text:
# Calculating Gluino-Condensate Prepotential

## I. The plan of calculation

We want to evaluate the set of integrals

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{g_{n+1}}S_i=2_{\gamma _i\rho _i}^{\gamma _i+\rho _i}𝑑S_{DV},\\ \frac{1}{g_{n+1}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i=2_{\gamma _i+\rho _i}^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑S_{DV}\end{array}$$

($`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$), which are the periods of the meromorphic (with poles at infinities) differential

$$\begin{array}{c}dS_{DV}=y(x)dx\end{array}$$
(1.1)
on the hyperelliptic complex curve (Riemann surface) of genus $`n1`$ with quadratic branching points at $`\gamma _i\pm \rho _i`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}y^2(x)=_{i=1}^n(x\gamma _i\rho _i)(x\gamma _i+\rho _i)=_{i=1}^n((x\gamma _i)^2\rho _i^2)\end{array}$$
(1.2)
The periods $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ are to be further interpreted as the $`S_i`$-derivatives of the prepotential,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }_i=\frac{}{S_i}|_{constant\alpha ^{}s}\end{array}$$
(1.3)
evaluated at constant values of parameters $`\alpha _i`$, which are defined to be the roots of a polynomial

$$\begin{array}{c}P_n(x)=_{i=1}^n(x\alpha _i)\end{array}$$
(1.4)
of degree $`n`$, such that the curve (1.2) is also

$$\begin{array}{c}y^2(x)=P_n^2(x)+f_{n1}(x),\end{array}$$
(1.5)
where the polynomial

$$\begin{array}{c}f_{n1}(x)=_{i=1}^n\stackrel{~}{S}_i_{ji}^n(x\alpha _j)=P_n(x)_{i=1}^n\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}{x\alpha _i}\end{array}$$
(1.6)
is of degree $`n1`$ only. According to the general arguments of the SW theory , such system of equations is consistent, i.e.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_i}{S_j}|_{constant\alpha ^{}s}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_j}{S_i}|_{constant\alpha ^{}s}\end{array}$$
(1.7)
because the variation

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta dS_{DV}=_{i=1}^n\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_idv_i(x)+O(\delta \alpha )\end{array}$$
(1.8)
for $`\delta \alpha _i=0`$ is a linear combination of (almost) holomorphic differentials

$$\begin{array}{c}dv_i(x)=\frac{_{ji}^n(x\alpha _j)}{y(x)}dx\end{array}$$
(1.9)
on the curve (1.2). In fact $`dv_i(x)`$ possess simple poles at $`x=\mathrm{}_\pm `$, but this does not spoil the symmetric property of the period matrix (1.7) in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ (deviations from (1.7) are of the order $`O(\alpha /\mathrm{\Lambda })`$).

This means that the equations can be integrated and provide a function, the CIV-DV prepotential $`(S|\alpha )`$, which has the form of

$$\begin{array}{c}2\pi i(S|\alpha )=4\pi ig_{n+1}\left(W_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })_iS_i_iW_{n+1}(\alpha _i)S_i\right)(_iS_i)^2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\\ +\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^nS_i^2\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{S_i}{4}\frac{3}{2}\right)\frac{1}{2}_{i<j}^n(S_i^24S_iS_j+S_j^2)\mathrm{log}\alpha _{ij}+_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{(i\pi g_{n+1})^k}_{k+2}(S|\alpha ),\end{array}$$

where $`_{k+2}(S|\alpha )`$ are polynomial of degree $`k+2`$ in $`S`$’s with $`\alpha `$-dependent coefficients, $`\alpha _{ij}=\alpha _i\alpha _j`$ and $`W_{n+1}^{}(x)=P_n(x)`$.

The problem of calculating $`_{k+2}(S|\alpha )`$ is technically involved.111An advantageous approach to it is provided by the DV interpretation of the same quantity in terms the planar large-$`N`$ limit of matrix models, which allows to apply functional-integral techniques, in particular, the usual QFT perturbation theory (diagram expansion).  Its solution includes 4 steps:222Note some technical change as compared to s.5.3 of ref.. Such minor modifications provide substantial technical simplifications.

1) Evaluation of integrals (I.);

2) Inversion of formulas for $`S_i(\rho ,\gamma )`$, providing expressions for $`\rho (S,\gamma )`$, and substitution of those into the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-independent ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _i`$) pieces of integrals $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ (the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-dependent contributions are better left expressed through $`\gamma `$ and $`\rho `$ at this stage);

3) Expression of $`\gamma `$’s through $`\alpha `$’s (and $`\rho `$’s) by comparison of (1.2) and (1.5);

4) Substitution of the resulting expressions into those for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$’s, integrating over $`S`$’s and obtaining the desired expansion for the prepotential $`(S|\alpha )`$.

In what follows we present some results which allow us to reveal some of the structures; they emerge at every step of our procedure. There is of course, substantial overlap with the previous considerations in -.

A practical outcome of our calculation is an expression for the first non-perturbative term in (I.):333 To match the overall coefficient to the one, frequently met in the literature, one should rescale $`S`$: our $`S/4`$ looks equal to $`S`$ in ref..

$$\begin{array}{c}_3(S|\alpha )=_{i=1}^nu_i(\alpha )S_i^3+_{ij}^nu_{i;j}(\alpha )S_i^2S_j+_{i<j<k}^nu_{ijk}(\alpha )S_iS_jS_k,\\ u_i(\alpha )=\frac{1}{6}\left(_{ji}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}}\right),\\ u_{i;j}(\alpha )=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{3}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\right),\\ u_{ijk}(\alpha )=\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ji}\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ki}\alpha _{kj}\mathrm{\Delta }_k},\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_i=W_{n+1}^{\prime \prime }(\alpha _i)=_{ji}^n\alpha _{ij}\end{array}$$

In what follows, we begin with the step 1): evaluation of the integrals (I.) in terms of $`\gamma `$ and $`\rho `$. First, in s.2 we analyze the expressions for these integrals through symmetric functions of $`\gamma _{ij}`$ (to be called $`r(\gamma )`$, $`e(\gamma )`$ and $`\epsilon (\gamma )`$), certain elementary integrals (to be called $`J_m`$, not to be mixed with Bessel functions!) and peculiar infinite-order differential operator (to be called $`\widehat{D}(\rho ,\gamma )`$, this one actually is a Bessel function of $`\rho ^2_\gamma ^2`$). The main result of s.2 is eq.(1.) and/or eq.(2.), which may look more complicated, but is more useful for practical calculations. Eqs.(1.) and (2.) are valid even for indefinite integrals, expressions for concrete integration limits, explicit in (I.) are obtained by substitution from (C.) and (C.). Then, in s.3 we concentrate on the first terms of expansion in powers of $`\rho ^2`$, relevant for evaluation of $`_3`$: this means that we need $`\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^2`$ and $`\rho ^4`$. Then only a few types of symmetric functions contribute, and the situation can be drastically simplified. In the same s.3 we perform step 2), in application to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-independent terms in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$, and this leads to new drastic simplifications. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-dependent contributions to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ also get together into a simple expression, $`W_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })W_{n+1}(\gamma _i)`$, but to see this one needs to rely upon the ”$`\gamma vs\alpha `$ sum rules” (A.7) from Appendix A. The main result of s.3 consists of simply-structured formulas (C.), (C.) for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$. Eq.(C.) contains explicit $`\gamma `$-dependence (instead of being entirely $`\alpha `$-dependent) in just two places: as an argument in $`W_{n+1}(\gamma _i)`$ and through $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}`$. Expression for $`\gamma `$ through $`S`$ and $`\alpha `$, required at the next step 3) are derived in Appendix A, the main result of which is in eq.(A.15), although the sum rules (A.7) can sometime be directly applied as well, for example, to handle the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-dependent terms in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$. In s.4 we finally combine the results of s.3 and Appendix A to obtain the final formulas (I.) and (I.). Appendix B contains sample calculations for $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$, which can be used for illustrative purposes.

## II. Periods through cuts

### A. Notation and basic integrals

For the purpose of evaluation of $`S_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ with given $`i`$, we need only to expand $`dS_{DV}`$ in powers of $`\rho _j`$ with all $`ji`$, keeping the $`\rho _i`$ dependence exact in all terms of the expansion. This is needed because the integrals in question are not analytic in $`\rho _i`$ and are not evaluated by expansion of the integrands in $`\rho _i`$.

Namely, we express $`dS_{DV}(x)/dx=\sqrt{𝒫_{2n}(x)}`$ through $`\gamma `$’s and $`\rho `$’s in the following way:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dS_{DV}(x)}{dx}=\sqrt{𝒫_{2n}(x)}=\sqrt{(x\gamma _i)^2\rho _i^2}_{ji}^n\sqrt{(x\gamma _j)^2\rho _j^2}\end{array}$$
(2.1)
Since we are further going to integrate over $`x`$, we can shift the integration variable $`xx_i+\gamma _i`$, $`\gamma _{ij}=\gamma _i\gamma _j`$ (and remember later to appropriately adjust the integration domains):

$$\begin{array}{c}_i𝑑S_{DV}(x)=𝑑x\sqrt{x^2\rho _i^2}_{ji}^n\sqrt{(x+\gamma _{ij})^2\rho _j^2}=\\ =\sqrt{x^2\rho _i^2}_{ji}^n\left\{_{m_j=0}^{\mathrm{}}c_{m_j}\rho _j^{2m_j}(x+\gamma _{ij})^{12m_j}\right\}dx=\\ =_{\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}}\left(_{ji}c_{m_j}\rho _j^{2m_j}\right)I_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)\end{array}$$

Here the coefficients444 Somewhat amusingly, just the same $`c_m`$ (or what is the same, square root expansions) appear in many places, which seem unrelated (though all can be traced back to the fact that we deal with a hyperelliptic curve with quadratic branching points), thus signaling some hidden symmetry of the problem and probable short-cuts, overlooked in the presentation below. The first few coefficients $`c_m`$ are:
$$c_0=1,c_1=1/2,c_2=1/8,c_3=1/16,c_4=5/128,c_5=7/256,c_6=21/1024,\mathrm{}$$
$`c_m=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m1/2)}{m!\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)}`$ and integrals

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)=\sqrt{x^2\rho _i^2}_{ji}^n(x+\gamma _{ij})^{12m_j}dx.\end{array}$$
(2.2)
(Note that there are just $`n1`$ indices $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$ – there is nothing standing at the $`i`$-th position. Also by $`\gamma _i`$, with a dot placed at the second index, we denote the set $`\{\gamma _{ij}\}`$ with all possible values of $`jϵ`$, see below.)

Whenever some $`m_j1`$, one can use the recurrent formula,

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{\mathrm{}m_j\mathrm{}}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)=\frac{1}{(2m_j2)!}\left(\frac{}{\gamma _{ij}}\right)^{2m_j2}I_{\mathrm{}1_j\mathrm{}}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)\end{array}$$
(2.3)
Having this formula in mind, it is reasonable to introduce more notation.

First, let us split the set of $`n1`$ numbers $`N_n^{[i]}=\{1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{i},\mathrm{},n\}`$ ($`i`$ is omitted) into two non-intersecting sets: $`ϵ`$, consisting of all $`k`$ with $`m_k=0`$ and $`\overline{ϵ}`$, including all $`k`$ with $`m_k1`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}N_n^{[i]}=ϵ\overline{ϵ},ϵ\overline{ϵ}=\mathrm{},\\ ϵ\{kN_n^{[i]}:m_k=0\},\overline{ϵ}\{kN_n^{[i]}:m_k>0\}\end{array}$$

The numbers of elements in $`ϵ`$ and $`\overline{ϵ}`$ will be denoted by $`d(ϵ)`$ and $`d(\overline{ϵ})`$. Somewhat later we will also need

$$\begin{array}{c}ϵ_{j_1\mathrm{}j_l}ϵ/\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_l\}=\{kN_n^{[i]}:m_k=0,kj_1,\mathrm{},j_l\}\end{array}$$
(2.4)
(assuming that $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_lϵ`$ and are all different), and similarly

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{ϵ}_{j_1\mathrm{}j_l}\overline{ϵ}/\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_l\}=\{kN_n^{[i]}:m_k>0,kj_1,\mathrm{},j_l\}\end{array}$$
(2.5)
Second, we denote by $`_{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}`$ the sum over all the splittings of $`N_n^{[i]}`$ into two non-intersecting subspaces. The sum contains $`2^{n1}`$ terms (the number of subsets in $`N_n^{[i]}`$).

