbar/2,\La) ] \bigg\}

985: \eea

986: which leads to the following analogue of (\ref{pertZ})

987: \bea 

988: Z_{\mathrm{pert}} &\!\!=&\!\! \exp\bigg\{ -\sum_{\ell\neq r}\ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell-a_r,\La)

989: +\half \sum_{\ell, r} \ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell+a_r,\La) \non \\ && \qquad\, +\,

990: \half \sum_{\ell} 

991: [ 2 \ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(a_{\ell}+\hbar/2,\La) + \ga_{\hbar}(a_\ell-\hbar/2,\La) ] 

992: \bigg\} \,.

993: \eea

994: From which one can extract, using (\ref{ga0}),

995: \be

996:  \cF^{\mathrm{pert}}_{0} =- \sum_{\al\in\Delta_{+}} (a \cdot \al)^2 

997: \ln\bigg(\frac{a\cdot\al}{\La}\bigg) + \half \sum_{\mu \in R_{W}} (a \cdot \mu)^2 

998: \ln\bigg(\frac{a\cdot\mu}{\La}\bigg) + \mathrm{quadratic}\,,

999: \ee

1000: where $\Delta_{+}$ is the set of positive roots of $\SU(N)$ and $R_{W}$ is the set of 

1001: weights of the symmetric representation. This result agrees with the known result.

1002: 

1003: 

1004: 

1005: \subsection{{\large $\SU(N)$} with matter in the $\protect\Yasymm$ representation }

1006: \label{sSUA}

1007: For this case one finds the contour integral

1008: %

1009: \ben

1010: Z_k &= &{1 \over k!} {\epsilon^k\over (\epsilon_1 \epsilon_2)^k}

1011: \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^k} \oint \prod_{I=1}^k \D\phi_I

1012: { \prod_{i=1}^{N} (\phi_I +a_i)

1013: \over P(\phi_I) P(\phi_I + \epsilon)(2\phi_I)(2\phi_I+\ep)} \non  \\

1014: &\times & \!\!\! \prod_{I<J}

1015: \frac{(\phi_I-\phi_J)^2 ((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep^2) (\phi_I +\phi_J+\ep_1)

1016: (\phi_I+\phi_J+\ep_2)}

1017: {((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_1^2)((\phi_I-\phi_J)^2-\ep_2^2)

1018: (\phi_I+\phi_J)(\phi_I+\phi_J+\ep)}\,.

1019: \label{suaintegral}

1020: \een

1021: %

1022: For this model one encounters the problem that in addition to the fixed points of 

1023: the pure $\SU(N)$ theory extra solutions to the fixed point equations 

1024: need to be taken into account to get

1025: agreement with previous results. This is similar to the situation that

1026: occurred for $\Sp(2N)$, which should come as no surprise given the similarity of

1027: the Seiberg-Witten curves and the results

1028: in~\cite{Kraus:2003,Naculich:2003b}. We have been

1029: unable to find a closed expression which includes the extra contributions. Instead we

1030: have checked that the above integral leads to results (up to two-instanton order) 

1031: which are in agreement with the results~\cite{Gomez-Reino:2003} obtained 

1032: using the Seiberg-Witten procedure. 

1033: 

1034: 

1035: 

1036: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1037: \section{Discussion}

1038: 

1039: Clearly there are several issues one would like to understand better. One problem

1040: is to determine the correct stability condition for the $\Sp(2N)$

1041: and $\SU(N)$+$\Yasymm$ cases and use it to explicitly evaluate the

1042: contour integrals by summing up the residues.

1043: 

1044: Another problem concerns the relation with topological strings.

1045: In the case of $\SO(2N)$ theories, one can in principle compute the

1046: prepotential of the 5d theory on $\R^4 \times {\bf S}^1$, following

1047: the same steps as in \cite{Nekrasov:2002}.

1048: The resulting expression might be related to a topological string amplitude

1049: on the Calabi-Yau obtained by fibering a $D_N$ singularity over a $\PP^1$ base.

1050: This would be very interesting since no results are known for such manifolds, but

1051: unfortunately there seems to be a conundrum: one would expect it to be possible

1052: to write the topological string amplitude in terms of the K\"ahler parameters 

1053: of the Calabi-Yau.

1054: These are presumably in a one-to-one correspondence with the simple roots of

1055: $D_{N}$, but the five-dimensional prepotential seems to involve combinations of the

1056: K\"ahler parameters that do not correspond to sums of simple roots with positive

1057: coefficients. It would be

1058: interesting to clarify this and in that way obtain predictions for the

1059: topological string amplitudes.

1060: 

1061: The methods we used in this paper can

1062: also be applied to a similar problem, the determination of the so called

1063: bulk (or principal) contribution to the Witten index in SYM quantum mechanics. 

1064: It is known that this quantity can be written

1065: as a so called Yang-Mills integral which can be reduced to 

1066: a contour integral using methods similar

1067: to the ones discussed in this paper (see e.g.~\cite{Moore:1998,Austing:2001} and

1068: references therein for further details). Explicit expressions for the bulk part of

1069: the Witten index are known only for the case of $\SU(N)$ (see e.g.~\cite{Moore:1998}

1070: and references therein). However for the other classical gauge groups much less is

1071: known and the results in the literature have been obtained

1072: order-by-order using computer assisted

1073: calculations~\cite{Krauth:2000}. 

1074: The bulk Witten index can be studied for SYM quantum mechanics  obtained by 

1075: dimensional reduction of $d=4$, $d=6$ and $d=10$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories. 

1076: Our analysis corresponds most closely to the $d=6$ case.