Third, the structure of the formulas (A.) and (2.3), together with the relation

$$\begin{array}{c}(2m2)!c_1=2^{2m2}(m1)!m!c_m,c_1=1/2,\end{array}$$
(2.6)
imply the following definition of a formal infinite-order differential operator

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{D}(\rho ;\gamma )=_{m1}\frac{c_m\rho ^{2m}}{(2m2)!}\left(\frac{}{(\gamma )}\right)^{2m2}=c_1_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho ^{2m+2}}{m!(m+1)!}\left(\frac{}{(2\gamma )}\right)^{2m}=\\ =\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho ^2+\frac{\rho ^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma ^2}+\frac{\rho ^6}{192}\frac{^4}{\gamma ^4}+\mathrm{}\right)\end{array}$$

(note that $`_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^{m+1}}{m!(m+1)!}=J_1(2x)`$, a modified Bessel function).

Using this new notation, we can rewrite (A.) as

$$\begin{array}{c}_i𝑑S_{DV}=_{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}\left(_{l\overline{ϵ}}\widehat{D}(\rho _l;\gamma _{il})\right)\stackrel{~}{I}_{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}^{[i]}(\rho _i,\gamma _i),\end{array}$$
(2.7)
where the integrals

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{I}_{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}^{[i]}(\rho _i,\gamma _i)=\frac{_{kϵ}(x+\gamma _{ik})}{_{l\overline{ϵ}}(x+\gamma _{il})}\sqrt{x\rho _i^2}𝑑x\end{array}$$
(2.8)
are just another representation of (2.2) with indices $`m_j`$ taking only two values: $`0`$ (for all $`jϵ`$) and $`1`$ (for all $`j\overline{ϵ}`$).

While (2.8) is more convenient for the general formulas like (2.7) notation (2.2) can still be of more use in concrete applications (for particular $`n`$). For example, in the case of $`n=2`$ we have just two terms in (2.7):
$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}:`$

$$\begin{array}{c}_1𝑑S_{DV}=I_0^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})+\widehat{D}(\rho _2;\gamma _{12})I_1^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})\end{array}$$
(2.9)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}I_0^{[1]}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\{2\};\mathrm{}}^{[1]}=(x+\gamma _{12})\sqrt{x^2\rho _1^2}𝑑x,\\ I_1^{[1]}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{};\{2\}}^{[1]}=\frac{\sqrt{x^2\rho _1^2}}{x+\gamma _{12}}𝑑x,\end{array}$$

and in the case of $`n=3`$ there are already four terms:
$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑}:`$

$$\begin{array}{c}_1𝑑S_{DV}=I_{00}^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})+\widehat{D}(\rho _2;\gamma _{12})I_{10}^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})+\\ +\widehat{D}(\rho _3;\gamma _{13})I_{01}^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})+\widehat{D}(\rho _2;\gamma _{12})\widehat{D}(\rho _3;\gamma _{13})I_{11}^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})\end{array}$$

with

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{00}^{[1]}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\{2,3\};\mathrm{}}^{[1]}=(x+\gamma _{12})(x+\gamma _{13})\sqrt{x^2\rho _1^2}𝑑x,\\ I_{10}^{[1]}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\{3\};\{2\}}^{[1]}=\frac{x+\gamma _{13}}{x+\gamma _{12}}\sqrt{x^2\rho _1^2}𝑑x,\\ I_{01}^{[1]}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\{2\};\{3\}}^{[1]}=\frac{x+\gamma _{12}}{x+\gamma _{13}}\sqrt{x^2\rho _1^2}𝑑x,\\ I_{11}^{[1]}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{};\{2,3\}}^{[1]}=\frac{\sqrt{x^2\rho _1^2}}{(x+\gamma _{12})(x+\gamma _{13})}𝑑x.\end{array}$$

### B. Handling the integrals

In order to evaluate the integrals $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{ϵ;\overline{ϵ}}^{[i]}`$ in (2.8), it is first necessary to transform the integrands.

First, the denominator:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{l\overline{ϵ}}\frac{1}{x+\gamma _{il}}=_{l\overline{ϵ}}\frac{r^{(\overline{ϵ})}(\gamma _l)}{x+\gamma _{il}},\end{array}$$
(2.10)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}r^{(\overline{ϵ})}(\gamma _l)_{l^{}\overline{ϵ}_l}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ll^{}}}\end{array}$$
(2.11)
(let us remind that $`\overline{ϵ}_l`$ is obtained from $`\overline{ϵ}`$ by throwing away the element $`l\overline{ϵ}`$).

Second, for each term in the sum (2.10) we appropriately transform the numerator. There are two rather different ways to do it, leading to two different representations of the integral.

#### 1. Representation through symmetric functions

One way is to expand the numerator in (2.8) for the $`l`$-th item of the sum (2.10) in powers of $`(x+\gamma _{il})`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{kϵ}(x+\gamma _{ik})=_{kϵ}\left((x+\gamma _{il})+\gamma _{lk}\right)=\\ =_{m=0}^{d(ϵ)}(x+\gamma _{il})^{d(ϵ)m}e_m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)=_{m=1}^{d(ϵ)1}(x+\gamma _{il})^{m+1}e_{d(ϵ)1m}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l).\end{array}$$

Here

$$\begin{array}{c}e_m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)=_{\stackrel{k_1<\mathrm{}<k_m}{k_1,\mathrm{},k_mϵ}}\gamma _{lk_1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{lk_m}\end{array}$$
(2.12)
are symmetric polynomials, made from the set of $`\gamma _{lk}`$ with given $`l\overline{ϵ}`$ and all $`kϵ`$. Sometime it can be more convenient to use ”exclusive” notation instead of ”inclusive” one: $`e_m^{[\overline{ϵ}]}(\gamma _l)e_m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)`$. (Note that symmetric functions $`r^{(\overline{ϵ})}(\gamma _l)`$ and $`e_m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)`$ do not explicitly depend on $`i`$).

With the help of these expressions we obtain for the integral (2.8),

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{0\mathrm{}0}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)=_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)J_m(\rho _i;0).\end{array}$$
(2.13)
for $`\overline{ϵ}=\mathrm{}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{I}_{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}^{[i]}(\rho _i,\gamma _i)=_{l\overline{ϵ}}r^{(\overline{ϵ})}(\gamma _l)_{p=1}^{d(ϵ)1}e_{d(ϵ)1p}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)J_p(\rho _i;\gamma _{il}),\end{array}$$
(2.14)
for $`\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}`$, where the remaining integrals depend on just two parameters:

$$\begin{array}{c}J_p(\rho ;\gamma )(x+\gamma )^p\sqrt{x^2\rho ^2}𝑑x=_{m=0}^p\frac{p!}{m!(pm)!}\gamma ^{pm}J_m(\rho ;0),forp0.\end{array}$$
(2.15)
Thus

$$\begin{array}{c}_i𝑑S_{DV}=I_{0\mathrm{}0}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)+\\ +_{\stackrel{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}{\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}}}\left(_{l\overline{ϵ}}\widehat{D}(\rho _l,\gamma _{il})\right)\left(_{l\overline{ϵ}}r^{(\overline{ϵ})}(\gamma _l)\left[_{p=1}^{d(ϵ)1}e_{d(ϵ)p1}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)J_p(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})\right]\right)\end{array}$$

The disadvantage of eq.(1.) is the need to supplement it by (2.15), which spoils the relatively nice structure of (1.): the sum in the square brackets should be actually transformed to

$$\begin{array}{c}_{p=1}^{d(ϵ)1}e_{d(ϵ)p1}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)J_p(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})=e_{d(ϵ)}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)J_1(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})+_{m=0}^{d(ϵ)1}\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_m(\rho _i;0)\end{array}$$
(2.16)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)=_{p=m}^{d(ϵ)1}\frac{p!}{m!(pm)!}e_{d(ϵ)p1}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)\gamma _{il}^{pm}\end{array}$$
(2.17)
or

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{d(ϵ)m1}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)=_{p=0}^m\frac{(d(ϵ)1p)!}{(d(ϵ)1m)!(mp)!}e_p^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)\gamma _{il}^{mp}\end{array}$$
(2.18)
However, once the need to introduce the $`\epsilon `$-coefficients is accepted, it is better to do it earlier, handling the numerator in (2.8) in a different way from the very beginning.

#### 2. Dividing the polynomials

Another way to deal with the numerator in the $`l`$-th item of the sum (2.10) is just to divide it by $`(x+\gamma _{il})`$, obtaining the ratio polynomial of degree $`d(ϵ)1`$ and the residue:555Note that symmetric functions $`e^{(ϵ)}`$ at the l.h.s. of (2.19) have the arguments $`\gamma _{ik}`$, $`kϵ`$, while in the previous subsection 2.2.1 their arguments were rather $`\gamma _{lk}`$ with $`l\overline{ϵ}`$. Accordingly, $`\gamma _i`$ can seem to be a better choice for the argument of $`\epsilon `$-functions, if one looks at (2.19), and the same can seem about $`\gamma _l`$ if one looks at (2.18). In fact, the truth is somewhere in between; $`\epsilon _m`$ with low $`m`$ are closer to $`e(\gamma _l)`$, while those with high $`m`$ are closer to $`e(\gamma _i)`$. We use a somewhat heavy notation, with both types of arguments included. It certainly deserves to be improved.

$$\begin{array}{c}_{kϵ}(x+\gamma _{ik})=_{p=0}^{d(ϵ)}e_{d(ϵ)p}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i)x^p=\epsilon _1^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)+(x+\gamma _{il})_{m=0}^{d(ϵ)1}\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)x^m\end{array}$$
(2.19)
The functions $`\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}`$ are expressed through $`e_p^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i)`$ by recurrent relations,

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{m1}^{(ϵ)}+\gamma _{il}\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}=e_{d(ϵ)m}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i),\end{array}$$
(2.20)
so that

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{d(ϵ)1}^{(ϵ)}=e_0^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i)=1,\\ \epsilon _{d(ϵ)2}^{(ϵ)}=e_1^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i)\gamma _{il}e_0^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i)=\gamma _{il}+_{kϵ}\gamma _{ik},\\ \mathrm{}\\ \epsilon _0^{(ϵ)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{(ϵ)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l^{(ϵ)}}{\gamma _{il}},\\ \epsilon _1^{(ϵ)}=e_{d(ϵ)}^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _l)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l^{(ϵ)}\end{array}$$

The last lines here are expressed through

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l^{(ϵ)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l^{[i,\overline{ϵ}]}_{kϵ}\gamma _{lk}.\end{array}$$
(2.21)
For $`\epsilon =\mathrm{}`$ we skip the superscript:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{[i]}=_{ji}\gamma _{ij}.\end{array}$$
(2.22)
Tilde means that the products are made from $`\gamma `$’s, notation without tildes are reserved to denote the same quantities, but made from $`\alpha `$’s.