1077: As an example, for the $d=6$ $\Sp(2N)$ case the fixed points can be obtained by solving

1078: \be

1079: \ba{lll}

1080: [\phi,B_1]=\ep_1 B_1  \,,&  [\phi,B_2] = \ep_2 B_2  \,, &  [B_1,B_2] = 0\,, \\

1081: \phi^T g = - g\, \phi \,, &  B_1^T g = - g B_1  \,, &  B_2^T g = - g B_2 \,,\\

1082: g^T = - g  \,, &  g \, g^* = -\1_{2N} \,.&

1083: \ea

1084: \ee

1085: These equations are similar to the ones we solved in section \ref{sSp} and again

1086: the solution can be represented pictorially in terms of stacks of row of boxes.

1087: In addition to the rules we listed in section \ref{sSp} we now have the additional restrictions (related to the fact that the equations are not quite the same):

1088: \begin{itemize}

1089: \item Only rows containing an even number of boxes can be placed on top of 

1090: the $x$-axis. For example, diagrams containing only one row can only have an even number of boxes.

1091: \item Only an odd number of boxes are allowed to touch each other along the

1092: $x$-axis.

1093: \end{itemize}

1094: 

1095: These rules (together with the ones in section \ref{sSp}) give the solutions to the fixed-point equations which do not have moduli. Thus we have determined the possible locations of poles in the integrand of the contour integral which calculates the bulk part of the Witten index for the $\Sp(2N)$ quantum mechanics arising from $d=6$. However, just as in section \ref{sSp} not all of these solutions are relevant to the evaluation of the integral; what is lacking is an understanding of the stability condition. It is our hope that our results will be of some help in resolving the longstanding problem of calculating the bulk Witten index for SO/Sp supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

1096: 

1097: One can also apply our methods to cases other than $d=6$. For instance, for the

1098: $\Sp(2N)$ ($\SO(N)$) theory arising from $d=4$ the solutions to the fixed point 

1099: equations are given by direct sums of distinct even-dimensional (odd-dimensional) 

1100: representations of $\SU(2)$, but once again the 

1101: correct stability condition is not known.

1102: 

1103: 

1104: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1105: We would like to thank Ugo Bruzzo, Jos\'e Edelstein, 

1106: Albrecht Klemm, Steve Naculich, and Nikita Nekrasov for 

1107: useful conversations. 

1108: 

1109: 

1110: \appendix

1111: \section*{Appendices}

1112: 

1113: 

1114: \sectiono{{\large $\SO(N)$} instanton corrections up to {\large $k=3$}}

1115: 

1116: Here we discuss the explicit expressions which result from the formul\ae{} in

1117: section \ref{sSO} and check that they agree with known results for $k=1,2,3$.

1118: The contribution of each fixed point is obtained by evaluating the residue

1119: of the integrand

1120: in (\ref{sonintegral}) at the poles (\ref{fixedson}). Since the poles are

1121: as in the $\U(N)$

1122: case, the calculation is essentially the same as in that case.

1123:  The result for $\epsilon_1=-\epsilon_2

1124: =\hbar$ can be written in terms

1125: of the function

1126: %

1127: \be

1128: U_l (x)= {1 \over \prod_{m\not=l} ((a_{l}-a_m)^2 + x)^2}

1129: {16(a_l+x)^4\over \prod_m (a_l+a_m +x)^2}

1130: \ee

1131: %

1132: for $\SO(2N)$, and

1133: %

1134: \be

1135: U_l (x)= {1 \over \prod_{m\not=l} ((a_{l}-a_m)^2 + x)^2}

1136: {16(a_l+x)^2\over \prod_m (a_l+a_m +x)^2}

1137: \ee

1138: %

1139: for $\SO(2N+1)$. Below we will use the notation $U_l=U_l(0)$,

1140: $U^{(n)}_l=(\partial U_l (x)/\partial x)_{x=0}$.

1141: After a simple (but tedious) calculation one obtains the first few

1142: instanton corrections in the

1143: $\SO(N)$ case: 

1144: %

1145: \ben

1146: \hbar^2 Z_1 & \!\!\!\!\!\! =& \!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{l} U_l \nonumber\\

1147: \hbar^4 Z_2 &\!\!\!\!\!\! =&{ \!\!\!\!\!\! \ts \frac{1}{4}} \! \sum_{l=1}^m [U_l U_l(\hbar)

1148: g^{(1)}_l(\hbar) {+} U_l U_l(-\hbar) g^{(1)}_l(-\hbar)]

1149: {+}  \half \sum_{l\not = m}  U_l U_m g(a_{l}{-}a_m)g(a_l{+} a_m) \nonumber\\

1150: \hbar^6 Z_3 &\!\!\!\!\!\!=&  \!\!\!\!\!\! {\ts \frac{1}{36}} \sum_l U_l \bigg[ U_l(\hbar) U_l(2\hbar)

1151: g^{(2)}_l(\hbar)

1152: + U_l(-\hbar) U_l(-2\hbar) g^{(2)}_l(-\hbar) \non \\

1153: && \qquad \quad + \, 4 U_l(\hbar) U_l(-\hbar) g^{(3)}(\hbar) \bigg]   \\

1154: &+& \!\!\!\! {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \sum_{l \not= m} U_l U_m \bigg[ U_l(\hbar)m(\hbar, a_{l}-a_{m} )

1155: m(\hbar, a_l+a_m) g^{(1)}(\hbar) \non  \\

1156: & & \qquad \qquad  + \,U_l(-\hbar)m( -\hbar, a_{l}-a_{m}) m(-\hbar, a_l+a_m)

1157: g^{(1)}(-\hbar) \bigg] \non \\

1158: &\!\!\!\!+& \!\!\!\! {\ts \frac{1}{6}} \!\!\!  \sum_{l\not= m\not= n} \!\!\!