In terms of $`\epsilon `$ functions we obtain instead of (2.14)

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{I}_{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}^{[i]}(\rho _i,\gamma _i)=\epsilon _1^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_1(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})+_{m=0}^{d(ϵ)1}\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_m(\rho _i;0)\end{array}$$
(2.23)
for $`\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}`$, and, finally

$$\begin{array}{c}_i𝑑S_{DV}=I_{0\mathrm{}0}^{[i]}(\rho _i;\gamma _i)+\\ +_{\stackrel{ϵ,\overline{ϵ}}{\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{}}}\left(_{l\overline{ϵ}}\widehat{D}(\rho _l,\gamma _{il})\right)\left(_{l\overline{ϵ}}r^{(\overline{ϵ})}(\gamma _l)\left[\epsilon _1^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_1(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})+_{m=0}^{d(ϵ)1}\epsilon _m^{(ϵ)}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_m(\rho _i;0)\right]\right)\end{array}$$

The price for obtaining a representation through the simple integrals $`J_m(\rho _i;0)`$ with vanishing second argument is the appearance of somewhat sophisticated coefficients $`\epsilon (\gamma )`$. The $`\gamma `$-dependence can not be eliminated from the integral $`J_1(\rho ;\gamma )`$, but of course it can be easily evaluated, see the next subsection 2.3.

#### 3. Examples of $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$

The simple example of integrals in (A.) and (A.) are in fact not sensitive to all these complications and are easily expressed through $`J_m`$-integrals.
$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}:`$

$$\begin{array}{c}I_0^{(1)}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})=J_1(\rho _1;0)+\gamma _{12}J_0(\rho _1;0),\\ I_1^{(1)}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})=J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{12}),\end{array}$$

and
$`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑}:`$

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{00}^{(1)}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})=J_2(\rho _1;0)+(\gamma _{12}+\gamma _{13})J_1(\rho _1;0)+\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}J_0(\rho _1;0),\\ I_{10}^{(1)}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})=J_0(\rho _1;0)+\gamma _{23}J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{12}),\\ I_{01}^{(1)}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})=J_0(\rho _1;0)\gamma _{23}J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{13}),\\ I_{11}^{(1)}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12},\gamma _{13})=\frac{1}{\gamma _{23}}\left[J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{13})\right]\end{array}$$

### C. $`J_m`$-integrals and their periods

These elementary integrals are given by somewhat heavy-looking formulas:666 For example,
$$J_0=\rho ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2tdt=\frac{\rho ^2}{4}\left(\mathrm{sinh}2t2t\right),$$

$$J_1=\rho ^3\mathrm{cosh}t\mathrm{sinh}^2tdt=\frac{\rho ^3}{12}\left(\mathrm{sinh}3t3\mathrm{sinh}t\right),$$

$$J_2=\rho ^4\mathrm{cosh}^2t\mathrm{sinh}^2tdt=\frac{\rho ^4}{32}\left(\mathrm{sinh}4t4t\right),$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}J_{2m}(\rho ;0)=c_{m+1}\rho ^{2m+2}t+\rho ^{2m+2}_{j=1}^{m+1}c_{m+1}^{(j)}\mathrm{sinh}2jt,m0,\\ J_{2m1}(\rho ;0)=\rho ^{2m+1}_{j=0}^mc_{m+1/2}^{(j+1/2)}\mathrm{sinh}(2j+1)t,m>0,\\ J_1(\rho ;\gamma )=\sqrt{x^2\rho ^2}\gamma t+\sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho z+\gamma \sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}}{\rho z+\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}},\end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}c_k^{(l)}c_k^{[kl]}2^{12k}\frac{2l^2k}{l}\frac{(2k2)!}{(kl)!(k+l)!},\\ c_k^{(k)}=c_k^{[0]}=\frac{1}{2^{2k}k},c_k^{(k1)}=c_k^{[1]}=\frac{2(k2)}{2^{2k}(k1)},c_k^{(k2)}=c_k^{[2]}=\frac{2k^29k+8}{2^{2k}(k2)},\mathrm{},\\ asl0,c_k^{(l)}\frac{c_k}{l},\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\rho \mathrm{cosh}t,z=e^t=\frac{x+\sqrt{x^2\rho ^2}}{\rho }.\end{array}$$
(2.24)
Actually, we are interested in two types of integration paths:

$`A_i`$: $`x`$ from $`\rho _i`$ to $`\rho _i`$, i.e. $`t`$ from $`0`$ to $`i\pi `$ and $`z`$ from $`1`$ to $`1`$, and

$`B_i`$: $`x`$ from $`\rho _i`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma _i)}\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _i`$, i.e. $`z`$ from $`1`$ to $`Z_i/\rho _i`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}Z_{(\gamma )}(\rho )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma )}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma )}^2\rho ^2}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma )}+_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}c_m\frac{\rho ^{2m}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma )}^{2m1}},\end{array}$$
(2.25)
and $`t`$ from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{log}Z_i/\rho _i`$.

We denote the integrals $`J_m`$ along these paths by $`J_m^A`$ and $`J_m^B`$ . The $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ periods of $`dS_{DV}`$, i.e. $`S_i/g_{n+1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i/g_{n+1}`$ are then obtained by substituting the corresponding integrals, into (A.) and multiplying by an extra factor of $`2`$. Note, that all the operators $`\widehat{D}(\gamma _l;\gamma _{il})`$ in (2.) commute with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`Z_i`$: derivatives act on $`\gamma _l`$, not on $`\gamma _i`$,

For the integrals along the $`A`$ contour we obtain simple expressions:

$$\begin{array}{c}J_{2m}^A(\rho ;0)=i\pi c_{m+1}\rho ^{2m+2},m0,\\ J_{2m1}^A(\rho ;0)=0,m>0,\\ J_1^A(\rho ,\gamma )=i\pi (\gamma \sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2})=i\pi _{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}c_k\frac{\rho ^{2k}}{\gamma ^{2k1}}=\\ =i\pi \left(\frac{\rho ^2}{2\gamma }+\frac{\rho ^4}{8\gamma ^3}+\frac{\rho ^6}{16\gamma ^5}+\mathrm{}\right)\end{array}$$

but those for the $`B`$ contour are more sophisticated (see (C.) for the definition of $`c_k^{[l]}`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}J_{2m}^B(\rho ;Z)=\frac{i}{\pi }J_{2m}^A(\rho ;0)\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{2}_{j=0}^mc_{m+1}^{[j]}\rho ^{2j}Z^{2m+22j}+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1),\\ J_{2m1}^B(\rho ;Z)=\frac{1}{2}_{j=0}^mc_{m+1/2}^{[j]}\rho ^{2j}Z^{2m+12j}+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1),\\ J_1^B(\rho ,\gamma |\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma ^{})})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma ^{})}\gamma \mathrm{log}\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho }+\sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}L(\rho ;\gamma )=\\ =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma ^{})}+\gamma \mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{i}{\pi }J_1^A(\rho ,\gamma )\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{2\gamma }+_{k,l=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k+2}{k+1}c_lc_{k+2}\frac{\rho ^{2k+2l+2}}{\gamma ^{2k+2l+1}}=\\ =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\gamma ^{})}+\gamma \mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{i}{\pi }J_1^A\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{2\gamma }\frac{\rho ^2}{4\gamma }+\frac{\rho ^4}{32\gamma ^3}+\frac{5\rho ^6}{192\gamma ^5}+\frac{59\rho ^8}{31024\gamma ^7}+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

Here

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{L(\rho ,\gamma )}{\gamma }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}}=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1/2)}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)}\frac{\rho ^{2k}}{\gamma ^{2k1}}=2_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}(k+1)c_{k+1}\frac{\rho ^{2k}}{\gamma ^{2k1}},\\ L(\rho ;\gamma )=\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho +\gamma +\sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}}{\rho +\gamma \sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}}=\mathrm{log}\frac{2\gamma }{\rho }+_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(k+1)c_{k+1}}{k}\frac{\rho ^{2k}}{\gamma ^{2k}},\\ \sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}L(\rho ;\gamma )=\sqrt{\gamma ^2\rho ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{2\gamma }{\rho }+_{k,l=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(k+2)c_{k+2}c_l}{k}\frac{\rho ^{2k+2l+2}}{\gamma ^{2k+2l+1}}\end{array}$$

## III. The first three terms of the $`\rho ^2`$-expansion

### A. Truncations and $`S`$-integrals

Let us now pick up the first terms of expansion in powers of $`\rho ^2`$ in (2.). Since $`S=O(\rho ^2)`$, for the purpose of calculating $`_3(S|\alpha )`$ it is enough to keep the first three terms, of orders $`\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^2`$ and $`\rho ^4`$. This implies that $`d(\overline{ϵ})2`$ and leaves only three options for $`\overline{ϵ}`$: $`\overline{ϵ}=\mathrm{}`$, $`\overline{ϵ}=\{l\}`$ and $`\overline{ϵ}=\{l_1,l_2\}`$, so that (2.) is truncated to

$$\begin{array}{c}_i𝑑S_{DV}=_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)J_m(\rho _i;0)\\ \frac{1}{2}_{li}\left(\rho _l^2+\frac{\rho _l^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _l^2}\right)\left[\epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_1(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})+_{m=0}^{n3}\epsilon _m^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_m(\rho _i;0)\right]+\\ +\frac{1}{4}_{\stackrel{l_1<l_2}{l_1,l_2i}}\frac{\rho _{l_1}^2\rho _{l_2}^2}{\gamma _{l_1l_2}}[\epsilon _1^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_1})J_1(\rho _i;\gamma _{il_1})\epsilon _1^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_2})J_1(\rho _i;\gamma _{il_2})+\\ +_{m=0}^{n4}(\epsilon _m^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_1})J_m(\rho _i;0)\epsilon _m^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_2})J_m(\rho _i;0))]\end{array}$$

The sums over $`m`$ could also be truncated, if there were no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-dependent terms in $`J_m^B`$. However, for $`A`$-integrals there is no such problem, and only terms with $`m2`$ in the first line and with $`m=0`$ in the second one can contribute, because $`J_m^A=O(\rho ^{m+2})`$. Moreover, since also $`J_1^A=O(\rho ^2)`$ (note, that this is not true for $`J_1^B`$, even if the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-dependent terms were excluded), the last term in (A.) is also irrelevant, and we get for the $`A_i`$-period $`S_i`$ of $`dS_{DV}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2\pi ig_{n+1}}S_i=\frac{1}{2}e_{n1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\rho _i^2\frac{1}{8}e_{n3}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\rho _i^4+\\ +\frac{1}{4}_{li}\rho _i^2\rho _l^2\left(\frac{\epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)}{\gamma _{li}}+\epsilon _0^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\right)+O(\rho ^6),\end{array}$$

so that for $`\widehat{S}_i\frac{S_i}{i\pi g_{n+1}}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}e_{n1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)=_{ji}\gamma _{ij}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i,\\ e_{n3}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}},\\ \epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)=_{ki,l}\gamma _{lk}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l^{[il]}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{li}},\\ \epsilon _0^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{[il]}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l^{[il]}}{\gamma _{il}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{il}^2}\end{array}$$

we get:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{S}_i=\rho _i^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+\frac{1}{4}\rho _i^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}}\frac{1}{2}\rho _i^2_{li}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{li}^2}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{il}^2}\right)=\\ =\rho _i^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i\left(1+\frac{1}{4}\rho _i^2_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}}\frac{1}{2}_{ji}\frac{\rho _j^2}{\gamma _{ij}^2}+O(\rho ^4)\right)\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _i^2=\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}\left(1+_{j=1}^n\zeta _{ij}(\gamma )\widehat{S}_j+O(S^2)\right),\\ \zeta _{ii}=\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}},\\ \zeta _{ij}=\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j},ji.\end{array}$$

Remarkably, due to peculiar relation777 The combination $`S\mathrm{log}SS=\frac{1}{2}_S\left[S^2(\mathrm{log}S\frac{3}{2})\right]`$ is characterized by the fact that its $`S`$-derivative is exactly $`\mathrm{log}S`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{S}_i\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}\rho _i^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}\rho _i^2)=\widehat{S}_i\mathrm{log}\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_i+O(S^3),\end{array}$$
(3.1)
the coefficients $`\zeta `$ from (A.) do not show up in explicit expression for $`_3(S|\alpha )`$, though the entire eq.(A.) is needed to handle the logarithmic contributions to the prepotential.

### B. $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-integral

Let us now proceed to evaluation of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ integral:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_i}{2g_{n+1}}=_{m0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)J_m^B(\rho _i;0)\\ \frac{1}{2}_{li}\left(\rho _l^2+\frac{\rho _l^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _l^2}\right)\left[\epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_1^B(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})+_{m=0}^{n3}\epsilon _m^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_m^B(\rho _i;0)\right]+\\ +\frac{1}{4}_{\stackrel{l_1<l_2}{l_1,l_2i}}\frac{\rho _{l_1}^2\rho _{l_2}^2}{\gamma _{l_1l_2}}[\epsilon _1^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_1})J_1^B(\rho _i;\gamma _{il_1})\epsilon _1^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_2})J_1^B(\rho _i;\gamma _{il_2})\\ +_{m=0}^{n4}(\epsilon _m^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_1})J_m^B(\rho _i;0)\epsilon _m^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_2})J_m^B(\rho _i;0))]+\\ +O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

where expressions for $`J_m^B`$ should be substituted from (C.). After that the r.h.s. consists of the contributions of three essentially different types: containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, containing logarithms (of any kind of arguments, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\gamma `$), and power-like terms, proportional to $`\rho ^2`$ and $`\rho ^4`$ with $`\gamma `$-dependent coefficients. In the rest of this subsection we analyze these three types of terms separately, giving some details (one can easily understand how things work, looking through explicit examples in Appendix B).

#### 1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependent terms

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-dependent terms are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)[c_{m/2+1}^{[0]}(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^{m+2}(1\frac{(m+2)\rho _i^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2}+\frac{(m1)(m+2)\rho _i^4}{32\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^4})+\\ +\theta (m1)c_{m/2+1}^{[1]}\rho _i^2(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^m(1\frac{m\rho _i^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2})+\theta (m3)c_{m/2+1}^{[2]}\rho _i^4(2\mathrm{\Lambda })^{m2}]\\ \frac{1}{4}_{li}\rho _l^2_{m=1}^{n3}\epsilon _m^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\left[c_{m/2+1}^{[0]}(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^{m+2}\left(1\frac{(m+2)\rho _i^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2}\right)+\theta (m1)c_{m/2+1}^{[1]}\rho _i^2(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^m\right]\\ +\frac{1}{8}_{\stackrel{l_1<l_2}{l_1,l_2i}}\frac{\rho _{l_1}^2\rho _{l_2}^2}{\gamma _{l_1l_2}}\frac{1}{2}_{m=0}^{n4}\left[\epsilon _m^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\epsilon _m^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\right]c_{m/2+1}^{[0]}(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^{m+2}+\\ +O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

The relevant coefficients $`c_k^{[l]}`$ are listed in (C.),

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}c_{m/2+1}^{[0]}=\frac{1}{2^{m+2}(m+2)},\frac{1}{2}c_{m/2+1}^{[1]}=\frac{1}{2^{m+2}}\frac{m2}{m},\frac{1}{2}c_{m/2+1}^{[2]}=\frac{1}{2^{m+2}}\frac{m^25m+2}{2(m2)}.\end{array}$$
(3.2)
An extra coefficient $`1/2`$ as compared to (B.) appears in these formulas because $`J_m^B\frac{1}{2}Z_i^{m+2}`$ for large $`Z_i`$. This is not true for $`J_1^B`$, but instead

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}c_{m/2+1}^{[0]}(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^{m+2}=\frac{1}{m+2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{m+2}\end{array}$$
(3.3)
is exactly $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ for $`m=1`$, so the term with $`m=1`$ is naturally included into the sum at the r.h.s. of (1.). We have introduced the Heaviside step function: $`\theta (mk)=0`$ for $`m<k`$ and $`\theta (mk)=1`$ for $`mk`$.

It is especially easy to see what happens to the $`\rho `$-independent terms. By definition of symmetric polynomial $`e_m(\gamma _i)`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^m=_{ji}^n(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\gamma _{ij})=_{ji}^n(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _j)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}\stackrel{~}{P}_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })\end{array}$$
(3.4)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{P}_n(x)=_{j=1}^n(x\gamma _j).\end{array}$$
(3.5)
It remains to multiply both sides of (3.4) by an extra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _i`$ and integrate over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ to get for the leading term in (1.):

$$\begin{array}{c}_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\frac{(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^{m+2}}{2^{m+2}(m+2)}=\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}(\gamma _i)\end{array}$$
(3.6)
with $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}^{}(x)=\stackrel{~}{P}_n(x)`$. To check this reasoning it is enough to take the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-derivative of eq.(3.6): it obviously gives eq.(3.4) times $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. If one proceeds in this way, the integration constant at the r.h.s. of (3.6) is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}(\gamma _i)`$ in order to make the r.h.s. vanishing at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\gamma _i`$.

The role of the terms with both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`\rho ^2`$-dependence is to change $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}(x)`$ with $`\gamma `$-dependent coefficients for $`W_{n+1}(x)`$ with those, made from $`\alpha `$’s. This is a small correction, since $`\sigma _i=\gamma _i\alpha _i=O(\rho ^2)`$ and thus $`\stackrel{~}{P}_n(x)P_n(x)=O(\rho ^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}(x)W_{n+1}(x)=O(\rho ^2)`$. Note, that for a given power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ there is only a single power of $`\rho ^2`$ that contributes: no infinite series in powers of $`\rho ^2`$ are involved into the relation between $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{n+1}(x)`$ and $`W_{n+1}(x)`$. It happens so because this relation actually contains $`\rho `$ only in the form of the sum rules (A.7). Just for the same reason one does not need to know higher corrections to (A.15), though at the first glance they could seem to be important: the sum rules (A.7) can be applied directly. The simplest way to check all these statements is again to compare the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-derivative of (1.) with that of $`W_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which is equal to

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{n+1}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=_{j=1}^n(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _j)=_{j=1}^n(\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _i+\alpha _{ij})=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\sigma _i)_{ji}\left[(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\sigma _i)+\alpha _{ij}\right]=\\ =_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\alpha _i)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\sigma _i)^{m+1}=\\ =_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{m+1}+\sigma _i_{m=0}^{n1}(m+1)e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^m+\\ +\frac{\sigma _i^2}{2}_{m=0}^{n1}m(m+1)e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{m1}+O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

For example, in the order $`O(\rho ^4)`$ we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{m+1}\frac{\rho _i^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{m1}}{2}\theta (m1)\right)\frac{1}{2}_{li}\rho _l^2_{m=0}^{n2}\epsilon _{m1}^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^m=\\ =_{m=0}^{n1}e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{m+1}+\sigma _i_{m=0}^{n1}(m+1)e_{nm1}^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^m+O(\rho ^4)\end{array}$$

Collecting contributions with the same powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, we get:

$$\begin{array}{c}e_0^{[i]}(\gamma _i)=e_0^{[i]}(\alpha _i),i.e\mathrm{.\; 1}=1;\\ \\ e_1^{[i]}(\gamma _i)=e_1^{[i]}(\alpha _i)+n\sigma _ie_0^{[i]}(\alpha _i),i.e._{ji}\gamma _{ij}=_{ji}\alpha _{ij}+n\sigma _i;\\ \\ e_2^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\frac{\rho _i^2e_0^{[i]}(\gamma _i)}{2}\frac{1}{2}_{li}\rho _l^2\epsilon _{n3}^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)=e_2^{[i]}(\alpha _i)+(n1)e_1^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\sigma _i,\\ i.e._{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^n\rho _j^2=_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}+(n1)\sigma _i_{ji}\alpha _{ij};\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

The next step is to express $`e_m^{[i]}(\gamma _i)`$ through $`\gamma _i`$ and $`e_k(\gamma )`$ (or $`p_k(\gamma )`$) and $`e_m^{[i]}(\alpha _i)`$ through $`\alpha _i`$ and $`e_k(\alpha )`$ (or $`p_k(\gamma )`$). For example,

$$\begin{array}{c}e_2^{[i]}(\alpha _i)=_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}=\\ =\frac{1}{2}\left(_{j=1}^n\alpha _j\right)^2\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^n\alpha _j^2(n1)\alpha _i_{n=1}^j\alpha _j+\frac{n(n1)}{2}\alpha _i^2=\\ =\frac{p_1^2(\alpha )}{2}\frac{p_2(\alpha )}{2}(n1)\alpha _ip_1(\alpha )+\frac{n(n1)}{2}\alpha _i^2\end{array}$$

After that eqs.(1.) are easily reduced to the sum rules (A.6), relating $`e_m(\alpha )`$ and $`e_m(\gamma )`$. We do not go in further details of this calculation. A more concise way to make and present it in full generality remains to be found.

Of more interest for us below are a few terms with $`1m2`$, which do not depend on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ at all. They drop out after when the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-derivative is taken and do not contribute to above calculation. Instead they will contribute to $`_3`$. There are exactly three such terms, coming from integrals $`J_2^B`$ and $`J_0^B`$, the relevant coefficients are $`c_2^{[0]}=c_2^{(2)}=1/32`$ and $`c_1^{[0]}=c_1^{(1)}=1/4`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}e_{n1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\rho _i^2+\frac{1}{32}e_{n3}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\rho _i^4+\frac{1}{8}\rho _i^2_{li}\epsilon _0^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\rho _l^2\end{array}$$
(3.7)
#### 2. Logarithmic terms

Logarithmic terms are easy to collect. All such terms, coming from $`J_{2m}^B`$ with $`m0`$ are equal to the corresponding $`J_{2m}^A`$, multiplied by $`\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _i}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, which commutes with $`\widehat{D}(\rho _i;\gamma _{il})`$. Thus they combine altogether to provide $`\frac{i}{\pi }(S_i/2g_{n+1})=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}_i`$, multiplied by the same logarithm. One should take care only of the contributions from

$$\begin{array}{c}J_1^B=\frac{i}{\pi }J_1^A\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)+\gamma \mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+nonlogarithmicterms=\\ =\frac{i}{\pi }J_1^A\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\left(\gamma \frac{\rho ^2}{2\gamma }\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+O(\rho ^4)+nonlogterms,\end{array}$$

where the first term at the r.h.s. is combined with the other $`J_{2m}^A\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, and only the second one requires further consideration. Keeping all this in mind, we get for the

$$\begin{array}{c}logtermsin\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_i}{2g_{n+1}}=\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _i}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\\ \frac{1}{2}_{li}\left[\left(\rho _l^2+\frac{\rho _l^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _l^2}\right)\epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\left(\gamma _{il}\frac{\rho _i^2}{2\gamma _{il}}\right)\right]\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{il}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\\ +\frac{1}{4}_{\stackrel{l_1<l_2}{l_1,l_2i}}\frac{\rho _{l_1}^2\rho _{l_2}^2}{\gamma _{l_1l_2}}\left(\epsilon _1^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_1})\gamma _{il_1}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{il_1}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\epsilon _1^{[il_1l_2]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _{l_2})\gamma _{il_2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{il_2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)+O(\rho ^6)=\\ \\ =\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _i}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{2}_{li}\left[\left(\rho _l^2+\frac{\rho _l^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _l^2}\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l\left(1\frac{\rho _i^2}{2\gamma _{il}^2}\right)\right]\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{il}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\\ \frac{1}{4}_{li}\rho _l^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{il}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{ki,l}\frac{\rho _k^2}{\gamma _{lk}^2}+O(\rho ^6)=\\ \\ =\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _i}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\\ +\frac{1}{2}_{li}\rho _l^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l\left(1+\frac{\rho _l^2}{4}_{\stackrel{k_1<k_2}{k_1,k_2l}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{lk_1}\gamma _{lk_2}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho _i^2}{\gamma _{li}^2}\frac{1}{2}_{ki,l}\frac{\rho _k^2}{\gamma _{lk}^2}+O(\rho ^6)\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{il}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\\ \\ \stackrel{(\text{A.})}{=}\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{4}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _i^2}{4}\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{2}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}_{ji}\widehat{S}_j\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{ij}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+O(S^3)=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{2}(_{j=1}^n\widehat{S}_j)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\widehat{S}_i}{4}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _i^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{4}\frac{1}{4}_{ji}(\widehat{S}_i2\widehat{S}_j)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}\end{array}$$

We see that the terms of order $`\rho ^4`$ are nicely combined to correct $`\rho _j^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j`$ into $`\widehat{S}_j`$, according to (A.). The same will, of course, happen in all higher orders of expansion in powers of $`\rho ^2`$, so that the answer at the r.h.s. of (2.) is in fact exact (but our calculation is true only up to the $`O(S^3)`$ terms). The first term at the r.h.s. of (2.) with $`\mathrm{log}\rho _i^2`$ is combined with (3.8) from the next subsection to give an expression entirely in terms of $`S`$, according to eq.(3.1).