1159: U_l U_m U_n g(a_{l}{-}a_{m})g(a_{l}{-}a_{n})g(a_{m}{-}a_{n}) g(a_l{+}a_m)

1160: g(a_l{+}a_n)g(a_m{+}a_n) \non

1161: \een

1162: %

1163: where we have used the notation

1164: %

1165: \ben

1166: m(x,y)& = &{1\over \Bigl[ 1-{2x^2 \over y (x+y)}\Bigr]^2}\,, \qquad

1167: g(y) ={1\over \Bigl( 1 -{\hbar^2\over y^2}\Bigr)^2}\,, \qquad

1168: g^{(1)}_l(x) = {1\over\Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2 a_l +x}\bigr)^2\Bigr]^2}\,,

1169: \nonumber\\

1170: g^{(2)}_l(x)&=&{1\over\Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2a_l +x}\bigr)^2\Bigr]^2\Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2a_l +2 x}\bigr)^2\Bigr]^2

1171: \Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2a_l +3x}\bigr)^2\Bigr]^2}\,,\nonumber\\

1172:  g^{(3)}_l(x)&=&{1\over\Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2a_l +x}\bigr)^2\Bigr]^2\Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2a_l - x}\bigr)^2\Bigr]^2

1173: \Bigl[ 1 -\bigl({x\over 2a_l})^2\Bigr]^2}\,.

1174: \een

1175: %

1176: From these equations one can compute the instanton corrections to the prepotential,

1177: $F_k\equiv F_{0,k}$ for $k=1,2,3$. The results are as follows:

1178: \ben

1179: F_1&=& \sum_{l} U_l, \nonumber\\

1180: F_2&=& {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \sum_{l}U_l  \bigl( U_l^{''} {+} {U_l\over a_l^2}\bigr) +

1181:  \sum_{l\not = m}  U_l U_m \biggl( {1\over (a_{l}-a_m)^2} + {1 \over (a_l+a_m)^2}\biggr),\nonumber\\

1182: F_3&=& {\ts \frac{1}{36}} \sum_l U_l[U_l U_l^{(4)} {+} 2 U_l U_l^{'''} {+} 3(U_l^{''})^2]

1183: {+} {\ts \frac{1}{16}} \sum_l {1\over a_l^4}(5 U_l^3 {-} 4 a_l U_l^2 U_l' {+} 4 U_l^2 U_l^{''})

1184: \nonumber\\

1185: &+& \sum_{l\neq m} U_lU_m\Biggl\{ 5U_l \biggl( {1 \over (a_{l}{-}a_m)^4} + {1 \over (a_l {+} a_m)^4} \biggr)

1186:  {-} 2U_l^{'} \biggl( {1 \over (a_{l}{-}a_m)^3} + {1 \over (a_l {+} a_m)^3} \biggr)

1187: \non \\

1188: && \qquad +\, U_l^{''} \biggl( {1 \over (a_{l}-a_m)^2} + {1 \over (a_l + a_m)^2}  \biggr)

1189: \Biggr\}

1190: \non \\

1191: &+& \sum_{l\neq m} U_l^2 U_m\Biggl\{ {1\over a_l^2}\biggl( {1 \over (a_{l}-a_m)^2} + {1 \over (a_l + a_m)^2} \biggr) +

1192: {4 \over (a_{l}-a_m)^2 (a_l + a_m)^2}\Biggr\}

1193: \nonumber\\

1194: &+&{2} \sum_{l\not= m \not = n} U_l U_m U_n \Biggl\{ {1\over (a_{l}-a_m)^2 (a_{m}-a_n)^2} + {1\over (a_l+ a_m)^2 (a_m + a_n)^2}

1195: \nonumber\\ & &

1196: \qquad \qquad + \,2 {1\over (a_{l}-a_m)^2 (a_{n} + a_m)^2} \Biggr\}.

1197: \een

1198: %

1199: We can compare these results to the ones obtained from the Seiberg-Witten approach

1200: by utilizing the relation between the prepotential of the $\SO(2N)$ theory and

1201: that of the $\SU(2N)$ theory with 4 massless flavors~\cite{D'Hoker:1997b}.

1202: Using this relation together with the $\SU$

1203: results in~\cite{Chan:1999} (or \cite{Nekrasov:2002}) one finds agreement with

1204: our results above after a rescaling $F_k \rightarrow 2^{-4k+1}F_k$.

1205: 

1206: 

1207: 

1208: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1209: \section{{\large $\Sp(2N)$}: instanton corrections up to {\large $k=3$} }

1210: Here we will perform a check of our results by comparing the first three

1211: instanton corrections to the prepotential obtained using the Seiberg-Witten

1212: approach to those obtained using many-instanton counting.

1213: 

1214: \medskip

1215: {\it Seiberg-Witten approach}

1216: \medskip

1217: 

1218: The Seiberg-Witten curve for the $\Sp(2N)$ gauge theory without matter is

1219: (see e.g.~\cite{D'Hoker:1997b,Landsteiner:1998} and references therein)

1220: \be \label{Spcurve}

1221: y^2 + 2 \, y \, [ x^2\prod_{i=1}^{N}(x^2-e_i^2) + L] + L^2 =0 \,,

1222: \ee

1223: where $L = \La^{2N+2}$.

1224: The quantum order parameters are \cite{D'Hoker:1997a}

1225: \be

1226: a_i = e_i + \sum_{\mbox{\tiny $\ba{c} m,n\ge0 \\ (m,n)\neq(0,0) \ea $}}

1227: \frac{(-1)^n L^{n+2m}}{2^{2m} (m!)^2 n! }\bigg[ \bigg(\frac{\pa}{\pa x}\bigg)^{2m+n-1}R_k(x)^n S_k(x)^m \bigg]_{x=e_k}

1228: \ee

1229: where $S_k(x) \equiv (R_k(x))^2$ and

1230: \be

1231: \frac{1}{ x^2\prod_{i=1}^{N}(x^2-e_i^2)} = \frac{R_k(x)}{x-e_k} = \frac{R_0(x)}{x^2} \,.