#### 3. Polynomial terms

The sources of the relevant (for calculation of the cubic piece in the prepotential) terms in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i/2g_{n+1}`$ are:

– the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$-independent contributions (3.7) from terms with $`Z_i`$ (such contributions exist, because $`Z_i2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$) – these give

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}e_{n1}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\rho _i^2=\frac{\rho _i^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}{4}\end{array}$$
(3.8)
in the order $`O(\rho ^2)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{32}e_{n3}^{[i]}(\gamma _i)\rho _i^4+\frac{1}{8}\rho _i^2_{li}\epsilon _0^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\rho _l^2=\\ =\frac{\rho _i^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}{32}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}}+\frac{1}{8}_{li}\frac{\rho _i^2\rho _l^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l)}{\gamma _{il}^2}\end{array}$$

in the order $`O(\rho ^4)`$;

– the products of the non-derivative term $`\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho _l^2\right)`$ in operators $`\widehat{D}(\rho _l;\gamma _{il})`$ and contribution $`\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{\rho _i^2}{\gamma _{il}}\right)`$ in $`J_1^B(\rho _i,\gamma _{il})`$, on which this operator acts – these give

$$\begin{array}{c}+\frac{1}{8}_{li}\epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)\frac{\rho _i^2\rho _l^2}{\gamma _{il}}=\frac{1}{8}_{li}\frac{\rho _i^2\rho _l^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{il}^2};\end{array}$$
(3.9)
– the results of application of the double-derivative term $`\left(\frac{1}{16}\rho _l^4^2/\gamma _{il}^2\right)`$ to $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l\mathrm{log}\gamma _{il}\right)`$ – the $`\rho `$-independent contribution to $`\epsilon _1^{[il]}(\gamma _i|\gamma _l)J_1^B(\rho _i,\gamma _{il})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{li}}J_1^B(\rho _i,\gamma _{il})`$ – these give

$$\begin{array}{c}+\frac{1}{16}_{li}\frac{\rho _l^4}{\gamma _{li}}\left(2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _l}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{li}}\right)=\frac{1}{8}_{li}\frac{\rho _l^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l}{\gamma _{li}}\left(_{ki,l}\frac{1}{\gamma _{lk}}+\frac{1}{2\gamma _{li}}\right)\end{array}$$
(3.10)
All other terms are of different order in $`\rho ^2`$: the ones of lower order give rise to ”universal” terms, forming perturbative prepotential, the ones of higher order, i.e. $`O(\rho ^6)`$ contribute to higher non-perturbative corrections. Among the listed terms only (3.8) is of order $`O(\rho ^2)`$. It gets combined with the logarithmic term $`\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\mathrm{log}\rho _1^2`$, and the two together are expressed through $`\widehat{S}_1`$, with the help of eq.(3.1).

### C. Intermediate answer for the first non-perturbative correction

The answer for the integral $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i/2g_{n+1}`$ is represented as a sum of two different kinds of terms: the ”universal” ones (basically, the cut-off dependent and pertubative contributions),

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{n+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{1}{2}_i\widehat{S}_i\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_i\mathrm{log}(\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_i)\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_i\\ W_{n+1}(\gamma _i)\frac{1}{4}_{ji}(\widehat{S}_i2\widehat{S}_j)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}\end{array}$$

and the non-perturbative ones, of which the first non-trivial is given by the sum of (3.), (3.9) and (3.10):

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\rho _i^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}{32}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}}+\frac{1}{8}_{ji}\frac{\rho _i^2\rho _j^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j)}{\gamma _{ij}^2}\frac{1}{8}_{ji}\frac{\rho _i^2\rho _j^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j}{\gamma _{ij}^2}+\\ +\frac{1}{8}_{ji}\frac{\rho _j^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j}{\gamma _{ji}}\left(\frac{1}{2\gamma _{ji}}+_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\gamma _{jk}}\right)\end{array}$$

(there is an obvious cancellation between the last term in the first line and a piece of the second term). Other contributions are of higher order $`O(S^3)`$ and can also be straightforwardly evaluated.

To transform this formula into a final answer, one still needs to get rid of remaining $`\gamma `$’s and express them through $`\alpha `$’s and $`S`$’s.

## IV. Final formulas

In quadratic order in $`S`$ all the $`\gamma `$’s in (C.) can be just substituted by $`\alpha `$’s, since the differences $`\sigma _i=\gamma _i\alpha _i=O(\rho ^2)=O(S)`$. In (C.) the only $`\gamma `$-dependencies are in the second line: in the argument of $`W_{n+1}(\gamma _i)`$ (note that the coefficients of $`W(x)=(x\alpha _i)`$ are already expressed through $`\alpha `$’s) and in $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}`$. Both things are easy to control: according to (A.15) in the quadratic order in $`S`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{n+1}(\gamma _i)=W_{n+1}(\alpha _i)+\frac{1}{2}W_{n+1}^{\prime \prime }(\alpha _i)\sigma _i^2+O(S^3)=\\ =W_{n+1}(\alpha _i)+\frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\left(_{ji}\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}}\right)^2+O(S^3)\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}=\mathrm{log}\alpha _{ij}+\frac{\sigma _{ij}}{\alpha _{ij}}+O(S^2)=\mathrm{log}\alpha _{ij}\\ \frac{1}{2\alpha _{ij}}\left[\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\right)+_{ki,j}\left(\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_k}{\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{\widehat{S}_j\widehat{S}_k}{\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\right)\right]\end{array}$$

The terms without $`\sigma `$’s, when substituted into (C.) give rise to the ”universal” terms, explicitly written in the expression (I.) for the prepotential. The terms with $`\sigma `$’s add to (C.) to give:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\widehat{S}_i^2}{32\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}}+\frac{1}{8}_{ji}\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{8}_{ji}\frac{\widehat{S}_j^2}{\alpha _{ji}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\left(+\frac{1}{2\alpha _{ji}}+_{kj,i}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}\right)\\ \frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\left(_{ji}\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}}\right)^2+\\ +\frac{1}{8}_{ji}\frac{\widehat{S}_i2\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}}\left[\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\right)+_{ki,j}\left(\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_k}{\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{\widehat{S}_j\widehat{S}_k}{\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\right)\right]\end{array}$$

Finally, the coefficients in the formula for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(3)}=(2\pi i)^1_3/S_i`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2g_{n+1}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^{(3)}=v_i(\alpha )\widehat{S}_i^2+_{ji}v_{i;ij}(\alpha )\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j+_{ji}v_{i;j}(\alpha )\widehat{S}_j^2+_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}v_{i;jk}(\alpha )\widehat{S}_j\widehat{S}_k\end{array}$$
(4.1)
are given by the following expressions:

$$\begin{array}{c}v_i=\frac{1}{8}[\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\left(_{ji}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}}\right)^2+_{ji}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j})+\\ +\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ji}\left(_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}}\right)]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}}_{ji}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\right]\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}v_{i;ij}=\frac{1}{8}[\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}(\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}}+_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}})\frac{3}{\alpha _{ij}^2}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j})\\ \frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}+_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{kj}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{4}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}\right]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{3}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\right]+\\ +\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}\right]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{3}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\right]\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}v_{i;j}=\frac{1}{8}[\frac{1}{2\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\\ +\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j})+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}}\right]\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}v_{i;jk}=\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{2}{\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{kj}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}\right]=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ji}\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ki}\alpha _{kj}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}\right]\end{array}$$

Note, that integrability conditions for these relations are satisfied:

$$\begin{array}{c}v_{i;jk}=v_{j;ik}=v_{k;ij}\end{array}$$
(4.2)
for all triples of different $`i,j,k`$ (of course, also $`v_{i;jk}=v_{i;kj}`$) and

$$\begin{array}{c}v_{i;ij}=2v_{j;i}\end{array}$$
(4.3)
for all $`ij`$. The last equation follows from somewhat non-trivial relation,

$$\begin{array}{c}_{ki,j}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_k}=\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{ij}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_j}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{ij}}_{ki,j}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\frac{1}{\alpha _{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\right)\end{array}$$
(4.4)
It is just a triviality for $`n=2`$, when only the first two terms survive and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\alpha _{12}`$, while already for $`n=3`$ it already requires some calculation:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3^2}=\frac{2}{\alpha _{12}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1}+\frac{2}{\alpha _{12}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2}\end{array}$$
(4.5)
For generic $`n`$ it can be proved by showing that all the singularities at $`\alpha _{kl}=0`$ cancel in the difference between the r.h.s. and l.h.s. (but poles up to the third order are present and analysis of residues is rather long).

From (4.1-IV.) it is easy to obtain the final expression (I.) for the cubic term in the CIV-DV prepotential:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{u_i}{i\pi g_{n+1}}=\frac{(2\pi i)(2g_{n+1})}{(i\pi g_{n+1})^2}\frac{v_i}{3},i.e.u_i=\frac{4}{3}v_i,\\ u_{i;j}=\frac{4}{2}v_{i;ij}=4v_{j;i},\\ u_{ijk}=4v_{i;jk}\end{array}$$

## V. Conclusion

Now eq.(I.) awaits an independent check, also from perturbative calculations for matrix models. A challenging problem is to further develop the machinery for evaluation of the higher-order terms in $`_k`$ in the prepotential. Simplicity of the answer (I.) strongly suggests that this should not be too difficult to do. A key point may be to understand the origins of identity (4.4) and its generalizations from the point of view of Seiberg-Witten theory or even via a free fermion method. It may provide a clue to the valuable tool to the entire problem.

Coming back to (I.), one of its immediate applications is to experimental tests of the WDVV eqs , with  and without additional $`T`$-moduli.

Obvious directions of the further analysis include:

– introduction of flat $`T`$-moduli instead of $`\alpha _{ij}`$ ,

– interpretation of above calculation in terms of free fermions, matrix models and representation theory,

– application to the $`N=2`$ SUSY prepotentials,

– comparison to instanton calculus a la refs.,

– generalization to numerous other models, of special interest being elliptic ones and non-exactly-solvable (non-eigenvalue) matrix models.

## VI. Acknowledgements

A.M. acknowledges the support of JSPS and the hospitality of the Osaka City University during his stay at Japan. Our work is partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (14540284) from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (H.I), and by the Russian President’s grant 00-15-99296, RFBR-01-02-17488, INTAS 00-561 and by Volkswagen-Stiftung (A.M.).