1232: \ee

1233: For later reference we have also introduced $R_0(x)$ with $S_0(x) \equiv (R_0(x))^2$.

1234: The instanton expansion of the prepotential can be obtained using the recursive

1235: methods developed in~\cite{Chan:1999}, which leads to

1236: (after using various

1237: identities)\footnote{The first two expressions were first obtained in~\cite{Ennes:1999}.}

1238: \bea  \label{Spinst}

1239: -F_1 &=& R_0(0) \,,\non \\

1240: -F_2 &=& -\half \sum_k S_k(a_k) - {\ts \frac{1}{8}} S_0''(0)\,, \non \\

1241: -F_3 &=& R_0(0) \bigg( {\ts \frac{3}{2}}  \sum_k \frac{S_k(a_k)}{a_k^2}

1242: + {\ts \frac{1}{96}}  S_0^{(4)}(0)  \bigg) \,.

1243: \eea

1244: 

1245: 

1246: \medskip

1247: {\it Many-instanton counting}

1248: \medskip

1249: 

1250: 

1251: From the contour integrals in section \ref{sSp} we find

1252: \bea

1253: \hbar^2 Z_1 &=& \frac{1}{2P(0)} \,, \non \\

1254: \hbar^4 Z_2 &=& \frac{1}{8} \bigg[ \frac{1}{P(\hbar/2)^2}

1255: + \frac{\hbar^2}{8} \sum_k \frac{1}{(a_k^2-(\hbar/2)^2)^2a_k^2

1256: \prod_{j\neq k} (a_k^2-a_j^2)^2} \bigg] \,,\non \\

1257: \hbar^6 Z_3 &=& \frac{1}{16}  \frac{1}{P(0)} \Bigg[

1258: \frac{2}{9} \frac{1}{P(\hbar)^2} + \frac{1}{9} \frac{1}{P(\hbar/2)^2}

1259:  \non \\

1260: && \qquad  + \, \frac{\hbar^2}{8} \sum_k \frac{a_k^2}{(a_k^2-\hbar^2)^2

1261: (a_k^2-(\hbar/2)^2)^2 \prod_{j\neq k} (a_k^2-a_j^2)^2} \Bigg]\,.

1262: \eea

1263: Using the relations 

1264: \be \label{FZrel}

1265: F_1 = \hbar^2 Z_1 \,, \qquad F_2 = \hbar^2(Z_2 - \frac{Z_1^2}{2}) \,,

1266: \qquad F_3 = \hbar^2(Z_3 - Z_1 Z_2 + \frac{Z_1^3}{3}) \,,

1267: \ee

1268: and extracting the $\hbar$-independent pieces we find agreement with the

1269: above results (\ref{Spinst})  obtained from the Seiberg-Witten procedure

1270: provided that $F_k^{\rm here} = - \frac{F_k^{\rm there}}{k\, 2^k}$. Part of this difference

1271: can be removed by a rescaling of $\La$; the other part is a result of

1272: different conventions.

1273: 

1274: As a further check we have also verified that the above results are consistent

1275: with the ones for $\SO(2N+1)$ using the isomorphism $\SO(5)\cong \Sp(4)$

1276: and allowing for a rescaling of the $\La$'s in the two theories.

1277: (The translation between the order parameters, $d_i$, of $\SO(5)$ and the

1278: ones of $\Sp(4)$, $a_i$, are:

1279: $d_1 = a_1-a_2$ and $d_2 = a_1+a_2$.)

1280: 

1281: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1282: \section{{\large $\SU(N)\,+\,$}$\protect\Yasymm$/$\protect\Ysymm$: instanton corrections up to {\large $k=2$}  }

1283: 

1284: Here we will perform a check of our results for the

1285: $\SU(N)\,+\,\Yasymm$/$\Ysymm$ theories by comparing the first two

1286: instanton corrections to the prepotential obtained using the Seiberg-Witten

1287: approach to those obtained from many-instanton counting.

1288: 

1289: \subsection{{\large $\SU(N)\,+\,\protect\Ysymm$}}

1290: 

1291: \medskip

1292: {\it Seiberg-Witten approach}

1293: \medskip

1294: 

1295: 

1296: The cubic Seiberg-Witten curve for the $\SU(N)$ gauge

1297: theory with one matter hypermultiplet in the symmetric ($\Ysymm$) representation

1298: is given by \cite{Landsteiner:1998}

1299: \be \label{suscurve}

1300: y^3 + P(x) y^2 + x^2 P(-x) L + x^6 L^3 = 0\,,

1301: \ee

1302: where $P(x) = \prod_{i=1}^N (x-e_i)$ and $L=\La^{N-2}$. The instanton expansion

1303: of the prepotential has been obtained to the first few orders 

1304: in~\cite{Gomez-Reino:2003}\footnote{The

1305: one-instanton expression was first obtained in \cite{Naculich:1998}.}. 

1306: After using various identities

1307: one finds the expressions

1308: \bea \label{susinst}

1309: -F_1 &=& - \sum_k S_k(a_k)  \,, \\

1310: -F_2 &=&   {\ts \frac{1}{4} } \sum_k S_k(a_k)S_k''(a_k)

1311: + \sum_{k\neq l} \frac{S_k(a_k)S_l(a_l)}{(a_l-a_k)^2}

1312: - \half  \sum_{k, l} \frac{S_k(a_k)S_l(a_l)}{(a_l+a_k)^2} \,, \non

1313: \eea

1314: where we have used the definition

1315: \be

1316: S_k(x) = \frac{x^2 \prod_{i}(-x-a_i)}{\prod_{j\neq k} (x-a_j)^2}\,.