## Appendix Relations between $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$

These relations follow from identification of (1.2) and (1.5),

$$\begin{array}{c}_{L=1}^{2n}(x\beta _L)_{i=1}^n(x\gamma _i^{})(x\gamma _i^+)=_{i=1}^n(x\alpha _i)^2+f_{n1}(x),\end{array}$$
(A.1)
where $`\gamma _i^\pm =\gamma _i\pm \rho _i`$. The entire polynomial can be represented as

$$\begin{array}{c}_{L=1}^{2n}(x\beta _L)=_{m=0}^{2n}()^me_m^{(2n)}\{\beta \}x^{2nm},\end{array}$$
(A.2)
and $`f_{n1}(x)`$ does not contribute to the terms with $`mn`$. This means that

$$\begin{array}{c}e_m^{(2n)}(\{\gamma ^{}\},\{\gamma ^+\})=e_m^{(2n)}(\{\alpha \},\{\alpha \}),for1mn.\end{array}$$
(A.3)
At the same time, these symmetric polynomial of $`2n`$ variables can be decomposed into bilinear combinations of those of $`n`$ variables,

$$\begin{array}{c}e_m^{(2n)}(\{\gamma ^{}\},\{\gamma ^+\})=_{l=0}^me_l^{(n)}\{\gamma ^{}\}e_{ml}^{(n)}\{\gamma ^+\}\end{array}$$
(A.4)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}e_m^{(2n)}(\{\alpha \},\{\alpha \})=_{l=0}^me_l^{(n)}\{\alpha \}e_{ml}^{(n)}\{\alpha \},\end{array}$$
(A.5)
and we obtain the ”sum rules”:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{l=0}^me_l^{(n)}\{\alpha \}e_{ml}^{(n)}\{\alpha \}=_{l=0}^me_l^{(n)}\{\gamma ^{}\}e_{ml}^{(n)}\{\gamma ^+\}for1mn.\end{array}$$
(A.6)
For given $`n`$ we have exactly $`n`$ such equations, which are exactly what needed to express all $`\gamma _i`$ through $`\alpha `$’s and $`\rho `$’s. For higher $`m>n`$ the differences between the l.h.s. and the r.h.s. of (A.6) provide expressions for the coefficients of $`f_{n1}(x)`$ through $`\alpha `$’s and $`\rho `$’s.

The next step is to rewrite the sum rules (A.6) in terms of the more convenient basis of symmetric polynomial, $`p_m\{\alpha \}=_{i=1}^n\alpha _i^m`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}p_m\{\alpha \}=\frac{1}{2}\left(p_m\{\gamma ^{}\}+p_m\{\gamma ^+\}\right)for1mn.\end{array}$$
(A.7)
In particular, in terms of matrices888 Transition from (A.6) to (A.7) is provided by the usual trick, especially simple in matrix notation: for
$$Z(\zeta ;\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\zeta ^l()^le_l^{(n)}(\{\alpha \})=\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1\zeta \alpha _i)=det_{n\times n}(I\zeta \stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })=$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta _m}{m}Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^m\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta _m}{m}p_m\{\alpha \}\right)$$
the sum rules (A.6) imply that
$$Z(\zeta ;\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })^2=Z(\zeta ;\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^{})Z(\zeta ;\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^+),$$
for the first $`n`$ terms of expansion in powers of $`\zeta `$. This, obviously, implies (A.7).  $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }=diag(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }=diag(\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _n)`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^\pm =diag(\gamma _1^\pm ,\mathrm{},\gamma _n^\pm )=\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }\pm \stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }`$ (note, that $`[\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma },\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }]=0`$),

$$\begin{array}{c}Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }=Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma },\\ Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^2=Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^2+Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^2,\\ Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^3=Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^3+3Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^2,\\ Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^4=Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^4+6Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^2\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^2+Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^4,\\ Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^5=Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^5+10Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }^3\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^2+5Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\gamma }\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^4,\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

For $`n=2`$ the system of equations (Appendix) reduces to a single quadratic equation, which can be solved exactly in all orders in $`\rho ^2`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _{12}=\sqrt{\alpha _{12}^22(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2)}.\end{array}$$
(A.8)
For $`n=3`$ the same can be done in terms of Cardano formulas for solutions of cubic equations.

For generic $`n`$ one can get an expansion in powers of $`\rho `$’s, by iteratively solving the system of equations for $`\sigma _i\gamma _i\alpha _i`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^{m1}\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }=\frac{m1}{2}Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^{m2}\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^2+O(\rho ^4)\end{array}$$
(A.9)
($`m=1,\mathrm{},n`$). The determinant of the matrix appearing on the left-hand side of these equations is nothing but Van-der-Monde determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i<j}^n\alpha _{ij}`$. Inverse of the Van-der-Monde matrix $`\left(\alpha _i^{m1}\right)`$ is expressed through symmetric polynomials:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{m=1}^n()^{nm1}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}e_{nm}^{[i]}(\alpha )\left(\alpha _j^{m1}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}P_{[i]}(\alpha _j)=\delta _{ij}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\delta _{ij}\end{array}$$
(A.10)
Here

$$\begin{array}{c}P^{[i]}(x)_{ki}(x\alpha _k)=\frac{P(x)}{(x\alpha _i)}\end{array}$$
(A.11)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}=_{\stackrel{j<k}{j,ki}}\alpha _{jk}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ki}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}},\mathrm{\Delta }_i=_{ki}\alpha _{ik}\end{array}$$
(A.12)
Therefore

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _i=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{[i]}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{m=1}^n()^{nm1}e_{nm}^{[i]}(\alpha )(m1)Tr\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }^{m2}\stackrel{ˇ}{\rho }^2=\\ =\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{j=1}^nP^{[i]}(\alpha _j)\rho _j^2=\frac{1}{2}_{ki}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}\left(P^{[i]}(\alpha _i)\rho _i^2+_{ji}P^{[i]}(\alpha _j)\rho _j^2\right)\end{array}$$

so that finally

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _i=\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho _i^2_{ki}\frac{1}{\alpha _{ik}}+_{ji}\rho _j^2\frac{_{ki,j}\alpha _{jk}}{_{ki}\alpha _{ik}}\right)+O(\rho ^4)\end{array}$$
(A.13)
If we now use (A.) to express

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _i^2=\widehat{S}_i/\mathrm{\Delta }_i+O(S^2),\mathrm{\Delta }_i=_{ji}\alpha _{ij},\end{array}$$
(A.14)
eq.(A.13) acquires the simple final form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _i=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}_{ji}\frac{\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j}{\alpha _{ij}}+O(S^2).\end{array}$$
(A.15)
## Appendix Examples of $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$

For illustrative purposes we present here a more detailed calculations for the simplest cases of $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$.

### A. $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}:`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2g_3}S_1=A_0^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})+\widehat{D}(\rho _2;\gamma _{12})A_1^{[1]}(\rho _1;\gamma _{12})=\\ =J_1^A(\rho _1)+\gamma _{12}J_0^A(\rho _1)+\widehat{D}(\rho _2;\gamma _{12})J_1^A(\rho _1,\gamma _{12})=\\ =i\pi \left(c_1\rho _1^2\gamma _{12}+_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}c_k\rho _1^{2k}\widehat{D}(\rho _2;\gamma _{12})\frac{1}{\gamma _{12}^{2k1}}\right)=\\ =\frac{i\pi }{2}\left(\rho _1^2\gamma _{12}_{k,l=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho _1^{2k+2}\rho _2^{2l+2}}{2^{2k+2l+1}}\frac{(2k+2l)!}{k!(k+1)!l!(l+1)!}\frac{1}{\gamma _{12}^{2k+2l+1}}\right)\end{array}$$

Similarly,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2g_3}S_2=A_0^{[2]}(\rho _2;\gamma _{21})+\widehat{D}(\rho _1;\gamma _{21})A_1^{[2]}(\rho _2;\gamma _{21})=\\ =J_1^A(\rho _2)+\gamma _{21}J_0^A(\rho _2)+\widehat{D}(\rho _1;\gamma _{21})J_1^A(\rho _2,\gamma _{21})=\\ =i\pi \left(c_1\rho _2^2\gamma _{21}+_{l=1}^{\mathrm{}}c_l\rho _2^{2l}\widehat{D}(\rho _1;\gamma _{21})\frac{1}{\gamma _{21}^{2l1}}\right)=\\ =\frac{i\pi }{2}\left(\rho _1^2\gamma _{21}_{k,l=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho _1^{2k+2}\rho _2^{2l+2}}{2^{2k+2l+1}}\frac{(2k+2l)!}{k!(k+1)!l!(l+1)!}\frac{1}{\gamma _{21}^{2k+2l+1}}\right)=\\ =\frac{1}{2g_3}S_1\frac{i\pi }{2}(\rho _1^2\rho _2^2)\gamma _{12},\end{array}$$

so that

$$\begin{array}{c}S_1+S_2=i\pi g_3(\rho _1^2\rho _2^2)\gamma _{12}\end{array}$$
(B.1)
We do not write here an even more sophisticated general expressions for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$: they can be easily obtained in the form of triple series in powers of $`\rho ^2`$, but after that one still needs to express $`\rho _1^2`$ and $`\rho _2^2`$ through $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ from (A.) and (A.) and substitute into the series for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$. However, the problem of inverting (A.) and (A.) is not resolved yet.

Instead, below we concentrate on the first terms of these expansions.

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{S}_1=\frac{S_1}{i\pi g_3}=\rho _1^2\gamma _{12}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{\gamma _{12}}+O(\rho ^6),\\ \widehat{S}_2=\frac{S_2}{i\pi g_3}=\rho _2^2\gamma _{12}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{\gamma _{12}}+O(\rho ^6),\end{array}$$

so that

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _1^2=\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{\gamma _{12}}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{2\gamma _{12}^4}+O(\rho ^6)\\ \rho _2^2=\frac{\widehat{S}_2}{\gamma _{12}}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{2\gamma _{12}^4}+O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

The $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ period is (remember that $`D(\rho ;\gamma _{ik})`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$!):

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{2g_3}=J_1^B(\rho _1)+\gamma _{12}J_0^B(\rho _1)\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho _2^2+\frac{\rho _2^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _{12}^2}\right)J_1^B(\rho _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)=\\ =\left(\frac{1}{24}Z_1^3\frac{1}{8}\rho _1^2Z_1\right)+\left(\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}\rho _1^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{8}\gamma _{12}Z_1^2\right)\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\rho _2^2+\frac{\rho _2^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _{12}^2}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\gamma _{12}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{12}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{12}}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\gamma _{12}}\frac{\rho _1^2}{4\gamma _{12}}\right)+O(\rho ^6)=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^33\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\gamma _1+3\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _1^2\gamma _1^3)+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^22\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _1+\gamma _1^2)\frac{1}{2}(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2)(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _1)\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{12}\rho _1^2\\ \frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}(\rho _1^2\rho _2^2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}\rho _1^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}\rho _2^2\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}\frac{1}{4}\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{\gamma _{12}}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\gamma _{12}}\\ \frac{\rho _2^4}{16\gamma _{12}}+\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{8\gamma _{12}}+\\ +O(\rho ^6)=\\ \\ =\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\gamma _1^3)\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\gamma _1^2)+\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2\frac{1}{2}(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2)\right)(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _1)\\ \frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}(\rho _1^2\rho _2^2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{4}\left(\gamma _{12}\rho _1^2\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{2\gamma _{12}}\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1^2}{4}\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _{12}\rho _2^2\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{2\gamma _{12}}\right)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}\\ \frac{1}{4}\gamma _{12}\left(\rho _1^2\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{2\gamma _{12}}\right)\frac{\rho _2^4}{16\gamma _{12}}+\\ +O(\rho ^6)=\\ \\ =W_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })W_3(\gamma _1)\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{S}_1+\widehat{S}_2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1+\\ +\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\mathrm{log}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}+\left(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{S}_2\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\right)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{8\gamma _{12}^3}\frac{S_2^2}{16\gamma _{12}^3}+O(S^3)\end{array}$$

At the last stage we substituted the expression for $`\rho _1^2`$ through $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$ in the argument of the logarithm,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1^2}{4}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}\frac{\widehat{S}_2}{2\gamma _{12}^3}\right)\end{array}$$
(B.2)
and moved the two newly emerging terms closer to the similar ones, coming from other sources. Finally,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{2g_3}=W_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{S}_1+\widehat{S}_2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\mathrm{log}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\\ W_3(\gamma _1)\frac{1}{4}(\widehat{S}_12\widehat{S}_2)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{8\gamma _{12}^3}\frac{S_2^2}{16\gamma _{12}^3}+O(S^3)\end{array}$$

Now, it remains to substitute

$$\begin{array}{c}W_3(\gamma _1)=W_3(\alpha _1)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _{12}\sigma ^2,\\ \sigma =\gamma _1\alpha _1=(\gamma _2\alpha _2)=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{12}\alpha _{12})=\frac{\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2}{2\alpha _{12}}+O(\rho ^2)=\\ =\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{2\alpha _{12}^3}+O(S^2)\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}=\mathrm{log}\alpha _{12}\frac{\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2}{\alpha _{12}}+O(\rho ^2)=\mathrm{log}\alpha _{12}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{\alpha _{12}^3}+O(S^2)\end{array}$$
(B.3)
to obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{2g_3}=W_3(\mathrm{\Lambda })W_3(\alpha _1)\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{S}_1+\widehat{S}_2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1\mathrm{log}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}\frac{1}{4}\widehat{S}_1+\\ +\frac{1}{8\alpha _{12}^3}\left(\widehat{S}_1^25\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2+\frac{5}{2}\widehat{S}_2^2\right)\end{array}$$

(from $`2(S_1S_2)(S_12S_2)(S_1S_2)^2S_1S_2\frac{1}{2}S_2^2`$).