1317: \ee

1318: 

1319: 

1320: \medskip

1321: {\it Many-instanton counting}

1322: \medskip

1323: 

1324: 

1325: From the expressions in section \ref{sSUS} we find

1326: \bea

1327: \hbar^2 Z_1 &=& -\,4 \sum_k (a_k^2 - (\hbar/2)^2)\, 

1328: \frac{\prod_{j}(a_k+a_j)}{\prod_{j \neq k} (a_k-a_j)^2}

1329:  \\

1330: \hbar^4 Z_2 &=& 16 \bigg[  {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \sum_k (a_k - 3 \hbar/2)\, a_k\,

1331: (a_k - \hbar)(a_k + \hbar/2)

1332: \frac{ \prod_{j}(a_k-\hbar+a_j) (a_k+a_j)}{\prod_{j \neq k}(a_k-\hbar-a_j)^2

1333: (a_k{-}a_j)^2 }  \non \\

1334: && +\, {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \sum_k (a_k + 3 \hbar/2)\, a_k \,

1335: (a_k + \hbar)(a_k - \hbar/2)

1336: \frac{ \prod_{j}(a_k+\hbar+a_j) (a_k+a_j)}{\prod_{j \neq k}(a_k+\hbar-a_j)^2

1337: (a_k-a_j)^2 }  \non \\

1338: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! +\, \half \sum_{k\neq l} \frac{(a_k^2 {-} (\hbar/2)^2)

1339: (a_l^2 {-} (\hbar/2)^2) (a_k-a_l)^4

1340: ((a_k {+} a_l)^2{-}\hbar^2) \prod_{j}(a_k{+}a_j)(a_l{+}a_j) }

1341: {((a_l-a_k)^2-\hbar^2)^2 (a_k+a_k)^2 \prod_{j \neq k} (a_k-a_j)^2

1342: \prod_{j\neq l}(a_l-a_j)^2}   \bigg] . \non

1343: \eea

1344: 

1345: Using (\ref{FZrel}) and extracting the leading pieces, we find agreement with

1346: the results in (\ref{susinst})

1347: provided that we identify $F_k^{\rm here} = (-4)^k (-1)^{Nk} F_{k}^{\rm there} $.

1348: 

1349: 

1350: \subsection{{\large $\SU(N)\,+\,\protect\Yasymm$}}

1351: 

1352: \medskip

1353: {\it Seiberg-Witten approach}

1354: \medskip

1355: 

1356: The non-hyperelliptic Seiberg-Witten curve for the $\SU(N)$ gauge

1357: theory with one matter hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric ($\Yasymm$) representation

1358: is given by \cite{Landsteiner:1998}

1359: \be

1360: y^3 + \bigg[P(x)+\frac{3L}{x^2}\bigg] y^2 + \frac{L}{x^2} [P(-x)+\frac{3L}{x^2}\bigg]y  +\frac{L^3}{x^6}  = 0 \,,

1361: \ee

1362: where $P(x) = \prod_{i=1}^N (x-e_i)$ and $L=\La^{N+2}$. The instanton expansion

1363: of the prepotential has been obtained to the first few orders 

1364: in~\cite{Gomez-Reino:2003}\footnote{The

1365: one-instanton expression was first obtained in \cite{Ennes:1998}.}. 

1366: 

1367: After using various identities one obtains

1368: \bea \label{suainst}

1369: F_1 &=& \sum_k S_k(a_k)  - 2 S_0(0) \,,\\

1370: F_2 &=&  {\ts \frac{1}{4} } \sum_k S_k(a_k)S_k''(a_k)

1371: + \sum_{k\neq l} \frac{S_k(a_k)S_l(a_l)}{(a_l-a_k)^2}

1372: - \half  \sum_{k, l} \frac{S_k(a_k)S_l(a_l)}{(a_l+a_k)^2} \non \\

1373: && -\, 2 S_0(0) \sum_k \frac{S_k(a_k)}{a_k^2} + \half S_0(0)S_0''(0)

1374: - \half S_0'(0)S_0'(0) \,, \non

1375: \eea

1376: where we have used the definitions

1377: \be

1378: \frac{\prod_{k}(-x-a_k)}{x^2 \prod_k (x-a_k)^2} \equiv \frac{S_k(x)}{(x-a_k)^2}

1379: \equiv \frac{S_0(x)}{x^2}\,.

1380: \ee

1381: 

1382: 

1383: \medskip

1384: {\it Many-instanton counting}

1385: \medskip

1386: 

1387: Evaluation of the contour integrals gives

1388: \bea \label{suaZ}

1389: \hbar^2 Z_1 &=& - {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \sum_k

1390: \frac{\prod_{j}(a_k+a_j)}{a_k^2\prod_{j \neq k} (a_k-a_j)^2}

1391: - \half \frac{\prod_i a_i}{\prod_i (-a_i^2)} \,,

1392:  \\

1393: \hbar^4 Z_2 &=& {\ts \frac{1}{16} } \bigg[  {\ts \frac{1}{4} } \sum_k \frac{1}{(a_k - \hbar)\, a_k\, (a_k - \hbar/2)^2}

1394: \frac{ \prod_{j}(a_k-\hbar+a_j) (a_k+a_j)}{\prod_{j \neq k}(a_k-\hbar-a_j)^2

1395: (a_k{-}a_j)^2 }  \non \\

1396: && \;\, +\, {\ts \frac{1}{4}} \sum_k \frac{1}{(a_k + \hbar)\, a_k\, (a_k + \hbar/2)^2}

1397: \frac{ \prod_{j}(a_k + \hbar+a_j) (a_k+a_j)}{\prod_{j \neq k}(a_k+\hbar-a_j)^2