### B. $`𝐧=\mathrm{𝟑}:`$

The starting expression is

$$\begin{array}{c}_1𝑑S_{DV}=J_2(\rho _1;0)+(\gamma _{12}+\gamma _{13})J_1(\rho _1;0)+\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}J_0(\rho _1;0)+\\ +\widehat{D}(\rho _2,\gamma _{12})\left[J_0(\rho _1;0)+\gamma _{23}J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{12}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\right]+\\ +\widehat{D}(\rho _3,\gamma _{13})\left[J_0(\rho _1;0)\gamma _{23}J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{13}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\right]+\\ +\widehat{D}(\rho _2,\gamma _{12})\widehat{D}(\rho _3,\gamma _{13})\frac{1}{\gamma _{23}}\left[J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{12}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)J_1(\rho _1;\gamma _{13}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\right]+O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

Expressions for $`S`$-integrals:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{S_1}{2\pi ig_4}=\frac{1}{8}\rho _1^4\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}\rho _1^2\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\rho _2^2+\frac{\rho _2^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _{12}^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho _1^2\gamma _{23}\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{12}}\right)\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\rho _3^2+\frac{\rho _3^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _{13}^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho _1^2+\gamma _{23}\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{13}}\right)+\\ +\frac{1}{4}\rho _2^2\rho _3^2\frac{1}{\gamma _{23}}\left(\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{12}}+\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{13}}\right)+O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

In fact, not all of these terms actually contribute to the $`S`$-integrals in the order $`O(\rho ^4)`$ (however, their counterparts in the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-integrals do contribute). In result,

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{S}_1=\frac{S_1}{i\pi g_4}=\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}\rho _1^2+\frac{1}{4}\rho _1^4\frac{\gamma _{13}}{2\gamma _{12}}\rho _1^2\rho _2^2\frac{\gamma _{12}}{2\gamma _{13}}\rho _1^2\rho _3^2+O(\rho ^6)=\\ =\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}\rho _1^2\left(1+\frac{\rho _1^2}{4\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}}\frac{\rho _2^2}{2\gamma _{12}^2}\frac{\rho _3^2}{2\gamma _{13}^2}\right)+O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

Similarly, for $`\widehat{S}_2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_3`$.

Expressions for $`\rho `$’s through $`\widehat{S}_i=S_i/i\pi g_4`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _1^2=\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{\gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}}\left(1\frac{1}{4}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{\gamma _{12}^2\gamma _{13}^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{S}_2}{\gamma _{21}^3\gamma _{23}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{S}_3}{\gamma _{31}^3\gamma _{32}}\right)+O(S^3);\\ \rho _2^2=\frac{\widehat{S}_2}{\gamma _{21}\gamma _{23}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{\gamma _{12}^3\gamma _{13}}\frac{1}{4}\frac{\widehat{S}_2}{\gamma _{21}^2\gamma _{23}^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{S}_3}{\gamma _{23}^3\gamma _{13}}\right)+O(S^3);\\ \rho _3^2=\frac{\widehat{S}_3}{\gamma _{31}\gamma _{32}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{\gamma _{13}^3\gamma _{12}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{S}_2}{\gamma _{23}^3\gamma _{21}}\frac{1}{4}\frac{\widehat{S}_3}{\gamma _{13}^2\gamma _{23}^2}\right)+O(S^3).\end{array}$$

Now, the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ integral:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{2g_4}=\frac{1}{64}Z_1^4(\rho _1)+\frac{1}{8}\rho _1^4\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\\ +(\gamma _{12}+\gamma _{13})\left(\frac{1}{24}Z_1^3(\rho _1)\frac{1}{8}Z_1(\rho _1)\right)+\\ \gamma _{12}\gamma _{13}\left(\frac{1}{8}Z_1^2(\rho _1)+\frac{1}{2}\rho _1^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\\ \frac{1}{2}(\rho _2^2+\frac{\rho _2^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _{12}^2})[(\frac{\rho _1^2}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{8}Z_1^2(\rho _1))+\\ +\gamma _{23}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\gamma _{12}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{12}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{12}}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\gamma _{12}}\frac{\rho _1^2}{4\gamma _{12}})]+\\ \frac{1}{2}(\rho _3^2+\frac{\rho _3^4}{8}\frac{^2}{\gamma _{13}^2})[(\frac{\rho _1^2}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{8}Z_1^2(\rho _1))\\ \gamma _{23}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\gamma _{13}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{13}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{\rho _1^2}{2\gamma _{13}}\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho _1}{2\gamma _{13}}\frac{\rho _1^2}{4\gamma _{13}})]+\\ +\frac{\rho _2^2\rho _3^2}{4\gamma _{23}}\left(\gamma _{12}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{12}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\gamma _{13}\mathrm{log}\frac{\gamma _{13}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)+O(\rho ^6)\end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}Z_1^4=16\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^416\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2\rho _1^2+2\rho _1^4+O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }),\\ Z_1^3=8\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^36\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\rho _1+O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }),\\ Z_1^2=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^22\rho _1^2+O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }),\\ Z_1=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }).\end{array}$$

Long transformation finally provides:999 Note that there are no more corrections to the cut-off-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependent terms, namely, no further contributions with higher powers of $`\rho `$’s. Still, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\gamma _i`$ (isolated $`\gamma _i`$ not in the form of difference $`\gamma _{ij}`$) enter only as arguments of $`W_4(x)`$ with coefficients made out of $`\alpha `$’s, not $`\gamma `$’s! This is made possible by exact sum rules (A.7), which do not get any higher-order corrections.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{2g_4}=W_4(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{S}_1+\widehat{S}_2+\widehat{S}_3)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}\mathrm{log}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}\frac{\widehat{S}_1}{4}\\ W_4(\gamma _1)\frac{1}{4}(\widehat{S}_12\widehat{S}_2)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{12}\frac{1}{4}(\widehat{S}_12\widehat{S}_3)\mathrm{log}\gamma _{13}+\\ +\frac{1}{32}\frac{\widehat{S}_1^2}{\gamma _{12}^2\gamma _{13}^2}+\frac{\widehat{S}_2^2}{16}\left(\frac{2}{\gamma _{12}^2\gamma _{23}^2}\frac{1}{\gamma _{12}^3\gamma _{23}}\right)+\frac{\widehat{S}_3^2}{16}\left(\frac{2}{\gamma _{13}^2\gamma _{23}^2}+\frac{1}{\gamma _{13}^3\gamma _{23}}\right)\frac{1}{8}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2}{\gamma _{12}^3\gamma _{23}}\frac{1}{8}\frac{\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_3}{\gamma _{13}^3\gamma _{23}}\\ +O(S^3,\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)\end{array}$$

In this expression the coefficients of $`W_4^{}(x)=_{i=1}^n(x\alpha _i)`$ are already expressed through $`\alpha `$. It remains to express $`\gamma `$’s through $`\alpha `$’s in the argument of $`W(\gamma _1)`$ and in logarithmic terms – all in the second line. In the given order in $`S`$, the $`\gamma `$’s in the third line can be simply substituted by $`\alpha `$’s. This procedure literally repeats the generic calculation in s.4 and we do not repeat it here.


format: text

text:
# Dark propagation modes in optical lattices

## I Introduction

Brillouin scattering boyd ; shen  is the scattering of light onto a propagating acoustic wave. In spontaneous Brillouin scattering the propagating wave corresponds to thermal, or quantum-noise, fluctuations in the material medium. On the contrary, in stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) the density propagating wave originates from the interference pattern between a probe and an additional pump beam. The strong pump beam can then be diffracted onto the density wave in the direction of the probe, modifying in this way the probe transmission. The SBS-scheme permits both the excitation of the propagation modes of a medium as well as their detection via modification of the probe transmission. It is in this way possible to determine the phonon modes of the medium, and their respective velocity woolf ; jap ; fan .

In this work we examine the key features of the SBS process for a nonlinear medium consisting of atoms cooled in a dissipative optical lattice robi . This system offers significant advantages for the study of basic nonlinear optical phenomena over condensed matter samples. First, the atomic dynamics in an optical lattice is quite well understood, and can be precisely studied through Monte Carlo simulations. Second, the excitation of propagation modes in the system can be directly detected by imaging techniques. Both points are essential for the present study. We show that the same propagation mode can be excited by two different pump-probe configurations. In one case the scattering on the propagation mode results in a resonance in the probe transmission spectrum, while in the other case no modification of the spectrum occurs, i.e. the mode is in this case dark. We describe the different excitation processes of the propagation mode for the two different configurations examined, and identify the mechanism of generation of the phase-mismatch between laser fields and the material grating which inhibits the light scattering on the propagation mode.

## II The 3D lin$``$lin optical lattice

The nonlinear medium consists of 85Rb atoms cooled and trapped in a dissipative optical lattice. These lattices are based on the Sisyphus cooling mechanism dalibard89 . The periodic modulation of the light polarization, produced by the interference of several laser beams, leads to a periodic modulation of the light shifts (optical potentials) of the different Zeeman sublevels of the ground state of the atom. As a result of the optical pumping between different optical potentials, atoms are cooled and finally trapped at the potential minima.

In this work we use a 3D lin$``$lin dissipative optical lattice robi . The arrangement of the laser fields is shown in Fig. 1: two $`x`$-polarized beams propagate in the $`yOz`$ plane and make an angle $`2\theta `$, and two $`y`$-polarized beams propagate in the $`xOz`$ plane and make the same angle $`2\theta `$. The interference pattern of the four beams create an orthorhombic potential with minima associated with pure circular (alternatively $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$) light polarization. The lattice constants, i.e. the distance between two sites of equal polarization are $`\lambda _{x,y}=\lambda /\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and $`\lambda _z=\lambda /(2\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, with $`\lambda `$ the laser field wavelength. For all the measurements presented in this work the angle $`2\theta `$ between the lattice beams is kept fixed to $`60^0`$.

The procedure to load the atoms in the optical lattice is the standard one used in previous experiments regis . The rubidium atoms are first cooled and trapped in a magneto-optical trap (MOT). Then the MOT magnetic field and laser beams are turned off and the lattice beams are turned on. After $`10`$ ms of thermalizationof the atoms in the lattice, two additional laser fields (beams c and p of Fig. 1) are introduced for the excitation of the propagation modes. They are derived from an additional laser, with their relative detuning $`\delta =\omega _p\omega _c`$ controlled by acousto-optical modulators. These two additional laser fields are detuned with respect to the lattice beams of some tens of MHz, so that there is no atomic observable which can be excited at the beat frequency. Furthermore, as they are derived from a laser different from the one producing the lattice beams, the effect of the unwanted beat is significantly reduced. The beams c and p cross the atomic sample in the $`xOz`$ plane, and they are symmetrically displaced with respect to the $`z`$ axis forming an angle $`2\phi `$.