1398: (a_k{-}a_j)^2 }  \non \\

1399: && +\, \half \sum_{k\neq l} \frac{ (a_k-a_l)^4

1400: ((a_k +a_l)^2-\hbar^2) \prod_{j}(a_k+a_j)(a_l+a_j) }

1401: {((a_l{-}a_k)^2-\hbar^2)^2 (a_k+a_k)^2 \,a_l^2 \,a_k^2 \prod_{j \neq k} (a_k-a_j)^2

1402: \prod_{j\neq l}(a_l-a_j)^2}   \non \\

1403: &&- 2\sum_k \frac{a_k^2}{ a_k^2-\hbar^2}

1404: \frac{ \prod_{j}(a_j) (a_k+a_j)}{\prod_{j }(-a_j)^2

1405: \prod_{i\neq k}(a_k{-}a_i)^2 } + 2\frac{1}{\prod_j (\hbar/2-a_j)(-\hbar/2-a_j))}

1406: \bigg]  , \non

1407: \eea

1408: Using (\ref{FZrel}) and extracting the leading pieces we find agreement with

1409: (\ref{suainst}) provided that we identify 

1410: $F_k^{\rm here} = (-4)^{-k} (-1)^{Nk} F_{k}^{\rm there} $.

1411: 

1412: To arrive at the result (\ref{suaZ}) one needs to choose a contour 

1413: which picks out a very particular set of poles. We do not understand 

1414: why this particular contour should be chosen (knowledge of the correct 

1415: stability condition should shed light on this). 

1416: 

1417: As a consistency check we have checked that the above results are consistent

1418: with the fact that for $\SU(3)$ the antisymmetric representation is isomorphic

1419: with the fundamental representation\footnote{One can also make the comparison 

1420: for $\U(3)$ but in that case one also needs to shift $a_i \rar a_i -(a_1+a_2+a_3)/2$.}.

1421: 

1422: 

1423: \begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}

1424: 

1425: \bibitem{Seiberg:1994a}

1426: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten, ``Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation,

1427:   and confinement in $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,'' {\em

1428:   Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B426} (1994) 19, {{\tt hep-th/9407087}};

1429: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9407087;%%.

1430: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten, ``Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in

1431:   $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric QCD,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B431} (1994)

1432:   484, {{\tt hep-th/9408099}}.

1433: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9408099;%%.

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{Nekrasov:2002}

1436: N.~A. Nekrasov, ``Seiberg-Witten prepotential from instanton counting,''

1437: {{\tt hep-th/0206161}}.

1438: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206161;%%.

1439: 

1440: \bibitem{Dorey:2002}

1441: N.~Dorey, T.~J. Hollowood, V.~V. Khoze, and M.~P. Mattis, ``The calculus of

1442:   many instantons,'' {\em Phys. Rept.} {\bf 371} (2002) 231,

1443: {{\tt hep-th/0206063}}.

1444: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206063;%%.

1445: 

1446: \bibitem{Losev:1997}

1447: A.~Losev, N.~Nekrasov, and S.~L. Shatashvili, ``Testing Seiberg-Witten

1448:   solution,'' {{\tt hep-th/9801061}}.

1449: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9801061;%%.

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{Klemm:2002}

1452: A.~Klemm, M.~Mari\~no, and S.~Theisen, ``Gravitational corrections in

1453:   supersymmetric gauge theory and matrix models,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 03} (2003)

1454:   051,

1455: {{\tt hep-th/0211216}}.

1456: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211216;%%.

1457: 

1458: \bibitem{Iqbal:2003a}

1459: A.~Iqbal and A.-K. Kashani-Poor, ``Instanton counting and Chern-Simons

1460:   theory,'' {\em Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.} {\bf 7} (2004) 457,

1461: {{\tt hep-th/0212279}};

1462: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212279;%%.

1463: A.~Iqbal and A.-K. Kashani-Poor, ``$\SU(N)$ geometries and topological string

1464:   amplitudes,''

1465: {{\tt hep-th/0306032}};

1466: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306032;%%.

1467: T.~Eguchi and H.~Kanno, ``Topological strings and Nekrasov's formulas,'' {\em

1468:   JHEP} {\bf 12} (2003) 006,

1469: {{\tt hep-th/0310235}}.

1470: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310235;%%.

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{Flume:2002}

1473: R.~Flume and R.~Poghossian, ``An algorithm for the microscopic evaluation of

1474:   the coefficients of the Seiberg-Witten prepotential,'' {\em Int. J. Mod.

1475:   Phys.} {\bf A18} (2003) 2541, {{\tt hep-th/0208176}}.

1476: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208176;%%.

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{Bruzzo:2002}

1479: U.~Bruzzo, F.~Fucito, J.~F. Morales, and A.~Tanzini, ``Multi-instanton calculus

1480:   and equivariant cohomology,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 05} (2003) 054, {{\tt hep-th/0211108}}.

1481: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211108;%%.

1482: 

1483: \bibitem{Losev:2003}

1484: A.~S. Losev, A.~Marshakov, and N.~A. Nekrasov, ``Small instantons, little

1485:   strings and free fermions,''

1486: {{\tt hep-th/0302191}}.

1487: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302191;%%.

1488: 

1489: \bibitem{Nakajima:2003a}

1490: H.~Nakajima and K.~Yoshioka, ``Instanton counting on blowup. I,''

1491: {{\tt math.ag/0306198}}.

1492: %%CITATION = MATH.AG 0306198;%%.

1493: 

1494: \bibitem{Nekrasov:2003}

1495: N.~Nekrasov and A.~Okounkov, ``Seiberg-Witten theory and random partitions,''

1496: {{\tt hep-th/0306238}}.

1497: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306238;%%.

1498: 

1499: \bibitem{Hollowood:2003}

1500: T.~J. Hollowood, A.~Iqbal, and C.~Vafa, ``Matrix models, geometric engineering

1501:   and elliptic genera,''

1502: {{\tt hep-th/0310272}}.

1503: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310272;%%.

1504: 

1505: \bibitem{Nakajima:2003b}

1506: H.~Nakajima and K.~Yoshioka, ``Lectures on instanton counting,''

1507: {{\tt math.ag/0311058}}.

1508: %%CITATION = MATH.AG 0311058;%%.

1509: 

1510: \bibitem{Flume:2004}

1511: Y.~Tachikawa,

1512: ``Five-dimensional Chern-Simons terms and Nekrasov's instanton counting,''

1513: {\em JHEP} {\bf 02} (2004) 050,

1514: {\tt hep-th/0401184}; \\

1515: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0401184;%%

1516: R.~Flume, F.~Fucito, J.~F. Morales, and R.~Poghossian, ``Matone's relation in

1517:   the presence of gravitational couplings,''

1518: {{\tt hep-th/0403057}}.

1519: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0403057;%%.

1520: 

1521: \bibitem{D'Hoker:1997b}

1522: E.~D'Hoker, I.~M. Krichever, and D.~H. Phong, ``The effective prepotential of

1523:   $\mathcal{N} = 2$ supersymmetric $\SO(N_c)$ and $\Sp(N_c)$ gauge

1524:   theories,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B489} (1997) 211,

1525: {{\tt hep-th/9609145}}.

1526: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9609145;%%.

1527: 

1528: \bibitem{Naculich:1998}

1529: S.~G. Naculich, H.~Rhedin, and H.~J. Schnitzer, ``One-instanton test of a

1530:   Seiberg-Witten curve from M-theory: the antisymmetric representation of

1531:   $\SU(N)$,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B533} (1998) 275,

1532: {{\tt hep-th/9804105}}.

1533: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9804105;%%.

1534: 

1535: \bibitem{Ennes:1999}

1536: I.~P. Ennes, C.~Lozano, S.~G. Naculich, and H.~J. Schnitzer, ``Elliptic models

1537:   and M-theory,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B576} (2000) 313,

1538: {{\tt hep-th/9912133}}.

1539: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912133;%%.

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{Dijkgraaf:2002}

1542: R.~Dijkgraaf and C.~Vafa, ``A perturbative window into non-perturbative

1543:   physics,''

1544: {{\tt hep-th/0208048}}.

1545: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208048;%%.

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{Kraus:2003}

1548: P.~Kraus and M.~Shigemori, ``On the matter of the Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture,''

1549:   {\em JHEP} {\bf 04} (2003) 052,

1550: {{\tt hep-th/0303104}};

1551: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303104;%%.

1552: F.~Cachazo, ``Notes on supersymmetric $\Sp(N)$ theories with an

1553:   antisymmetric tensor,''

1554: {{\tt hep-th/0307063}};

1555: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307063;%%.

1556: K.~Intriligator, P.~Kraus, A.~V. Ryzhov, M.~Shigemori, and C.~Vafa, ``On low

1557:   rank classical groups in string theory, gauge theory and matrix models,''

1558: {{\tt hep-th/0311181}}.

1559: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0311181;%%.

1560: 

1561: \bibitem{Naculich:2003b}

1562: S.~G. Naculich, H.~J. Schnitzer, and N.~Wyllard, ``Matrix-model description of

1563:   $\mathcal{N} = 2$ gauge theories with non-hyperelliptic Seiberg-Witten

1564:   curves,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B674} (2003) 37,

1565: {{\tt hep-th/0305263}}.

1566: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305263;%%.

1567: 

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{Atiyah:1978}

1570: M.~F. Atiyah, N.~J. Hitchin, V.~G. Drinfeld, and Y.~I. Manin, ``Construction of

1571:   instantons,'' {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf A65} (1978)

1572: 185.

1573: %%CITATION = PHLTA,A65,185;%%.

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{Witten:1996}

1576: E.~Witten, ``Small instantons in string theory,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B460}

1577:   (1996) 541,

1578: {{\tt hep-th/9511030}};

1579: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9511030;%%.

1580: M.~R. Douglas, ``Gauge fields and D-branes,'' {\em J. Geom. Phys.} {\bf 28}

1581:   (1998) 255,

1582: {{\tt hep-th/9604198}};

1583: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9604198;%%.

1584: M.~R. Douglas, ``Branes within branes,''

1585: {{\tt hep-th/9512077}}.

1586: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9512077;%%.

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{Nakajima:1999}

1589: H.~Nakajima, {\em Lectures on Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces}, vol.~18

1590:   of {\em University lecture series}.

1591: \newblock American Mathematical Society, 1999.

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{Corrigan:1978}

1594: E.~Corrigan, D.~B. Fairlie, S.~Templeton, and P.~Goddard, ``A Green's function

1595:   for the general selfdual gauge field,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B140} (1978)

1596: 31;

1597: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B140,31;%%.

1598: N.~H. Christ, E.~J. Weinberg, and N.~K. Stanton, ``General self-dual Yang-Mills

1599:   solutions,'' {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D18} (1978)

1600: 2013.

1601: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,2013;%%.

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{Gimon:1996}

1604: E.~G. Gimon and J.~Polchinski, ``Consistency conditions for orientifolds and

1605:   D-manifolds,'' {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D54} (1996) 1667,

1606: {{\tt hep-th/9601038}}.

1607: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9601038;%%.

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{Hollowood:2002a}

1610: T.~J. Hollowood, ``Calculating the prepotential by localization on the moduli

1611:   space of instantons,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 03} (2002) 038,

1612: {{\tt hep-th/0201075}};

1613: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201075;%%.