## III Propagation modes

### III.1 Generalities

The propagation modes in dissipative optical lattices have been identified in Ref. brillo1  and shown to exhibit interesting nonlinear effects such as stochastic resonance brillo2 ; brillo3 . We briefly summarize their main properties. They consist of a sequence in which one half oscillation in a potential well is followed by an optical pumping process to a neighboring well, and so on (Fig. 2). In this way, the atom travels over several potential wells by regularly changing its internal state (from $`|g,+1/2`$ to $`|g,1/2`$ in the case of a $`J_g=1/2J_e=3/2`$ transition, as considered in Fig. 2).

The velocity $`\overline{v}`$ of the propagation mode is essentially determined by the intrawell dynamics. A straighforward calculation brillo1  shows that for a mode in the $`x`$ direction this velocity is

$$\overline{v}=\frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_x}{2\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta },$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ is the $`x`$ vibrational frequency at the bottom of a potential well.

### III.2 Excitation mechanisms

The propagation modes can be excited by adding a moving potential modulation. We consider two different configurations for the modulation beams (beams c and p in Fig. 1). In both configurations the modulation beams have the same amplitude. In the first configuration, hereafter called the $``$ configuration, both beams have $`y`$ linear polarization. The light interference pattern consists of an intensity modulation moving along the $`x`$ axis with phase velocity

$$v_{\mathrm{mod}}=\frac{\delta }{|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }k}|}=\frac{\delta }{2k\mathrm{sin}\phi },$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }k}=\stackrel{}{k}_p\stackrel{}{k}_c`$ is the difference between the wavevectors of the modulation beams ($`|\stackrel{}{k}_c||\stackrel{}{k}_p|k2\pi /\lambda `$). This configuration has already been considered in previous work brillo3  and it is reexamined here for comparison with the novel excitation scheme introduced in the present work. This latter, denoted as $``$ configuration, consists of a $`y`$ polarized beam (beam c of Fig. 1) and of a beam with linear polarization in the $`xOz`$ plane (beam p). The light interference pattern consists in this case of a polarization modulation moving along the $`x`$ axis with the same phase velocity $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ (Eq. 2) as in the case of the $``$ configuration.

To determine the effective excitation of the propagation modes we monitor the velocity of the center-of-mass (CM) of the atomic cloud as a function of the velocity of the applied potential modulation. This is done by direct imaging of the atomic cloud with a CCD camera. We verify that for a given detuning $`\delta `$, i.e. for a given velocity $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ of the moving modulation, the motion of the center of mass of the atomic cloud is uniform, and corresponding determine the CM velocity $`v_{\mathrm{cm}}`$. Experimental results for the $`x`$ component $`v_{\mathrm{cm},x}`$ of the CM-velocity as a function of $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ are reported in Fig. 3 for both the $``$ and the $``$ configurations. The observed resonant behaviour of $`v_{\mathrm{cm},x}`$ with $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ is the signature of the excitation of propagation modes in the $`x`$ direction. We therefore conclude that both pump-probe configurations lead to the excitation of a propagation mode in the $`x`$ direction.

To determine the nature of the observed propagation modes, we examine the atomic dynamics in the optical lattice with the help of semiclassical Monte Carlo simulations epj . The analysis of the numerically calculated atomic trajectories shows that the excited mode is the same for both configurations, and consists of a sequence of an half oscillation in a potential well followed by an optical pumping into the neighbouring well, as in Fig. 2.

We turn now to the analysis of the excitation mechanism of the propagation modes for the two pump-probe configuration. To this end, it is useful to examine the dependence of the position of the resonance in the velocity of the CM of the atomic cloud (as the ones in Fig. 3a) on the angle $`2\phi `$ between pump and probe beams. By taking several measurements for different values of the angle $`2\phi `$ between the modulation beams we determine the position of the resonances as a function of the angle $`\phi `$, as reported in Fig. 3b. On the same plot we also reported results of semiclassical Monte Carlo simulations, which are found to be in very good agreement with the experimental findings. The results of Fig. 3 show that the velocity $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ of the light intensity interference pattern ($``$ configuration) required to excite a propagation mode differs from the velocity of the polarization grating ($``$ configuration) leading to the excitation of the same mode. The condition for the velocity of the light interference pattern to excite a propagation mode can be obtained by imposing that the atoms following the mode are at all times dragged by the moving potential modulation corresponding to the light interference pattern of the beams c and p. This requires that the light polarization pattern moves at a velocity $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ such that the lattice potential well actually occupied by the atom gets deeper as a result of the modulation of the optical potential. The resulting conditions on the velocity of the moving modulation, and equivalently on the pump-probe detuning $`\delta `$, can therefore be derived by examining the effect of the modulation on the optical potentials. Consider first the $``$ configuration. The light interference pattern is a moving intensity modulation, therefore all optical potentials are modulated in phase: at a given instant and position all potential wells corresponding to the different atomic ground state Zeeman sublevels get both deeper or shallower as a result of the modulation. Thus to excite the propagation mode the atoms should follow the moving intensity modulation, i.e. the phase velocity $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}`$ of the light interference pattern should be equal to the velocity $`\overline{v}`$ of the mode:

$$v_{\mathrm{mod}}=\pm \overline{v}.$$
(3)
Consider now the $``$ configuration. The light interference pattern is in this case a moving polarization modulation, with the optical potentials associated with opposite Zeeman sublevels (opposite quantum number $`m`$) modulated in phase opposition. It follows that in this configuration a modulation moving at the mode velocity does not lead to the mode excitation. On the contrary, to excite the propagation mode it is necessary that the modulation moves with respect to the atoms in such a way that following the transfer of an atom from a lattice well of given circular polarization ($`\sigma _+`$ or $`\sigma _{}`$) to one of opposite polarization, the modulation changes sign. Quantitatively, consider the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in which the atom in the propagation mode makes half an oscillation in a potential well and then is optically pumped into the neighbouring well. Then we simply have $`\overline{v}\mathrm{\Delta }t=\lambda _x/2`$. In the same time interval the modulation polarization should be reversed, i.e. should change from $`\sigma _+`$ to $`\sigma _{}`$ (or viceversa, depending on which potential well is initially occupied by the atom). Considering that in the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the atom moved of $`\lambda _x/2`$, and that in the moving modulation a maximum of polarization $`\sigma _{}`$ is spaced of $`\lambda _m/2=\pi /|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }k}|`$ from the following maximum of polarization $`\sigma _+`$, we find that the light interference pattern should move at the velocity $`v_{\mathrm{mod}}\mathrm{\Delta }t=\pm (\lambda _m/2+\lambda _x/2)`$. Together with $`\overline{v}\mathrm{\Delta }t=\lambda _x/2`$, we find then that in the $``$ configuration the condition for the excitation of the propagation mode is:

$$v_{\mathrm{mod}}=\pm \left(1+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\phi }\right)\overline{v}.$$
(4)
The conditions Eqs. (3,4) are rewritten in terms of the detuning $`\delta `$ as

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\mathrm{\Omega }_x(\mathrm{configuration}),`$ (5)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_x(\mathrm{configuration}),`$ (6)
where we used Eqs. (1,2). The very good agreement (see Fig. 3) of Eqs. (5,6) with the experimental findings and with the results of semiclassical Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate the validity of our physical picture.

### III.3 Light scattering

So far we considered the effect of the light interference pattern on the atomic sample, with the excitation of propagation modes and their detection by direct imaging of the atomic cloud. The properties of the material medium can also be studied by stimulated light scattering measurements. In fact the pump-probe interference pattern may excite a material grating onto which the pump can be diffracted in the direction of the probe beam, modifying the probe transmission. That is the approach followed now, with a view to compare light scattering measurements with the previous results obtained via direct imaging of the atomic cloud.

We decreased the amplitude of one of the modulation beams (beam p) which plays now the role of the probe beam, while the other beam (beam c) plays the role of the pump (or coupling) beam. We measure the probe transmission as a function of the detuning $`\delta `$ for different angles between the pump and the probe beams, with results as the ones in Fig. 4. In the case of the $``$ pump-probe configuration, we easily identify in the probe transmission spectrum the Brillouin resonances (the resonances in Fig. 4a marked by arrows) corresponding to stimulated light scattering on the propagation modes. We verified that the dependence of the position of these resonances on the angle $`\phi `$ is in complete agreement with Eq. (5), which confirms that these resonances originate from light scattering on propagation modes. On the contrary, in the case of the $``$ pump-probe configuration no resonance is observed around the position corresponding to Eq. (6) (these positions are marked by filled circles in Fig. 4b). In other words, the propagation mode is dark in the $``$ configuration.

The absence of resonances in the scattering spectrum for the propagation mode in the $``$ configuration can be explained by examining the phase-mismatch between the laser and the material waves. The frequency (energy) and phase-matching (momentum) conditions for the stimulated scattering process read

$`\omega _c=\omega _p\pm \mathrm{\Omega },`$ (7)
$`\stackrel{}{k}_c=\stackrel{}{k}_p\pm \stackrel{}{q}.`$ (8)
Here $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are respectively the wavevector and the frequency of the light-induced material density grating and are related by the phonon dispersion relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }=v_{grating}|\stackrel{}{q}|`$, with $`v_{grating}`$ the phase velocity of the moving grating. The frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has been determined previously for both $``$ and $``$ configurations (Eqs. (5,6)). As the excited mode is the same for both pump-probe configurations, the phase velocity of the material grating does not depend on the chosen configuration and is equal to the velocity $`\overline{v}`$ (Eq. 1). From these values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`v_{grating}`$ we derive, through the dispersion relation, the momentum of the material grating:

$`|\stackrel{}{q}_{}|`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }k}|,`$ (9)
$`|\stackrel{}{q}_{}|`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }k}|\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\phi }}\right).`$ (10)
It turns out that in the $``$ configuration the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}=\pm |\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}|\stackrel{}{ϵ}_x`$ of the material grating fulfills the phase matching condition Eq. (8), and therefore the scattering on the propagation mode results in a resonance line in the probe transmission spectrum. In contrast, in the $``$ configuration the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}=\pm |\stackrel{}{q}_{}|\stackrel{}{ϵ}_x`$ results in a phase-mismatch between the laser and the material waves. Thus, no resonance is expected in the probe transmission spectrum, in agreement with our experimental findings.

The effective creation of a moving material grating has been confirmed by semiclassical Monte Carlo simulations. The numerical results, as the ones shown in Fig. 5, correspond to an atomic density grating moving in the $`x`$ direction with a velocity $`\overline{v}`$ for both parallel and perpendicular configurations. In the frame moving at the velocity $`\overline{v}`$ of the propagation mode we find a stationary modulation of the atomic density with different wavevectors for the two pump-probe configurations and in very good agreement with Eqs. (9, 10). This confirms the validity of our analysis.

## IV Conclusions

In summary, in this work we examined the stimulated light scattering onto the propagation modes of a dissipative optical lattice. Two different pump-probe configurations have been analyzed: in one the interference pattern is a modulation of the light intensity, while in the other one the pump and probe fields give rise to a modulation of the light polarization. First, we have shown that the same propagation mode is excited in the two cases, and described the two different mechanisms of excitation. Then we analyzed the light scattering on the propagation mode. Although the mode excited in the two pump-probe configurations is the same, we found that the probe transmission spectrum is completely different for the two cases. In fact, only in one configuration the mode results in a resonance in the probe transmission spectrum. For the other configuration, no trace of the mode excitation is found in the probe transmission spectrum. This behaviour was explained in terms of phase-mismatch between the laser fields and the propagating wave.

Light scattering is a powerful technique for the study of a large variety of material media. Particularly, in optical lattices it has allowed the study of local (intrawell) as well as delocalized (inter wells) dynamics. However there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the light scattering spectrum and the atomic dynamics as shown in this work where we observed and described dark propagation modes.

This work was supported by Région Ile de France under contract E.1220. Laboratoire Kastler Brossel is an ”unité mixte de recherche de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure et de l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie associée au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)”.