1614: T.~J. Hollowood, ``Testing Seiberg-Witten theory to all orders in the instanton

1615:   expansion,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B639} (2002) 66,

1616: {{\tt hep-th/0202197}}.

1617: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202197;%%.

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{Moore:1998}

1620: G.~W. Moore, N.~Nekrasov, and S.~Shatashvili, ``D-particle bound states and

1621:   generalized instantons,'' {\em Commun. Math. Phys.} {\bf 209} (2000) 77,

1622: {{\tt hep-th/9803265}}.

1623: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9803265;%%.

1624: 

1625: \bibitem{Braverman:2004}

1626: A.~Braverman, ``Instanton counting via affine Lie algebras I: equivariant

1627:   j-functions of (affine) flag manifolds and Whittaker vectors,''

1628: {{\tt math.ag/0401409}}.

1629: %%CITATION = MATH.AG 0401409;%%.

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{Naculich:2001}

1632: S.~G. Naculich, H.~J. Schnitzer, and N.~Wyllard, ``Vacuum states of

1633:   $\mathcal{N} = 1*$ mass deformations of $\mathcal{N} = 4$ and $\mathcal{N} =

1634:   2$ conformal gauge theories and their brane interpretations,'' {\em Nucl.

1635:   Phys.} {\bf B609} (2001) 283,

1636: {{\tt hep-th/0103047}}.

1637: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103047;%%.

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{Dijkgraaf:2002b}

1640: R.~Dijkgraaf, A.~Sinkovics, and M.~Temurhan, ``Matrix models and gravitational

1641:   corrections,''

1642: {{\tt hep-th/0211241}}.

1643: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211241;%%.

1644: 

1645: \bibitem{emm}

1646: J.~D.~Edelstein, M.~Mari\~no and J.~Mas,

1647: ``Whitham hierarchies, instanton corrections and soft supersymmetry breaking

1648: in $\cN = 2$ $\SU(N)$ super Yang-Mills theory,''

1649: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B541} (1999) 671, 

1650: {\tt hep-th/9805172}; J.~D.~Edelstein, M.~G\'omez-Reino and J.~Mas,

1651: ``Instanton corrections in $\cN = 2$ supersymmetric theories with classical gauge

1652: groups and fundamental matter hypermultiplets,''

1653: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B561} (1999) 273, 

1654: {\tt hep-th/9904087}.

1655: 

1656: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9904087;%%

1657: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9805172;%%

1658: 

1659: 

1660: \bibitem{Nekrasov:2002b}

1661: N.~Nekrasov, ``Solution of $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauge theories via instanton

1662:   counting.'' talk at Strings 2002, {\tt

1663:   http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/avt/nekrasov/}

1664: 

1665: \bibitem{Gomez-Reino:2003}

1666: M.~G\'omez-Reino, ``Prepotential and instanton corrections in $\mathcal{N} = 2$

1667:   supersymmetric $\mathrm{SU}(N_1){\times}\mathrm{SU}(N_2)$ Yang-Mills

1668:   theories,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 03} (2003) 043,

1669: {{\tt hep-th/0301105}}.

1670: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301105;%%.

1671: 

1672: \bibitem{Austing:2001}

1673: P.~Austing, ``Yang-Mills matrix theory,''

1674: {{\tt hep-th/0108128}}.

1675: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108128;%%.

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{Krauth:2000}

1678: W.~Krauth and M.~Staudacher, ``Yang-Mills integrals for orthogonal, symplectic

1679:   and exceptional groups,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B584} (2000) 641,

1680: {{\tt hep-th/0004076}};

1681: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004076;%%.

1682: M.~Staudacher, ``Bulk Witten indices and the number of normalizable ground

1683:   states in supersymmetric quantum mechanics of orthogonal, symplectic and

1684:   exceptional groups,'' {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B488} (2000) 194,

1685: {{\tt hep-th/0006234}};

1686: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006234;%%.

1687: V.~Pestun, ``$\cN = 4$ SYM matrix integrals for almost all simple gauge groups

1688:   (except $E_7$ and $E_8$),'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 09} (2002) 012,

1689: {{\tt hep-th/0206069}};

1690: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206069;%%.

1691: T.~Fischbacher, ``Bulk Witten indices from $d = 10$ Yang-Mills integrals,''

1692: {{\tt hep-th/0312262}}.

1693: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312262;%%.

1694: 

1695: \bibitem{Chan:1999}

1696: G.~Chan and E.~D'Hoker, ``Instanton recursion relations for the effective

1697:   prepotential in $\mathcal{N} = 2$ super Yang-Mills,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

1698:   B564} (2000) 503,

1699: {{\tt hep-th/9906193}}.

1700: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906193;%%.

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{Landsteiner:1998}

1703: K.~Landsteiner and E.~L\'opez, ``New curves from branes,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

1704:   B516} (1998) 273,

1705: {{\tt hep-th/9708118}}.

1706: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9708118;%%.

1707: 

1708: \bibitem{D'Hoker:1997a}

1709: E.~D'Hoker, I.~M. Krichever, and D.~H. Phong, ``The effective prepotential of $\cN

1710:   = 2$ supersymmetric $\SU(N_c)$ gauge theories,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B489}

1711:   (1997) 179,

1712: {{\tt hep-th/9609041}}.

1713: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9609041;%%.

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{Ennes:1998}

1716: I.~P. Ennes, S.~G. Naculich, H.~Rhedin, and H.~J. Schnitzer, ``One instanton

1717:   predictions of a Seiberg-Witten curve from M-theory: the symmetric

1718:   representation of $\SU(N)$,'' {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A14} (1999)

1719:   301--321,

1720: {{\tt hep-th/9804151}}.

1721: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9804151;%%.

1722: 

1723: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup

1724: 

1725: \end{document}

1726: 

1727: